Winslow Homer, The Veteran in a New Field, 1865, Metropolitan Museum of Art

Fall 2016 HIST 3750 MWF 1:30-2:20 pm

Professor Daniel J. McInerney

-- LEARNING OUTCOMES -- Course work in HIST 3750 develops: -historical knowledge, focusing on key events from 1846-77, questions of change over time, and the significance of race, region, labor, and political ideology in national events -historical thinking, especially in terms of the past-ness of the past -- and competing interpretations of historical events -historical skills, particularly in critical reading and thinking -- and in the construction of reasonable, verifiable historical arguments

-- OVERVIEW OF HIST 3750 --

The course examines critical events in the U.S. from 1846-1877, from the outbreak of the Mexican War to the restoration of "home rule" in the South. The focus rests on:

-the roots of sectional conflict -the course, conduct, and consequences of war -the efforts to reconstruct the nation

The class does not focus exclusively (or primarily) on military issues. Political, social, economic, cultural, and military perspectives on the period all play a role in the course. On all topics, I present a dual perspective: an "outer" historical view (chronological, descriptive, and evaluative in nature) and an "inner" examination (analyzing the ideas, values, anxieties, and expectations of the historical players themselves). In other words, I will explore how we understand these individuals and how they understood themselves.

-- FOR WHOM IS THIS COURSE DESIGNED? -- Course lectures, readings, and exercises are designed for junior and senior history majors who:

- have completed the History Department’s pre-major, - have taken HIST 2700 or 2710 and have a sufficient general background in American history, - have university-level experience with critical historical thinking, - are prepared for advanced reading and writing assignments, and - have taken ENGL 2010

Office: Main 323 Office Hours: M W F 9:30 - 10:30 am [I will meet with students outside of regular office hours if you make an appointment beforehand.]

Phone: 797.1283 E-mail: daniel.mcinerney@usu.edu (please include a specific “SUBJ” line)

The Civil War and

Reconstruction

2

While I appreciate the deep interest so many students have in events surrounding the Civil War, this is not a course for beginners in university-level historical studies. It is not a course for those who need remedial help in history, reading, or writing. HIST 3750 is a course for those with considerable familiarity in U.S. history who can explore events from multiple perspectives, carry out complex, critical analyses of primary and secondary sources, and write clearly and effectively on both exams and papers. Practically speaking, that means the course is designed for students who: -have completed the History pre-major; -do not need a “refresher” course on American history from 1776-1846; -can tackle reading assignments on their own, without lectures or guidance from me; -have an experienced, disciplined, and sophisticated understanding of university-level writing assignments and essay exams; -know how to handle a complex writing assignment in advanced historiographical thinking; -understand completely the University’s codes on plagiarism and academic honesty

SPECIAL NOTE In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, class material can be made available in braille, large print, and audio format upon request.

REQUIRED BOOKS FOR THE COURSE

COMPONENTS OF FINAL GRADE Three exercises provide the basis for your grade: 1. Mid-term exam; covers first half of lectures PLUS first half of Foner (Chs. 1-5): 30% of final grade; Monday, October 17 2. Historiographical essay: (see pages 10-14) 35% of final grade; due on Wednesday, November 9 3. Final exam: covers second half of lectures PLUS second half of Foner (Chs. 6-

Epilogue) PLUS Faust’s book: 35% of final grade; Monday, December 12 at 9:30 am

This Republic of Suffering: Death and the American Civil War

by Drew Gilpin Faust (Harvard)

The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery

by Eric Foner (W.W.Norton)

3

GENERAL GUIDELINES

Readings: I do not use a textbook in this class. I assume students have already taken the American history survey and used a text in that class. Beyond that, I assume you have enrolled in an upper-division course, in part, to move beyond textbook accounts of the past. I will frequently distribute maps, tables, and outlines that provide much of the factual material a text would supply.

