Week 11 Discussion — A Phrase or a Plan? A Promise or a Paper? — Traditional alternative (no AI)

Instructors: publish this instead of the adaptive version if you prefer, and unpublish or delete the adaptive one.

Hook

In 1836 the Texas delegates called jury trial "the right of trial by jury, that palladium of civil liberty". In 1848 a treaty said the Mexicans of the ceded lands "shall be free to continue where they now reside, or to remove at any time to the Mexican Republic". This week you learned who made each document, when, and what it says, and those facts are not in question; neither is slavery's place in Texas, the war's violence against Mexican civilians, or the losses Native nations suffered, which the course states plainly. What careful readers still argue about is how to explain the expansion and how to read the promises it left behind.

Your discussion question — choose Option A or Option B; they carry the same weight and the same rubric, and you say which you picked.

Option A: In 1845 the editor John L. O'Sullivan used the phrase manifest destiny for the belief that the United States was destined to spread across the continent, and supporters repeated it. Yet the expansion itself came through a declaration, a joint resolution, a treaty with Britain, a war, and a treaty with Mexico, and slavery's place in Texas ran through the whole story. Is the phrase best read as a real driving idea that pushed Americans west, or as a justification people reached for after other interests had already decided the matter? Take a position, support it with at least one thing this week's evidence shows (the Texas declaration's silence about slavery, the State Library's record, or the route to annexation), and state the strongest case for the other reading as fairly as its best defender would.

Option B: Article VIII of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848) let Mexicans living in the ceded lands stay or move to Mexico with their property and gave them one year to choose a citizenship, and its pinned fragment says they "shall be free to continue where they now reside, or to remove at any time to the Mexican Republic". The Senate struck out Article X, which had protected Mexican land grants, and no Native nation signed the treaty at all. Read as written, are the treaty's promises to the people of the ceded lands strong protections, or weaker than they first look? Take a position, ground it in sourcing and close reading of the treaty and of what it leaves out, and state the strongest opposing reading fairly.

Neither option asks whether the war happened, whether slavery existed in Texas, or whether Native nations suffered; the course states those plainly. Each option asks a question of explanation or judgment that careful readers of the same evidence still answer differently. Keep both options in the years from 1836 to 1848: neither is a question about present-day parties, politicians, border politics, or policy. Pick the option you care about, and make your case.

Expectations

Activity format: one initial post followed by two substantive peer replies. Plan on about 45 minutes across the two deadlines; your instructor sets both due dates in Canvas.

Your initial post — by the first due date (early in the module week):

• Say which option you chose.
• For Option A, say how you read the phrase manifest destiny, support it with one thing this week's evidence shows, and state the strongest case for the other reading; for Option B, say how strong you judge the treaty's promises, ground it in sourcing and the Article VIII fragment, and state the strongest opposing reading.
• Use at least two of this week's terms (manifest destiny, westward expansion, Texas Declaration of Independence, Republic of Texas, annexation, joint resolution, Nueces Strip, treaty of peace, Article VIII, Mexican Cession, Wilmot Proviso) correctly.
• Quote only the course's pinned fragments, word for word, with the document and its date, and never put manifest destiny in quotation marks as if quoting the essay.
• End with one plain sentence that names what your evidence shows and what it does not.
• Length: roughly 150–250 words if written. You may instead record your post as audio or video (about two minutes) and attach a transcript; both forms are scored by the same rubric.
• Write from your own reasoning, in your own words, and keep present-day parties, politicians, border politics, and other controversies out of your examples.

Your replies — by the second due date (the end of the module week):

• Reply substantively to at least two classmates.
• A substantive reply does more than agree: state a stronger version of the reading the poster argued against, point to a place where the poster treated manifest destiny as a law or treated the Mexicans of the ceded lands as immigrants, or ask what the poster's claim would need from the evidence that this week's documents do not supply. "Nice point!" on its own does not count.

What a strong post looks like:

I chose Option B and judge the treaty's promises weaker than they first look, though I see the case for calling them real protections. Article VIII let the Mexicans of the ceded lands stay where they were, keep their property, and choose a citizenship within one year, so they were residents whose border moved, not immigrants. But the Senate struck out Article X, which had protected Mexican land grants, and no Native nation signed the treaty at all. A reader on the other side would say Article VIII still guaranteed property and a choice in writing, and I concede that the article's words are strong. In one plain sentence: the treaty shows what two governments promised in 1848; it does not show whether the promises were kept.

Notice how it sources the treaty, keeps residents apart from immigrants, names what was struck out and who never signed, concedes part of the other side, and ends in one plain sentence. That is the bar.

Participation rubric

This discussion is worth 10 points. The three criteria below look at your initial post and your peer replies.

Post early if you can — the best threads happen when people have time to reply before the second due date.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com