D2.His.16.6-8: Building an Evidence-Based Argument about the Alaska Purchase of 1867
In plain English: D2.His.16.6-8 is the C3 Framework history indicator for grades 6-8 that asks students to organize applicable evidence into a coherent argument about the past. Students choose evidence that fits their claim, group it under clear reasons, answer a counterclaim and write a connected argument, for example about whether buying Alaska in 1867 was a wise decision.
Organize applicable evidence into a coherent argument about the past.
C3 Framework for Social Studies (NCSS) · Dimension 2: Applying Disciplinary Concepts and Tools · Discipline: History · Causation and Argumentation · Official standard
An argument about the past is a claim supported by reasons and evidence. D2.His.16.6-8 asks students to organize applicable evidence (evidence that fits the question and the claim) into a coherent argument, one whose parts connect in a clear order. In this lesson students argue about a real question from 1867: was it wise for the United States to buy Alaska from Russia for $7.2 million?
Students read five sources: a short history by the U.S. State Department's Office of the Historian, part of a Senate speech by Charles Sumner (1867), a 1922 history of Sitka, the National Archives' page on the purchase with two articles of the treaty, answers from the National Park Service at Sitka, and the Park Service's account of Tlingit resistance to Russian rule at Sitka. They sort evidence that fits a claim from evidence that does not, group it under reasons, answer a counterclaim, and write a connected argument. Both "wise" and "unwise" can be argued well; the rubric scores the organization and the evidence, not the side.
Learning Objectives
By the end of this lesson, students will be able to:
Write a historical claim that answers a question and can be argued
Decide whether a piece of evidence is applicable to a specific claim, including whether it fits the time the claim is about
Group evidence under two or three reasons and explain how each piece supports its reason
State and answer a counterclaim with evidence
Write a coherent argument paragraph about the Alaska Purchase that cites at least three sources
Prior Knowledge Required
Students should already be comfortable with:
Citing specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources RH.6-8.1
Writing arguments that support claims with clear reasons and relevant evidence WHST.6-8.1
Telling a primary source (made at the time) from a secondary source (written later about the past)
"Your cousin paid $40 for an old guitar that no one in the family wanted. Ten years later it is worth $400. Was buying it a smart decision when she made it? Write one reason that judges the decision by what she knew then, and one that judges it by what happened later."
Share a few reasons. Draw out the key idea of the lesson: evidence has to fit the claim. Evidence about what happened later fits a claim about results. Evidence about what people knew at the time fits a claim about whether the choice made sense then.
Direct Instruction20 minutes
Give the background in two minutes. In 1867 the United States agreed to buy Russia's land in North America, which became Alaska, for $7.2 million (Source 1). The land was not empty: the Tlingit people had lived in southeastern Alaska for thousands of years, and other Native peoples lived across the region (Source 5; Source 4, paragraph 3). A purchase of territory is a sale between governments, set out in a treaty.
Introduce the Argument Builder. Tell students they will fill it in during the lesson.
The Argument Builder (an SVHS teaching tool): the parts of a coherent argument about the past
Part
What it does
Sentence starter
Claim
Answers the question in one clear sentence that someone could disagree with
"Buying Alaska in 1867 was ___ because ___."
Reasons
Two or three separate reasons that support the claim, each in its own group
"One reason is ___."
Evidence
Facts or quotations that fit the reason, each cited by source and paragraph
"Source _, paragraph _, says ___."
Explanation
Says how the evidence proves the reason
"This shows that ___."
Counterclaim and answer
States the best argument on the other side, then answers it with evidence
"Some people argue ___. However, ___."
Conclusion
Restates the claim and why the reasons matter
"For these reasons, ___."
Read Source 1, written by historians at the U.S. Department of State. It is a secondary source.
Words for Source 1.Czar: the ruler of Russia. Lightly inhabited: with few people living there. St. Petersburg: the Russian capital, standing here for the Russian government. Crimean War: a war Russia fought and lost in the 1850s. Treaty: a formal agreement between countries. Minister: here, a country's official representative in another country. Skeptics: people who doubt something. Vindicated: shown to be right. Klondike: a gold region in the Yukon, reached through Alaska. Strategic: important for defense and war.
1The purchase of Alaska in 1867 marked the end of Russian efforts to expand trade and settlements to the Pacific coast of North America, and became an important step in the United States rise as a great power in the Asia-Pacific region. Beginning in 1725, when Russian Czar Peter the Great dispatched Vitus Bering to explore the Alaskan coast, Russia had a keen interest in this region, which was rich in natural resources and lightly inhabited. As the United States expanded westward in the early 1800s, Americans soon found themselves in competition with Russian explorers and traders. St. Petersburg, however, lacked the financial resources to support major settlements or a military presence along the Pacific coast of North America and permanent Russian settlers in Alaska never numbered more than four hundred. Defeat in the Crimean War further reduced Russian interest in this region.
2Russia offered to sell Alaska to the United States in 1859, believing the United States would off-set the designs of Russia’s greatest rival in the Pacific, Great Britain. The looming U.S. Civil War delayed the sale, but after the war, Secretary of State William Seward quickly took up a renewed Russian offer and on March 30, 1867, agreed to a proposal from Russian Minister in Washington, Edouard de Stoeckl, to purchase Alaska for $7.2 million. The Senate approved the treaty of purchase on April 9; President Andrew Johnson signed the treaty on May 28, and Alaska was formally transferred to the United States on October 18, 1867. This purchase ended Russia’s presence in North America and ensured U.S. access to the Pacific northern rim.
