I met with Dr. Quigley today about my plans for revising my proposal and thankfully there were very few surprises. The historiography is by far the roughest part of my proposal! Dr. Quigley’s major comment was that my categorization of my secondary sources may be counter-intuitive for the ultimate point that I’m arguing, which is that there were blurred lines between politics and religion during the Secession Crisis. With that in mind, I’m going to do my best to organize thematically as much as possible. I’m also going to try to bring in more sources that deal with the politics of the Secession Crisis, and some that potentially deal with issues of nationalism and citizenship as well.
My methodology could also use some refining. I’m meeting with Dr. Dresser from Religion & Culture next week and I’m hoping that he can give me some insight about how I can approach my sources. As I read more and revise my proposal, I’ll also try to clarify my research questions. My project is more and more becoming about the relationship between politics and religion during the secession crisis, but I think that some of that may have been a bit muddled as I tried to feel out how to articulate my argument section while writing.
There’s a lot of work still to be done, but thankfully I don’t have to start from scratch! The real challenge is going to be shaping that historiography section. Wish me luck!