Historian-in-training here. I'm in a 400-level (senior/final year) history class on American Violence. I stupidly picked a vague topic for the area of my final paper in this class: The Lincoln County War. I was planning on narrowing it down after I'd done some research. I know, noobtastic mistake.
Now I'm floundering, (surprise!) because after doing that research, I've realized my original idea won't work. I wanted to write about the difference between the way John Chisum and Billy the Kid are treated differently by history and popular culture. Was Chisum given a pass to do whatever he wanted because he was a rich guy? Etc.
After some investigation, this topic really isn't working, and I can't switch now. I would appreciate any advice AskHistorians can give me on two things:
A new thesis I'm chewing on to see if I can make it work is "Was violence in the old west really as prevalent as popular culture paints it, or were vigilante acts like those surrounding the Lincoln Co. War the exception rather than the rule?" I'd appreciate anyone's thoughts on this. Is that way too general for a paper of this length? This is a mini-paper (only 6 pages), so I need a very refined and specific thesis statement that I can outline in a couple of thousand words and then do a few thousand words of analysis on.
I need suggestions for lines of investigation for evidence that I should dig into. I already have a few research materials, including Garrett's The Authentic Life of Billy the Kid, newspaper accounts of the events of the Lincoln Co. War, and Waldrep & Bellesiles' Documenting American Violence which has some related primary sources from the era. Does anyone have any other suggestions?
Oh, and the deadline is in two weeks. I'm a fast writer, so if I get a direction and get on track by this weekend I should be good. Hope I'm not totally effed.
Long ago in a previous century, I was an undergraduate who pursued a line of research for year only to find myself facing a dead end. I was crushed, so I went to my mentor and asked what I should do. "Take it further," is what he said. It was great advice and I learned never play games where I was going to lose. Always change the rules. And cheat if you need to. Cheating is good. Figure out a different approach and run with that.
Perhaps you could apply your question to some of the lesser-known players. Or perhaps you can ask about the role of women or minorities in this story and how were they treated by history. The "violence was less than popular culture paints it" thesis has been worked fairly hard in recent years. That's not groundbreaking, but it is not unreasonable (you can find several articles on this in the recent 15 years of the Western Historical Quarterly). But I wouldn't recommend that approach because it has been worked over.
If I can help kick things around, don't hesitate to call on me - here or with a pm. Every historians has been where you are. The magic happens when you figure your way out of the box.