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)
make it a little short

Answer 1

Essay on American Imperialism: A Comparison of Viewpoints by Senators Beveridge and Schurz

American imperialism, which refers to the United States' extension of influence and control over other nations, especially during the late 19th century, generated significant debate among politicians and citizens alike after the Spanish-American War. Two prominent figures in this discourse were Senators Albert J. Beveridge and Carl Schurz, each presenting contrasting perspectives on the motivations and implications of American expansionism. While Beveridge saw imperialism as a noble mission to promote democracy and economic growth, Schurz cautioned against the moral and democratic consequences of ruling over other populations without their consent. Both arguments provide critical insights into the complexities surrounding American imperialism and its broader implications for the nation.

Beveridge's viewpoint presents a positive interpretation of American imperialism, framing it as a divine mission to spread democracy and economic prosperity. He argues that the United States has a duty to expand its principles of liberty and self-governance, suggesting that doing so will ultimately benefit both Americans and the peoples of newly acquired territories. For instance, he asserts, “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?” Beveridge's rhetoric implies that the United States must seize the opportunity to demonstrate its superiority and fulfill its perceived moral obligations. He believes that the annexation of territories like Puerto Rico and the Philippines will provide new markets for American goods, ultimately fostering economic growth that benefits the nation. This perspective embraces imperialism as a means to elevate both Americans and the populations of these territories, promoting a vision of progress and civilization.

Conversely, Schurz emphasizes the negative consequences of imperialism, warning that it undermines the fundamental democratic principles of consent and equality. He contends that establishing a hierarchical system of governance—where Americans of “first class” rule over “second class” citizens—contradicts the values that led to the formation of the United States. Schurz states, “If we do, we shall transform the government of the people, for the people and by the people... into a government of one part of the people, the strong, over another part, the weak.” He invokes the Declaration of Independence and the ideals of freedom and equality, arguing that imperialism represents a regression into oppressive rule reminiscent of colonial Britain. Schurz warns that this abandonment of core democratic principles could have detrimental effects domestically, fostering inequality and undermining the very foundations of American democracy.

A potential counterargument to Schurz's viewpoint could center on the idea that Beveridge’s vision of American imperialism aligns with the belief in "white man's burden"—suggesting that Americans have a responsibility to civilize and uplift other nations. Proponents of this view might argue that American intervention in places like the Philippines is invaluable in providing stability, education, and governance that would otherwise be lacking.

In conclusion, the debate over American imperialism as presented by Senators Beveridge and Schurz reveals the complexities of America's role in the world at the turn of the 20th century. Beveridge's optimistic view underscores an ambition for economic growth and humanitarian duty, while Schurz’s criticism highlights the inherent contradictions of expanding democracy through domination. Ultimately, the discussion on American imperialism serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between expansionist ambitions and the ethical responsibilities that come with such power.