Assigned readings represent part of the independent work you will do in the class. Assignments are meant to display your own ability to understand, organize, and analyze arguments. I do not have formal lectures scheduled for the works by Foner and Faust, and I do not announce day-to-day assignments in the books. This syllabus provides reading guides and due dates. You take it from there. But feel free to speak with me about the assigned works whenever a problem or question arises.

Exams: Tests are all-essay. • Mid-term exam: Monday, Oct. 17th • Final exam: Monday, Dec. 12th, 9:30 am (Do not leave for winter break any earlier than this date; no alternate dates for the final)

Policy on make-up exams A make-up exam will be given ONLY for an urgent, compelling, and documented medical reason (or for students on documented University business). See me immediately about this absence, providing written verification of the medical reason for your absence. NOTE: A phone message or e-mail won’t do; you must see me personally and have documentation for your absence. No proof? No test. Make-up essay exams will be more difficult than the regularly-scheduled exam. There is ONE day and ONE time for all make-ups: Friday, Dec. 2, 3:30-4:30 pm (Students eligible to take a make-up will be informed of the time and place.)

Incompletes: An "I" is given only for special, extenuating circumstances, NOT for

poor performance. Please refer to University and student handbooks. Evaluation of essay exams and historiographical essay What counts on an essay exam or paper? What makes for an “A” paper? Why might an assignment receive a “B,” “C,” “D,” or “F”? The explanation of “what counts” on your written exercises appears on subsequent pages of the syllabus, where you will find “learning outcomes” rubrics.

The “rubric” is a scoring guide that outlines the criteria used to evaluate your written work in the class – in terms of (1) historical knowledge, (2) historical thinking, and (3) historical skills. (The rubrics are also tied to the “learning mastery” evaluations you will see in Canvas.) Your essay exams and historiographical essay will be judged in each area of the rubric, and the form will be stapled to work when it is returned. Familiarize yourself with the standards and expectations established for the course’s written exercises. (The form on pages 5 and 6 shows the rubric for your first essay exam. A rubric for the historiographical essay appears on pages 13 and 14.)

4

Historiographical essay: The paper will compare and contrast the interpretive approaches and conclusions that a group of research scholars have presented on a controversial topic touching on the Civil War and Reconstruction. Full details (and an evaluative rubric) appear on pages 10-14.

Attendance: Make an informed decision for yourself about class attendance. Regular attendance allows you to follow the content and context of lecture material. It helps you develop listening and note-taking skills. There is another advantage. Regular attendance demonstrates that you have made an effort in the class, something I bear in mind at the end of the semester especially for those with a borderline average. No one is penalized for poor attendance; but the infrequent classroom visitor should not count on any special consideration at grade time. I do not provide notes for those who miss class.

Academic honesty: I expect students to abide by USU’s policies on academic honesty and integrity: http://catalog.usu.edu/content.php?catoid=12&navoid=3140 Review this statement of University policy on cheating, falsification, and plagiarism.

5

HIST 3750: Civil War & Reconstruction Name __________________________________ Learning Outcomes Rubric for essay exam I Date __________________________________

LEARNING OUTCOME

HISTORICAL HISTORICAL KNOWLEDGEKNOWLEDGE

Excellent mastery 15-14

Good mastery 13-12

Some mastery 11

Minimal mastery 10-9

No mastery 8-0

Historical soundness of the argument (student demonstrates an understanding of the key historical events related to the question) lecture __________ Foner __________ 15% of grade

-statements are correct, verifiable, and precise -clear chronological understanding of events -complex grasp of causation -analyzes a range of factors shaping the sequence and outcome of events -reflects on larger themes informing specific events

-sound chronological framework -good grasp of causation -omits some key informing factors shaping events -proposes a sufficient range of major themes

-some factual or chronological errors -weak causal analysis -narrow range of informing factors in the discussion -little discussion of broader themes

-many chronological errors -simplistic causal analysis -few informing factors tied to the discussion -thin discussion of wider themes

