DBQ Imperialist Expansionism
One of the most controversial issues facing Americans in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was the question of imperialist expansionism. The dilemma of whether or not the taking of colonies or the annexation of territories beyond the bounds of the North American land mass was congruous with previous American policies, including the Declaration of Independence, remained a major foreign policy debate between the Spanish-American War, beginning in 1898, and World War I, beginning in 1914. The truth of the matter was that expansion beyond the North American land mass was in fact a departure from earlier procedures but it was a departure that many Americans considered justifiable. The first, and clearest, indication of a drastic change of policy was the Spanish-American War. American intervention between Spain and her colonies of Cuba and the Philippines constituted involvement in European affairs that had previously been avoided under the Monroe Doctrine which was in turn based on Washington’s Neutrality policy. Still more controversial was the Treaty of Paris of 1898 through which the United States bought the Philippines and took control of a people that did not want t
Another difference between the old ‘Manifest Destiny’ approach to the annexation of the West and imperialism was that in North American expansion, that is, the move west, it was clearly the intension of the United States to eventually introduce all of that territory as part of the country proper. That is, the result of western expansion for all new territories was statehood, whether sooner or later. This was not always the case in colonial expansion, and is closely tied to the question of what rights colonial natives would be granted. This also introduced perhaps the most controversial aspect of all: violation of the American Declaration of Independence. The Declaration states that governments “derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.” If the United Stated were to take colonies against the will of the inhabitants, they would be in violation of their own precept, which, though not illegal, would be grossly hypocritical. Many Americans, such as members of the American Anti-Imperialist League, became very furious over what they considered violation of this principle, such as American action in the “war of ‘criminal aggression,’” being the American conquest of the Philippines during the Philippine War (Doc D). Another justification for imperialism was a pervasive feeling of superiority among White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. Josiah Strong in his Our Country: Its Possible Future and Present Crisis writes that the Anglo-Saxon race is the most culturally advanced, religiously pure, and most civilized of all races. It is thus the responsibility of said race to spread its civilization, culture, and religion around the world (Doc B). Strong introduced Racial Darwinism and suggested that the Anglo-Saxon way would spread over the globe due to its inherent superiority. These thoughts were echoed by many, including Senator Albert J. Beveridge, who in his address to Congress declared that the United States would not back out of the Philippines, presumably because of the Filipino-American conflict of the time, and that as god’s “chosen people” America should proceed to large-scale trade with the Far East and to become the great force in the world (Doc E).
Some topics in this essay:
Native Americans,
North American,
Doc Imperialists,
Dominican Republic,
Rico Philippines,
Spanish-American War,
Latin America,
United Stated,
United Philippines,
Panama Nicaragua,
spanish-american war,
monroe doctrine,
native americans,
north american,
foreign policy,
american trade,
‘dollar diplomacy’,
roosevelt corollary,
‘big stick’ policy,
neutrality policy,
dominican republic,
north american land,
spanish-american war american,
american land mass,
Join now to see the rest of the essay!
Approximate Word count = 1579
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)
CUSTOMER SERVICES
| |
|