Name __________________________
Date: ________________
Section: 11.1
11.2
(circle one)
U. S. History II
HW 3.2: The Debate Over U.S. Imperialism
Classwork: I will assign you a source presenting an argument for or against American
imperialism. Working with the two or three other students assigned to the same source,
you will be responsible for the following tasks:
1. Read and annotate your assigned document. These are difficult, complex texts – you
should be underlining main ideas, noting the definitions of unfamiliar words, and
using other strategies to help you understand the text.
2. On a separate sheet of paper, answer the guiding questions attached to each source.
Everyone in your group must write down answers to each question.
3. Be prepared to explain your source’s position and argument about imperialism to
another student who has not read your source.
Homework
1. Using information gathered from your classmates to guide you, read the other two
sources on your side (for or against imperialism). In one paragraph per source,
summarize that source’s major argument. (You may use the guiding questions to
help you do this, but you do not have to answer them directly.)
2. In each of the three sources on your side, underline or highlight at least three pieces
of DRT that you might use to re-enact a debate over US imperialism in tomorrow’s
class.
4. Source A. Albert Beveridge, “The March of the Flag” (1898)
This speech was delivered as a campaign speech by Albert Beveridge, a Republican senator
from Indiana and a strong supporter of American expansion, in 1898.
…Today, we are raising more than we can consume, making more than we can use.
Therefore we must find new markets for our produce.
And so, while we did not need the territory taken during the past century at the time it was
acquired, we do need what we have taken in 1898 and we need it now. The resources and
the commerce of the immensely rich dominions will be increased as much as American
energy is greater than Spanish sloth.
In Cuba, alone, there are 15,000,000 acres of forest unacquainted with the ax, exhaustless
mines of iron, priceless deposits of manganese, millions of dollars' worth of which we must
buy, today, from the Black Sea districts. There are millions of acres yet unexplored.
The resources of Porto Rico have only been trifled with. The riches of the Philippines have
hardly been touched by the fingertips of modern methods. And they produce what we
consume, and consume what we produce - the very predestination of reciprocity - a
reciprocity "not made with hands, eternal in the heavens." They sell hemp, sugar,
cocoanuts, fruits of the tropics, timber of price like mahogany; they buy flour, clothing,
tools, implements, machinery and all that we can raise and make. Their trade will be ours in
time. Do you indorse that policy with your vote?
Cuba is as large as Pennsylvania, and is the richest spot on the globe. Hawaii is as large as
New Jersey; Porto Rico half as large as Hawaii; the Philippines larger than all New England,
New York, New Jersey and Delaware combined. Together they are larger than the British
Isles, larger than France, larger than Germany, larger than Japan.
Guiding Questions
1. Is Beveridge for or against American imperialism?
2. According to Beveridge, what major change has caused a new need for overseas
expansion, and why? (Hint: it’s a key term from the Gilded Age.)
3. Which three countries or territories does Beveridge specifically mention as targets
for American expansion? What resources do they have?
4. Beveridge compares Cuba, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines to various states
and countries. Why? What point does this comparison support?
5. What is Beveridge’s major argument about imperialism?
Source B. Josiah Strong, Our Country (1885)
This is an excerpt from a book by Josiah Strong, a Protestant minister who strongly supported
American expansion overseas.
Mr. [Charles] Darwin is not only disposed to see, in the superior vigor of [the American]
people, an illustration of his favorite theory of natural selection, but even intimates that the
world's history thus far has been simply preparatory for our future, and tributary to it. He
says: “There is apparently much truth in the belief that the wonderful progress of the
United States, as well as the character of the people, are the results of natural selection; for
the more energetic, restless, and courageous men from all parts of Europe have emigrated
during the last ten or twelve generations to that great country, and have there succeeded
best.” …
It seems to me that God, with infinite wisdom and skill, is training the Anglo-Saxon [i.e.,
white, English-speaking] race for an hour sure to come in the world's future. Heretofore
there has always been in the history of the world a comparatively unoccupied land
westward, into which the crowded countries of the East have poured their surplus
populations. But the widening waves of migration, which millenniums ago rolled east and
west from the valley of the Euphrates, meet to-day on our Pacific coast. There are no more
new worlds. The unoccupied arable lands of the earth are limited, and will soon be taken.
The time is coming when the pressure of population on the means of subsistence will be
felt here as it is now felt in Europe and Asia. Then will the world enter upon a new stage of
its history - the final competition of races, for which the Anglo-Saxon is being schooled. Long
before the thousand millions are here, the mighty centrifugal [spreading outwards]
tendency, inherent in this stock and strengthened in the United States, will assert itself.
Then this race of unequaled energy, with all the majesty of numbers and the might of
wealth behind it-the representative, let us hope, of the largest liberty, the purest
Christianity, the highest civilization-having developed peculiarly aggressive traits
calculated to impress its institutions upon mankind, will spread itself over the earth. If I
read not amiss, this powerful race will move down upon Mexico, down upon Central and
South America, out upon the islands of the sea, over upon Africa and beyond. And can any
one doubt that the results of this competition of races will be the "survival of the fittest?"
