Source comparison: legal organisation and freedom of contract
Compare Clayton’s provision and the Coppage majority while retaining their different legal questions.
Exam scope and assessment notes
Fourteen further lessons and 42 explained tasks introduce economic regulation in enquiry 5.3 for 2027–2029. Follow unions and working conditions through banking, insurance, trusts and securities controls. This is introductory teaching, not full AS or A Level preparation. Eight further lessons and 24 explained tasks begin enquiry 5.4 through success criteria, Roosevelt, Taft and Wilson, railway-rate remedies, food and meat controls, therapeutic claims and a selected presidential-source comparison. Eleven further lessons and 33 explained tasks extend enquiry 5.4 through forest management and state cooperation, monument powers, Hetch Hetchy, housing standards and inspection evidence, workplace outcomes, financial access, competition and securities, accountability and a selected women’s-club comparison. Eleven further lessons and 33 explained tasks introduce all four constitutional amendments, their distinct powers and rights, proposal and ratification, the first income-tax return, Senate-election transitions, prohibition definitions and concurrent enforcement, unequal voting access, campaign methods and a selected Catt/Wilson comparison. Sixteen further lessons and 48 explained tasks extend enquiry 5.4 through settlement and consumers’ work, Kelley’s appointment request, Terrell and Black women’s clubs, civil-rights organisation, Guinn and Buchanan, federal employment, the Silent Parade, gendered work, Indigenous policy, rural credit, extension and unequal access. A selected comparison distinguishes Terrell’s address from favourable reception reprinted with it. All five listed strands of enquiry 5.4 now have introductory examples and staged practice; full historical and assessment coverage remains unfinished. These are introductory evaluations, not complete historical coverage. Fuller regulatory and constitutional outcomes, wider pressure-group and women’s histories, racial, gender, Indigenous and rural experiences remain unfinished in enquiry 5.4. Wider historical depth, authentic reading, subject-specialist review, complete source sets, full papers and calibrated marking remain unfinished. The selected comparison uses labelled original paraphrases, not quotations or complete authentic documents. See the course guide for the full coverage register; existing 2026 lessons receive no automatic revised-year credit. The Gilded Age and Progressive Era, 1870–1920 is the American Paper 1 topic in 2027 and an American Paper 2 topic in 2028 and 2029. Paper 1 Historical sources is 75 minutes and 40 marks: answer both parts of one question, using a four-source set totalling at most 600 words, with at least three written sources and up to one visual. Part (a) compares two sources for 15 marks; part (b) assesses a statement using all four sources and contextual knowledge for 25 marks. Paper 2 Outline study is 105 minutes and 60 marks: answer two questions from one section and both parts of each, with a 10-mark causal explanation and a 20-mark argument. These lessons provide introductory teaching and selected comparison practice, not a complete assessment programme.
Before you begin
- Distinguish a demand, proposal, operative rule, court decision and practical outcome
- Keep jurisdiction, coverage, exceptions and enforcement separate; do not import later powers into 1890–1920
Work on paper. Try each question before revealing help, and explain why your method works.
Quick readiness check
How should you assess an economic reform?
What you will learn
- What is a substantive difference between A and B?
- Why does the comparison not show that Coppage made every union illegal?
- How far do these sources show that workers had complete freedom to organise?
Compare selected historical sources
- Write your own response before opening the model.
- Use dated evidence, explain the mechanism and distinguish a contemporary claim from a verified result.
Fourteen further lessons and 42 explained tasks introduce economic regulation in enquiry 5.3 for 2027–2029. Follow unions and working conditions through banking, insurance, trusts and securities controls. This is introductory teaching, not full AS or A Level preparation. Eight further lessons and 24 explained tasks begin enquiry 5.4 through success criteria, Roosevelt, Taft and Wilson, railway-rate remedies, food and meat controls, therapeutic claims and a selected presidential-source comparison. Eleven further lessons and 33 explained tasks extend enquiry 5.4 through forest management and state cooperation, monument powers, Hetch Hetchy, housing standards and inspection evidence, workplace outcomes, financial access, competition and securities, accountability and a selected women’s-club comparison. Eleven further lessons and 33 explained tasks introduce all four constitutional amendments, their distinct powers and rights, proposal and ratification, the first income-tax return, Senate-election transitions, prohibition definitions and concurrent enforcement, unequal voting access, campaign methods and a selected Catt/Wilson comparison. Sixteen further lessons and 48 explained tasks extend enquiry 5.4 through settlement and consumers’ work, Kelley’s appointment request, Terrell and Black women’s clubs, civil-rights organisation, Guinn and Buchanan, federal employment, the Silent Parade, gendered work, Indigenous policy, rural credit, extension and unequal access. A selected comparison distinguishes Terrell’s address from favourable reception reprinted with it. All five listed strands of enquiry 5.4 now have introductory examples and staged practice; full historical and assessment coverage remains unfinished. These are introductory evaluations, not complete historical coverage. Fuller regulatory and constitutional outcomes, wider pressure-group and women’s histories, racial, gender, Indigenous and rural experiences remain unfinished in enquiry 5.4. Wider historical depth, authentic reading, subject-specialist review, complete source sets, full papers and calibrated marking remain unfinished. The selected comparison uses labelled original paraphrases, not quotations or complete authentic documents. See the course guide for the full coverage register; existing 2026 lessons receive no automatic revised-year credit.
