History EE - Arms, Federalists and Anti-Federalists

[intranet3]

Hi everybody! I'd like to apologize first because my mother tongue is French, so I may have some mistakes in my text. I'm working on my extended essay and my question would be the following:

 

"To what extent did the debates between Federalists and Anti-Federalists influence the question of bearing arms in the United States between 1787 and 1791?"

 

My first question is: do you think the words "question of bearing arms" is too general for an extended essay?

 

Also, I'm not sure if my plan is right. I was thinking about going in a chronological order from the Philadelphie Convention to the ratification of the Bill of rights. My aim would be to understand how the question of bearing arms evolved through the debates over federalism. Is that structure ok? 

 

I'm also not sure what the IB means by "analysis". How can I make sure my essay isn't too narrative?

 

Hope I will get help from you! 

[Erudite]

Hey!

 

I think it depends on how you approach your essay and there is defo some fear that you might just end up writing a narration of historical affairs.

 

The way I understand it, your essay structure is basically going to be you going like: "Federalists argued X and this brought about some change and then Anti-Federalists argued Y and this brought about this other change..."

 

That's not the way an EE should be (again, assuming that this is how you plan to write your essay, I may have misunderstood your post above).

 

My IB Coordinator told me something once regarding the EE that I think might help you: "The Extended Essay is an opportunity to explore a topic with a certain amount of depth and breadth and to challenge yourself to come to an unexpected conclusion."

 

For History EEs and all History essays in general, the core of it has to be some kind of debate. That is where the analysis also usually comes in. The debate in question should ideally also be balanced on both sides.

 

Your EE RQ, the way I see it, doesn't lend itself to any kind of debate. It sounds like a narration of facts. You could structure your essay in a way that you analyse and argue that certain arguments made for the right to bear arms were cogent and others not so strong and then evaluate each argument's historical impact, but imho, that's not a very compelling argumentative essay.

 

On the other hand, you could also take your essay as it stands in the direction of, "Well the Federalists and Anti-Federalists argued X, Y, Z; but in reality, there were outside factors such as such-and-such events that had a huge impact on the development of the right to bear arms". That could also like work. But I don't feel like that's a super interesting way of approaching the question because, well, it's totally obvi. Like it's understood that no one single factor solely influenced the development of the right to bear arms.

 

I think one way of making your RQ cooler would be to like completely refocus your point of view on this essay.  I don't know the history in this area, but I can imagine that there might have been a particular event or debate in parliament between the Feds and Anti-Feds that was decisive in many ways. Maybe you could consider micro-ing down on that one tiny happening and then spend your essay analysing it and talking about its great influence with the benefit of hindsight. But I dunno, even if you do that, the essay would still feel really narrative and 'how'-y to me and lacking in sufficient debate and arguments to make it succeed.

 

I guess I think you need to refocus your essay to some aspect of the history involved in this area that can encourage lively, balanced debate in your essay OR Pick another great historical event and write on a different topic.

 

I don't know if any of my rambling will help as it all sounds quite haphazard as I reread it, but fingers crossed you can make sense of it and it helps in some way!

[intranet3]

Hi, thank you very much for your answer! I also feared my EE would be too narrative, that's why I asked the question.

 

I thought a little bit about possible topics that would be more "analytic". I came up with this question: "According to the debates between federalists and antifederalists in the United States between 1787 and 1791 over the question of bearing arms, is the Second amendment promoting an individual or a collective right?" (again, I'm sorry if my grammar isn't right!)

 

I think it would allow me to analyse a little bit more rather than only describing the debates. Do you agree?

 

Thank you once again for your help!

[Erudite]

Hello again!

 

I think your new topic is certainly a debate, but I dunno if it sounds like much of a History essay. Like your question right now is literally going to be a debate between an individual and collective right. It's also really specific, which isn't a bad thing cause people are always, always told to narrow their topics more and more, but maybe, I mean, to me, it feels like this might just be like too narrow...

 

You know, I think the best way to put it is that I think your topic is too limited i.e. your evidentiary basis are those hearings and debates between the Feds and Anti-Feds on that one issue. It just needs a little more space and a little more scope. And also, I think your RQ wording is really weird.

 

Maybe summat like, "At the time of its inclusion in the US Constitution, was the Second Amendment envisioned as an individual or collective right?"

 

I think that flows better. You could still like stick only to the Fed vs Anti-Fed debates if you wanted, but your question also allows you to add any other evidence you want beyond those debates if you so wish. It doesn't feel as limiting anymore.

 

I dunno...what do you think? It's your essay after all.

[intranet3]

Hi!

 

Yes, I think you're right. I don't necessarily need to name the evidence I will use in the RQ. I also think the question you proposed is better. But do you think  "At the time of its inclusion in the US Constitution, was the Second Amendment envisioned as an individual or collective right?" could be considered as a history essay? I know I'm a little bit crazy but I'm doing my EE in history even though I don't have that class... So I'm not exactly sure if this question fits in the "history" category.

 

Thank you very much for your help!

Edited May 31, 2015 by intranet3

[Erudite]

Ooh, that's a doozy. I didn't realise you weren't even studying History in the IB! You really have an uphill battle ahead of you! In my school, we aren't even allowed to do that, lol.

 

Tbh, I don't think the question, even as I phrased it sounds like a great history EE topic. Not to me anyway in that I would never find something so obscure to write about myself. But different people have different interests is all. I defo think it's a workable EE topic, though.

 

Go ahead with it if it's a topic you really like. I also suggest relying heavily on your EE supervisor to keep you on track in the event you start losing steam or such.