Question
Directions: Compare and contrast the viewpoints presented in Passage A and Passage B regarding American imperialism after the Spanish-American War in a multi-paragraph essay in which you analyze opposing claims by two U.S. Senators about American imperialism after the Spanish-American War.
Explain how each source interprets the motivations (reasons) behind American imperialism.
Identify any specific examples or evidence used in each source to support its perspective of the motivations behind American imperialism.
Discuss how these opposing views reflect the broader debate about America's role in the world at the turn of the 20th century.
American imperialism is how the United States' grew and gained influence around the world in economic, cultural and military areas.
Passage A: “The March of the Flag” - Albert J. Beveridge, September 16, 1898.
“Therefore, in this campaign, the question is larger than a party question. It is an American question. It is a world question. Shall the American people continue their march toward the commercial supremacy of the world? Shall free institutions broaden their blessed reign as the children of liberty wax in strength, until the empire of our principles is established over the hearts of all mankind?
Have we no mission to perform no duty to discharge to our fellow man? Has God endowed us with gifts beyond our deserts and marked us as the people of His peculiar favor, merely to rot in our own selfishness, as men and nations must, who take cowardice for their companion and self for their deity-as China has, as India has, as Egypt has?
Shall we be as the man who had one talent and hid it, or as he who had ten talents and used them until they grew to riches? And shall we reap the reward that waits on our discharge of our high duty; shall we occupy new markets for what our farmers raise, our factories make, our merchants sell-aye, and please God, new markets for what our ships shall carry?
Hawaii is ours; Porto Rico is to be ours; at the prayer of her people Cuba finally will be ours; in the islands of the East, even to the gates of Asia, coaling stations are to be ours at the very least; the flag of a liberal government is to float over the Philippines, and may it be the banner that Taylor unfurled in Texas and Fremont carried to the coast.
The Opposition tells us that we ought not to govern a people without their consent. I answer, The rule of liberty that all just government derives its authority from the consent of the governed, applies only to those who are capable of self government. We govern the Indians without their consent, we govern our territories without their consent, we govern our children without their consent. How do they know what our government would be without their consent? Would not the people of the Philippines prefer the just, humane, civilizing government of this Republic to the savage, bloody rule of pillage and extortion from which we have rescued them?”
Passage 2: “American Imperialism.” - Carl Schurz, January 4, 1899.
“If we do adopt such a system, then we shall, for the first time since the abolition of slavery, again have two kinds of Americans: Americans of the first class, who enjoy the privilege of taking part in the Government in accordance with our old Constitutional principles, and Americans of the second class, who are to be ruled in a substantially arbitrary fashion by the Americans of the first class, through Congressional legislation and the action of the national executive—not to speak of individual “masters” arrogating to themselves powers beyond the law.
This will be a difference no better—nay, rather somewhat worse—than that which a century and a quarter ago still existed between Englishmen of the first and Englishmen of the second class, the first represented by King George and the British Parliament, and the second by the American colonists. This difference called forth that great paean of human liberty, the American Declaration of Independence a document which, I regret to say, seems, owing to the intoxication of conquest, to have lost much of its charm among some of our fellow-citizens. Its fundamental principle was that “governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.” We are now told that we have never fully lived up to that principle, and that, therefore, in our new policy we may cast it aside altogether. But I say to you that, if we are true believers in democratic government, it is our duty to move in the direction towards the full realization of that principle and not in the direction away from it. If you tell me that we cannot govern the people of those new possessions in accordance with that principle, then I answer that this is a reason why this democracy should not attempt to govern them at all.
If we do, we shall transform the government of the people, for the people and by the people, for which Abraham Lincoln lived, into a government of one part of the people, the strong, over another part, the weak. Such an abandonment of a fundamental principle as a permanent policy may at first seem to bear only upon more or less distant dependencies, but it can hardly fail in its ultimate effects to disturb the rule of the same principle in the conduct of democratic government at home. And I warn the American people that a democracy cannot so deny its faith as to the vital conditions of its being—it cannot long play the King over subject populations without creating in itself ways of thinking and habits of action most dangerous to its own vitality—most dangerous especially to those classes of society which are the least powerful in the assertion, and the most helpless in the defense of their rights. Let the poor and the men who earn their bread by the labor of their hands pause and consider well before they give their
assent to a policy so deliberately forgetful of the equality of rights.
