9.a.
Making the Case: Samples
Sample 1: Starting in the 1890s, the legislatures of the
southern states began to pass a series of laws which by intent and practice
removed African Americans from the voting population. Twenty years after
the passage of the Fifteenth Amendment, African-American men found themselves
steadily disfranchised through legal chicaneries like grandfather clauses,
literacy tests, and all-white primaries. Historians have long wondered why
this new spate of legislation appeared so long after the failure of the
Republican Party in 1877. If Reconstruction ended black Americans' dreams
of meaningful political equality, why did Southern whites delay for over
a decade their efforts to disfranchise blacks? Perhaps the new measures
signaled not the continuation of old forms of racial control, but the rise
of a new, more hostile form of racial thought among white Southerners. Legal
disfranchisement did not begin until twelve years after the end of Reconstruction,
for it took an economic downturn in the South and the coming of age of the
first generation of southern African Americans born into freedom to trigger
overt legal efforts to keep blacks away from the polls.
Sample 2: The continuing trend of American westward expansion
reached Mexico in the early nineteenth century and manifested in the Mexican-American
War. After Mexico gained independence from Spain in 1821, the policy toward
the United States changed. Instead of the strict border policies as under
Spain, Mexico welcomed Americans: a decision they would soon regret. Americans
migrated to Mexico in droves. Eventually, more Americans lived in the Texas
than Mexicans. The led to Texas breaking away from Mexico and the beginning
of the Mexican-American War. The Mexican-American War was not only a quest
for increased territory, but also a symbol of America's racial misconception
of the inferiority of non-white peoples, manifested in the motives, justifications
and reactions to the war.
Sample 3: This problem of representation arose as a direct
result of market forces in antebellum America. As fixing identity in an
ever-expanding and increasingly anonymous public sphere became an ever more
infeasible task, weak surrogate means arose. When Lewis Woodson wrote to
Samuel Cornish that "nothing is more common in men, than to associate a
cause, with him who advocates it," he may just as sagely have applied his
formulation to ethnic and national groups. Nothing was more common in the
antebellum North than to associate a people with the individuals who represented
it. For this reason, black leaders incessantly warned their working-class
brethren to consider the broader implications of their actions. In the 1840s,
a southern black traveler noted this concern among Philadelphia's black
elite: "the sight of one man, whatever may be his apparent condition, is
the sight of a community; and the errors and crimes of one, is adjudged
as the criterion and character of the whole body." In a world wherein it
was impossible to know the character of the ones with whom the average urbanite
interacted, ethnic, racial, and national signifiers - however faulty as
determinants of character - seemed to offer desperately needed cues.
Sample 4
- Premises to thesis question
- German experience with tactical air power
- Elaborate defense system of the homeland
- German fighter designs extremely good
- Germany developed tactical fighter doctrine
- The "fulcrum": restate problem and shift to proving thesis itself
- Production inadequacies
- Doctrinal problems
- These factors led to defeat despite apparent advantages
- Conclusion (restate problem and thesis, explain significance)
Sample 5: Historians may argue about whether the Allied
bombing of Germany helped end World War II, but none doubt the destructiveness
of these campaigns. By the end of the conflict, Allied bomber forces were
able to attack targets in Germany without encountering the serious opposition
of German fighters. This is surprising, as Germany possessed many apparent
advantages in its fighter force: long experience with tactical air power,
good fighter designs, an elaborate system of homeland defense, and a well-developed
tactical fighter doctrine. How, then, did the Allies become capable of
bombing Germany with impunity? By the end of World War II, German air
defense suffered from two limitations that doomed its capacity to protect
the homeland: the limits of a fighter doctrine predicated on attack, and
severe inadequacies in producing new fighters. These factors led to defeat
despite Germany's apparent advantages.