Question

how does Beveridge use American military history to support his argument for expansion 1. he suggests that part wars demonstrate the need for the u.s to avoid global conflict 2. he argues that American soldiers have historically resisted fighting overseas 3. he claims that American military success proves the nations ability to lead and civilize others 4 he states that the military is too inexperienced to manage new territories

Answer 1

Only option 3 is correct.

Brief explanations:
- 1 (avoid global conflict): Incorrect. Beveridge argued the opposite — that the U.S. should take an active global role, not avoid it.
- 2 (soldiers resisted fighting overseas): Incorrect. He did not portray Americans as unwilling to fight abroad; instead he appealed to past military successes and national vigor as justification for overseas expansion.
- 3 (military success proves ability to lead and civilize): Correct. Beveridge invoked American military victories and the nation’s proven strength to argue the U.S. had both the capacity and the moral duty to take and govern new territories and “civilize” them.
- 4 (military too inexperienced): Incorrect. He presented the military record as evidence of readiness, not as a weakness.

So Beveridge uses American military history to show competence and mandate for expansion, not to argue restraint or inexperience.