Hello 😀I'm writing a history paper that's supposed to answer a debatable question, so I decided to do something along the lines of "Would Penn's Holy Experiment be practical in the long term?" (I'm still in doubt about my topic). Though I can dig up plenty of info about Penn and Philadelphia, I need to include several historians' arguments on the subject. Could anyone help me out?If not, could you suggest a more discussed topic that's similar to mine? Thanks.
Hello 😀I'm writing a history paper that's supposed to answer a debatable question, so I decided to do something along the lines of "Would Penn's Holy Experiment be practical in the long term?" (I'm still in doubt about my topic). Though I can dig up plenty of info about Penn and Philadelphia, I need to include several historians' arguments on the subject. Could anyone help me out?If not, could you suggest a more discussed topic that's similar to mine? Thanks.
Hello Raisian and welcome to WCF! First off, let me ask you just what do you mean by "practical?" What would have made Penn's "Holy Experiment" as you term it impractical? Also, how long is "long term?" To begin with you have to concretely establish what Penn's objectives were and then decide if Pennsylvania met the goals he established. Once you have satisfied this, you then can begin the debate if Penn's efforts were practical in the long run (after you define what you mean by practical first). To be honest with you, I know the answer to this question, but I don't like how you are framing your topic. Obviously Pennsylvania was practical to Penn and those who wanted a colony dedicated to religious tolerance and pacifism (Fox and the Quakers come to mind here). Penn founded the colony with certain people in mind and provided what they were already wanting. Long term though is irrelevant because Pennsylvania became part of the United States and therefore was absorbed into a much larger experiment even more practical/impractical whatever the case may be. The real question you should be asking (and I am not trying to dissuade you from your original topic entirely) is whether Pennsylvania had a lasting contribution in the creation of the American Republic based on the ideas of Penn, and also the ideas of Roger Williams. I think the key to your argument can be supported by Rhode Island's unique charter as well as that of Pennsylvania's. So when you make your argument about the practicality or lack thereof of Penn's Holy Experiment, you should also take a look at Roger Williams and his Holy Experiment in Rhode Island. Remember to keep your topic specific and focused, but in the final conclusion you need to tie in the significance Pennsylvania had in the larger picture of America's formation. Do this and you will do well.
One more thing. Before we start looking at possible sources for your paper, we need to know what position you are planning on defending, and then we need to see how you plan to structure your argument. This may sound daunting at first, but I assure you that you cannot begin a paper without knowing first what it is you are trying to persuade your readers into accepting. You mentioned you had doubts about your topic. Are your doubts based on apprehension that you cannot prove “practicality” to any acceptable standard? Or is it that you fear you will be trying to defend a position you yourself do not believe in? If so let me calm your mind. Go ahead and pick a position now, and then let your research decide if it is sustainable or not. If your research points you in a different direction, then so be it, the facts must stand as they are.  Be sure to acknowledge in your paper somewhere that it was your research that formed your final conclusions and not anything else. It is important to establish credibility in your paper, and being honest about what you find is ALWAYS the best way to do that.