Guiding Questions
1. Is Strong for or against American imperialism?
2. Why does Strong mention Charles Darwin (who invented the theory of natural
selection)?
3. According to Strong, in what ways does the Anglo-Saxon race differ from other
races?
4. What is Strong’s prediction for the future of the Anglo-Saxon race? Why does he
predict this future?
5. What is Strong’s major argument about imperialism?
Source C. Theodore Roosevelt, “Annual Message to Congress” (1906)
This is an excerpt from a speech to Congress given by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1906.
In it, Roosevelt laid out a principle of foreign policy now known as the Roosevelt Corollary to
the Monroe Doctrine. The Monroe Doctrine (1823) proclaimed that the US would not tolerate
attempts by European countries to colonize or interfere with any territory in North or South
America. The Roosevelt Corollary asserted that the US could and would use military force in
Latin America in order to restore order or protect American interests.
It is not true that the United States feels any land hunger or entertains any projects as
regards the other nations of the Western Hemisphere save such as are for their welfare. All
that this country desires is to see the neighboring countries stable, orderly, and
prosperous. Any country whose people conduct themselves well can count upon our hearty
friendship. If a nation shows that it knows how to act with reasonable efficiency and
decency in social and political matters, if it keeps order and pays its obligations, it need fear
no interference from the United States. Chronic wrongdoing, or an impotence which results
in a general loosening of the ties of civilized society, may in America, as elsewhere,
ultimately require intervention by some civilized nation, and in the Western Hemisphere
the adherence of the United States to the Monroe Doctrine may force the United States,
however reluctantly, in flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence, to the exercise of
an international police power. If every country washed by the Caribbean Sea would show
the progress in stable and just civilization which with the aid of the Platt Amendment Cuba
has shown since our troops left the island, and which so many of the republics in both
Americas are constantly and brilliantly showing, all question of interference by this Nation
with their affairs would be at an end. Our interests and those of our southern neighbors are
in reality identical. They have great natural riches, and if within their borders the reign of
law and justice obtains, prosperity is sure to come to them. While they thus obey the
primary laws of civilized society they may rest assured that they will be treated by us in a
spirit of cordial and helpful sympathy. We would interfere with them only in the last resort,
and then only if it became evident that their inability or unwillingness to do justice at home
and abroad had violated the rights of the United States or had invited foreign aggression to
the detriment of the entire body of American nations. It is a mere truism to say that every
nation, whether in America or anywhere else, which desires to maintain its freedom, its
independence, must ultimately realize that the right of such independence can not be
separated from the responsibility of making good use of it.
Guiding Questions
1. Is Roosevelt for or against American imperialism?
2. What does Roosevelt mean by “land hunger”? Why does he claim that “land hunger”
does not motivate the US?
3. According to Roosevelt, which kinds of Latin American countries will the US not
interfere with?
4. According to Roosevelt, what conditions would justify American intervention in the
affairs of Latin American countries?
5. What is Roosevelt’s major argument about imperialism?
Source D. Platform of the American Anti-Imperialist League (1899)
This document represents the position of the American Anti-Imperialist League, a political
group formed in 1898 to oppose the American annexation of the Philippines.
We hold that the policy known as imperialism is hostile to liberty and tends toward
militarism, an evil from which it has been our glory to be free. We regret that it has become
necessary in the land of Washington and Lincoln to reaffirm that all men, of whatever race
or color, are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We maintain that
governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. We insist that the
subjugation of any people is "criminal aggression" and open disloyalty to the distinctive
principles of our Government…
The United States have always protested against the doctrine of international law which
permits the subjugation of the weak by the strong. A self-governing state cannot accept
sovereignty over an unwilling people. The United States cannot act upon the ancient heresy
that might makes right.
Imperialists assume that with the destruction of self-government in the Philippines by
American hands, all opposition here will cease. This is a grievous error. Much as we abhor
the war of "criminal aggression" in the Philippines, greatly as we regret that the blood of
the Filipinos is on American hands, we more deeply resent the betrayal of American
institutions at home. The real firing line is not in the suburbs of Manila [the capital of the
Philippines]. The foe is of our own household. The attempt of 1861 [i.e., the Civil War] was
to divide the country. That of 1899 is to destroy its fundamental principles and noblest
ideals…
We propose to contribute to the defeat of any person or party that stands for the forcible
subjugation of any people. We shall oppose for reelection all who in the White House or in
Congress betray American liberty in pursuit of un-American ends. We still hope that both of
our great political parties will support and defend the Declaration of Independence in the
closing campaign of the century.
We hold, with Abraham Lincoln, that "no man is good enough to govern another man
without that other's consent. When the white man governs himself, that is self-government,
but when he governs himself and also governs another man, that is more than selfgovernment - that is despotism." "Our reliance is in the love of liberty which God has
planted in us. Our defense is in the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men in
all lands. Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves, and under a just
God cannot long retain it."