-multiple factual or chronological errors -essay explores its subject in a historical vacuum with little commentary on causation and larger themes

Pertinence of the argument lecture __________ Foner __________ 15% of grade

-all of the material in the essay directly relates to — and fully covers — the central issues posed in the question

-some parts of the essay digress from the central focus of the question -good coverage of the historical material relevant to the question

-several parts of the essay digress from the central focus of the question -fair coverage of the historical material relevant to the question (gaps in evidence)

-many parts of the essay digress from the central focus of the question -major omissions of historical material relevant to the question

-material offered in the essay has no discernible bearing on the question asked -no coverage of the historical material relevant to the question

HISTORICAL HISTORICAL THINKINGTHINKING

Excellent mastery 40-36

Good mastery 35-32

Some mastery 31-28

Minimal mastery 27-24

No mastery 23-0

Explanation of the argument (student responds to historical questions in a thoughtful, critical manner) lecture __________ Foner __________ 40% of grade

-full explanation of the problem under review -essay defines and explores key terms / concepts / issues / ideas related to the question -situates issues within their distinctive historical context -essay clarifies the significance of the issue under review by answering the “why” and “because” questions -essay reflects the complexity and depth of the material under review

-some key parts of the historical issue omitted -most key terms defined -some effort at contextualizing the question -some gaps as the essay explores the meaning and significance of major issues -at some points, critiques either inappropriate or unsubstantiated

-several key terms left undefined -vagueness in response -essay mentions (but does not explain) key issues -weak contextualization -significance of the material presented remains unclear -critiques often unfair, irrelevant, or misinformed

-key terms often undefined -broad, sweeping, imprecise statements -little to no explanation of key issues -little to no discussion of wider context of events -essay raises more questions than it answers -critiques commonly unfair, irrelevant, or misinformed.

-omission of key information -omission of key explanations -fails to analyze issues within their distinctive historical context -critiques misplaced, inappropriate, or ahistorical

6

LEARNING OUTCOME

HISTORICAL HISTORICAL SKILLSSKILLS

Excellent mastery 15-14

Good mastery 13-12

Some mastery 11

Minimal mastery 10-9

No mastery 8-0

Organization of the argument lecture __________ Foner __________ 15% of grade

-argument unfolds through a logical sequence of points -statements made in a straightforward, understandable, and persuasive manner -structure of the argument is sound, understandable, and appropriate to the project.

-good organizational skills, though some parts of the essay move in unexpected directions -line of argument generally clear

-difficult to detect a logical sequence of the points in the essay -material presented in a scattershot fashion, making it hard to follow the line of argument

-confusing and puzzling sequence of points raised in the argument -difficult to determine the meaning, appropriateness, or significance of the material offered

-organization of argument remains incomprehen-sible, moving in perplexing or random directions

Mechanics of the argument lecture __________ Foner __________ 15% of grade

Essay written using -complete sentences -well-formed paragraphs -proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation.

-occasional errors in spelling, punctuation, grammar, sentence, and paragraph construction; not severe enough to hinder an understanding of the essay’s main points

-numerous errors in spelling, punctuation, grammar, sentence, and paragraph construction make some sections of the essay unintelligible

-repeated errors in spelling, punctuation, grammar, sentence, and paragraph construction make several sections of the essay unintelligible

-problems in spelling, punctuation, grammar, sentence, and paragraph construction so severe as to make the essay unintelligible -(or material presented in outline -- rather than essay –form)

Pts. for lecture essay ____X 60% =_____ Pts. for Foner essay ____X 40% = _____ TOTAL pts. ______

100-90 points: “A” range 100-97: A+; 96-93: A; 92-90: A- 89-80 points: “B” range 89-87; B+; 86-83: B; 82-80: B- 79-70 points: “C” range 79-77: C+; 76-73: C; 72-70: C- 69-60 points: “D” range 69-67: D+; 66-63: D; 62-60: D- 59- 0 points: “F” range

LETTER GRADE:

7

READING GUIDE FOR FONER, THE FIERY TRIAL The issue of change over time rests at the center of historical analysis. We are all aware, from the circumstances of our individual lives, how alterations in experience occur in a continuous, unexpected, convoluted, and complex fashion. Yet, when it comes to recounting the events of the nation’s past, how often are we tempted to explain the story in a simple, straightforward, linear, unidirectional manner?