Two-source comparison workshop
The opening brief is original StudyForA teaching prose, not a quotation, contemporary document or historian’s extract. A and B are separately labelled original paraphrases of selected linked passages, not complete authentic documents or a full four-source examination set. The Gilded Age and Progressive Era, 1870–1920 is the American Paper 1 topic in 2027 and an American Paper 2 topic in 2028 and 2029. Paper 1 Historical sources is 75 minutes and 40 marks: answer both parts of one question, using a four-source set totalling at most 600 words, with at least three written sources and up to one visual. Part (a) compares two sources for 15 marks; part (b) assesses a statement using all four sources and contextual knowledge for 25 marks. Paper 2 Outline study is 105 minutes and 60 marks: answer two questions from one section and both parts of each, with a 10-mark causal explanation and a 20-mark argument. These lessons provide introductory teaching and selected comparison practice, not a complete assessment programme.
StudyForA teaching brief · Source comparison: legal organisation and freedom of contract
[1] Original analytical brief. Compare Clayton’s provision and the Coppage majority while retaining their different legal questions. This is StudyForA teaching prose, not a contemporary document or a historian’s extract. Write before opening the model.
Source A · Clayton Act, section 6, 15 October 1914 · original paraphrase, not quotation
[1] Qualifying labour and producer organisations pursuing mutual help and lawful legitimate aims are not to be treated as unlawful antitrust combinations simply because they exist or act for those purposes.
Source B · Coppage majority, 25 January 1915 · original paraphrase, not quotation
[1] The Kansas rule, as applied to punish an employer for requiring non-membership of a union as a condition of employment, conflicts with the majority’s understanding of contractual liberty under due process.
1. How far do these sources show that workers had complete freedom to organise?
Compare after trying
The sources support a qualified argument about protection and continuing restriction. Source A prescribes a federal antitrust rule for qualifying organisations and lawful aims, while Source B explains the Coppage majority’s treatment of a state employment condition. Their functions and jurisdictions are central to the comparison.
They share an interest in workers’ organisation but do not give the same answer to the same question. A does not require every employer to bargain, and B does not declare every union illegal. This explains how the two could coexist without turning a selected difference into a total cancellation of one by the other.
The judgement about complete freedom must therefore remain limited. The legal passages demonstrate both a protection and a barrier, not the frequency or distribution of actual opportunities. Wider evidence about dismissal, enforcement, membership and bargaining would be needed. The majority card also leaves out dissenting reasoning that should be read in the linked opinion. A strong comparison uses context to clarify those limits while explaining the precise difference, rather than replacing analysis with a pair of political labels or claiming that two selected paraphrases establish every worker’s experience.
Why this response fits
- Connect a dated provision or event to the mechanism in the question.
- Weigh scope, practical access, implementation and contrary evidence.
- This original analytical model is not a calibrated examination script or Cambridge grade.
Establish the two source functions
Source A is an original paraphrase of selected language from section 6 of the 1914 Clayton Act. Source B is an original paraphrase of selected majority reasoning in Coppage v Kansas in 1915. A statute prescribes a rule, while a judicial opinion explains a decision about a particular challenge. They are not two surveys of workers’ experience. Identify their dates, institutions and legal questions before comparing their implications. The opening teaching brief is separate from both sources and must not be cited as contemporary testimony.
Compare what each recognises
Both passages engage with the position of workers’ organisations, but do so differently. The statute distinguishes qualifying organisations and lawful aims from automatically unlawful antitrust combinations. The majority opinion gives weight to its understanding of contractual liberty in the employment relationship. This creates a tension worth explaining through legal scope. A comparison should state a shared issue and then a precise difference in reasoning, rather than merely listing that one source is earlier or calling one author pro-worker and the other anti-worker.
