In a one paragraph response, compare the two opposing American opinions regarding the expansion of the United States near the turn of the twentieth century. In your analysis, identify at least two ways in which the United States benefited from its imperialist foreign policy as well as two drawbacks to expansion. (Hint... this question is referring to the imperialist vs. anti-imperialist debate referenced throughout the unit.)(5 points)

Question

with this question answer only using this inoformation Did Seward’s Folly end up benefiting the U.S. economically?
Possible response: Seward’s Folly eventually benefited the United States from an economic standpoint. Alaska turned out to be rich in mineral resources such as gold, which was very profitable for the United States.
What were the economic reasons for expanding American territory?
Possible response: Business owners wanted to increase the size of their customer pool to decrease risk. Industrial production required new sources of labor and natural resources. American consumers wanted cheaper goods, which could be provided with a larger marketplace and increased competition.

What religious and social interests pushed America toward expansion?
Possible response: Religious leaders saw expansion as a chance to spread Christian values. Reformers saw a similar opportunity to spread their progressive ideas.

What motivated progressive reformers to spread their ideas in foreign countries?
Possible response: Some progressive reformers believed in the concept of the white man’s burden, the idea that non-Anglo-Saxon people were inferior and needed support and guidance from white people. Others loved democracy and wanted other countries to adopt democratic governments.
Why did Mahan suggest establishing a network of bases to support the expanding navy?
Possible response: The network of bases was needed to refuel the fleet and to provide supplies and food to its crews. Without this support, the fleet would be severely limited in how far it could travel away from the mainland United States.
Why did the policy of isolationism no longer work for new American leaders?
Possible response: New American leaders wanted the U.S. to become a global power. Focusing only on domestic affairs would not lead to the global expansion European nations had modeled.

Answer 1

During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the American public was sharply divided over the nation’s imperialist tendencies, with proponents arguing that expansion would bolster economic growth and enhance global influence, while opponents warned of moral and political overreach. Supporters of imperialism cited the economic benefits of acquiring new territories, such as Alaska, which was rich in natural resources like gold, thus providing the U.S. with lucrative opportunities. Additionally, expanding American territory promised to create larger markets for goods, decreasing risk for businesses and enabling industrial growth by providing access to cheap labor and resources. Conversely, anti-imperialists highlighted the drawbacks of such a strategy, including the ethical implications of imposing American values on other nations, encapsulated in the notion of the "white man's burden," and the potential for costly military engagements that could divert attention from domestic issues. Furthermore, there was a growing fear that expansion could lead to a loss of American identity by entangling the nation in foreign conflicts and governance challenges, ultimately compromising its democratic principles.