Document-based question (DBQ)
The changing goals of nationalism, 1815–1914
- Units 6 and 7
- 7 points
- About 60 minutes
You write an argument essay that answers a question using seven documents plus history you know. Points come from your thesis, context, use of the documents and outside evidence, sourcing and complex understanding. On the exam: 1 required question (Section II, Question 1), 60 minutes recommended including a 15-minute reading period, 25% of the score. Seven documents; the topic falls between 1450 and 2001.
The question and its sources
Suggested time: 60 minutes, including 15 minutes to read the documents. The documents have been edited for this exercise.
Document 1
The confederated governments mutually pledge themselves to remove from the universities or other public educational institutions all teachers who, by obvious deviation from their duty, or by exceeding the limits of their functions, or by the abuse of their legitimate influence over the youthful minds, or by propagating harmful doctrines hostile to public order or subversive of existing governmental institutions, shall have unmistakably proved their unfitness for the important office intrusted to them. . . .
Those laws which have for a long period been directed against secret and unauthorized societies in the universities shall be strictly enforced. These laws apply especially to that association established some years since under the name Universal Students' Union (Allgemeine Burschenschaft), since the very conception of the society implies the utterly unallowable plan of permanent fellowship and constant communication between the various universities. . . .
So long as this decree shall remain in force no publication which appears in the form of daily issues, or as a serial not exceeding twenty sheets of printed matter, shall go to press in any state of the union without the previous knowledge and approval of the state officials.
Source: The Carlsbad Decrees, adopted by the Diet of the German Confederation at the urging of Austrian foreign minister Klemens von Metternich, 1819. Trans. in James Harvey Robinson, ed., Readings in European History, vol. 2 (Boston: Ginn, 1906), pp. 547–550.
Document 2
Young Italy is a brotherhood of Italians who believe in a law of progress and duty, and are convinced that Italy is destined to become one nation. . . . They join this association with the firm intention of consecrating both thought and action to the great aim of reconstituting Italy as one independent sovereign nation of free men and equals. . . .
Young Italy is republican and unitarian,—republican, because theoretically every nation is destined, by the law of God and humanity, to form a free and equal community of brothers; and the republican government is the only form of government that insures this future: Because all true sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. . . .
The means by which Young Italy proposes to reach its aim are education and insurrection, to be adopted simultaneously and made to harmonize with each other.
Source: Giuseppe Mazzini, Italian revolutionary in exile, General Instructions for the Members of Young Italy, 1831. From Life and Writings of Joseph Mazzini, vol. 1 (London: Smith, Elder, 1864), excerpted in James Harvey Robinson and Charles A. Beard, eds., Readings in Modern European History, vol. 2 (Boston: Ginn, 1909), pp. 115–118.
Document 3
I asked of the king not the complete independence of my beloved country—not even any new rights or privileges—but simply these three things: . . .
2. That every inhabitant of my country, without regarding language or religion, should be free and equal before the law,—all classes having the same privileges and protection from the law.
3. That all the people of the Austrian empire that acknowledged the same person as emperor whom we Hungarians recognized as king . . . should have restored to them their ancient constitutional rights. . . .
Before you I assert that the accusation that the Magyar race was unjust to the other races—by means of which a portion of the Servians, Wallachians, Slavonians, and Germans dwelling in Hungary was excited against us—is an impious slander. . . . In America people of different languages dwell, but who says that it is unjust for senators and representatives to use the English language in their debates, and to make it the official language of the government?
Source: Louis (Lajos) Kossuth, leader of the Hungarian revolution of 1848–1849, address to the people of the United States written in exile in the Ottoman Empire, 1850. From Report of the Special Committee on the Reception of Governor Louis Kossuth (New York, 1852), excerpted in Robinson and Beard, Readings in Modern European History, vol. 2 (Boston: Ginn, 1909), pp. 103–108.
Document 4
[Speech of September 1862:] Prussia must keep her strength intact for the favorable moment, which is too often missed. Prussia's boundaries are not favorable to the development of a strong body politic. Not through fine speeches and majority resolutions will the questions of the hour be decided—that was the mistake of 1848 and 1849—but by Iron and Blood. . . .
