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.

Question

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.

(20 points)

Answer 1

The Complex Legacy of American Imperialism: A Comparative Analysis

American imperialism, a term that describes the expansion of the United States' influence across economic, cultural, and military dimensions, emerged as a significant force after the Spanish-American War of 1898. This debate is epitomized in the opposing perspectives of Senators Albert J. Beveridge and Carl Schurz, who articulated both the motivations and implications of this expansionist policy. Beveridge fervently supports American imperialism as a moral obligation, while Schurz critiques it as a betrayal of democratic principles. This essay will analyze their viewpoints, highlighting both the potential benefits and the detrimental consequences of American imperialism.

In Passage A, Beveridge’s argument is rooted in the idea of a moral mission. He suggests that the United States has a "duty to discharge to [its] fellow man" and presents imperialism as an extension of American values—liberty and democracy—around the globe. He employs the phrase “march toward the commercial supremacy of the world” to emphasize that American expansion is not merely about land acquisition but about spreading its ideology and ensuring economic growth. By asserting that nations like China and India have stagnated due to their self-centeredness, he positions American involvement as a benevolent force destined to liberate and civilize. Beveridge explicitly cites the acquisition of territories like Hawaii and Puerto Rico as opportunities not only for economic expansion but also for establishing a “just, humane, civilizing government,” suggesting that imperialism serves both a practical and moral purpose.

In contrast, Schurz, in Passage B, presents a cautionary tale against the perils of imperialism. He warns that adopting such a system creates “two kinds of Americans”—a hierarchy that undermines the foundational principle of equality inherent in the Declaration of Independence. Schurz argues that the governance of new territories without the consent of the governed contradicts the core ideals of democracy. His reference to historical injustices, paralleling the subjugation of American colonists under British rule, serves to highlight the potential regression of American values. He contends that imperialism transforms the government “of the people, for the people and by the people” into a system of oppression, thereby jeopardizing the integrity of the democratic process at home.

The contrasting views of these senators reflect broader American ambivalence about its global role at the turn of the 20th century. While Beveridge portrays imperialism as a means of fulfilling a global destiny and showcasing national strength, Schurz underscores the inherent dangers of overreach and the moral decay it could bring to American democracy. The debate raises essential questions about the accountability of a nation that acts as a global power while espousing democratic principles at home.

In affirming Beveridge's perspective, one might argue that American imperialism bolstered global trade and enhanced international relations, contributing to the country's economic prosperity. For instance, the opening of new markets for American goods and the acquisition of military bases in strategic locations were indeed crucial for national security and economic expansion. Conversely, Schurz's perspective resonates with those wary of the ethical implications of such policies. Detractors of imperialism can argue that expanding through force or without the consent of the governed disallows the progress of democracy, breeding resentment both abroad and at home, and potentially sowing the seeds for future conflict.

A potential counterargument to this assessment is that without imperialism and the resulting expansion, the United States may not have achieved its current status as a global leader. Proponents of imperialism could assert that the U.S. is uniquely positioned to lead the world in spreading democratic ideals and that nations like the Philippines would benefit from American governance in terms of stability and economic development. However, this perspective tends to overlook the autonomy and rights of those populations, who may desire self-determination rather than foreign control.

In conclusion, the debate over American imperialism following the Spanish-American War presents a complex dichotomy between national ambition and ethical governance. Beveridge's advocacy for imperialism reflects a belief in America's mission to spread democracy and commerce, while Schurz's cautionary stance warns against the erosion of democratic values through subjugation. Ultimately, this discussion underscores the tension between the pursuit of national power and the adherence to the principles of equality and representation that define American democracy.