A common example of the over-simplification of historical analysis occurs in popular constructions of Lincoln’s life and the seemingly clear-cut, self-evident, “inevitable” way in which he played out the roles of emancipator, redeemer, and savior of enslaved peoples. Professor Eric Foner tries to dispel these naïve readings of Lincoln’s life and career in his Pulitzer-prize winning work, The Fiery Storm. At the center of Foner’s thesis is the argument that Lincoln lived through complex, varying, and evolving sets of ideas about slavery, race, liberty, and equality. He was an individual shaped and altered by his family, his communities, his personal convictions, his loyalties, his ambitions, and his constantly- changing society. The aim of the book is “to return Lincoln to his historical setting” (xvii) and to remove him from an imagined, mythological body of assumptions.

Foner examines Lincoln in a wide range of contexts: as a private man and as a public person; as a lawyer and as a politician; as a person of character and conviction and as a person determined to be successful; as an individual who took care with what he chose to say as well as what he chose not to say. In particular, Foner does an exceptionally fine job of explaining the complex interplay of race, slavery, and freedom. It may seem difficult to imagine from the perspective of the 21st century, but many antislavery proponents in 19th- century American came to their project with deeply-held convictions about a fixed, hierarchical relation between presumably superior whites and inferior blacks. Liberty for slaves did not necessarily presume equality for the freedmen. Readers will discover that Lincoln’s views were enmeshed in these complex and seemingly contradictory ideas.

Your reading for the first half of the semester extends from Chapters 1 through 5, (February 1809 - April 1861). As you go through the chapters, stay focused on the forces, ideas, and circumstances that shaped Lincoln’s thinking about slavery from his childhood through his electoral victory and early political crises. Pay particular attention to the wide range of factors that Foner takes into account: Lincoln’s family, local communities, economic conditions, cultural prejudices, laws, law practice, reform debates, party politics (& realignment), political heroes and influences, office-holding, public addresses, external crises, campaign strategies, inner-party struggles, electoral calculations, and secession. Throughout Foner’s complex and rich analysis, bear in mind several core issues: the nature of Lincoln’s concerns about slavery; key turning points in his outlook; steps taken that expanded or altered his focus; consistencies in Lincoln’s arguments; changes in his arguments.

Your reading in the second half of the semester (Chapters 6-Epilogue, April 1861 - April 1865) will explore the multiple events, dilemmas, and reflections that continued the evolving story of Abraham Lincoln’s perceptions and proposals concerning the chattel system. More details will follow.

8

READING GUIDE FOR FAUST, THIS REPUBLIC OF SUFFERING The scope of death – and grief – both during and after the Civil War remains on a level unparalleled in U.S. history. Historian Drew Gilpin Faust tries to convey not only the extent of the suffering caused by the war but, more importantly, the profound effect that the loss of 2% of the population had on the values, habits, and outlooks of Americans.

As you will see, the author pulls no punches. Recognize in advance that this will be a very difficult read. The subject matter is quite disturbing and, at times, deeply shocking. There will likely be many points in the argument that are also very moving. Try to maintain your bearings as you move through the study and remain focused on the larger scholarly themes that the author raises.

You will be rewarded with a thoughtful, respectful, and remarkably reflective study. I hope you will come to a greater appreciation of the ways in which the scale – and pervasiveness – of death during the war left Americans both pained and perplexed. Faust will explore how the nation attempted to understand and make sense of the extraordinary losses brought on by the conflict. She will demonstrate how these reflections precipitated major shifts in the beliefs and expectations that Americans held about humanity, society, and the nation itself.

