BELOW I ATTACHED THE AUTHORS RESPONSE TO THE ISSUE AND I ALSO ATTACHED EXAMPLES FROM THE TEACHER! For this assignment1. READTaking Sides Issue 3.2: Did African American Slaves Exercise Religious Autonomy?2. RESPONDWrite a Thesis paragraph response for each issue that follows the social science writing methodology for the course located in your syllabus.Thesis paragraphs must contain: Context, Complexity, Well-Reasoned BECAUSE thesis statement (Opinion-B/C-Rational), and an essay map (three separate sentences that follow your thesis derived from the rational of your thesis.Each paragraph will be graded following the Essay Grading rubric and will be worth 30 points.TS Thesis ParagraphCriteriaRatingsPtsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDoes the paragraph begin with detailed historically accurate context associated with the topic question?3.0 ptsFull Marks0.0 ptsNo Marks3.0 ptsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDoes the paragraph provide complexity which articulates both Taking Sides author’s POV separately?2.0 ptsFull Marks0.0 ptsNo Marks2.0 ptsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDoes the paragraph contain an underlined Opinion- Because-3 Part Rational that does not contain 1st person references; states the author’s own opinion; contains a complex rational that can easily be expanded into three sub topics?10.0 ptsFull Marks0.0 ptsNo Marks10.0 ptsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIs the sub topic identified by structural indicators; does it clearly demonstrate how/why it proves a portion of the thesis rational; is the ST historically accurate?; does not contain vague/generalized statements?5.0 ptsFull Marks0.0 ptsNo Marks5.0 ptsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIs the sub topic identified by structural indicators; does it clearly demonstrate how/why it proves a portion of the thesis rational; is the ST historically accurate?; does not contain vague/generalized statements?5.0 ptsFull Marks0.0 ptsNo Marks5.0 ptsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIs the sub topic identified by structural indicators; does it clearly demonstrate how/why it proves a portion of the thesis rational; is the ST historically accurate?; does not contain vague/generalized statements?5.0 ptsFull Marks0.0 ptsNo Marks5.0 ptsTotal Points: 30.0
img_8573.jpg
social_science_writing_examples__2_.pdf
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Taking Sides Thesis Paragraph Examples
Example 1:
TS Question: “Was the Pequot War Largely a Product of Native American Aggression?”
Poor Response:
In the 17th century the Pequot Indians held a conflict filled relationship with the settlers
of the Massachusetts Bay colony. Between the colonist and the Pequot Indians there were many
disputes over the different lifestyles of each party. I believe Native peoples aggression was not a
product of The Pequot War, the natives decided to act on their own will and were aggressive to
us before any attacks on them were announced or decided upon and the concept of war was
foreign to them but not to us. Prior to the “war” when “colonist” in “the bay” settled the Pequot
tribe was its own microcosm. They, the Peqouts, decided that they would destroy the settlers
land. The set fire to people, crops and farms. They even kidnapped women while the siege on
that Fort began. The English men then decided to take actions. Hundreds of natives were under
attack and fighting back. Some were takneas prisoners and many others died. The natives gave a
reason to the Englishmen and from their the issued the attack.
Better Response:
Beginning from the first contact between Europeans and Native Americans, Indo-Anglo
relations were always marred by their cultural differences, with relations wavering from cordial
to ones filled with tensions and violence. One such instance took setting in New England, where
a series of murders and assaults exchanged between the colonists and Pequot tribe eventually
culminated into a battle that ended with a deaths of many Pequots. However, who holds
responsibility for the outbreak of the Pequot war is continued to be debated between historians.
Author Steve T. Katz challenges the view of those who believe colonists intentionally started the
war as a deliberate genocide, arguing that colonists had justification to be afraid of the Pequots
and were simply acting out of self-preservation rather than with intent to start a war. Professor
Alfred A. Cave asserts that the racial characterization of the natives as savages was the catalyst
for the war as motivation within the decision to eradicate the threat to create a safe frontier for
Puritans. Native Americans were the main cause of the Pequot war because of brutality
perpetrated by the natives, Pequot Indians continued to exist past the war and that the war was
premeditated by the colonists. There are three main reasons that support this position. Firstly, the
outbreak of war was not solely a matter of cultural prejudice but had arisen due to a feeling of
necessity brought on by the brutality previously perpetrated by the Pequot and the failure to
solve diplomatically. Secondly, the idea of complete genocide is challenged as Pequot Indians
continued to exist past the war though they were scattered among different tribes. Finally, there
is no real indication that the purpose of the attack on the Pequot fort was to massacre all the
natives as credible accounts and actions do not align up with the idea that the battle was
premeditated.
