Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/29575
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

I am writing a 5 page thesis paper on Simon Bolivar for a history class. I am using the book "Bolivar" by Marie Arana as one of my source for writing the paper.

Many times Arana uses primary sources to back up claims. For example, in chapter 1 Arana uses a document called "Instructions to Christopher Columbus" written by Queen Isabel I to demonstrate the laws Spain passed to initially ban slavery in America, and control exploitation of Indians. The passage discussing the queen's condemnation of the colonialists in "Bolivar" was a direct quote from Queen Isabel I:

> "Forasmuch as my Lord the King and Myself have ordered that the Indians living on the island of Hispaniola be free and not subject to slavery..."

So in my short paper I summarized these idea to:

> "Mainland Spain banned slavery and Queen Isabel even condemned the terrible behavior of the Spanish colonialists, passing laws to discourage the anarchy in the Americas."

In my sentence, do I cite Arana or do I cite the initial edict written by Queen Isabel?

On one hand, Arana cites Queen Isabel and several other documents to push her portrait of colonial South America. I am trying to share these same facts and am using Arana as a guide. So she did the legwork for knowing what primary documents to look for and deserves credit in that regard.

But on the other hand, I make the claim that Mainland Spain banned slavery in the colonies and the queen condemned it. I think it makes sense to cite the original primary resource, "Instructions to Christopher Columbus". It absolutely confirms a claim I am making, which is Spain passed laws to stop slavery in the Americas. From a research point, it makes sense to cite this document as Arana had to cite it as well.

Do I cite Arana or the original document in my sentence? Thank you!

Original score: 4