Larger themes and reminders as you read through the work: -Remain focused on the perspective that Faust offers on the issues below; demonstrate your mastery of her arguments. -Reflect on the figurative as well as literal effects of the war’s carnage. -Do not make assumptions about the subject based on modern, 21st-century responses to death. “Presentist” thinking will distort the historical understanding of that Faust tries to convey. -Pay particular attention to the comparisons Faust draws in each section between Union and Confederate histories. -Be attentive, as well, to the racial and gender components of her argument. -Recognize the important consequences that Faust’s subject held for the nature of the nation and governance. (Changed relation of the individual to the nation – and changed relation of the nation to the individual.)

Focus on the following issues explored in the chapters of the study:

Preface:

-“departure from existing preconceptions”: have a clear grasp of the meaning and significance of this issue

-“the work of death”: understand what Faust implies by this phrase 1. Dying: soldiers focused on dying rather than killing

-“the Good Death”: meaning, key elements, significance, and implications of this concept in mid-nineteenth century culture (the ideal and the reality)

2. Killing: shift from first chapter – concentrating here on killing rather than dying

-the “work” of killing” -conceptualizing killing -the technology of killing -“intimacy” of the fighting: relation to the battlefield itself -dehumanization of the enemy: issue of race; considering “equality” -scale of death

9

3. Burying: handling and comprehending the body -traditional notions of the body and its “sacred” character -problems faced by a lack of “capacity and preparation” -burial techniques early in the war -ways in which families dealt with the death of a loved one -embalming techniques – and their larger cultural meaning

4. Naming: locating and naming the missing, the dead, and the unknown

-the importance of information (about soldiers and the dead) -sources of information -work and significance of voluntary & philanthropic groups -Confederate efforts to systematize the collection of information entrepreneurial and individual efforts

5. Realizing: the history of mourning

-threats and dangers faced by civilians -responding to the horror through denial -the rituals of mourning: dress; behavior; funerals; sermons

6. Believing and Doubting: the “crisis of belief” prompted by the experience of war

(reminder: focus on the ways in which Faust analyzes these complex issues) -questions about faith already p[resent in American culture before the war -questions heightened and exacerbated by the experience of war -shifting conceptions of death and heaven -significance of the “spiritualist” movement -contributions of fiction to these debates -questions of theodicy [if you unfamiliar with the term, look it up] -explanations of the war’s carnage

-literary expressions of irony and parody (and “modernity”) -the limits (and failures) of language

7. Accounting: the “claims” of the dead

-Union: evolving sense of obligation to the dead elaboration of federal programs and intervention links to notions of “citizenship” and republican values marking the dead

-Confederacy: responses to similar issues; roles played by Southern women 8. Numbering: quantification of death

-meaning and significance of attempts to number the dead -complications in the process

-bureaucratic problems; military problems -reasons for revisions

-understanding of “the one and the many” -importance Faust sees in this issue

Epilogue: Surviving

-explain the “crisis of knowledge and understanding” precipitated by the war -the revised sense of “national destiny” that Faust discusses

