Cathcon's History Paper Thread

[Robespierre's Jaw]

Give the city, not the country, for publication.  And don't number your sources.

I agree with Ben, here.

Also, is it mandatory to use the Harvard system, or can you use footnoting instead? Footnoting looks so much nicer.

[CathKhan]

Numbering is mandatory, as is whatever not footnoting is called.

[Senator Ben]

Numbering is mandatory, as is whatever not footnoting is called.

Then your teacher is an idiot.

Also, is it mandatory to use the Harvard system, or can you use footnoting instead? Footnoting looks so much nicer.

Teachers hate footnotes, for some reason.  It does look much nicer, and frankly, more scholarly.

[CathKhan]

Yes, my teacher is an idiot. An idiot who knows a lot, but an idiot just the same.

[CathKhan]

Christ. I've got one page to go and one paragraph to go to complete what I'd hoped was already completed. My teacher (from here on out to be referred to as "Miller") is demanding not merely three supporting paragraphs, but four. I'm defending James Buchanan here! There's not much you can ask for that I haven't given in regards to that! Any ideas? Given I will absolutely not be able to work on it tomorrow, this is pretty much the eleventh hour for me.

[Senator Ben]

Shorter paragraphs and more filler words.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

Numbering is mandatory, as is whatever not footnoting is called.

Then your teacher is an idiot.

Here, here!

Teachers hate footnotes, for some reason.  It does look much nicer, and frankly, more scholarly.

It does. Another good thing about footnoting is that it takes up a fair chunk of the word count. Ideal when you're running out of ideas to say.

[Lief]

Not using footnotes is incorrect in history writing, but parenthetical citation is correct in social sciences papers. Fact.

So tell your history teacher that he's wrong, Lief said so. On the other hand, most high school students are liars, plagiarists and thieves, and it's a lot easier to check on sources with parenthetical citations than it is with footnotes, so I suppose it's understandable.

[Hashemite]

Oh, Lord, they're still teaching the 5-Paragraph essay?

[Senator Snowstalker]

Oh, Lord, they're still teaching the 5-Paragraph essay?

Yes. I swear if I have to write one more thesis statement...

[CathKhan]

Apparently I got an 85 on it. The bastard.

[Communists For McCain]

Apparently I got an 85 on it. The bastard.

Man what a retard.

I got an 81 the other week on a 21 page paper.  I was pissed.

[A cowboy always follows his beard]

What did "Miller" say was wrong with it?

[CathKhan]

What did "Miller" say was wrong with it?

No idea. My school has a system where you can see your grades online & according to what I heard, I got 85%, down 1% from the last paper.

[CathKhan]

Third quarter is 1865-1932. I'm considering William McKinley as my topic. Good thing about him is that Miller knows nothing about him, and thus he can't try to dictate my paper.

[True Federalist]

Third quarter is 1865-1932. I'm considering William McKinley as my topic. Good thing about him is that Miller knows nothing about him, and thus he can't try to dictate my paper.

Does it have to be a bio paper?  A paper on the Granger movement would be interesting to do as the period of its relevance basically is the same as the time frame you're covering.

[CathKhan]

Third quarter is 1865-1932. I'm considering William McKinley as my topic. Good thing about him is that Miller knows nothing about him, and thus he can't try to dictate my paper.

Does it have to be a bio paper?  A paper on the Granger movement would be interesting to do as the period of its relevance basically is the same as the time frame you're covering.

I had honestly never heard of the Granger movement before. Looking it up, it seems interesting. No, it doesn't have to be biographical. However, I like to focus on a specific election or specific president as the starting point of writing a paper.

[A cowboy always follows his beard]

Are sticking with McKinley?

[Jerseyrules]

For 2nd quarter, I'e decided to do James Buchanan. I'd like to argue that he's one of our greatest Presidents and held the Union together since I like arguing the unconventional and utterly false side of the argument for entertainment, but that'd be too hard. Any ideas on websites for research or for thesis ideas?

If you're still doing this, take a look at JFK's quotes, such as "We can't judge any president without seeing the look in their eyes after every decision they made as president, including poor James Buchanan."

I contend that Fillmore was much better, but whatever.

[CathKhan]

Are sticking with McKinley?

Yeah. Note cards are due Wednesday in fact.

[A cowboy always follows his beard]

What is it about McKinley are you going for?

[CathKhan]

I'm starting the rough draft of my McKinley paper today. My hope is to be able to make it some epic fifteen page paper (short for college, long for where I'm at). If I'm correct, the minimum is eight pages.

What is it about McKinley are you going for?

After reading a short biography on him, my mission is to prove that he was, in fact, significant. AMong his accomplishments were the institution of the Gold Standard (an economic system that lasted throughout the Republican power cycle of 1896-1932), the beginning of America's emergence as a superpower (Spanish-American War, foreign policy, etc.), and assembling a winning urban coalition of labor and business that would serve as the Republican base during the ensuing era of political dominance. I'll also mention how thanks to the New Deal Era and Teddy Roosevelt, he is consistently overshadowed and also cast as some arch-conservative imperialist who did nothing but advance business interests. He was actually the beginning of the progressive era (much to my dismay) and had served as the opponent of the eastern big business establishment and a champion for labor while in the House.

[Jerseyrules]

I'm starting the rough draft of my McKinley paper today. My hope is to be able to make it some epic fifteen page paper (short for college, long for where I'm at). If I'm correct, the minimum is eight pages.

What is it about McKinley are you going for?

After reading a short biography on him, my mission is to prove that he was, in fact, significant. AMong his accomplishments were the institution of the Gold Standard (an economic system that lasted throughout the Republican power cycle of 1896-1932), the beginning of America's emergence as a superpower (Spanish-American War, foreign policy, etc.), and assembling a winning urban coalition of labor and business that would serve as the Republican base during the ensuing era of political dominance. I'll also mention how thanks to the New Deal Era and Teddy Roosevelt, he is consistently overshadowed and also cast as some arch-conservative imperialist who did nothing but advance business interests. He was actually the beginning of the progressive era (much to my dismay) and had served as the opponent of the eastern big business establishment and a champion for labor while in the House.

Don't forget the McKinley Tariff, the highest ever in America save only for the Tariff of Abominations and Smoot-Hawley.  This was his major contribution (and a bad one, I might add) while in the House.  It also cost him the speakership, IMO

[CathKhan]

Ya just gotta hate, don't'cha?

[CathKhan]

sh**t man, left my outline at school and can't find the file it was saved in.