Analysis of the Sample Essay

This essay provides a comprehensive answer to the prompt by delving into the historical and legal intricacies of Hawaii's relationship with the United States. It moves beyond a simple affirmation of statehood to explore the contentious process of annexation and admission, offering a nuanced perspective that acknowledges differing viewpoints.

Thesis and Claim

The central thesis is that while Hawaii is legally a part of the United States, its status is the result of a complex and contested history involving the overthrow of a sovereign kingdom and subsequent annexation. The essay claims that a full understanding requires examining this history, including the legal justifications and the perspectives of indigenous Hawaiians, to appreciate contemporary issues of sovereignty and self-determination.

Structure and Organization

The essay is logically structured, beginning with an introduction that sets up the complexity of the question. It then proceeds chronologically through key historical periods: the pre-contact era, the rise of foreign influence, the overthrow of the monarchy, the annexation, the territorial period, and the path to statehood. Each paragraph focuses on a specific event or theme, building a coherent narrative. The conclusion effectively summarizes the main points and reiterates the thesis, emphasizing the ongoing relevance of the historical context.

Use of Evidence

The essay draws on historical events and legal concepts to support its claims. It references specific moments like the overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani, the role of U.S. Minister Stevens, the Newlands Resolution, and the Apology Resolution. While specific citations are absent in this sample (as is common in a reference essay), the text indicates the types of evidence that would be used in a formal academic paper, such as historical accounts of the period, legal analyses of annexation treaties and resolutions, and discussions of indigenous rights movements.

Tone and Style

The tone is academic, objective, and informative. It maintains a balanced perspective, presenting the actions and justifications of the U.S. government alongside the criticisms and perspectives of those who view the annexation as illegitimate. The language is precise and avoids overly emotional appeals, focusing instead on factual recounting and analytical reasoning. Contractions are used sparingly, contributing to a formal academic voice.

Revision Opportunities

For a formal academic submission, this essay would benefit from the inclusion of specific citations (footnotes or endnotes) to support all factual claims and historical references. Expanding on the legal arguments surrounding the Newlands Resolution and comparing it to other territorial acquisitions could add further depth. A more detailed exploration of the indigenous Hawaiian perspective, perhaps through direct quotes or references to specific Hawaiian scholars or activists, would also strengthen the essay. Finally, a brief discussion of the contemporary implications, such as the ongoing legal challenges or political movements related to Hawaiian sovereignty, could provide a more robust conclusion.

  • Clear thesis statement that addresses the prompt directly.
  • Logical chronological or thematic organization.
  • Sufficient historical context provided.
  • Analysis of primary and secondary sources (implied in this example).
  • Objective and balanced tone.
  • Consideration of multiple perspectives.
  • Strong topic sentences for each paragraph.
  • Effective introduction and conclusion.
  • Proper citation of all sources.
  • Precise and academic language.
Example of Nuanced Historical Argumentation

Instead of simply stating 'The US annexed Hawaii,' the essay presents a more detailed and critical view: 'Under President William McKinley, the U.S. Congress passed the Newlands Resolution, annexing Hawaii without the consent of its native population or a formal treaty, which would have required a two-thirds Senate majority. This annexation was a significant departure from previous U.S. territorial acquisitions, which typically involved treaties with sovereign nations.' This phrasing highlights the specific mechanism of annexation (Newlands Resolution), the lack of consent, and contrasts it with standard U.S. practice, thereby building a case for its contested legitimacy.