[Speech of January 1863:] If you [gentlemen of the Prussian lower House] had the right to determine by your own resolutions the total budget and its individual items; if you had the right to demand from his Majesty the dismissal of those ministers who do not have your confidence; if you had the right to determine by your resolutions relating to the budget, the organization of the army and duration of military service . . . then you would be in full possession of sovereignty in this country.
Source: Otto von Bismarck, minister-president of Prussia, excerpts from two separate speeches during the conflict with the Prussian parliament over the army budget: the first paragraph is from a speech to the budget committee of the lower house (September 1862), the second from a speech to the lower house (January 1863). The two excerpts are printed one after the other in Robinson and Beard, Readings in Modern European History, vol. 2 (Boston: Ginn, 1909), pp. 142–143.
Document 5
We are a people—One people.
We have honestly endeavoured everywhere to merge ourselves in the social life of surrounding communities, and to preserve only the faith of our fathers. It has not been permitted to us. In vain are we loyal patriots, our loyalty in some places running to extremes; in vain do we make the same sacrifices of life and property as our fellow citizens; in vain do we strive to increase the fame of our native land in science and art, or her wealth by trade and commerce. In countries where we have lived for centuries we are still cried down as strangers. . . .
. . . We are one people—our enemies have made us one in our despite, as repeatedly happens in history. Distress binds us together, and, thus united, we suddenly discover our strength. Yes, we are strong enough to form a State, and a model State.
Source: Theodor Herzl, Jewish journalist from Austria-Hungary who had reported on the Dreyfus Affair in Paris, A Jewish State, 1896. Revised from the English translation of Sylvie d'Avigdor (New York: Maccabaean Publishing Co., 1904), pp. 4–6, 25.
Document 6
In spite of the fact that we have no such fleet as we should have, we have conquered for ourselves a place in the sun. It will now be my task to see to it that this place in the sun shall remain our undisputed possession, in order that the sun's rays may fall fruitfully upon our activity and trade in foreign parts, that our industry and agriculture may develop within the state and our sailing sports upon the water, for our future lies upon the water. . . .
As head of the Empire I therefore rejoice over every citizen . . . who goes forth with this large outlook and seeks new points where we can drive in the nail on which to hang our armor.
Source: Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany, speech to the North German Regatta Association, a sailing club, Hamburg, June 18, 1901. Trans. in Christian Gauss, The German Emperor as Shown in His Public Utterances (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1915), pp. 181–183.
Document 7
By the will of our never-to-be-forgotten liberator and the great kindred Russian nation . . . on February 18, 1878, the chains were broken which had for so many centuries enslaved Bulgaria, once a great and glorious power. . . .
Practically independent, the nation was impeded in its normal and peaceful development by certain illusory and formal limitations which resulted in a coldness in the relations of Turkey and Bulgaria. . . . Inspired by the sacred purpose of satisfying national requirements and fulfilling national desires, I proclaim, with the blessing of the Almighty, Bulgaria, united since September 6, 1885, an independent kingdom.
Source: Prince Ferdinand of Bulgaria, proclamation of Bulgarian independence from the Ottoman Empire, read at Tirnovo, October 5, 1908. From the London Weekly Times, October 1908, in Robinson and Beard, Readings in Modern European History, vol. 2 (Boston: Ginn, 1909), pp. 400–401.
Suggested time: 60 minutes
Your answers are saved in this browser as you type.
The essay
7 pointsEvaluate the extent to which the goals of nationalism in Europe changed in the period 1815 to 1914. In your response you should do the following: • Respond to the prompt with a historically defensible thesis or claim that establishes a line of reasoning. • Describe a broader historical context relevant to the prompt. • Support an argument in response to the prompt using at least four documents. • Use at least one additional piece of specific historical evidence (beyond that found in the documents) relevant to an argument about the prompt. • For at least two documents, explain how or why the document's point of view, purpose, historical situation, and/or audience is relevant to an argument. • Demonstrate a complex understanding of a historical development related to the prompt through sophisticated argumentation and/or effective use of evidence.
0 / 12,000 characters
Checking scoring…
Scoring it yourself shows you the rubric, examples and a model answer. Try writing your answer first.