Writing Prompt
After reading both passages, write a multi-paragraph essay analyzing the two arguments made by the Senators.
In your essay, you should:
Discuss both the positive and negative aspects of American imperialism based on the arguments by the 2 senators.
Use evidence from the passages to support your points.
Provide a clear argument about the potential positives and negatives of the debate.
Essay Organization
Introduction: Present your thesis (your main argument). Explain what American imperialism is and what you think about it.
Body Paragraph 1: Present your first reason or piece of evidence supporting your argument. Explain why you agree with the senator.
Body Paragraph 2: Present your second reason or piece of evidence supporting your argument. Explain why you disagree with the senator
Counterargument: Present a potential counterargument (what someone might say to disagree with your thesis).
Conclusion: Summarize your argument and restate your thesis. Explain what American imperialism is and what you think about it.
Explain how each source interprets the motivations (reasons) behind American imperialism.
Identify any specific examples or evidence used in each source to support its perspective of the motivations behind American imperialism.
Discuss how these opposing views reflect the broader debate about America's role in the world at the turn of the 20th century.
American imperialism is how the United States' grew and gained influence around the world in economic, cultural and military areas.
Passage A: “The March of the Flag” - Albert J. Beveridge, September 16, 1898.
“Therefore, in this campaign, the question is larger than a party question. It is an American question. It is a world question. Shall the American people continue their march toward the commercial supremacy of the world? Shall free institutions broaden their blessed reign as the children of liberty wax in strength, until the empire of our principles is established over the hearts of all mankind?
Have we no mission to perform no duty to discharge to our fellow man? Has God endowed us with gifts beyond our deserts and marked us as the people of His peculiar favor, merely to rot in our own selfishness, as men and nations must, who take cowardice for their companion and self for their deity-as China has, as India has, as Egypt has?
Shall we be as the man who had one talent and hid it, or as he who had ten talents and used them until they grew to riches? And shall we reap the reward that waits on our discharge of our high duty; shall we occupy new markets for what our farmers raise, our factories make, our merchants sell-aye, and please God, new markets for what our ships shall carry?
Hawaii is ours; Porto Rico is to be ours; at the prayer of her people Cuba finally will be ours; in the islands of the East, even to the gates of Asia, coaling stations are to be ours at the very least; the flag of a liberal government is to float over the Philippines, and may it be the banner that Taylor unfurled in Texas and Fremont carried to the coast.
The Opposition tells us that we ought not to govern a people without their consent. I answer, The rule of liberty that all just government derives its authority from the consent of the governed, applies only to those who are capable of self government. We govern the Indians without their consent, we govern our territories without their consent, we govern our children without their consent. How do they know what our government would be without their consent? Would not the people of the Philippines prefer the just, humane, civilizing government of this Republic to the savage, bloody rule of pillage and extortion from which we have rescued them?”
Passage 2: “American Imperialism.” - Carl Schurz, January 4, 1899.
“If we do adopt such a system, then we shall, for the first time since the abolition of slavery, again have two kinds of Americans: Americans of the first class, who enjoy the privilege of taking part in the Government in accordance with our old Constitutional principles, and Americans of the second class, who are to be ruled in a substantially arbitrary fashion by the Americans of the first class, through Congressional legislation and the action of the national executive—not to speak of individual “masters” arrogating to themselves powers beyond the law.
This will be a difference no better—nay, rather somewhat worse—than that which a century and a quarter ago still existed between Englishmen of the first and Englishmen of the second class, the first represented by King George and the British Parliament, and the second by the American colonists. This difference called forth that great paean of human liberty, the American Declaration of Independence a document which, I regret to say, seems, owing to the intoxication of conquest, to have lost much of its charm among some of our fellow-citizens. Its fundamental principle was that “governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.” We are now told that we have never fully lived up to that principle, and that, therefore, in our new policy we may cast it aside altogether. But I say to you that, if we are true believers in democratic government, it is our duty to move in the direction towards the full realization of that principle and not in the direction away from it. If you tell me that we cannot govern the people of those new possessions in accordance with that principle, then I answer that this is a reason why this democracy should not attempt to govern them at all.