Use context to test the claimed contradiction
Federal antitrust provisions and a state employment restriction could operate alongside each other because they addressed different legal issues. Coppage did not decide that every union was illegal, and section 6 did not compel universal employer recognition. The case also contained dissenting reasoning not represented by the majority card. Use that context to qualify the comparison, not to invent wording in either card. Agreement or tension between selected passages is not the same as a complete account of all laws or all judicial views.
Form a supported and limited conclusion
Explain what the sources can show: a federal protection for qualifying organisation and a continuing constitutional barrier to a particular state employment measure. They cannot show by themselves the frequency of dismissals, the strength of every union or the experience of every worker. Those claims need different records. Read the linked text more widely and treat the cards as selected original paraphrases, not quotations, complete authentic documents, a full four-source paper or calibrated assessment. The model is an analytical example to compare after writing your own response.
Sources for this lesson
- Cambridge History 9489 · 2027–2029 Version 2 · American enquiries 5.1–5.2 p. 26 and 5.3–5.4 p. 27, AS rotation pp. 37–38 and assessment pp. 66–69
- Cambridge History 9489 · 2027–2029 update · Version 2 changes, April 2025
- Clayton Act · original 15 October 1914 enactment · sections 2–8 and 20, 38 Stat. 730–740
- Coppage v Kansas · Supreme Court opinion, 25 January 1915 · selected facts and majority/dissent reasoning
Pause and explain
Which explanation best fits this lesson?
Worked example
What is a substantive difference between A and B?
Show the worked solution
- Identify A’s statutory rule.
- Identify B’s majority reasoning.
- Explain the different legal questions.
Answer A protects qualifying organisations and lawful aims from automatic antitrust condemnation; B reasons against the Kansas employment restriction as applied. The contrast concerns the legal question and mechanism, not merely different source dates.
Try a topic test
Choose Easy, Normal or Difficult. Save your answers and open worked review after finishing.
Test this topic →From guided practice to a new situation
Write your answer and reasoning first. Use a hint only if you are stuck. The model solution is for self-checking; your written work is not automatically marked.
Guided: What is a substantive difference between A and B?
Give me a hint
Compare organisation under antitrust law with terms of employment.
Compare my reasoning
- Identify A’s statutory rule.
- Identify B’s majority reasoning.
- Explain the different legal questions.
A protects qualifying organisations and lawful aims from automatic antitrust condemnation; B reasons against the Kansas employment restriction as applied. The contrast concerns the legal question and mechanism, not merely different source dates.
Look for these in your work
- Uses the relevant dated evidence
- Explains the mechanism and the specific limit
Independent: Why does the comparison not show that Coppage made every union illegal?
Give me a hint
Retain the case’s employment question and selected majority scope.
Compare my reasoning
- Name the Kansas restriction.
- Separate employment conditions from union existence.
- Remember the wider opinion and dissent.
Coppage addressed the employment condition and due-process challenge, not a declaration that every union was an unlawful organisation. The selected majority card also does not represent every argument or the dissent.
Look for these in your work
- Uses the relevant dated evidence
- Explains the mechanism and the specific limit
Transfer: How far do these sources show that workers had complete freedom to organise?
Give me a hint
Use both the protection and restriction, then identify missing practical evidence.
Compare my reasoning
- Explain the gain in A.
- Explain the retained barrier in B.
- Qualify legal and practical coverage.
They show a federal protection and a continuing restriction in different legal settings, so complete freedom is not established. Dismissal records, bargaining access and enforcement evidence would be needed to judge actual workers’ opportunities.
Look for these in your work
- Uses the relevant dated evidence
- Explains the mechanism and the specific limit
Common mistakes
- Reading the original brief as an eyewitness source
- Treating the selected majority as the whole opinion
What can you explain now?
Which explanation best fits this lesson?
Compare with the explanation
Compare legal function and scope, then explain protection and continuing restriction
A protects qualifying organisations and lawful aims from automatic antitrust condemnation; B reasons against the Kansas employment restriction as applied. The contrast concerns the legal question and mechanism, not merely different source dates.
After trying it yourself, choose your next review. This is your self-assessment.
Your review choice appears on Today. Sign in to sync it across devices.
Make it stick
Which explanation best fits this lesson?
If you needed the solution, close it and solve the problem again from a blank page. A correct answer is stronger when you can explain the reason for each step.