10

HISTORIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY “Historiography” examines the history of histories. The essay you will write focuses on a Civil War/Reconstruction topic that has generated considerable debate among scholarly researchers. It may be best to start by asking yourself a question: what controversial features of the Civil War and Reconstruction have intrigued your own historical curiosity? Is there a scholarly debate you have discovered from other coursework -- or through your own reading – that you like to pursue in greater detail? The historiographical exercise will focus on four key issues: -What is the issue or problem that has generated interpretive disagreement? -What are the different conclusions that different scholars have reached? -How and why have different scholars reached different conclusions? -What approaches to the debate might be most fruitful for future research? The first requirement? You will meet with me in advance during an office hour visit to discuss the topic, theme, or problem you would like to study in the paper. During that discussion, we will develop a plan to define the subject matter, to identify key scholarly sources, and outline the scope of the essay. How many different scholarly accounts should the paper cover? -The paper will analyze the research of 4-5 major scholars. What books and articles are appropriate for the assignment? -You will focus on books published by a selective group of the leading presses in Civil War and Reconstruction studies. This includes a wide range of university presses (such as Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Yale, LSU, UNC, Cornell, Johns Hopkins) as well as major commercial publishers (such as Knopf, Hill & Wang, Routledge, Macmillan, Harper, Norton, Vintage, and others). -You will focus on articles from the major historical journals that address topics in the Civil War and Reconstruction (journals such as Civil War History, Journal of the Civil War Era, Journal of the Early Republic, Journal of Women’s History, Journal of African American History, Southern Historical Quarterly, Journal of American History, American Historical Review, Journal of Military History, War and Society, Diplomatic History) What are some examples of historiographical essays?

Earl J. Hess, “Where Do We Stand?” Civil War History 60, no. 4 (December 2014): 371-403.

Nina Silber, “Reunion and Reconciliation, Reviewed and Reconsidered,” Journal of American History 103, no. 1 (June 2016): 59-83.

Catherine Clinton, “Turning and Turning in the Widening Gyre,” Journal of American History. 96, no.2 (September 2009): 447-450.

Akiko Ochiai, “Reconstruction Historiography and African American Agrarianism in Lowcountry South Carolina,” Journal of American & Canadian Studies 14 (1996): 93-109. NOTE: This is NOT a “book report.” You will not simply summarize the “content” of different books and articles. Don’t even bother handing in a paper like that. Instead, you are going to critically examine the works. You will move well beyond mere “description” to analyze the ways in which the authors have constructed an understanding of particular issues, themes, and concerns.

11

Content of the paper: •Introduction (1.5-2 pages) -Describe the question that has generated historical debate -Identify the key participants in this debate -Provide a concise yet meaningful summation of each scholar’s central argument. •Main body (5-7 pages) -Focus your paper on comparisons and contrasts among the researchers. Examine: -the ways in which they frame the interpretive question -the questions they pose of the material -the flaws or limits they observe in other analyses -how they “locate” or position themselves within the interpretive debate -the source materials authors use -the interpretive methods they employ -the theoretical and methodological contexts in which the authors frame their argument -the contexts in which they consider the debate -the materials they do not investigate; the questions they do not pursue

Discuss what the authors say about the subject at hand and why they arrive at their conclusions, continually comparing and contrasting the arguments to one another. •Conclusion (0.5-1 page) -Overall, where does the existing scholarship leave us in our understanding of the issue at hand? Is one approach to the debate more useful and appropriate than another? Why? Approach: Explore the questions from the perspectives of the scholarly researchers. In this exercise, there is no need to branch out into the core primary sources to establish your own alternative reading of events. As you can readily understand, the assignment is a sophisticated exercise and not one that can be done quickly. The due date is November 9th. But you will need a considerable amount of time to read, scrutinize, reflect, and comment on a broad range of scholarly writing. Do not do a “rush job.” That will show up in the quality of your writing—and the grade you receive. Due date: Wednesday, November 9, 9:30 am, submitted online through Canvas. Length: 9-10 pages (1 page = 250-270 words) Appearance checklist: __ use 12-point Times New Roman font; __ double-space your text; __ create one-inch margins; __ insert page numbers; __ use the “endnotes” function in Word (insert > footnote > endnotes > number format [Arabic numerals]); __ as you complete the paper, use your spelling and grammar checker and carefully proofread your work. Stylistic notes: The paper's focus rests on key historians and major interpretive debates -- not on you. Do not use the words "I," "me," "my," "mine" (or “you,” “we,” “us”) in the paper. You will lose two points every time these words appear in your paper.

