Section I 

TIME: 1 HOUR

DIRECTIONS: Questions 1–12. Carefully read the following passage and answer the accompanying questions.

The passage below is an excerpt from an essay on violence in America, written by a contemporary historian.

Passage 1

     On September 26, 1872, three mounted men rode up to the gate of the Kansas City Fair, which was enjoying a huge crowd of perhaps 10,000 people. The bandits shot at the ticket seller, hit a small girl in the leg, and made off for the woods with something less than a thousand dollars. It was highhanded, and it endangered the lives of a whole host of holiday-minded ⁽⁵⁾people for comparatively little reward.

     What makes the robbery and the violence notable is not the crime itself but the way it was reported in the Kansas City Times by one John N. Edwards. In his front-page story he branded the robbery “so diabolically daring and so utterly in contempt of fear that we are bound to admire it and revere its perpetrators.”

     ⁽¹⁰⁾Two days later the outlaws were being compared by the Times with knights of King Arthur’s Round Table:

     “It was as though three bandits had come to us from storied Odenwald, with the halo of medieval chivalry upon their garments and shown us how the things were done that poets sing of. Nowhere else in the United States or in the civilized world, probably, could this ⁽¹⁵⁾thing have been done.”

     Quite likely this deed was perpetrated by the James brothers: Jesse and Frank, and a confederate. The details really do not matter. What pertains is the attitude of the innocent toward the uncertainly identified guilty. The act had been perpetrated by violent, lawless men. If the Times is any indication, a respectable section of people approved of their action. ⁽²⁰⁾No one, of course, thought to ask the little girl with the shattered leg how she felt about such courage. Nearly 17 months later, Edwards was quoted in the St. Louis Dispatch as preferring the Western highwayman to the Eastern, for “he has more qualities that attract admiration and win respect . . . . This comes from locality . . . which breeds strong, hardy men—men who risk much, who have friends in high places, and who go riding over the land, ⁽²⁵⁾taking all chances that come in the way.” The purpose here is not to belabor one reasonably anonymous newspaperman of nearly a century ago, but merely to point up a fact—and a problem—of the American frontier.

     The frontier placed a premium on independent action and individual reliance. The whole history of the American frontier is a narrative of taking what was there to be taken. ⁽³⁰⁾The timid never gathered riches, the polite nearly never. The men who first carved the wilderness into land claims and town lots were the men who moved in the face of dangers, gathering as they progressed. The emphasis naturally came to be placed on gathering and not on procedures. Great tales of gigantic attainments abound in this frontier story; equally adventurous tales of creative plundering mark the march from Jamestown to the Pacific. It ⁽³⁵⁾was a period peopled by giants, towers of audacity with insatiable appetites. The heroes are not the men of moderate attitudes, not the town planners and commercial builders, not the farmers nor the ministers nor the teachers. The heroes of the period, handed along to us with all the luster of a golden baton, are the mighty runners from Mt. Olympus who ran without looking back, without concern about social values or anywhere they might be going ⁽⁴⁰⁾except onward.

     We revere these heroes because they were men of vast imagination and daring. We have also inherited their blindness and their excesses.