Historians Unite! I Need Help With a Paper...

[Nowhere Man]

Hey guys,
I need some help coming up with a thesis topic for a paper. I am mulling over a few topics that I'm thinking about writing.

Topic A: The VA. and KY. Resolutions and how they may tie into states rights advocates duIring the nullification crisis. I need people other than Calhoun

Topic B: The Democratic-Republic Party and how it began sectionalism in the US.

Topic C: The War of 1812: How it finalized Anerica's Independence.

The thing is, I have to have an argument, I'm not sure if it needs to be original or not. I'm also not sure if any of those arguments are original, though I doubt they are. Second, it needs to be a narrow topic that be covered in 12-15 pages. So, any sugesstions? Also, it has to be between 1790-1850.

Any help would be apriciated.

 

[Captain Ice]

I don't think you can adequately cover C in 15 pages as it's just too broad.

b looks like a good choice though.

 

[Crusher Disciple]

How long is the paper? How many sources do you have to cite? How long does the bibliography have to be?

The larger/ more general you make the topic, the more difficult it will be to write it coherntly. I know writing a 7/10 page paper (if you're an undergrad) may sound like it's daunting, but it's really not that bad.

Make it as specific as possible. You can write about how the VA/ KY Resolutions affected a particular lawmaker.

I know it's not one of your topics, but if you were to, say write about how Andrew Jackson's Indian Removal Act affected Davey Crockett you'd have gobs of stuff to fill 10 pages. If you were to just go with a general topic like how it affected all southern congressmen, it would get too general and go all over the place. Annoying the CRAP out of the person grading it.

Once in college, a girl wrote a brilliant paper on Toni Morrison's use of sugar as a metaphor in her novels. Girl got an A+ for the topic.

CD,
BA English
MA History

 

[Nowhere Man]

I don't think you can adequately cover C in 15 pages as it's just too broad.

b looks like a good choice though.

That's where I am leaning.

How long is the paper? How many sources do you have to cite? How long does the bibliography have to be?

The larger/ more general you make the topic, the more difficult it will be to write it coherntly. I know writing a 7/10 page paper (if you're an undergrad) may sound like it's daunting, but it's really not that bad.

Make it as specific as possible. You can write about how the VA/ KY Resolutions affected a particular lawmaker.

I know it's not one of your topics, but if you were to, say write about how Andrew Jackson's Indian Removal Act affected Davey Crockett you'd have gobs of stuff to fill 10 pages. If you were to just go with a general topic like how it affected all southern congressmen, it would get too general and go all over the place. Annoying the CRAP out of the person grading it.

Once in college, a girl wrote a brilliant paper on Toni Morrison's use of sugar as a metaphor in her novels. Girl got an A+ for the topic.

CD,
BA English
MA History

I have already written about the Indian Removal Act, but not in the way you suggested. It's a thought I will research and consider. The requirements are 12-15 pages, no specific source requirements,but it must be reasonable I guess.

I think topic B may be my best bet, I'm still in the brainstorming phase.

 

[Admiral Shran]

If you go with Topic A, I highly suggest this book....

http://www.amazon.com/Nullification...8U2U/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1329034129&sr=8-1

It has gobs of information on that subject, not to mention the actual documents themselves and several accompanying documents from that time period.

 

[Nowhere Man]

^ That looks like an interesting book, I'm not sure if it'll tie into the timeline I'm looking for. I'm also not sure if I'll be able to find it in the library. It's definitely a topic that I would love to cover though. The problem with those resolutions is that while Jeferson and Madison did write them, no other state agreed with them, so it's kind of a moot point. I do think there is a case to be made though that the authors of our two most precious documents couldn't have been completely wrong. Perhaps it is worth considering going forward?

 

[Admiral Shran]

Well, it is true that at the time no states besides Virginia and Kentucky agreed with them. The Resolutions were originally used against the Alien and Sedition Acts of the John Adams Administration and most of the states, especially the New England ones, agreed with those acts.

However, just ten years later, it was those very New England states that were invoking Jefferson and Madison's resolutions in their opposition to the War of 1812.

The book covers all of those events in pretty good detail, as well as other events which tie into them.

You should definitely give it a look.