Example 2:
TS Question: Was the Mexican War an Exercise in American Imperialism?
Poor Response:
North Americans believed that Latins had took the name America and that the Divine had gave
them the territory to spread colonial expansion. Shortly after Mexico gained independence, North
America had begun to expand into Texas which is Mexico’s land. The Mexican War was an
exercise of American Imperialism because of the true intentions North America had towards
Mexico’s land. North Americans wanted to spread their slave business into Texas due to it’s
cheap land, but since Mexico had already owned the land Americans “Agreed” to follow
Mexico’s conditions, only for them to forget about these terms for the sake of self interest. North
American’s wanted land for profit and didn’t consider Mexico’s values or conditions, like most
Imperialistic nations would do.
Better Response:
The Mexican-American War took place between the years of 1846 and 1848. It was a war
fought over the acquisition of land and resulted in an American victory. America gained the
territories of Texas, California, and everything that Mexico owned in between. The cause of the
Mexican-American War is a topic that has been written in different lights by different
historians. Ramón Eduardo Ruiz argues that America wanted a war with Mexico so they could
procure ownership over the territory and demonstrate their superiority. Norman
A. Graebner insists that Polk never wanted a war with Mexico, but after the Mexicans didn’t
respect American demands, it was the only choice he was left with. The Mexican-American War
was an exercise in American Imperialism because American attitudes towards western
expansion, intolerance to people of different heritages and religions, and justification of western
expansion by employing the concept of Manifest Destiny. There are three reasons that support
this. First, Americans by and large had developed “head West with your plow and your rifle”
mentality that permeated their attitude toward westward expansion and set the stage for
American aggression in the West. Secondly, pre-Mexican War American history shows that a
majority of Americans had developed intolerance towards people of different heritage than them,
especially those with darker skin and non-protestant religions. Finally, Americans believed that
the acquisition of western land was ordained by God, that it was America’s Manifest Destiny
from the beginning of colonization of North America by Anglo-Saxons to stretch the United
States from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
Complete Essay Example
Question being answered: “The cry of Free Men was raised, not for the extension of liberty to
the black man, but for the protection of the liberty of the white.” – Assess the validity of
Frederick Douglas’s statement with regard to the cause of the Civil War.
Poor Essay Response:
Prior to the big war there were many disagreements about blacks. This upset the
Southerners because they were all racist and slavery had a direct impact on their expansion and
wealth, which caused slaveholding states to secede. While at first glance it may seem that the
plea for freedom was called for black lives, it’s questioned if the intent was really to protect the
freedoms of white lives. Thee was a historian who states, the support of the War from the
Confederates was from the promise of security of slavery and another oner incites the issue,
northern states were unconected about slavery and more about the preservation of the union. I
really believe that the cry for freedom was raised, not for the extension of liberty to the black
man, but for the protection of the liberty of the white, the Confederate peoples felt their liberties
were being infringed upon, the Union peoples was indifferent about the slavery but opposed
secession and wanted to weaken the confederacy. Some reasons why is becuae first, slavery was
a big part of all southerners people lives and by not being able to expand into the new territories
they felt their liberties were being taken away. All the northerners were indifferent about slavery,
and especially did not care to live equally alongside a black man, but the Union opposed
secession. Finally, the emancipating simultaneously punished and weakened the southerners
people.
First, slavery was a big part of southerners lives and by not being able to expand into the
new territories they felt their liberties were being taken away by the northerner people. The
slaves were big investments and a huge loss when one escaped. Now their government was
legalizing this and doing nothing to protect the rights of the white citizens.
Second, the northerners were not caring about slavery, and especially did not care to live
equally alongside a black man, but the Union opposed secession. According to Lincoln on
secession it was most important not to separate because “A government that allows secession
will disintegrate into anarchy.”. Under the belief that the country had to choose between slavery
and freedom, they chose freedom to unite the union.