If we do, we shall transform the government of the people, for the people and by the people, for which Abraham Lincoln lived, into a government of one part of the people, the strong, over another part, the weak. Such an abandonment of a fundamental principle as a permanent policy may at first seem to bear only upon more or less distant dependencies, but it can hardly fail in its ultimate effects to disturb the rule of the same principle in the conduct of democratic government at home. And I warn the American people that a democracy cannot so deny its faith as to the vital conditions of its being—it cannot long play the King over subject populations without creating in itself ways of thinking and habits of action most dangerous to its own vitality—most dangerous especially to those classes of society which are the least powerful in the assertion, and the most helpless in the defense of their rights. Let the poor and the men who earn their bread by the labor of their hands pause and consider well before they give their
assent to a policy so deliberately forgetful of the equality of rights.
Writing Prompt
After reading both passages, write a multi-paragraph essay analyzing the two arguments made by the Senators.
In your essay, you should:
Discuss both the positive and negative aspects of American imperialism based on the arguments by the 2 senators.
Use evidence from the passages to support your points.
Provide a clear argument about the potential positives and negatives of the debate.
Essay Organization
Introduction: Present your thesis (your main argument). Explain what American imperialism is and what you think about it.
Body Paragraph 1: Present your first reason or piece of evidence supporting your argument. Explain why you agree with the senator.
Body Paragraph 2: Present your second reason or piece of evidence supporting your argument. Explain why you disagree with the senator
Counterargument: Present a potential counterargument (what someone might say to disagree with your thesis).
Conclusion: Summarize your argument and restate your thesis. Explain what American imperialism is and what you think about it.
Answers
GPT-4o mini
### Analyzing American Imperialism through the Lens of Two Senators
The turn of the 20th century marked a significant transformation in American foreign policy as the United States transitioned from a nation focused on continental expansion to one that actively pursued imperialism on a global scale, particularly after the Spanish-American War. This era witnessed a clash of ideologies represented by two prominent senators: Albert J. Beveridge, who championed American imperialism, and Carl Schurz, who vehemently opposed it. Beveridge believed in a mission to spread American ideals and influence, while Schurz warned against the dangers of creating a ruling class through imperialism. This essay will analyze their opposing viewpoints regarding the motivations behind American imperialism, illustrating the complex debate about America's role in the world during this critical period.
Beveridge’s argument for American imperialism stemmed from a belief in the nation’s exceptionalism and responsibility to spread democracy and capitalism. He asserted, “Shall the American people continue their march toward the commercial supremacy of the world?” suggesting that American expansion was not only economically motivated but also a moral imperative to share democratic principles globally. He invoked a religious and civilizing mission, arguing that failing to engage in imperialism would lead to the United States “rotting in… selfishness.” His examples include the acquisition of territories like Hawaii and the Philippines, framed not as acts of conquest but as opportunities to uplift nations deemed incapable of self-governance. Beveridge saw imperialism as a necessary step toward securing markets for American goods and promoting the spread of liberty, thus positioning the United States as a global leader.
Conversely, Schurz framed American imperialism as a betrayal of the nation’s foundational principles, particularly the notion that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. He cautioned that adopting an imperialistic stance would lead to “two kinds of Americans: Americans of the first class… and Americans of the second class,” signifying a dangerous shift toward inequality and oppression reminiscent of colonial structures. Schurz used historical references, comparing the situation to the tyranny of British rule over American colonists, to stress that imperialism risked entrenching aristocratic governance over subjugated peoples. By arguing that the United States should not exercise control over others without their consent, he underscored the potential moral decay of American democracy. Schurz posited that imperialism could erode the nation’s democratic values and create a society where the powerful dominate the powerless, destabilizing the democratic ideals Lincoln championed.
While Beveridge presented imperialism as a pathway to national greatness and global humanitarian duty, Schurz illuminated the intrinsic contradictions and moral hazards of such an approach. They both articulated valid concerns: Beveridge emphasized the economic and civilizing benefits of expansion, while Schurz warned of the dangers of redefining American identity towards exclusion and oppression. This intellectual back-and-forth reflects the broader debate on America’s role on the world stage; whether the nation should position itself as a benevolent leader or risk descending into a system reminiscent of the colonial rule it once fought against.
Anticipating a counterargument, one might assert that American imperialism was a tool of progress, allowing the U.S. to uplift underdeveloped nations and prevent powers like Spain from dominating them. Proponents of this perspective argue that imperialism can lead to modernization and economic growth for the subjugated territories. They may highlight instances where American presence has seemingly benefited local populations through infrastructural development and improved governance.