3For three decades after its purchase the United States paid little attention to Alaska, which was governed under military, naval, or Treasury rule or, at times, no visible rule at all. Seeking a way to impose U.S. mining laws, the United States constituted a civil government in 1884. Skeptics had dubbed the purchase of Alaska “Seward’s Folly,” but the former Secretary of State was vindicated when a major gold deposit was discovered in the Yukon in 1896, and Alaska became the gateway to the Klondike gold fields. The strategic importance of Alaska was finally recognized in World War II. Alaska became a state on January 3, 1959.
Office of the Historian, U.S. Department of State, Milestones in the History of U.S. Foreign Relations: Purchase of Alaska, 1867 (Source 1: the whole article) (2016). US government work (17 U.S.C. 105). Source text.
Read Source 2. Charles Sumner was a senator from Massachusetts who spoke for the treaty in the Senate in April 1867. It is a primary source: it shows the reasons supporters gave at the time.
Words for Source 2.Enlargement of boundary: making the country bigger. Russian possessions: the land Russia owned in America. Peltries: animal furs. Fisheries: fishing grounds. Washington Territory: the land that later became the state of Washington. Marts: markets. Aleutians: a chain of Alaskan islands reaching toward Asia. Sandwich Islands: an old English name for the Hawaiian Islands. Terminus: the end of a railroad line.
11. Advantages to the Pacific Coast.--Foremost in order, if not in importance, I put the desires of our fellow-citizens on the Pacific coast, and the special advantages they will derive from this enlargement of boundary. They were the first to ask for it, and will be the first to profit by it. While others knew the Russian possessions only on the map, they knew them practically in their resources. While others were indifferent, they were planning how to appropriate Russian peltries and fisheries. This is attested by the resolutions of the Legislature of Washington Territory; also by the exertions at different times of two Senators from California, who, differing in political sentiments and in party relations, took the initial steps which ended in this treaty.
[...]
2The absence of harbors belonging to the United States on the Pacific limits the outlets of the country. On that whole extent, from Panama to Puget Sound, the only harbor of any considerable value is San Francisco. Further north the harbors are abundant, and they are all nearer to the great marts of Japan and China. But San Francisco itself will be nearer by the way of the Aleutians than by Honolulu. The projection of maps is not always calculated to present an accurate idea of distances. From measurement on a globe it appears that a voyage from San Francisco to Hong Kong by the common way of the Sandwich Islands is 7,140 miles, but by way of the Aleutian Islands it is only 6,060 miles, being a saving of more than one thousand miles, with the enormous additional advantage of being obliged to carry much less coal. Of course a voyage from Sitka, or from Puget Sound, the terminus of the Northern Pacific Railroad, would be shorter still.
Charles Sumner, The Cession of Russian America to the United States, speech in the Senate, April 9, 1867 (Source 2: one of Senator Sumner's reasons; one cut marked [...]) (1867; this edition 1900). Public domain (published 1900). Source text.
Model the four worked examples. After each one, add a line to the class Argument Builder.
Turning a topic into a claim (Source 1, paragraph 3)
Source 1 says "Skeptics had dubbed the purchase of Alaska 'Seward's Folly,'" but that Seward "was vindicated" when gold was found in 1896. A claim is a sentence that answers the question and that someone could disagree with.
Result: "Alaska was bought in 1867" is a fact, not a claim, because no one disputes it. "Buying Alaska was a wise decision, even though it was criticized at first" is a claim: Source 1 itself shows that people disagreed.
Is the evidence applicable? (Source 2, paragraph 2)
Sumner says that from San Francisco to Hong Kong is 7,140 miles the usual way but "only 6,060 miles" by the Aleutian Islands. Applicable evidence is evidence that fits the exact claim you are making.
Result: 7,140 - 6,060 = 1,080 miles saved. This fits the claim "In 1867 there were good reasons to buy Alaska," because it shows what supporters expected at the time. It does not fit the claim "Alaska paid off later," because it is a hope from 1867, not a result.
Grouping evidence under reasons (Source 1, paragraphs 2-3)
Source 1 gives these dates: the treaty agreed on March 30, 1867; a civil government in 1884; gold in the Yukon in 1896; statehood on January 3, 1959.
Result: Group the facts by reason, not by the order you found them. "The United States was slow to govern Alaska": civil government came 1884 - 1867 = 17 years after the purchase. "Alaska's value showed later": the gold came 1896 - 1867 = 29 years after. Each reason gets its own group of evidence.
Answering a counterclaim (Source 1, paragraph 3)
A counterclaim is the best argument on the other side. Source 1 says that "For three decades after its purchase the United States paid little attention to Alaska."
Result: A student arguing "the purchase was wise" should not hide this. One answer: "Some argue the purchase was a waste because the government ignored Alaska for 30 years. However, a slow start does not mean a bad decision, since the same source says the gold discovery of 1896 proved Seward right." The answer uses evidence, not just disagreement.
Guided Practice15 minutes
Read Sources 3 and 4 with students. Source 3 is from a history of Sitka, the Russian capital in Alaska, written by Clarence L. Andrews in 1922. Source 4 is the National Archives' page about the check the United States paid, with two articles of the treaty. Pairs fill in a three-column chart: evidence for "wise," evidence for "not wise," and "not applicable to this question." Then run Activity 1.