 

[Nowhere Man]

^ This is true about the Hartford Convention, you may be onto something. I will look for this book in the library, if I can't find it, maybe I'll just buy it. Ten bucks is not so bad, it looks interesting and something I care about anyway.

The question I need to figure out is why the southern states didn't agree with the resolutions? If I can answer that, I can probably come up with a good thesis. Perhaps, how the VA. & KY. Resolutions created the notion of states rights in the early republic. It's a working title.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

It's worth noting that the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions didn't say the same thing. The Kentucky Resolution was much more radical and argued nullification. The Virginia Resolution argued "Interposition," which was essentially glorified bitching. If you read the rest of James Madison's work, he was actually mostly in favor of courts making the final decision on constitutionality instead of states, the executive, or Congress. The reason might have been a pragmatic one. Look up Madisonian Departmentalism if you want more info.

Still, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions might have been more importantly for what they represented rather than what they said. Like Magna Carta, which was essentially a declaration giving rights to 20 people but came to represent fundamental English liberty. In that sense, it would make more sense to look backwards from Calhoun and his interpretation of the document rather than forward from the document itself. Calhounian theories found their culmination in Dred Scott v. Sanford, though, so it's an ugly history. It's also a somewhat anachronistic interpretation if you actually look at the convention and federalist papers.

But if you have 15 pages, perhaps I'm broadening it too much.

 

[Nowhere Man]

^ Dude, I almost PM'd you because I really wanted your opinion, no offense to everyone else. I just don't know you that well. Anyway, I'm glad you found this thread.

I think arguing backwards from Calhoun would certianly work better. My professor suggested that might be hard to do and she suggested finding people other than just Calhoun.

Really, I'm leaning on topic B.

Thanks for the help.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Calhoun was the most vocal. I'll see if I have the random stack of papers that was my last class on this subject and whether there are others mentioned. But, yeah, I would include the Hartford Convention and what they said about nullification. Really, the broader issue is the "State Compact" theory of the Constitution.

It's also worth trying to find out how strongly Jefferson and Madison held onto this view in their later years. Both Presidents did unpopular actions that had various states opposed. The Embargo Act is an example. I'm curious if anyone suggested nullification and whether Jefferson responded or not.

 

[Nowhere Man]

Well, I know that Madison edited his papers later on and was practically obsessed with protecting his legacy. Can you say that he changed his mind or was he simply just trying to change how people viewed him. The majority of his political career suggests that he believed in these things for most of his life.

I would say that Jefferson was even more staunch on his positions and was very fearful of an over reaching federal government run a muck.

I have been doing some digging and ran across several newspapers as well as state responses to the resolutions and while they disagree with them, they do use the word compact when referring to the Constitution. Madison and Jefferson do use the term I'm certain.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

He actually suggest Madisonian Departmentalism early in the Jefferson administration. There were also earlier speeches he made on the floor of the House suggesting similar thoughts. That's the reason his argument in the Virginia Papers was so moderate. He essentially said that, if a State sees something unconstitutional, they should yell and scream and hope the people will elect someone else. He suggested that the courts would be best suited to overturn unconstitutional laws, but you also have Congress acting by refusing to vote for such a law and the President acting by vetoing it.

 

[Admiral Shran]

I'm pretty sure the New England states were throwing around ideas of nullifying Jefferson's Embargo Act, as they were disproportionally harmed by it, even before the Hartford Convention.

I could be wrong, however, as I don't know if Jefferson himself responded.

 

[Nowhere Man]

He actually suggest Madisonian Departmentalism early in the Jefferson administration. There were also earlier speeches he made on the floor of the House suggesting similar thoughts. That's the reason his argument in the Virginia Papers was so moderate. He essentially said that, if a State sees something unconstitutional, they should yell and scream and hope the people will elect someone else. He suggested that the courts would be best suited to overturn unconstitutional laws, but you also have Congress acting by refusing to vote for such a law and the President acting by vetoing it.

From what I understand, the resolutions were passed around to the states in hopes that they would agree and adopt the policy . That didn't happen and instead they responded by agreeing with Adams. Anyway, it seems that topic C is out and topic A may be a little hard to prove or trace. I really want to do topic A, but B seems a little more realistic. I still got another week or two to brainstorm, so I guess more research would help. Someone else suggested looking at Henry Clay as well as Calhoun.