Nevertheless, the core of this debate centers on the ethical implications of such actions. The democratic values that define the United States come under scrutiny with every exertion of imperialistic power. American imperialism, as championed by Beveridge, presents a duality: one that seeks to spread wealth and liberty while simultaneously risking the alienation and oppression of those it governs, as Schurz aptly warns.
In conclusion, the perspectives of Beveridge and Schurz not only reflect the divergent motivations behind American imperialism but also the enduring tensions in American identity. American imperialism, driven by a combination of economic ambition and a purported civilizing mission, has transformative potential but also poses significant moral challenges. As we assess this issue today, it remains essential to balance aspirations for global influence with unwavering commitment to the fundamental democratic principles upon which the nation was founded. Understanding the nuanced complexities of these viewpoints is crucial for navigating America's past and its role in shaping the future of international relations.
The turn of the 20th century marked a significant transformation in American foreign policy as the United States transitioned from a nation focused on continental expansion to one that actively pursued imperialism on a global scale, particularly after the Spanish-American War. This era witnessed a clash of ideologies represented by two prominent senators: Albert J. Beveridge, who championed American imperialism, and Carl Schurz, who vehemently opposed it. Beveridge believed in a mission to spread American ideals and influence, while Schurz warned against the dangers of creating a ruling class through imperialism. This essay will analyze their opposing viewpoints regarding the motivations behind American imperialism, illustrating the complex debate about America's role in the world during this critical period.
Beveridge’s argument for American imperialism stemmed from a belief in the nation’s exceptionalism and responsibility to spread democracy and capitalism. He asserted, “Shall the American people continue their march toward the commercial supremacy of the world?” suggesting that American expansion was not only economically motivated but also a moral imperative to share democratic principles globally. He invoked a religious and civilizing mission, arguing that failing to engage in imperialism would lead to the United States “rotting in… selfishness.” His examples include the acquisition of territories like Hawaii and the Philippines, framed not as acts of conquest but as opportunities to uplift nations deemed incapable of self-governance. Beveridge saw imperialism as a necessary step toward securing markets for American goods and promoting the spread of liberty, thus positioning the United States as a global leader.
Conversely, Schurz framed American imperialism as a betrayal of the nation’s foundational principles, particularly the notion that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. He cautioned that adopting an imperialistic stance would lead to “two kinds of Americans: Americans of the first class… and Americans of the second class,” signifying a dangerous shift toward inequality and oppression reminiscent of colonial structures. Schurz used historical references, comparing the situation to the tyranny of British rule over American colonists, to stress that imperialism risked entrenching aristocratic governance over subjugated peoples. By arguing that the United States should not exercise control over others without their consent, he underscored the potential moral decay of American democracy. Schurz posited that imperialism could erode the nation’s democratic values and create a society where the powerful dominate the powerless, destabilizing the democratic ideals Lincoln championed.
While Beveridge presented imperialism as a pathway to national greatness and global humanitarian duty, Schurz illuminated the intrinsic contradictions and moral hazards of such an approach. They both articulated valid concerns: Beveridge emphasized the economic and civilizing benefits of expansion, while Schurz warned of the dangers of redefining American identity towards exclusion and oppression. This intellectual back-and-forth reflects the broader debate on America’s role on the world stage; whether the nation should position itself as a benevolent leader or risk descending into a system reminiscent of the colonial rule it once fought against.
Anticipating a counterargument, one might assert that American imperialism was a tool of progress, allowing the U.S. to uplift underdeveloped nations and prevent powers like Spain from dominating them. Proponents of this perspective argue that imperialism can lead to modernization and economic growth for the subjugated territories. They may highlight instances where American presence has seemingly benefited local populations through infrastructural development and improved governance.
Nevertheless, the core of this debate centers on the ethical implications of such actions. The democratic values that define the United States come under scrutiny with every exertion of imperialistic power. American imperialism, as championed by Beveridge, presents a duality: one that seeks to spread wealth and liberty while simultaneously risking the alienation and oppression of those it governs, as Schurz aptly warns.
In conclusion, the perspectives of Beveridge and Schurz not only reflect the divergent motivations behind American imperialism but also the enduring tensions in American identity. American imperialism, driven by a combination of economic ambition and a purported civilizing mission, has transformative potential but also poses significant moral challenges. As we assess this issue today, it remains essential to balance aspirations for global influence with unwavering commitment to the fundamental democratic principles upon which the nation was founded. Understanding the nuanced complexities of these viewpoints is crucial for navigating America's past and its role in shaping the future of international relations.