Foo - History idea.

For history class, I need to write a 6 page paper proving some event that the U.S was apart of. So, since my mom got me a civil war book for Christmas, I figured that might be one really good source (as the non-internet one), but I'm not sure what on the war I could prove...and that will take up 6 pages.
Any ideas?
Maybe what caused it, something on a battle, or a person?? Thanks for any help.

do a paper on george h. w. bush's involvement with the bay of pigs invasion...........and the kennedy assassination.

what about proving that the us covered up ufo's and such?

or proving that sept 11 is a us conspiracy, etc.

what about proving that the us covered up ufo's and such?

or proving that sept 11 is a us conspiracy, etc.

I've thought about those, but he won't like that.

what about proving that the us covered up ufo's and such?

or proving that sept 11 is a us conspiracy, etc.

those are made up.

if you want to write a paper about conspiracy's, pick the anthrax attacks.

Operation 40...oops, did I say that?

How about the War of 1812? This war involved both the US and Canada (or British North America at the time). Neither side could declare a win however It sparked a sense of nationalism for Canada and united Americans in their "Second War of Independence".

There's plenty to write about the Civil War. There's hundreds of books about Lincoln alone.

Without knowing what you've studied, what kind of sources you have, or how much time you have to research, it's a little hard to recommend something specific.

You live in Texas? You could write about Texas' role in the war. Or a famous Texan.

Hey EJ. I always thought that the little known direct US involvement in the Russian Revolution/Civil War in 1917 at Archangel was a potentially fascinating piece of history. It was the brainchild of Secretary of War Newton D. Baker and we went in on the side of the "White" Russians opposing the "Reds". It set the stage for their distrust that became one of the sources of Cold War feelings.

Hey EJ. I always thought that the little known direct US involvement in the Russian Revolution/Civil War in 1917 at Archangel was a potentially fascinating piece of history. It was the brainchild of Secretary of War Newton D. Baker and we went in on the side of the "White" Russians opposing the "Reds". It set the stage for their distrust that became one of the sources of Cold War feelings.
Hm, I remember reading about that too. But what opininated statement can I say proving something about it?

Here's a start if you like the Archangel invasion idea. . .

http://www.historywiz.com/invasionrussia.htm
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/doc32.htm
http://net.lib.byu.edu/~rdh7/wwi/1918/archangl.html

Ooops, I got the year wrong by one year.

>>> But what opininated statement can I say proving something about it?

Don't quite follow what you're asking, but maybe it goes, "As the inheritors of the Red Revolutionary legacy and based on US agression on Russian soil in 1918, the USSR was quite justified in distrusting US intentions during the Cold War.".

Here's a start if you like the Archangel invasion idea. . .

http://www.historywiz.com/invasionrussia.htm
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/doc32.htm
http://net.lib.byu.edu/~rdh7/wwi/1918/archangl.html

Ooops, I got the year wrong by one year.
The first one gives me an idea for a thesis statement, hm.

>>> But what opininated statement can I say proving something about it?

Don't quite follow what you're asking, but maybe it goes, "As the inheritors of the Red Revolutionary legacy and based on US agression on Russian soil in 1918, the USSR was quite justified in distrusting US intentions during the Cold War.".

He doesn't want us just blabbing about history as if it was a research paper, but the topic you presented is unique and interesting, and I might just go with that idea.:)

>>> I might just go with that idea

Well shux, us coyotes like to help the humans when we can.

If you really want cookie poins then do your report on something that most no one has heard of or can remember ever learning. Such as the war that almost between America andEngland (GB) over a pig that lasted all but a day. Yes, I'm serious about that. We almost went to war with England over the killing of a stray pig on an island that was inhabited by americans and English.
What can this report prove? Pick any of your seven deadly sins and you'll probably find a way to associate it.

Or better yet, write a report on James J. Strang, who was in fact, Americans ONLY king. He was king of Beaver Island in Lake Michigan in the late 1800's. President Fillmore had him arrested and tried but Strang was acquitted. There are many things also that you could prove in writing a paper about him.

Or if you really want your paper to be civil War themed. Write it about the on going conflict still between the North and South regarding the captured flags on the Union and Confederacy. there is alot of information on the net about this subject as well and your paper could prove that even after treaties are signed and battles are over that war still looms in the hearts and minds of the truely partiotic and heretic.

damn, I wish I was still in school.

If you really want cookie poins then do your report on something that most no one has heard of or can remember ever learning. Such as the war that almost between America andEngland (GB) over a pig that lasted all but a day. Yes, I'm serious about that. We almost went to war with England over the killing of a stray pig on an island that was inhabited by americans and English.
What can this report prove? Pick any of your seven deadly sins and you'll probably find a way to associate it.