Finally, by emancipating the blacks it simultaneously punished and weakened the
southerners. Lincoln tried to win the approval and support of other Americans to support the war.
Author Gary Gallagher talks about winning support, by having a moral high ground that the
southerners lacked, also elicited help from black troops that were freed.
Through these reasons I think I have proved that the idea of Freeing was meant for the whites.
The Civil War helped to liberate Black men, but the purposed of the war was not slavery but a
tool which was instrumental to causing a further division.
Better Essay Response:
Fissures and fractures within the United States that occurred from the heated clashes of
the North and South in regards to the expansion of slavery finally led to the Union to fall apart in
wake of the election of Abraham Lincoln as president. Then, over the next year, eleven states
seceded from the United States to form the Confederate States of America. The bombardment of
Fort Sumter, held by the Union at the time, by the Confederates would delve the two countries
into the Civil War. However, what is debated in modern times is what exactly was the war was
fought over: slavery or state rights? Professor Charles B. Dew concludes that slavery was indeed
the main topic of the Civil War, assessing different first-hand speeches and letters of 41 white
southerners who acted as commissioners to secure secession during 1960 and 1961 in support of
his argument. According to Professor Gary W. Gallagher, letters of northern soldiers who had
little concern about the institution of slavery and the hostility towards African American troops
provide a clear picture that saving the Union was the main goal of the Civil War. Frederick
Douglass’s statement, “The cry of Free Men was raised, not for the extension of liberty to the
black man, but for the protection of the liberty of the white” is valid because the problems that
plagued the country for years prior to the Civil War and led to succession concerned slavery but
not slaves, were about the property rights of the white southerners given by the Constitution and
the Civil War was fought by the North primarily to maintain the union with the emancipation of
slaves only included as a war aim. There are three reasons that support this position. First, the
disparity between the North and the South centered on western expansion and the expansion of
slavery into the west, which was never about the slaves themselves, but was focused on the
political and economic benefits northern and southern Anglo-Saxons would gain. Second, while
the problems that led to the succession were about the topic of slavery, they were not about the
slaves themselves, but rather the property rights and way of life white southerners, the majority
of whom did not own slaves. Third, the intent of the Union army and President Lincoln was to
keep the Union together, meaning that the institution slavery was irrelevant in achieving the
main goal of fighting the Civil War with emancipation only becoming a war aim two-years into
the war.
First, the disparity between the North and the South centered on western expansion and
the expansion of slavery into the west, which was never about the slaves themselves, but was
focused on the political and economic benefits northern and southern Anglo-Saxons would gain.
While most textbook nowadays dub the “Free North” like it was an accepting society that wished
to free black people, in reality northerners were rarely opposed to the use of slave labor because
it benefitted them and their economy. In fact, it was not just the South who was horrible to
African Americans because the North segregated blacks and treated them harshly. The actual
conflict about slavery wasn’t actually about abolishing it but about expansion. Another myth
about this time regards the most basic people that factor into the equation of the Civil War:
abolitionists. Generally the picture painted of them figures that they are against slavery because
it was morally wrong, however, knowing that northerners never actually desired for slavery to
end, then what was the purpose for the abolitionists? Simply, it was because they wanted to stop
the expansion of slavery. Almost exclusively, the only reason they did not wish to have slavery
in other parts of the country was on the basis of keeping the land solely for whites, not out of
concern for black slaves. They too were very racist. Looking at this sentiment makes one jarring
truth clear: the problems with slavery the North had were never about the slaves but rather their
own white citizens and their racist sentiments. The South, on the other hand, were angered about
the North’s opposition to the expansion of slavery because they felt like they were being denied
the right to bring their property – their slaves, their livelihoods – across the country. They weren’t
necessarily upset because the North wanted to abolish slavery, but because the North was
obstructing them to bring their property to new lands. They felt that they needed new lands in
order to expand their businesses and allow America to remain prosperous, something that
benefitted them. Furthermore, having less states meant that they would have been outnumbered
in the senate, thus they would not have political representations and the free states could easily
pass whatever they wished. Even the motive of the South for expanding and keeping slavery was
about their right to economic and political gain, not about the slaves or even the southerners’
own racism.
