How Far Do Sources 2 and 3 Support the Evidence of Source 1 About Attitudes Towards Conscientious Objectors?

644 Words3 Pages
How far do sources 2 and 3 support the evidence of source 1 about attitudes towards conscientious objectors? Source 2 supports Source 1’s account of the humiliation conscientious objectors endured. Source 2 mentions that he could not expect any sympathy from the civilians, a point which is reiterated in Source 1, ‘his mother and his brothers often jeered at him.’ In this way, both Source 1 and Source 2 support the view that CO’s were humiliated by the British public and cut off from their friends and family. Both sources give the views of Quakers which reinforces the similarity in the attitudes towards CO’s. Religious groups such as Quakers were in fact the most accepted CO’s in society as the public had to respect the Christian faith. However, snide remarks and avoidance such as that mentioned in Source 1 would not have been uncommon. As both sources are written by Quakers their utility is limited as they are both from similar view points. However, as the same point is made this reinforces the view that CO’s were humiliated and treated with disrespect. Source 3 reinforces the view that violence was common towards CO’s to reflect the disapproval in British society. Source 1 described how CO’s were often the subject of violence and abuse, a point which is also given in Source 3’s recount of how he ‘was pushed off my bike and arrested.’ CO’s were breaking the law by resisting conscription and in this way received little sympathy from the British public or the British forces. Source 3’s stance is not given so Payne was not necessarily a Quaker. In this way, this view of violent treatment is reinforced further as CO’s potentially with different stances and opinions share similar views. Both Source 1 and Source 3 reflect on the treatment of CO’s, Source 3 given a personal account and Source 1 giving a more general account but both present similar views of violent
Open Document