To what extent was late nineteenth century and ealy twentieth century United States expansion a continuation of past United States expansion and to what extent was it a departure? Use the documents and your knowledge of US History to 1914 to construct your answer.
What do you think your thesis will be like? What questions do you have about the question itself?
Would this be about the reasoning behind expansion, the economic implications, the methods used for it, the specific territory being acquired/controlled, or some combination of those? If all 4,
The expansion of the United States closely preceding and following the beginning of the twentieth century was like previous expansion in that it closely followed similar reasoning and borrowed from older methods, though newer strategies of taking control and the geographic location of the territory being sought after made this period a substantial departure from past expansion.
Also, does anyone know any good synonyms for "expansion"? I feel like I'll sound very repetitive if I can't think of any, not only with the three times I used it in the proto-thesis but throughout the body of the essay.
Thesis: The U.S expansion in the late nineteenth century and the early twentieth century was a continuation of past U.S expansion in the sense that it was motivated by the need to civilize people in new ways and gain new business through imports or exports.
US Expansion in the late 19th century was similar to Expansion into the West in the sense that the ideology behind it was still that of the "white man's burden" and the gains being natural resources, but the location and connection to other continents the subgugated territories would give the US made it something of another.
-- Edited by TaranComeDown at 02:12, 2009-01-09
__________________
Just to let you know, there's pigs' blood in your tea.
Thesis: The U.S expansion in the late nineteenth century and the early twentieth century was a continuation of past U.S expansion in the sense that it was motivated by the need to civilize people in new ways and gain new business through imports or exports.
-- Edited by piracine at 02:11, 2009-01-09
I think the reference to a "departure" was just a way of asking how was it different? Or at least that's how I took it.
__________________
Just to let you know, there's pigs' blood in your tea.
Thesis: The U.S expansion in the late nineteenth century and the early twentieth century was a continuation of past U.S expansion in the sense that it was motivated by the need to civilize people in new ways and gain new business through imports or exports.
-- Edited by piracine at 02:11, 2009-01-09
I think the reference to a "departure" was just a way of asking how was it different? Or at least that's how I took it.
That's correct. Its implied reference is to objectives and outcomes.
Would this be about the reasoning behind expansion, the economic implications, the methods used for it, the specific territory being acquired/controlled, or some combination of those?
It isn't just about the differences in territory. That's too obvious. It is about causes, methods and effects.
I am giving this essay a 2. It is overall poorly written. There is no real thesis to this essay, and their spelling is atrocious. Although the student does pick a side in the essay it is a poorly written sentence and simply states their opinion. This DBQ barely touches on the topic of the question, and overstates the time period stated in the question.With references to things such as the Iraq War, this is just an overall poor essay. The essay also seemed overwhelmed with information that didnt seem to fit their belief. They state one side, and then give evidence in support of the other side without supporting their own side. Overall very confusing and just bad.
The multi-sentence thesis statement/introductory paragraph clearly attempted to link the expansions in the period being examined with previous periods, although it was not particularly effective in doing so. #666 chose to take the position that the policies were a continuation of earlier efforts, which was perfectly fine, but the writer should have gotten into much greater detail on the earlier efforts. He/she did not link the points made about taking territory to pre-empt European powers from doing so from previous times of expansion at all. 666 was somewhat more successful in linking the motives behind the war and colonization in the Philippines to the removal of the Native Americans. However, the connection was limited to the last few sentences before the closing. In short, I find the analysis of the question to be far from adequate. #666's essay was largely descriptive. Several documents were used, although the writer's analysis of them in regards to connecting earlier periods of expansion with the one being observed were weak. It seemed as if he/she had not fully understood the meaning of the question until near the end of the writing time. The outside information was also inadequate. No specific earlier examples of expansion were listed. The events in the Philippines were the only specific examples given for the time period being examined, and they were only mentioned in passing. Because of this, I think a 2 would be a fair grade for this essay. #666 could improve the essay by making the thesis statement and the body of the essay fit the question better, providing more topic-focused analysis, and discussing more outside information.
It felt rushed, used only a couple of documents, and the two that they used besides the cartoon had quotes that were nearly a paragraph long, a little overkill. I couldn't quite find the thesis, but going with the general attitude of the opening paragraph I could get a grasp of what they were aiming for, and they did stick by their position. Unfortunately, one of their biggest pieces of outside information was used incorrectly, and their spelling and grammer, to the point where they put nonsensical words in some sentences also detracted from their essay.
First of all, what seemed to be the introduction basically forced most of the essay's outside information into the paragraph, which ended up being too long, with a thesis that simply restated the question. This essay states the words "continuation/departure of American Expansionism" at least twice in almost every paragraph. It seemed the writer was not sure how to make the connection apparent in any way other than restating the same phrase over and over again. The writer also had a habit of not stating the name of the documents a few times, and instead just stated the letters. Granted, for the most part, botched use of the documents came through for the writer, usually making the short quotes relevant to the passage.
The documents basically saved this essay. It's scattered, redundant, and for an essay of this length, it should have had more substance and detail. At one point, the essay even mentions the annexation of Texas, and then discusses insular cases(not actually using the term) and Supreme Court decisions with no mention of the insular Phillipines or evident intent of stating what it has to do with Texas. I give this essay a 4.
__________________
Just to let you know, there's pigs' blood in your tea.