Second, while the problems that led to the succession were about the topic of slavery,
they were not about the slaves themselves, but rather the property rights and way of life white
southerners, the majority of whom did not own slaves. The differing racial sentiments of this
time were what sparked the political problems of North and the South that ultimately was what
culminated into secession. In the lead up of the Civil War, almost all political problems revolved
around the conflicts of interest between the North and the South. Expansion into western
territory, which will ultimately result in many political crises, was a result from the Missouri
Compromise, a compromise between the free and slave states that only allowed slavery
expansion under the 36;30 line, but that meant slave states had little room to expand. The South
realizes that meant that they would eventually lose power in the senate to the Free states. Thus,
they decided to annex Texas because they expand slavery. However this would result in in the
Mexican-American war, which will open Pandora ’s Box of political problems such as the shifts
of the political parties, the limitation of power of South, and more. These tensions and the threat
to the balance of power between slave states as more states become a part of the Unites States
would lead to more compromise that result in the abolishment of the Missouri Compromise. As a
result, events like Bleeding Kansas created more anger between the two factions, the South
becoming more discontent as things wore on, and unhappy with the state of the Union and the
violations of their rights, decide to secede. The topic of slavery expansions carved more ways for
other political problems. None of these political crises actually concerned freeing slaves, just the
anger and discontent created between the North and the South because the two had conflicting
ideology about their desires and their representation in politics.
Third, the intent of the Union army and President Lincoln was to keep the Union
together, meaning that the institution slavery was irrelevant in achieving the main goal of
fighting the Civil War with emancipation only becoming a war aim two-years into the war. Not
only were the problems that resulted in the split of the Union about the rights of white
southerners to the expansion of their slavers and the right to holding slaves – their property, but
abolishing slavery was not even the goal for fighting the Civil War. In fact, Lincoln, who
initiates the war himself, states in a letter, “I would save the Union. … If I could save the Union
without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do
it.” Even though he may sympathize with the slaves, ultimately what he started the Civil War
over was the Union and therefore the goal and reason for the Civil War was about preserving the
Union, not about abolishing slavery. Even more revealing is when Lincoln states, that even if the
institute of slavery was to be kept intact, and then as long as the Union was together then that
shall be fine, meaning that the state of slavery being legal did not matter to him in his goals for
the Civil War. If such is the case, then surely the Civil War was not about slavery if the man in
charge did not consider it to be integral in the end goal of the war. Even the document that
society attributes towards freeing the slaves, the Emancipation Proclamation, wasn’t issued to
particularly stop slavery but used as a military measure against the South, but possibly to keep
Britain, who was largely against slavery, out of the war. Furthermore, the Proclamation did not
actually do much in the way of the abolition of slavery because it only applied to states that he
had no control over. He would not have dared to abolish slavery in the Border States because that
could mean that they would secede and side with the confederacy under the impression that their
rights were being violated too. This was also only issued after Lincoln realized that the issue of
rights regarding slavery was the problem that was making the Union fall apart. Not only is this
sentiment apparent in the head of the country, but also those fighting the wars. If one were to
read some letters from union soldiers, it becomes apparent that what mattered was the Union
staying together, not the institution of slavery. Many of these letters barely reference slavery
much less about fighting to end it, but instead focus more on their motivations to help preserve
the Union. If the soldiers fighting this war barely talk about slavery, this means that slavery is
not only unimportant in the larger picture of the war not only to those at the top, but the common
people fighting it. If no one who is involved with the war effort concerns themselves with the
issue of slavery, then slavery could not be what the Civil War was fought over, but in fact to
keep the Union together after the states, who left as a result from them being discontent with
their rights being trampled over by the federal government.
In conclusion, the Civil War was not fought on the matter of slavery, even if it was
heavily included slavery, because none of the countries’ central problems were concerned the
actual institution of slavery but the rights to expand it, which later resulted in other political
problems between pro-slavery expansion and those against it. Additionally, the Civil War was
fought on the basis to keep the union together. Neither of these matters frame slavery as the
central problem, but were problems of the white citizens in regards to the institution, which is a
slight but very big difference. This may not be a matter of particular importance to the United
States today, but the misconception about the cause of the Civil War also creates misconceptions
of the society and its racial sentiments of the time, all of which are important to understanding
the evolution of American society and how they handle racial problems which are problems of
importance today.
…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
