OTHER: While there’s not necessarily anything wrong with beginning with a presentation of your historical event, how you do it here is a bit awkward. I think her you might be well served by presenting your last couple of sentences first and then providing an overview of the historical moment. Your ” mini history” is part fact and part evaluation on your part or at least that is what it seems to be which is somewhat confusing. Providing a brief explanation of what we have before your reader is confused would be useful. This would also allow you to still to present a thesis at the end of the paragraph. I do not see a thesis here yet of any substance. You assert a vague statement about first vs. secondhand accounts which ultimately might be. It looks like you are taking a position on the difficulty of understanding sources due to the existence of cultural bias, though this is more of a given than an argumentative position. You would need to go further and be more precise to have an effective argument from that point.
While your presentation of your sources is clear, I also have concerns about your presentation of them as part of an argument. Your essay does not explicitly tell us what the paragraphs are attending to reveal or what the sources reflect that support your argument. It looks like your first source is one that illustrates the limitations of any historians bias is as they are revealed by a reader’s (your) differing point of view. This is something you should articulate in a topic sentence. With respect to your first source I think is interesting that you begin in a way that echoes that Tompkins presentation of Perry Miller’s text very clearly, and I’m not sure but there may be value to your pointing this out your reader. More importantly, I see that you evaluate this source yourself, though you do not seem to be aware or at least do not make us aware that you see the limitations of your own perspective. You might do well to cite Tompkins’ discussion of the idea that a historian cannot escape the limits of his or her own point of view as demonstrated by the author you discuss as well as by yourself as an author. This could be interesting.
Ultimately, in your presentation of sources I want more analysis of your own work and reasoning. Another example of how this might make your essay stronger is that you cite a firsthand account of Frederick Douglass whichprovides you with a useful source to analyze with respect exactly to the fact that it is a firsthand account. And your introduction mentions the difference between first and second and sources and you might play out an analysis of how this source differs from the other is either in its substance and evidence or simply in terms of the way that you consider it as a reader because it is first and not second hand. Make explicit connections between your purpose and what you show us using the texts that you have read.
Your essay doesn’t mention Jane Tompkins until the very last paragraph and then really does not explain, site, or develop a discussion of her text that is useful to your essay. I would suggest that you first of all present her text more thoroughly and sooner in your own essay perhaps even in the introduction but certainly by the second paragraph. This might allow you to as you say demonstrate how her work is spawned a channel to your own work which you could then demonstrate in very specific ways. Once you introduce for text, then you will be able to make a reference to her own work or thinking throughout your essay where it’s appropriate to support your ideas or experience.
Ultimately I don’t see that your essay has yet presented a clear and precise argument but there are two definite possibilities which you have already unveiled that could work. The first is the argument about how first vs. secondhand sources are different both in themselves and as they are perceived and treated by the researchers who find and use them. The second argument may be more interesting but also more complex. If this is related to the idea that a researcher is often blind to his or her own limitations in perspective. Tompkins makes mention of this and demonstrates it with Perry Miller. You do as well with your Fitzhugh example. Note that your perspective is no less biased than either of the heirs or hers. You might also notes that while Frederick Douglass is point of view is certainly a firsthand account, and while you might perceive it as more honest, it is no less biased either. This might be a way in which you can combine both arguments into one essay. Whatever you decide, understand that you must be more clear and direct in speaking to your own audience about what you are trying to accomplish and how what you provide your reader and supports that purpose.
