Could I have feedback on my intro for this Civil Rights essay. (1 Viewer)

[Illuminati_chimp]

To what extent did the attitudes of Us Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson affect the achievements of the civil rights movement in the USA to 1968

To a significant extent the attitudes of US presidents affected the achievements of the Civil Rights Movement in the USA to 1968. In an era of unbridled racial tension, the presidents in term each had an important stance on civil rights, ranging from Eisenhower’s reluctance to take bold action to Kennedy’s growing commitment to the cause. The changes and achievements brought about by the attitudes of presidents would not have arisen if not for the continued protest arranged by black and white activists, lead by notable persons such as Martin Luther King. Similarly, attitudes of the presidents would not have had an impact without the shift in public opinion inside of America and the repulsed International perspective of the land of the free.

 

[Masaken]

To what extent did the attitudes of Us Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson affect the achievements of the civil rights movement in the USA to 1968

To a significant extent the attitudes of US presidents affected the achievements of the Civil Rights Movement in the USA to 1968. In an era of unbridled racial tension, the presidents in term each had an important stance on civil rights, ranging from Eisenhower’s reluctance to take bold action to Kennedy’s growing commitment to the cause. The changes and achievements brought about by the attitudes of presidents would not have arisen if not for the continued protest arranged by black and white activists, lead by notable persons such as Martin Luther King. Similarly, attitudes of the presidents would not have had an impact without the shift in public opinion inside of America and the repulsed International perspective of the land of the free.

personally i think you're not answering the 'to what an extent' question completely. 'to what extent' is a judgement question that implies only to a limited/certain amount of something. to get more marks you need to acknowledge the limited/certain amount of the meaning of the question into your answer - something along the lines of 'the attitudes of the US presidents significantly affected blah blah, however many of these achievements can also be notably attributed to blah' (my us history is rusty, but i believe that you could say that the attitudes of the people/protestors themselves and their efforts (both violent/nonviolent) affected the achievements. you already go on a bit about it in regards to MLK but you should the efforts of the activists themselves in your thesis)

you're also restating the question in your thesis, which is a huge nono. what are the achievements of the civil rights movement? what attitudes (in favour or against)? you need to provide your own insight into the attitudes and achievements otherwise your thesis has no substance (which is bad because your thesis is the first impression of your essay that a marker will get). how did they 'affect' --> are you trying to say that they helped to reach those achievements? did they hinder those achievements and their impact)

your intro is meant to introduce your ideas, which could be rearranged better in the intro (but it's there) --> could say something like eisenhower's inaction hindered the civil rights movement from achieving their goals during this time period, however kennedy was committed to help and johnson was willing to sign legislation in regards to civil rights and that positively impacted. then in the third paragraph state that the efforts of the civil rights movement (of the activists and protestors themselves) aided greatly for these presidents to help act

 

[Anaya R]

Adding onto what Masaken said, ideally you want to show the structure of your essay is in the introduction. It's hard to decipher what your "key ideas" are within that.
(The reason an intro should give the general structure pertains to the point that iirc says that higher responses show a deeper level of planning).
Ideas wise, I think so far it's more like the outer ideas that are affecting the presidents rather than the attitudes affecting the movement itself. You may want to rearrange your statements so you can acknowledge these factors too (e.g. again iirc Kennedy's growing commitment came from a sense of opposition to being "neutral" in the movement due to lack of action so he had to address it).

 

[Illuminati_chimp]

Nvm here my final draft
To a varying extent, the attitudes of US presidents progressed the achievements of the Civil Rights Movement in the USA to 1968. These achievements legally desegregated public facilities, fostered greater black participation in voting and created an equal opportunity for black workers in government jobs and the housing market. While some presidents, such as Eisenhower, were reluctant to take bold action on civil rights, others, such as Kennedy and Johnson, showed a growing commitment to the cause through powerful speeches, like Johnson's "We Shall Overcome," they helped create a national conversation around civil rights. Although significant, their attitudes were not enough to instigate change. However, the signing of legislation by the presidents, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, ultimately bettered America for its diverse inhabitants. The achievements brought about by the presidents would not have integrated themselves without the continued protest, such as the Woolworth sit-ins and Montgomery Bus Boycott, arranged by black and white activists, conducted by strong leaders such as Martin Luther King. Hence, the attitudes of US presidents played a crucial role in shaping the course of the Civil Rights Movement, but it was the collective effort of many individuals that ultimately led to lasting change.