Consider George Bancroft’s writings on the American Revolution in light of Hebert Butterfield’s critique of “Whig history.” To what extent does Bancroft write in the Whig idiom? Comment on the strengths and weaknesses of this style of history as a means of shedding light on the past. It may be useful to draw selectively on Becker as well.
Guidelines. I will grade the paper on both content (the key ideas you present) and the quality of the writing itself. On the writing, I will be looking for clarity, concision, and overall control. I offer, below, some more detailed suggestions regarding your approach to the materials and to matters of writing conventions and formatting. The best reference guide to writing style is The Chicago Manual of Style. Chicago offers an online version that may be of help https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/home.htmlLinks to an external site. (common sorts of questions are often addressed in the “Q&A section,” but you will see other helpful material elsewhere on the website).
A) Central elements of the strongest answers (these are mostly generic suggestions, not specifically tailored to this particular essay):
Make an argument. Your first paragraph should conclude with a thesis statement, and successive paragraphs should elaborate that thesis.
Define your terms. What are the key elements of heroic or Whig history, for example?
Make sure to consider place and time in your answers. Does it matter that one is considering Massachusetts or Virginia or some other place in the early republic? Does it matter that a document is written in 1789, 1800, or 1820?
Whenever possible, support your argument with references to primary sources. This does not mean that you need to pepper your text with quotes. But where there is primary material that is relevant, demonstrate that the position you take can be supported in documents of the period. When you introduce primary material, make sure to do a few things: note who is writing and when they are writing, “translate” what they are saying (don’t simply block quote without quickly summarizing what you take to the meaning of their text), and comment on how the material illuminates the issue at hand.
Similarly, whenever possible, support your argument by drawing on the secondary works we have read this term. You are encouraged to read these works critically: if you have persuasive evidence or reasoning to the contrary, it is perfectly acceptable to challenge historical interpretations.
Part of your argument should address what you imagine to be the strongest positions of someone who might take an opposing view.
Finally, find a balance here between breadth and depth. You can’t cover everything. Find what you think is essential and interesting – particular events, statements, persons — and do a thorough job in supporting your case.
only use the source i provide