Words for Source 3.Domain: territory. Commissioner: an official sent to carry out a task. Baranof castle: the Russian governor's house on the hill at Sitka. Soldiery: soldiers. Ensign: flag. Batteries: groups of cannons. Speculations: risky deals made in hope of quick profit. Titles to lands: legal papers proving who owns land. Garrison: soldiers stationed in a town. Ordinances: local laws. Revenue: money collected for a government.
1Then came the day when the Russian was to withdraw from his colonies, and the United States was to occupy them as Alaska. An area as broad as an empire, equal in extent to Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark combined, was to be handed over from the Imperial Ruler of all the Russias to the Republic of the United States, and Sitka, the Capital of the Colonies, was to be the scene of the actual transfer. The statesmanship of Secretary Seward, aided by the eloquence of Sumner, had secured for our country a domain one sixth as large as the whole United States.
2October 18th, 1867, Alexei Pestchouroff, the Commissioner of the Tsar, appeared in front of the Baranof castle, and beside him stood Lovell H. Rousseau, the Commissioner for the United States, who was to receive the Territory.
3The Russian soldiery were drawn up along the terrace which ran around the Baranof Hill, and next to them were the men of the United States Infantry. [...] The ensign of Russia was lowered, the flag of the United States raised to the accompaniment of the salutes from the batteries and of the guns of the ships in the harbor. [...] The few words of the ceremony of transfer were spoken, and Alaska became a possession of the United States.
4[...] Sitka gradually adjusted itself to the new conditions, to the crowds of adventurers who thronged its streets seeking a profit in speculations in lands and furs. They were doomed to disappointment, for the titles to lands were withheld and the fur trade was overdone, so most of the newly arrived drifted away as they came.
[...]
5While the military garrison were content with their conditions and were not troubled with the affairs of the world at large, the civil population wished for the law and authority of other communities, and set themselves to remedy the omission of the Government in far-off Washington so far as was possible to do, for there was no provision for an organization of civil government in the community. They organized a municipal association, drafted ordinances, elected councilmen, collected revenue for improving the Governor's Walk, changed the name to Lincoln Street, and in December opened a school. After five years the civil population declined until the revenue was insufficient to maintain the expense, the organization was abandoned, with it passed the school, and the first attempt at self-government closed.
Clarence L. Andrews, The Story of Sitka, chapter VIII, "Sitka under United States Rule" (Source 3: the transfer and the first years; cuts marked [...]) (1922). Public domain (published 1922). Source text.
Words for Source 4.Ceded territory: the land handed over. Allegiance: loyalty to a country. Immunities: protections. Aboriginal tribes: the first peoples of a land. In consideration of: in exchange for. His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias: the ruler of Russia.
1In 1866 the Russian government offered to sell the territory of Alaska to the United States. Secretary of State William H. Seward, enthusiastic about the prospects of American Expansion, negotiated the deal for the Americans. Edouard de Stoeckl, Russian minister to the United States, negotiated for the Russians. On March 30, 1867, the two parties agreed that the United States would pay Russia $7.2 million for the territory of Alaska.
2For less than 2 cents an acre, the United States acquired nearly 600,000 square miles. Opponents of the Alaska Purchase persisted in calling it “Seward’s Folly” or “Seward’s Icebox” until 1896, when the great Klondike Gold Strike convinced even the harshest critics that Alaska was a valuable addition to American territory.
[...]
3ARTICLE III. The inhabitants of the ceded territory, according to their choice, reserving their natural allegiance, may return to Russia within three years; but if they should prefer to remain in the ceded territory, they, with the exception of uncivilized native tribes, shall be admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States, and shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and religion. The uncivilized tribes will be subject to such laws and regulations as the United States may, from time to time, adopt in regard to aboriginal tribes of that country.
[...]
4ARTICLE VI. In consideration of the cession aforesaid, the United States agree to pay at the treasury in Washington, within ten months after the exchange of the ratifications of this convention, to the diplomatic representative or other agent of his Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, duly authorized to receive the same, seven million two hundred thousand dollars in gold. [...]
National Archives and Records Administration; treaty text by the United States and Russia, Check for the Purchase of Alaska (1868), with the Treaty of Cession of March 30, 1867 (Source 4: the National Archives' description and two articles of the treaty; cuts marked [...]) (2021). US government work (17 U.S.C. 105). Source text.
Key (one possible chart). For "wise": Andrews says the land was "one sixth as large as the whole United States" (Source 3, paragraph 1). For "not wise" in the first years: Source 3, paragraph 5, says there was "no provision for an organization of civil government," and the town's own government ended after five years. Not applicable to whether the purchase was wise: the order of the flag ceremony in Source 3, paragraph 3, which describes what happened but gives no reason for or against. Discuss Article III (Source 4, paragraph 3) separately: it shows that the treaty treated Native peoples differently from other inhabitants. That evidence fits a different question, "Was the purchase fair to the people who lived there?", and students can raise it in a counterclaim or a conclusion.
Then read Source 7 with students. It is the National Park Service's account, at Sitka National Historical Park, of how the Tlingit of Sitka resisted Russian rule after the Battle of 1804. The park's account draws on Tlingit oral tradition. Source 7 is numbered last because it is used for this discussion and the advanced task, not for the card sort.
Words for Source 7.Kiks.ádi: a Tlingit clan of Sitka. Shís'gi Noow: the Tlingit fort at the mouth of the Indian River, near Sitka. Clan regalia: a clan's ceremonial clothing and objects. Blockade: here, the Kiks.ádi stopping trading canoes from reaching the Russians at Sitka after 1804. Fortifications: defensive walls. Watershed: a turning point. Ceded their interest: gave up their claim. Baranof Island: the island where Sitka stands. Volatile: likely to change suddenly. Intermittent: on and off.
1The Kiks.ádi had to abandon their land, their homes, their possessions, and much of their clan regalia to withdraw from Shís'gi Noow. It was a painful sacrifice to make to ensure their ability to continue resisting the Russian invasion.
[...]
2The blockade proved to be effective, and fewer and fewer boats tried to make their way to Sitka. Americans were eager to take advantage of the blockade. They quickly established Trader's Bay across from Chaatlk'aanoow, where Tlingit people from around Southeast Alaska could trade with the Americans instead of the Russians at Sitka. The Americans also sold firearms to the Tlingit, which effectively undermined Russian control of Sitka.
[...]
3By 1822, the Kiks.ádi had been away from their home for 18 years. Without warning, they returned to Sitka and began rebuilding their homes just outside the Russian fortifications. [...] Thus the Battle of 1804 officially ended where it started, in Sitka, in 1822. The Tlingit rebuilt their village in Sitka and lived in close proximity to the Russians.
4The Battle of 1804, including the blockade that followed, was a watershed moment in the history of Alaska and Russian America. While skirmishes and attacks on both sides continued, the Russians did not leave their fortified stronghold in Sitka until they ceded their interest in Alaska to the United States in 1867. The Tlingit would never again gain full control of Baranof Island from their Russian enemies. This created a unique and sometimes volatile relationship in which Russians and Tlingit lived as contentious neighbors, trading partners, and intermittent enemies.
National Park Service, Sitka National Historical Park, The Battle of 1804 (Source 7: the National Park Service's account of Tlingit resistance at Sitka, 1804-1867; cuts marked [...]) (2016). US government work (17 U.S.C. 105). Source text.
Discussion: an Alaska Native perspective. The treaty (Source 4) was made by the United States and Russia alone. Source 7 shows that the Tlingit of Sitka regarded it as their home, resisted Russian rule and were never fully under Russian control, and it describes the sale as Russia ceding "their interest in Alaska" (paragraph 4). Ask: What had Russia controlled at Sitka, and what had it not (Source 7)? What did the treaty decide about Native peoples (Source 4, paragraph 3)? How might the sale of their homeland by two other governments have looked to the Tlingit? Be honest with students about the limits of the evidence: none of the sources on this page records what Tlingit leaders themselves said about the sale in 1867, so students should present answers as inferences from these sources, not as quotations.
Independent Practice15 minutes
Run Activity 3. Students read Source 6, a sample paragraph written by SVHS. It has three problems on purpose. Each student lists the problems and then writes a coherent paragraph of their own with a claim, two reasons, evidence from at least three sources, and a counterclaim with an answer.
(1) Alaska became a state on January 3, 1959, and that is why buying it was smart. (2) In 1867 the United States paid $7.2 million for Alaska. (3) Gold was found in the Yukon in 1896. (4) Some people called the purchase "Seward's Folly." (5) Senator Sumner said the Pacific coast would gain a lot.
(6) In conclusion, buying Alaska was a great decision, and nobody had any good reason to think otherwise.
SVHS (sample student work written for this page), A Sample Argument with Three Problems (Source 6: SVHS-written sample student paragraph, weak on purpose, for Activity 3). Original passage written for this page.
Closure5-10 minutes
Exit ticket: "Write your claim about the Alaska Purchase and the one piece of evidence that best supports it. Then name one piece of evidence that is true but not applicable to your claim, and say why." Hand out Source 5 for the homework.
Words for Source 5.Oral history: history passed down by speaking rather than writing. Creoles: here, people of mixed Russian and Alaska Native families. Provisions: food and supplies. Ally: a friendly country.
1Which Native peoples live here and how long have they lived in the region?
2The Tlingit (English pronunciation = KLING-it ) have lived in southeastern Alaska for thousands of years; their oral history dates back over 12,000 years.
[...]
3Approximately 700 Russians, including Creoles, lived in Sitka in the mid 1800s. The Russians left Sitka when Alaska was sold to the United States in 1867. The Creoles remained and their descendants live in Sitka today.
[...]
4When and why did Russia sell Alaska? What was the purchase price?
5Russia sold Alaska to the United States in 1867 for $7,200,000. After the Crimean War of 1853-1856, Russia found itself militarily and economically weakened. The value of the fur trade had decreased considerably during that period, but supplying the colony with food and provisions continued to be expensive. In the end, Russia preferred to sell Alaska to an ally rather than risk having it taken forcibly by an unfriendly power like Great Britain. The transfer of Alaska from Russia took place in Sitka atop Castle Hill on October 17, 1867-an occasion that is commemorated as "Alaska Day."
National Park Service, Sitka National Historical Park, Sitka National Historical Park, Frequently Asked Questions (Source 5, for homework: three of the park's answers; cuts marked [...]) (2023). US government work (17 U.S.C. 105). Source text.
Teacher notes. (1) Source 4, paragraph 3, quotes Article III of the 1867 treaty, which uses the phrase "uncivilized native tribes." The words are kept exactly because they are the treaty's legal language. Explain that "uncivilized" is an offensive judgment that reflected the prejudices of the treaty makers, not a fact about the Tlingit and the other Alaska Native nations, who had their own clans, leaders, laws and trade. The phrase had legal effect: Article III promised the rights of U.S. citizens to the other inhabitants who stayed, but left these tribes out and made them "subject to such laws and regulations as the United States may, from time to time, adopt." Use the phrase only when quoting the treaty, and use the names of the nations, such as Tlingit, otherwise. (2) The treaty was made by the United States and Russia alone (Source 4), yet it transferred lands where the Tlingit and other Native peoples had long lived (Source 5). Source 7 shows that the Tlingit of Sitka resisted Russian rule and were never fully under Russian control; use the Guided Practice discussion to give students room to consider what the sale meant for them as well as for the United States. None of the page's sources records Tlingit leaders' own words about the sale in 1867. (3) The sources do not agree on every detail. Source 1 and Source 3 give October 18, 1867, for the transfer, but Source 5 gives October 17. Source 1 says permanent Russian settlers in Alaska "never numbered more than four hundred," while Source 5 says about 700 Russians, "including Creoles," lived in Sitka in the mid-1800s. The two figures count different groups (permanent settlers across Alaska, and all Russians and Creoles in one town), so they do not necessarily contradict each other. Both differences are good material for discussing how definitions and records shape evidence. (4) Keep the discussion on the decision of 1867; the rubric scores organization and evidence, not the position a student takes.
Differentiation Strategies
For Struggling Students
Give a partly filled Argument Builder with the claim and one reason already written
Read Sources 1 and 3 aloud and pre-teach eight words: claim, reason, evidence, applicable, counterclaim, treaty, territory and skeptic
Let students argue with two reasons and two pieces of evidence instead of three
For Advanced Students
Ask them to write two arguments, one judging the decision by what was known in 1867 and one judging it by later results, and compare the evidence each needs
Have them build an argument on a second question, "Was the purchase fair to the people who lived in Alaska?", using Sources 4, 5 and 7
Challenge them to explain the date difference between Sources 1 and 5 and what extra source could settle it
Assessment Guidance
What to Look For
Strong arguments state a claim that can be disputed, group evidence under separate reasons, cite every piece by source and paragraph, explain how each piece supports its reason, and answer a real counterclaim with evidence. Watch for lists of facts with no reasons, evidence that does not fit the claim's time frame, and conclusions that ignore the evidence on the other side.
02
Classroom Activities
3 Activities
1
Evidence Card Sort
15 minPairs
Each pair gets 12 evidence cards taken from Sources 1-4 and a mat with three columns: supports "buying Alaska was wise," supports "buying Alaska was not wise," and "true, but not applicable to this question." Pairs place every card and write a one-line reason on it.
The 12 Cards
Alaska was "rich in natural resources" (Source 1, paragraph 1)
"permanent Russian settlers in Alaska never numbered more than four hundred" (Source 1, paragraph 1)
The purchase "ensured U.S. access to the Pacific northern rim" (Source 1, paragraph 2)
"The strategic importance of Alaska was finally recognized in World War II" (Source 1, paragraph 3)
"President Andrew Johnson signed the treaty on May 28" (Source 1, paragraph 2)
"While others knew the Russian possessions only on the map, they knew them practically in their resources" (Source 2, paragraph 1)
"the only harbor of any considerable value is San Francisco" (Source 2, paragraph 2)
"the titles to lands were withheld and the fur trade was overdone" (Source 3, paragraph 4)
"most of the newly arrived drifted away as they came" (Source 3, paragraph 4)
"Alexei Pestchouroff, the Commissioner of the Tsar, appeared in front of the Baranof castle" (Source 3, paragraph 2)
"For less than 2 cents an acre, the United States acquired nearly 600,000 square miles" (Source 4, paragraph 2)
Opponents kept calling the purchase "Seward's Folly" or "Seward's Icebox" (Source 4, paragraph 2)
Key and Discussion
Supports "wise": cards 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 11. Supports "not wise": cards 8, 9 and 12. Not applicable: cards 2, 5 and 10, which are true but give no reason for or against the decision. Accept other placements that a pair can defend; for example, card 2 could support a claim about why Russia sold. Then ask: "Which cards describe what people knew in 1867, and which describe later results?" (Diagram 1 helps.)
2
Build the Chain
15 minGroups of 3
Each group writes its claim on a long paper strip, two reasons on medium strips, and four pieces of evidence (two per reason) on short strips, each with its source and paragraph. Groups tape the strips into the shape in Diagram 2, add one counterclaim strip and one answer strip, and post the chain for a gallery walk.
Gallery Walk Questions
Does every piece of evidence fit the reason it is under?
Is any piece of evidence true but not applicable to the claim?
Is the counterclaim a strong one, and does the answer use evidence?
Variation
Give half the groups the claim "wise" and half "not wise," so the gallery walk shows the same sources used in two coherent arguments.
3
Reorganize the Sample
15 minIndividual
Students read Source 6, a sample paragraph SVHS wrote with three problems on purpose. They name each problem, then rewrite the paragraph so that it follows the Argument Builder.
Teacher Key
(1) Sentence 1 uses evidence that is not applicable: becoming a state in 1959 does not by itself show that the purchase was a wise decision. (2) Sentences 2-5 are a list of facts with no reasons, no explanations and no citations, so the reader cannot see how they support the claim; sentence 4 even raises a counterclaim and then drops it. (3) Sentence 6 says no one had a good reason to doubt the purchase, which ignores the evidence on the other side in Sources 1 and 3 instead of answering it.
03
Diagrams & Visual Aids
2 diagrams
Diagram 1: A Timeline of the Alaska Purchase and After, 1859-1959
An SVHS teaching diagram, drawn to scale in years, with dates from Source 1 and Source 4. Use it to sort evidence by time: what people knew in 1867, and what happened later.
Diagram 2: The Shape of a Coherent Argument
An SVHS teaching diagram of the Argument Builder. Each reason has its own evidence and explanation, the counterclaim is answered, and the conclusion returns to the claim. Students use it to plan Activity 2 and the homework paragraph.
04
Homework Assignment
~30 min
D2.His.16.6-8 Homework: Your Argument about the Alaska Purchase
Directions: Use Source 5 (the National Park Service answers, printed in the Closure phase) for Problems 1-3, and Sources 1-5 for Problems 4-6. Cite the source and paragraph for every piece of evidence.
Part 1: A Park Service Source (Problems 1-3)
According to Source 5, paragraph 2, how long have the Tlingit lived in southeastern Alaska? Explain why this fact matters to an argument about the purchase, and which question it is most applicable to.
Source 5, paragraph 5, gives several reasons why Russia sold Alaska. List them. Are they applicable evidence for the claim "Buying Alaska was wise for the United States"? Explain.
Source 1 and Source 5 give different dates for the transfer and different numbers for the Russians in Alaska or Sitka. Choose one of these differences, quote both sources, and explain what an honest arguer should do with it. For the numbers, check exactly whom and where each source is counting.
Part 2: Your Argument (Problems 4-6)
Fill in an Argument Builder for your claim: write the claim, two reasons, and two pieces of applicable evidence for each reason, each cited by source and paragraph.
Write the strongest counterclaim to your claim and answer it in two or three sentences, using at least one piece of evidence.
Write a coherent argument paragraph of 7-9 sentences about whether buying Alaska in 1867 was a wise decision. Use at least three sources and include your counterclaim and answer.
Rubric
Criterion
Full Credit (2 pts)
Partial Credit (1 pt)
No Credit (0 pts)
Claim
A clear claim that answers the question and can be disputed
A claim that is vague or partly a fact
No claim
Applicable evidence
Every piece fits the claim and its time frame, cited by source and paragraph
Most evidence fits; some is uncited or off the point
Evidence missing or not applicable
Organization
Evidence grouped under separate reasons, each with an explanation, in a clear order
Some grouping, with gaps in explanation
A list of facts
Counterclaim
States a strong counterclaim and answers it with evidence
States a counterclaim but answers it weakly
No counterclaim
05
Quiz: 20 Questions
Interactive, with answers
Instructions
Question 1 tests what a claim is. Questions 3-5 use Source 1 and Questions 6-7 use Source 2 (Direct Instruction). Questions 8-9 use Source 3 and Questions 10-12 and 14 use Source 4 (Guided Practice). Questions 2, 13 and 15-20 use more than one source. Choose the best answer for each multiple-choice question; write the number of sentences each short answer asks for, or three to five if it does not say.
Multiple choice: pick an option to check it. Short answer: write your answer, then reveal the model answer.
0 of 20 answered · 0 correct
Question 1 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Which of these sentences is a claim that could start an argument, rather than a fact?
Answer: C
A claim is a judgment someone could dispute. C judges the decision, so it can be argued with evidence. A, B and D are facts that can be checked in the records and that no one argues about.
Question 2 of 20 · Multiple Choice
A student claims: "In 1867, supporters had good reasons to want Alaska." Which evidence is most applicable to this claim?
Answer: B
The claim is about reasons people had in 1867, so the best evidence comes from 1867: Sumner's speech (Source 2, paragraph 1). A, C and D are true, but they describe later events that no one in 1867 could know, so they do not fit this claim.
Question 3 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Source 1, paragraph 2, says Russia offered to sell Alaska in 1859, "believing the United States would off-set the designs of Russia's greatest rival in the Pacific, Great Britain." Which question is this evidence most applicable to?
Answer: A
The sentence gives Russia's reason for choosing the United States as a buyer. It says nothing about gold (B), statehood (C) or the ceremony (D), so it would not be applicable evidence for those questions.
Question 4 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Source 1, paragraph 2, says the agreement was made on March 30, 1867, and the Senate approved the treaty on April 9. How many days passed between the two?
Answer: D
March has 31 days, so March 30 to March 31 is 1 day, and then 9 more days to April 9: 1 + 9 = 10. A counts only the days in April. B counts both March 30 and April 9 as whole days. C adds all 31 days of March to the 9 days of April.
Question 5 of 20 · Multiple Choice
According to Source 1, paragraph 3, why did the United States set up a civil government in Alaska in 1884?
Answer: C
Source 1 says the United States acted "Seeking a way to impose U.S. mining laws." Statehood (A) came 75 years later. B and D are not in the source.
Question 6 of 20 · Multiple Choice
In Source 2, paragraph 1, Sumner says the treaty was started by "two Senators from California, who, differing in political sentiments and in party relations," both wanted it. Why does he include this detail?
Answer: B
Pointing out that the senators came from different parties makes the treaty look like a shared national goal, which strengthens his argument. A and C are not what the sentence says, and D is the opposite of its point.
Question 7 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Sumner says the shorter route by the Aleutians brings "the enormous additional advantage of being obliged to carry much less coal" (Source 2, paragraph 2). What kind of reason is this?
Answer: A
Less coal means lower costs for ships trading with China and Japan, an expected benefit at the time. Sumner says nothing here about climate (B) or settlers (C), and the gold (D) came decades after his speech.
Question 8 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Andrews says Alaska was "equal in extent to Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark combined" (Source 3, paragraph 1). How could a student best use this in an argument?
Answer: D
The comparison shows the size of the land the United States received. Size alone does not prove there was gold (A) or anything about Russian rule (B), and Andrews is comparing size, not saying Alaska was in Europe (C).
Question 9 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Andrews writes that "The statesmanship of Secretary Seward, aided by the eloquence of Sumner, had secured for our country" this land (Source 3, paragraph 1). What does this wording show about Andrews?
Answer: B
Words like "statesmanship" and "eloquence" are praise, and "our country" shows he writes as an American who approves. A reverses his tone. C is wrong: he calls the United States "our country." D is wrong: he names both men.
Question 10 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Source 4, paragraph 1, says that Secretary of State Seward was "enthusiastic about the prospects of American Expansion." What does this tell an arguer about the decision?
Answer: A
Being enthusiastic about expansion means Seward wanted the country to grow. B is impossible, since the gold was found in 1896. C and D are the opposite of what the source says.
Question 11 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Source 4, paragraph 2, says critics used the nickname "until 1896, when the great Klondike Gold Strike convinced even the harshest critics." Which claim does this evidence fit best?
Answer: C
The sentence shows opinions changing after 1896, so it supports a claim about how later events changed judgments. A is wrong because critics existed. B is not stated: the gold came long after the purchase. D is not supported by this sentence.
Question 12 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Article III of the treaty (Source 4, paragraph 3) says inhabitants could "return to Russia within three years." What choice did it give the people living in the ceded territory?
Answer: A
Article III lets inhabitants return to Russia within three years or remain in the territory. No vote (B), land purchase (C) or army service (D) appears in the article.
Question 13 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Source 1 gives the price as "$7.2 million," and the treaty (Source 4, paragraph 4) says "seven million two hundred thousand dollars in gold." What does this agreement between two sources do for an argument?
Answer: B
When a secondary source and the treaty itself give the same figure, the figure is well supported. Agreement does not judge the price (A), does not show copying (C), and shows the price did not change (D).
Question 14 of 20 · Multiple Choice
Source 4 says the United States paid $7.2 million for "nearly 600,000 square miles." A square mile is 640 acres. About how much was paid per acre?
Answer: D
600,000 x 640 = 384,000,000 acres, and $7,200,000 / 384,000,000 is about $0.019, or 1.9 cents, which matches the source's "less than 2 cents an acre." A and C come from moving the decimal point one place to the left or right. B comes from leaving out the 640: $7,200,000 / 600,000 = $12 per square mile, then misreading dollars as cents.
Question 15 of 20 · Short Answer
Using only evidence from 1867 (Sources 2 and 4), write a claim about whether the purchase made sense at the time, and give two reasons, each with one cited piece of evidence.
Model answer: Claim: "In 1867, buying Alaska made sense to its supporters because it promised new harbors and was agreed between friendly governments." Reason 1: it would give the country more Pacific harbors; Sumner says that from Panama to Puget Sound "the only harbor of any considerable value is San Francisco" (Source 2, paragraph 2). Reason 2: the price was fixed and paid in gold under a formal treaty, "seven million two hundred thousand dollars in gold" (Source 4, paragraph 4). Rubric: full credit for a claim about the time of the decision, two separate reasons, and evidence from 1867 sources only, each cited; partial for one reason or for using later evidence.
Question 16 of 20 · Short Answer
For the claim "The purchase paid off later," decide whether each piece of evidence is applicable, and explain: (a) "Alaska became a state on January 3, 1959" (Source 1, paragraph 3); (b) "the crowds of adventurers who thronged its streets seeking a profit in speculations in lands and furs" (Source 3, paragraph 4); (c) "Defeat in the Crimean War further reduced Russian interest in this region" (Source 1, paragraph 1).
Model answer: (a) Partly applicable: statehood is a later result, but it does not show by itself that Alaska was valuable, so it needs other evidence. (b) Not applicable as support: it describes the first years after 1867, and the next sentence says the adventurers were disappointed, so it could only be used against the claim. (c) Not applicable: it explains why Russia sold, not what the United States gained later. Rubric: full credit for three judgments, each with a reason tied to the claim or its time frame; partial for two.
Question 17 of 20 · Short Answer
A counterclaim says: "The purchase was foolish; critics called it 'Seward's Folly' and 'Seward's Icebox.'" Write an answer to this counterclaim that uses evidence from two different sources.
Model answer: "Some people at the time called the purchase 'Seward's Folly' (Source 4, paragraph 2). However, the critics were judging before Alaska's resources were known. Source 1 describes the land as 'rich in natural resources' (paragraph 1), and Source 4 says the Klondike gold strike of 1896 'convinced even the harshest critics' (paragraph 2)." Rubric: full credit for stating the counterclaim fairly and answering it with evidence from two sources, cited; partial for an answer with one source or no evidence.
Question 18 of 20 · Short Answer
Sumner (Source 2) spoke in 1867 to win votes for the treaty; the Office of the Historian (Source 1) wrote much later. Which source is better evidence for (a) what supporters hoped for in 1867, and (b) what actually happened afterward? Explain each choice.
Model answer: (a) Sumner is better evidence for supporters' hopes, because he was a supporter speaking in 1867 and his speech shows the reasons they gave, such as trade with Asia. (b) The Office of the Historian is better for what happened afterward, because it was written long after and reports later events such as the civil government of 1884 and the gold of 1896. Sumner could not know these. Rubric: full credit for both choices with a reason tied to each source's date or purpose; partial for one.
Question 19 of 20 · Short Answer
These four sentences are out of order: (1) "Source 4 says the price was less than 2 cents an acre." (2) "Buying Alaska was a wise decision." (3) "For these reasons, the purchase was worth its cost." (4) "One reason is that the land was very cheap." Put them in a coherent order and write the missing sentence that explains the evidence.
Model answer: Order: 2, 4, 1, then a new explanation sentence, then 3. Missing explanation: "This shows that the United States gained a huge territory for very little money compared with its size." The claim comes first, the reason introduces the evidence, the explanation connects the evidence to the reason, and the conclusion closes the argument. Rubric: full credit for the order 2-4-1-(explanation)-3 and an explanation that links the price to the reason; partial for a correct order without the explanation.
Question 20 of 20 · Short Answer
Write a coherent argument paragraph (6-8 sentences) on this question: "Was buying Alaska in 1867 a wise decision for the United States?" Include a claim, two reasons, evidence from at least three sources, and a counterclaim with an answer.
Model answer (one defensible paragraph): "Buying Alaska in 1867 was a wise decision, even though its value took years to appear. First, it gave the United States a better position in the Pacific: Sumner argued that the northern harbors were 'nearer to the great marts of Japan and China' (Source 2, paragraph 2), and the Office of the Historian says the purchase 'ensured U.S. access to the Pacific northern rim' (Source 1, paragraph 2). Second, the land was cheap for its size, 'less than 2 cents an acre' (Source 4, paragraph 2). Some argue the purchase was a mistake, since adventurers in Sitka 'drifted away' disappointed (Source 3, paragraph 4). However, a slow start did not cancel the long-term gains, because the gold strike of 1896 'convinced even the harshest critics' (Source 4, paragraph 2). For these reasons, the purchase was worth its cost." A paragraph arguing "not wise" earns full credit if it is organized and supported the same way. Rubric: use the homework rubric (claim, applicable evidence, organization, counterclaim).
0 of 20 answered · 0 correct
06
Frequently Asked Questions
10 Questions
What does D2.His.16.6-8 mean?
D2.His.16.6-8 asks middle school students to organize applicable evidence into a coherent argument about the past. In plain words, students choose evidence that fits their claim, put it in a clear order under reasons, and connect the parts so the argument makes sense from start to finish. It is a history indicator in Dimension 2 of the C3 Framework, in the group on causation and argumentation.
What does "applicable evidence" mean?
Applicable evidence is evidence that fits the exact question and claim. A true fact is not always applicable: a fact about later events may not fit a claim about what people knew at the time, and a fact about one country's reasons may not fit a claim about another country's gains. Checking fit is the first step in organizing evidence.
What makes an argument "coherent"?
A coherent argument is one whose parts connect. It states a claim, gives separate reasons, places evidence under the reason it supports, explains each piece, answers a counterclaim and ends by returning to the claim. A list of true facts without these links is not yet an argument.
Why use the Alaska Purchase for D2.His.16.6-8?
People argued about the purchase in 1867, and short sources from that time and later survive, from a senator's speech to the treaty itself. The question "Was it wise?" has defensible answers on both sides, and it raises a key point about evidence: judging a decision by what was known then is different from judging it by what happened later.
Do students have to argue that the purchase was a good idea?
No. Students may argue that it was wise or unwise, or that it made sense in 1867 but proved its value only later. The rubric scores the claim, the fit of the evidence, the organization and the counterclaim, not the side a student chooses.
How does this lesson include Alaska Native peoples?
The sources show that the Tlingit had lived in southeastern Alaska for thousands of years that the treaty treated Native peoples differently from other inhabitants, and, in a National Park Service account (Source 7), that the Tlingit of Sitka resisted Russian rule and were never fully under Russian control before Russia sold its claim in 1867. Students can use this evidence for a second question, whether the purchase was fair to the people who lived there, or in a counterclaim. The teacher notes explain the treaty's offensive language.
How is D2.His.16.6-8 assessed?
D2.His.16.6-8 is usually assessed through written arguments built from supplied sources. Students may also sort evidence, judge whether a piece of evidence fits a claim, or put the parts of an argument in order. The quiz in this lesson mixes these short tasks with a full argument paragraph.
What mistakes do students make when organizing evidence?
Frequent mistakes include listing facts with no reasons, using evidence that does not fit the claim's time frame, citing nothing, and ignoring evidence on the other side. Another is placing evidence under the wrong reason. Asking "What does this piece of evidence prove, and about when?" helps students catch these.
How does D2.His.16.6-8 connect to writing standards?
It works closely with WHST.6-8.1, the Common Core standard for writing arguments in history, science and technical subjects, and with RH.6-8.1 on citing textual evidence. D2.His.16.6-8 adds the historian's task of checking that evidence fits the past moment the argument is about.
What comes after D2.His.16.6-8 in high school?
In grades 9-12, D2.His.16.9-12 asks students to integrate evidence from multiple relevant historical sources and interpretations into a reasoned argument about the past. Students then weigh historians' interpretations as well as primary sources, building on the organizing skills practiced here.
07
Related Standards
5 standards
These standards connect to D2.His.16.6-8: prerequisites to review first, parallel standards at the same level, and next steps that build on it.
Before this lesson
RH.6-8.1Prerequisite
Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources
Standard text: National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS), The College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards: Guidance for Enhancing the Rigor of K-12 Civics, Economics, Geography, and History (Silver Spring, MD: NCSS, 2013). NCSS was not involved in the production of this lesson and does not endorse it.