12

Penalties for late submission: -Papers submitted from 9:31 am to 4 pm Wednesday (11/9). . . . . . . penalized 1 full letter grade -Papers submitted from 4 pm Wednesday – 4 pm Thursday (11/10) . penalized 2 full letter grades -Papers submitted from 4 pm Thursday – 4 pm Friday (11/11) . . . . . .penalized 3 full letter grades -No submissions accepted after 4 pm Friday, November 11 Citations: You must cite your source: (1) when making a direct quotation, AND (2) when making general reference to a part of a work. When quoting or paraphrasing, follow the “Turabian style” for citations (named after author and educator Kate Turabian, this format is based on the Chicago Manual of Style citation format – with slight modifications for student writers.) (Are you majoring in another humanities discipline? See me about the citation format I would like you to use.) Reference guide: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/books/turabian/turabian_citationguide.html Again, use “endnote” format for citations (insert > footnote > endnotes > number format [Arabic numerals]) -Example of Turabian style citation format for a book: 3Steven E. Woodward, This Great Struggle: America’s Civil War (Plymouth, UK: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2011), 151-164. -Example of Turabian style citation format for an article in an online journal: 1Wendell Bird, “Reassessing Responses to the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions: New Evidence from the Tennessee and Georgia Resolutions and from Other States,” Journal of the Early Republic 35, no. 4 (Winter 2015): 521-522, accessed October 29, 2016, http://web.b.ebscohost.com.dist.lib.usu.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/ pdfviewer?vid=3&sid=f5c4bfe7-aa9d-45cb-a7fd-44ffa4a70d08%40sessionmgr2. Use direct quotations sparingly. Make the quotations brief, accurate, and pertinent. Do not pad your essay with excessive quotes. EXPLAIN the quotes you select. Plagiarism: I want your own analysis of the authors’ thoughts, not the analysis of others. ANY evidence of plagiarism (the unacknowledged use of another's words and/or ideas) will result in automatic failure. View the following website for information on plagiarism (particularly pages 8-17): http://www.northwestern.edu/provost/docs/Academic%20Integrity%20Guide%202016.pdf Grading: See the evaluation rubric on the next page.

13

HIST 3750: Historiographical essay Name___________________________________ Learning Outcomes Rubric Date____________________________________

LEARNING OUTCOME

Excellent mastery 10-9.0

Good mastery 8.9-8.0

Some mastery 7.9-7.0

Minimal mastery 6.9-6.0

No mastery 5.9-0

HISTORICAL HISTORICAL KNOWLEDGEKNOWLEDGE

Student demonstrates an understanding of both the context of the central historical question and the construction of historians’ arguments concerning those events 10%

Clear understanding of the core historical question; complex grasp of causation asserted by the authors; analyzes a range of factors raised by the authors that shape the sequence, outcome, and presumed significance of events; situates historical arguments within larger contexts; reflects on broader themes informing specific events.

Sound chronological framework; good grasp of causation asserted by the authors; omits some key informing factors shaping the works; some effort at contextualizing the question; proposes a sufficient range of larger themes.

Some chronological confusion; weak causal analysis; narrow range of informing factors in the discussion; weak contextualization; little discussion of broader themes as defined by the authors.

Many chronological errors; simplistic causal analysis; few informing factors tied to the authors’ distinctive discussions; little to no discussion of wider context of events; thin discussion of wider themes.

Paper explores its subject in a historical vacuum with little commentary on causation, context, and larger themes

HISTORICAL HISTORICAL THINKINGTHINKING

30-27

26-24

23-21

20-18

17-0

Student addresses historical questions in a thoughtful, critical manner 30%

The paper addresses the questions posed in an especially insightful manner; focuses on critical analysis of the sources rather than mere description of contents alone; key terms defined; student clarifies the significance of the questions authors raise; the response is conceptually strong, logically formulated, and precisely stated.

The paper addresses the questions posed in a very informed manner; focus rests largely on critical analysis; key terms usually defined; responses posed with minimal logical flaws in framing of the question; offers evidence for claims.

