The uncertainties in my paper lie in 2 main areas:
1. Propositioning a good counter arguement after a main point. An example would be how in my paper, I talk about the language and harshness of the tone Andrew Jackson uses in the Indian Removal Act of 1830. I also talk about the bills ramifications towards Native Americans and how there is a huge anti-sematism towards them. The counter-argument that I offer is that both the Congress and President Jackson were very likely looking out for the Cherokee Indians' best interest.
2. Ending the paper. Unfortunately, I am unsure of how this paper will end. I have the culmination of all the events leading up to and into the Trail of Tears and the steady decline of American Politics into said event. I am wondering whether I could simply reiterate the main strong points of argument, refute main counter points, then simply conclude with my ending opinion.
You could explain the history of Federal American Indian law in the United States, in the context of starting with Johnson v. M'Intosh (1823) up to the Removal Act. That would provide a more precise analysis of the paradigm that led to and supported the Trail of Tears...
ReplyDeleteI would put my counter arguments together instead of right after one argument. I think if you went back in forth from argument to counter it might cause the reader to think everything you argue is easily arguable. That's just my take on it though, others may like that organization
ReplyDelete1: You don't have to offer a counter argument for every statement you make. You could explain the counter points in a seperate paragraph following your key points?
ReplyDelete2: What made you want to write about this topic? Explain your feelings on the subject with the support of your research. Don't spend to much time refuting your own opinion. It may mislead the reader.
1. As Calum and Ray pointed out, you don't have to offer a counterargument for every point and it doesn't have to be presented as point-counterpoint, point-counterpoint; however, I think thoroughly addressing and analyzing the other side in your paper (however organized) would be very beneficial and help keep your paper geared more toward being argumentative than solely a research paper. For that example, you could cite sources that claim/show Jackson was looking out for the Cherokees and then dissect Jackson's language to prove this wasn't the case.
ReplyDelete2. Summing up for a final conclusion would work, but maybe consider adding a new perspective? For instance, maybe put your conclusions in a broader context. What does this mean for history in general? The subjectivity of all events? Can you tie this analysis to the present day or future?