My DBQ for (By th1850's the constitution)

I just had a chance to skim through it but one thing I noticed is this. Your trying to hard to place the documents within the essay. Don't do this. One thing my teacher taught us to do was write it like a regular essay and INCLUDE the documents into the writing, not force them in.

I'll respond with more/better information in the morning, right now, more finals-study time. O JOY!

I don't think it makes too much of a difference if the documents are clearly stated. Our teacher tells us to do it, but I think it's preferred to just name the documents by their titles rather than by their letter (i.e Document B).

Your essay isn't bad, but it just doesn't sound right. It could be worded better to make it more flowing and less choppy. My teacher would probably give it a 5, maybe a 6. It seems very short....you didn't really analyze the documents very much. It looks like you only used 5 different documents. You should use 7 IMO, 6 at the very least.

By the 1850’s, the Constitution, originally framed as an instrument of national unity, had become a source of sectional discord and tension and ultimately contributed to the failure of the union it had created. This was shown by ambivalent interpretations of the constitution and other important documents when assorted together.huh? specify
It is known that the union did not last, for there was the Civil War. um...well, I'm pretty sure the union survived the civil war seeing as the south is still part of the united statesIf everyone could agree on what the constitution implied, then there probably would not have been a civil war LOL say what?!. From several of the documents, there are arguments about what the constitution states. (Document E) haha, really? gee, I had no idea *sarcasm*, “To the Argument, that the word ‘slaves’ and ‘slavery’ are not to be found in The Constitution, and therefore it was never intended to give any protection or countenance to the slave system, it is sufficient to reply, that no such words are continued in the instrument, other words were used, intelligently and specifically, to meet the necessities of slavery.” This indicates that the constitution CAN be interpreted differently, and when used with other pertinent documents, can be incongruous. Those views that differentiated were of those in the North and South. trying to get a bit wordy I see
The Constitution can be interpreted in many different ways, leading to sectional discord and tension. For many reasons, the South evidently did not like what the constitution said. There were many conflictions with the compromise of 1850, map shown in (Document A) and the fugitive slave act. expand on this idea and explain its implications; don't just generalize and summarize Certain northerners were so against slavery and the fugitive slave act that they even posted warnings for the slaves. (Document C), [shows how kidnappers were being sent after the slaves, and how Northern abolitionists were revolting against the South’s rules and regulations.] This The? fugitive slave act also helped drive the tension deeper into the Un-United States. LOL cute
With drama now rumbling in the American underbellies LOL again, the small weight of anything slightly bad could set off a secession bomb. A freesoiler does not want to spread slavery, but he is okay with keeping it in a state it is already in. When the idea of popular sovereignty came about with the compromise of 1850, map shown in (Document A) What did document A show?, those freesoilers in office were pushed harder into complex decisions over the popular sovereignty issue. (Document F) “FORCING SLAVERY DOWN THE THROAT OF A FREESOILER,” illustrates this in a very blatant text and disturbing political cartoon.
All of the tension gathering, even authors were predestining the Civil War. Ralph Waldo Emerson believed that the Constitution, (when assorted with others like the fugitive slave law or the compromise of 1850) others? what others? The others in lost? were contradictory, and that they aid to the now inevitable seeming end of the union. huh? lack of clarity and possible bad grammar make this sentence hard to read(Document D) “What kind of legislation is this? What kind of constitution which covers? … I suppose the union can be left to take care of itself….But one thing appears certain to me, that , as soon as the constitution ordains an immoral law, it ordains disunion. The law is suicidal, and cannot be obeyed. The union is at an end as soon as an immoral law is enacted. And he who writes a crime into the statute-book digs under the foundations of the capitol to plant there a powder-magazine, and lays a train”
This proves that By the 1850’s the Constitution, originally framed as an instrument of national unity, had become a source of sectional discord and tension and ultimately contributed to the failure of the union it has created. This was shown by ambivalent interpretations of the constitution and other important documents when assorted together. LOL you just restated your thesis

Just a note: when you post essays, please post the question as well.

Anyways, maybe it's because my brain's just about fried because of finals and it's causing me not to think straight, but I really couldn't understand where you were going with your essay. It was a little "laundry listing" as my teacher called it. Like JustinL said, don't force documents into your paper. It wasn't exactly cohesive (maybe I just have to try reading it through again without making comments). OH, and when you cite documents, say the title, like "In a letter from __ to ___..." or "In a political cartoon drawn by ___ in __(year)" or "according to a map by ___ in ___(year) that shows ____"