The paper addresses the questions posed in a reasonable manner; focus shifts between critical analysis and mere description of contents; some key terms left undefined; does not clarify significance of questions; lapses in logical framing of the question; vague, unsupported assertions.

Significance of questions not demonstrated; commentary is largely descriptive rather than analytical; key terms often undefined; central points in the paper are of inappropriate scope or illogically presented; frequently relies on sweeping generalizations

Fails to address key questions; paper offers broad, unsupported generalizations; paper merely descriptive.

Student selects, evaluates, and reflects on secondary sources in an effective and rigorous manner, demonstrating an informed awareness of interpretive differences 30%

Demonstrates close, careful reading from all relevant historiographical traditions; thorough, fair-minded, and informed assessment of historiography, summarizes main ideas clearly and accurately; raises historically legitimate critiques concerning the strengths/weaknesses of the studies.

Demonstrates awareness of the varied perspectives and contexts of secondary sources; employs some verification strategies; sound analysis of sources. At some points, critical analysis remains either inappropriate or misinformed.

Offers partial evaluation of secondary sources; spotty verification; at times departs from authors’ perspective and historical context; not all claims supported by the evidence. Critical analysis often unfair, irrelevant, misinformed, or unsubstantiated

Little evaluation of evaluation sources; no verification; imposes contemporary/ value/inappropriate judgments on others’ historical arguments; sources usually do not support interpretive weight placed upon them. Critical analysis commonly unfair, irrelevant, misinformed, unsubstantiated, or simply disconnected from authors’ analyses.

Demonstrates little to no awareness of need to evaluate, verify, or contextualize secondary sources; “evidence” offered does not support interpretive weight placed upon it; little engagement with authors’ analyses.

14

LEARNING OUTCOME

Excellent mastery 10-9.0

Good mastery 8.9-8.0

Some mastery 7.9-7.0

Minimal mastery 6.9-6.0

No mastery 5.9-0

HISTORICAL HISTORICAL SKILLSSKILLS

Organization of argument 10%

Responses to questions addressed in a succinct and comprehensible manner; clear framework for analyzing the questions; argument unfolds through a logical sequence of points; excellent transitions among paragraphs.

Structure of the argument is sound, understandable, and appropriate to the project. Good transitions.

Difficult to detect a logical sequence to the points raised in the paper. Weak transitions between parts of argument.

Difficult to determine the meaning, appropriateness, or significance of the response. Sequence of points raised in the argument remains episodic, confused, puzzling.

Responses either severely flawed or simply not offered; organization of argument remains incomprehensible

Well-substantiated argument; proper citation of evidence 10%

The writer correctly and thoroughly cites sources for specific arguments.

Usually cites sources; however, some gaps in citation, errors in their construction

Offers partial citation for arguments made in the paper; spotty verification

Offers little to no citation of primary sources; no verification.

Is not aware of need to cite sources.

Mechanics 10%

Spelling, punctuation, grammar all correct; proper sentence and paragraph construction

Occasional errors in spelling, punctuation, grammar, sentence & paragraph construction; not severe enough to hinder an understanding of the paper’s main points.

Weaknesses in spelling, punctuation, grammar, sentence & paragraph construction make sections of the paper unintelligible.

Problems in spelling, punctuation, grammar, sentence & paragraph construction make several sections of the paper unintelligible.

Problems in spelling, punctuation, grammar, sentence & paragraph construction so severe as to make the paper unintelligible.

TOTAL: 100-90 points: “A” range 100-97: A+; 96-93: A; 92-90: A- 89-80 points: “B” range 89-87; B+; 86-83: B; 82-80: B- 79-70 points: “C” range 79-77: C+; 76-73: C; 72-70: C- 69-60 points: “D” range 69-67: D+; 66-63: D; 62-60: D- 59- 0 points: “F” range

LETTER GRADE: