I am a history major and I read all the sources I am given but can never grasp what the big picture is. I remember all the details of what I read, but when I go to class I get lost because I can never seem to put the pieces together of what the social implications of whats going. For instance we read up on Birmingham the other day and I knew what happened but I didn't read between the lines. When I read I didn't see that there was a struggle for control of protests between organizations. I knew that was going on, but I didn't see it in what I read.
Sorry if I don't make sense, at work typing while looking behind my shoulder.
Please help, I want to be an excellent attorney someday, that's why I chose this major. But I seem to fail at the most important aspect of law and history, reading comprehension and analysis.
Read simpler sources before diving into specifics. If you have a rough overview of what happened in a certain period of history, you have a much easier time understanding the bigger picture.
For example: When you read through the history of Bismarck and the 'Kaiserreich' you'll find out that Bismarck was opposed to social democrats, yet introduced a social security system. How and why did he do that? Well, when you look at the bigger picture, it seems obvious since Bismarck was trying to eliminate the 'enemies of the system'. He tried (and failed) to eliminate the church's influence by taking them out of the day to day lives of people, but with the social democrats he had to give them what they wanted in an attempt to quiet them down (which also failed).
I hope you understand what I was going for with this (admittedly dumbed down) example.
Study history like you're living it, like if YOU had to make the decisions. Look at the possibilities that were open to a figure and why they made the decision that they made.
Sam Houston was commander of Texas forces in the Texas revolution. The Alamo was a ghetto rigged outpost and the first fort on the high way from Mexico proper to Texas. Houston's options; reinforce the out post with his small ill trained militia and fight a rigid battle with a well trained overwhelming force.
OR abandon the outpost that isn't strategically important, consolidate your resources, continue training and work for a better footing.
He chooses to abandon the fort BUT due to the nature of shortsighted farmer-soldiers. They refuse to abandon what they see as the last trench, their helms deep. That sets the stage for the destruction of the Alamo.
Now the politicians want Houston to slam into the Mexicans. He doesn't. But why? Because he sees that nothing has changed. So he goes with what he knew to be the best option, pull back and consolidate. Everyone thought he was running for the US but what were his motivations? He knew a smaller army moves faster, every mile the Mexicans take means their supplies are stretched. The Mexicans want to fight. Texas has only one army, so one defeat and the whole things lost
So what would you do?