Or better yet, write a report on James J. Strang, who was in fact, Americans ONLY king. He was king of Beaver Island in Lake Michigan in the late 1800's. President Fillmore had him arrested and tried but Strang was acquitted. There are many things also that you could prove in writing a paper about him.

Or if you really want your paper to be civil War themed. Write it about the on going conflict still between the North and South regarding the captured flags on the Union and Confederacy. there is alot of information on the net about this subject as well and your paper could prove that even after treaties are signed and battles are over that war still looms in the hearts and minds of the truely partiotic and heretic.

damn, I wish I was still in school.

Hm, the Strang man and that whole deal seems unqie also. Ug, decisions:|. What is there to prove about this man? I looked on wikipedia about him and he had a thing to do with the Morman Church.

Hm, the Strang man and that whole deal seems unqie also. Ug, decisions:|. What is there to prove about this man? I looked on wikipedia about him and he had a thing to do with the Morman Church.
Here is what I know.
He was from New York, had 4 kids and 2 wives, and yes, he was Mormon.
In 1850 he was proclaimed as king of Beaver Island.
He was assassinated in 1856.
He was born baptist in NY in 1813, in a very very religeous area known as "The Burned Over District" due to its fiery and frequent religeos revivals.
He studied law, joined the Mormon church, was appointed an elder, and was sent by Joseph smith (a mormon preacher) to investigate a site for a new all-Mormon community.
when Smith was assassinated in 1844 Strang claimed to be his theocratic heir but later broke off to lead a new community in Illinois. Later he chose Beaver Island in 1847 to become his religeos communities "Garden of Eden" and was proclaimed King by his followers, which was somewhat legal in that time, though I do not know the specifics or the loopholes used.
His power was absolute. He published a newpaper for the island that covered everything from European happenings to farming on the island.
He was elected twice to the Michigan Legislature in Lansing.
He wrote reports for the Smithsonian, played violin and was an amature military strategist.
By the end of his life he had 5 wives and over a dozen children.
And he kinda looks like Tim Allen in that movie where he and Kirstie Alley hid out as Amish people.

that's about all I can tell you

BTW, head to a library instead of relying on the interent. Most of what you find on the net is repeated crap that has no backings to it. tghere is no substitute for a good library for finding information.

There's an ongoing conflict regarding captured flags? I'm not familiar with that. Who is the conflict between?


Or if you really want your paper to be civil War themed. Write it about the on going conflict still between the North and South regarding the captured flags on the Union and Confederacy. there is alot of information on the net about this subject as well and your paper could prove that even after treaties are signed and battles are over that war still looms in the hearts and minds of the truely partiotic and heretic.

Here is what I know.
He was from New York, had 4 kids and 2 wives, and yes, he was Mormon.
In 1850 he was proclaimed as king of Beaver Island.
He was assassinated in 1856.
He was born baptist in NY in 1813, in a very very religeous area known as "The Burned Over District" due to its fiery and frequent religeos revivals.
He studied law, joined the Mormon church, was appointed an elder, and was sent by Joseph smith (a mormon preacher) to investigate a site for a new all-Mormon community.
when Smith was assassinated in 1844 Strang claimed to be his theocratic heir but later broke off to lead a new community in Illinois. Later he chose Beaver Island in 1847 to become his religeos communities "Garden of Eden" and was proclaimed King by his followers, which was somewhat legal in that time, though I do not know the specifics or the loopholes used.
His power was absolute. He published a newpaper for the island that covered everything from European happenings to farming on the island.
He was elected twice to the Michigan Legislature in Lansing.
He wrote reports for the Smithsonian, played violin and was an amature military strategist.
By the end of his life he had 5 wives and over a dozen children.
And he kinda looks like Tim Allen in that movie where he and Kirstie Alley hid out as Amish people.

that's about all I can tell you

I am having trouble on what to "prove" about this man without making my thesis sound like im just stating a historical fact. ug:(

How does this sound?

After the death of Joseph Smith, the Mormon Church leader, a considerable predecessor named James Strang, the first renowned King in America of a Lake Michigan Island, led a peculiar new movement to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

-To many "of"s?

There's an ongoing conflict regarding captured flags? I'm not familiar with that. Who is the conflict between?
The conflict is about the return of captured flags, and is very interesting, one southerner can be quoted as saying "I would rather see the flags rot in the South than be perserved in the land of Lincoln".

In 1887 Grover cleveland's secretary of war, William Endicott, suggested that it would be a "graceful gesture" for the federal government to return the Confederate battle flags gathering dust in the attic of the War Department to their original states. Cleveland initially agrees but the outrage stirred up among the Union veterans who got wind of it caused the president to change his mind, leaving the disposition of the flags to congress, who did nothing about it. In 1905 president Roosevelt passed a bill authorizing the Sec. of War to dispose of the Civil War flags in the posession of the War Department and this act is a key component in the debate over who owns the flags today, because although the document is available for all to read, different parties dispute its meaning, and to this day they are still arguing over its meaning.

from my recallection, I know that the re-enactors of the 28th Virginia Regiment are involved, so are parties in Mississippi, Kentucky, Alabama, and Georgia.
As well as Illinois, New York, and Ohio.

I don't know much more beyond that, at least I don't know what is fact from fiction and would hate to lead you on.

How does this sound?

After the death of Joseph Smith, the Mormon Church leader, a considerable predecessor named James Strang, the first renowned King in America of a Lake Michigan Island, led a peculiar new movement to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

-To many "of"s?

I don't know if there are too many "of"s, but the Latter Day saints thing is taking it a bit too far ;)
I think his sect of the Mormon church was not recognized by the actual Church itself, kind of like the Ku-Klux Klan and the Knights Templar

Hmmm. Alright thanks for that tip.

I guess "led a peculiar new movement stretching off the Morman Church." might sound a bit better.

I'm not sure if I can use this idea anymore...The guidlanes state it has to be something the U.S government had a big part in. Hm.

Entirely new tack to consider - Thesis: The existence, survival and rapid growth of the United States of America in its first 40 years was due at least as much to France and its policies as to American efforts. Points of discussion: (1) active French intervention in the Revolutionay War and the existence of the Napoleonic Wars which precluded England from committing more resources to the War of 1812; (2) the Louisiana Purchase, which fell into Jefferson's lap because Napoleon first wrested much of the territory from Spain and then needed $$$ to finance his wars. You can probably come up with other examples. Also, the US government was, by definition, heavily involved in all of this.

This is exactly the sort of thing that cause historians to get their rocks off.

How about this - that Little Ollie North and Poindexter's antics in Nicarauga and Costa Rica caused the USA to lose much influence - and Oliver North is reputed to have sown Mines in the Guanacaste province of Costa Rica as an attempt to drag a country with no military into a fight with its Northern Neighbor.

Oliver North and Poindexter have both been banned from Costa Rica for life by the way.

You could write about how the North won the war (proof is slavery is now illegal except in fast food restaurants).

proving some event that the U.S was apart of

I'm still having some trouble with this statement. History simply is... what do you have to prove? That the US was part of the event???

Or as some of the good suggestions you've received suggest, that you have to prove the ramifications of the US participation in that event?
- that's more political science than history, really

For instance - you don't need 6 pages to PROVE that WW II happened or that the US was part of it; how many people doubt WW II happened or that the US participated?
- however, you could postulate that the US entry into the war signaled the end of the Axis success.
- or you could postulate and try to prove that D-day was not, in effect, the major counter stroke of the European theater and had very little effect at all on the Germans; that they were already spent and would have lost anyway (good luck on this one!)
- or you could take Iran's position and claim that the Jewish genocide never happened during WW II. That it was all a massive psyops (psychologicl operation) campaign to turn world opinion against the Nazis and isolate them, thereby making the Allies task of defeating them easier. (good luck on this one, too!)

You don't need 6 pages to prove that WW I trench warfare was ineffectual and brutal nor that the US particiapted, eventually, in WW I
- however, you could say that the US isolationist position delayed its entry into the conflict thereby prolonging things at the cost of untold lives and money.

There are an unlimited number of historical topics you could chose from, none of which need proving, but have great outcomes to analyze.... So again, what, exactly, is the point of this historical paper??

I'm still having some trouble with this statement. History simply is... what do you have to prove? That the US was part of the event???

Or as some of the good suggestions you've received suggest, that you have to prove the ramifications of the US participation in that event?
- that's more political science than history, really

For instance - you don't need 6 pages to PROVE that WW II happened or that the US was part of it; how many people doubt WW II happened or that the US participated?
- however, you could postulate that the US entry into the war signaled the end of the Axis success.
- or you could postulate and try to prove that D-day was not, in effect, the major counter stroke of the European theater and had very little effect at all on the Germans; that they were already spent and would have lost anyway (good luck on this one!)
- or you could take Iran's position and claim that the Jewish genocide never happened during WW II. That it was all a massive psyops (psychologicl operation) campaign to turn world opinion against the Nazis and isolate them, thereby making the Allies task of defeating them easier. (good luck on this one, too!)

You don't need 6 pages to prove that WW I trench warfare was ineffectual and brutal nor that the US particiapted, eventually, in WW I
- however, you could say that the US isolationist position delayed its entry into the conflict thereby prolonging things at the cost of untold lives and money.

There are an unlimited number of historical topics you could chose from, none of which need proving, but have great outcomes to analyze.... So again, what, exactly, is the point of this historical paper??

Well for instance the opinated statement, thesis I guess, could be like "In WWII, the atom bomb was dropped that killed thousands of people; however, this event was uncalled for and inhumane."..so you have to add your own opinion and prove why it was not humane.

The thesis was due today, and I stuck with what I think I can mostly get across extremely well, which why flight 77 may have not hit the pentagon. I really wanted to go with Coyote's or pj'7s ideas, but I felt I can best do a job on 9.11. :o

:eek:

Oh, so this isn't history... you're writing fiction?

Should have gone with the holocaust fiction theory. Or that we knew about Pearl Harbor but wanted it to happen. Or that the moon landing was faked.

Have fun with that... but know your audience. Your teacher may be someone who knew someone in the Pentagon that day in which case you couldn't prove your theory in 6000 pages.

:eek:

Oh, so this isn't history... you're writing fiction?
I should write a book on all the fiction the government states. It would be a novel:) :eek:

I'm still having some trouble with this statement. History simply is... what do you have to prove?
You would never survive five minutes in academia (meaning as a prof or prof-wannabe). Lord knows you would never make it on a history faculty dominated by Marxists. Take that as a compliment - it measn you can function in the real world.

What this instructor is doing, in a somewhat ham-handed way, is trying to get the students to apply the scientific method to historical analysis, which is not only possible, but gets you about as close as you can get to writing value-neutral history. The point is to advance a hypothesis, research the available facts, and test the hyposhesis against the facts to see if it holds up. Ultimately, that requires historical writing (or sociological writing, or biological writing, etc.,) that is argumentative (as in arguing for a particular conclusion) rather than just regurgitating a bunch of factual information that may or may not be connected.

Here's an example. "The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor." True statement. Also not worthy of a research paper. Why did the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor? Did we push the Japanese into bombing Pearl Harbor? Did FDR have foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor and let it happen in order to get us into WWII? Those are questions worthy of a research paper, and ones that require marshalling available data, data that, in many instances, can lead reasonable minds to very different conclusions.

That, I suspect, is the kind of analysis that the OP's instructor is trying to get his/her students to perform. I would rather the instructor had said "state a conclusion and support it with appropriate historical information" rather than asking the students to "prove" something, but learning to do the independent thinking and fact-gathering necessary is more important than the semantics. If more people would employ their brains in this sort of way more often, we would hear a lot less blather along the lines of "the Holocaust never happened."

... or that a plane never hit the Pentagon.

I agree with your last two paragraphs and mostly with your second. The first... remains to be seen. I have a Master's in a historical based and political field. So, my question was kind of loaded. He's being tasked to write a political or social or strategic or something not a historical paper. Sure, he's got to prove it with historical facts that support his analysis of his hypothesis but does that make it a history paper?

I mean, in theory, he could write a "history" paper about what the US should do in Iraq, based on the history of Vietnam.

Anyway, semantics, I guess. Just bugs me a bit that teachers aren't that clear about what they're asking their students to do.

As for Marxists... no, I doubt I'd survive long at all.

As for Marxists... no, I doubt I'd survive long at all.
Yeah, you are far too intellectually honest to survive in an "it's all about subjegating the Masses" reductionist department. It's the academic equivalent of "I've made up my mind - don't confuse me with facts." I saw way too much of it in college.

Here it is:
This is a proof paper, in other words, this paper is a mixture of your own ideas supported by established evidence written by other authors. You will take a position on a topic, then defend that position and back it up using the information you will find in outside sources (books, journals, magazines, newspapers or internet).
Topic: You are to select an event in US History. You should choose an event that you have an opinion about with respect to the US’s involvement. (Some examples of questions that you should have an opinion on could be: should the US have been involved, were the motives for US involvement worthy of involvement) You will be expected to include the following:

Introduce topic and what your opinion is that you will be attempting to prove or defend

Give a BRIEF explanation of the event (1 paragraph)

Defend your opinion, backing it up with sources. (most of the paper)

Conclude by summing up your opinion and what your defense was.