We cordially invite the cooperation of all men and women who remain loyal to the
Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.
Guiding Questions
1. Is the Anti-Imperialist League for or against American imperialism?
2. What specific imperial act does the League oppose?
3. According to the League, what principles of government are central to the American
political system? How does imperialism violate those principles?
4. What is the League’s major argument about imperialism?
Source E. William Jennings Bryan, “The Paralyzing Influence of Imperialism” (1900)
William Jennings Bryan, a three-time Democratic candidate for President of the United States,
delivered this speech at the 1900 Democratic National Convention. Bryan opposed the
annexation of the Philippines and American imperialism in general.
Imperialists address their arguments to the nation’s pride and to the nation’s pocketbook.
It is sufficient answer to answer their arguments about pride by saying that for more than a
century this nation has been a world power. For ten decades it has been the most powerful
influence in the world. Not only has it been a world power but it has done more to affect the
policies of the human race than all the other nations of the world combined. Because the
patriots of 1776 fought for liberty, others have fought for it. Because our Constitution was
adopted, other constitutions have been adopted.
I am not willing for this nation to cast aside the all-powerful weapon of truth to seize again
the weapons of physical warfare. I would not exchange the glory of this republic for the
glory of all the empires that have risen and fallen since time began.
…The Democratic Party is in favor of the expansion of trade. It would extend our trade by
every legitimate and peaceful means; but it is not willing to make merchandise of human
blood…It is not necessary to own people in order to trade with them. We carry on trade
today with every part of the world, and our commerce has expanded more rapidly than the
commerce of any European empire. We do not own Japan or China, but we trade with their
people. We have not absorbed the republics of Central and South America, but we trade
with them.
When trade is secured by force, the cost of securing it and retaining it must be taken out of
the profits, and the profits are never large enough to cover the expense.
Imperialism would be profitable to the Army contractors; it would be profitable to the
shipowners, who would carry live soldiers to the Philippines and bring dead soldiers back;
it would be profitable to those with business interests overseas; but to the farmer, to the
laboring man, and to the vast majority of those engaged in other occupations, it would
bring expenses without profits and risk without reward. The laboring man will be the first
to suffer if Oriental subjects seek work in the United States; the first to suffer if American
capital leaves our shores to employ Oriental labor in the Philippines to supply the trade of
China and Japan; and the first to suffer from the violence which the military arouses…
Guiding Questions
1. Is Bryan for or against American imperialism?
2. At the beginning of his speech, Bryan describes two arguments in favor of
imperialism. What are they?
3. How does Bryan refute [disagree with] the argument that imperialism is necessary
to expand the American economy?
4. According to Bryan, how is imperialism likely to hurt the average American worker?
5. What is Bryan’s major argument about imperialism?
Source F. Carl Schurz, “Manifest Destiny” (1893)
Carl Schurz, a Republican senator from Missouri, published this article in Harper’s New
Monthly Magazine in October 1893.
Whenever there is a project on foot to annex foreign territory to the United States, the cry
of manifest destiny is raised to produce the impression that all opposition to such a project
is a struggle against fate….The new manifest destiny idea means not merely incorporating
territory that is near to our borders, but rather acquiring territory, far and near, that may
be useful in giving us commercial advantages and in securing areas desirable for the
operations of a great naval power.
…According to the spirit of our constitution, foreign territory should only be acquired if we
are considering its admission, at no very distant day, into this Union as one or more States
on an equal footing with the other States. The population inhabiting such territory, and
admitted into the Union with it, would have to be endowed with certain rights and powers.
The people of the new States would not only govern their own states, but also take part in
the government of the whole country through the Senators and Representatives sent by
them to Congress, as well as through the votes cast in the elections of our Presidents…In
other words, this republic would admit them as equal members to its national household.
…Those who advocate for annexation say that unless we take a certain country offered to
us (Hawaii, for instance) some other power will take it, and that, having refused ourselves,
we cannot object. This is absurd. We are told that unless we take charge of a certain
country it will be ill-governed and get into internal trouble. Our country cannot take charge
of all countries that are badly governed. On the contrary, a country apt to get into internal
trouble would not be a desirable addition to our national household.
We are told that we need coaling stations in different parts of the world for our navy and
that the rich resources of the countries within our reach should be open to America. There
is little doubt through negotiation we could secure sites for coaling stations. In the same
manner we can own plantations and business houses in the Hawaiian Islands. In the
American tropics we can build and control railroads; we can purchase mines, and have
them worked for our benefit; we can keep up businesses in their towns. In fact, we are
already doing many of these things and all this without taking those countries into our
national household.
Surely the advantages we might gain by incorporating the countries themselves in the
Union appear utterly valueless compared with the price this republic would have to pay for
them.
Guiding Questions
1. Is Schurz for or against American imperialism?
2. According to Schurz, how do imperialists use “manifest destiny” to justify American
expansion?
3. How does Schurz believe that any annexed territories would have to be integrated
into the United States? What rights would the US have to give to people who live in
its colonies?
4. According to Schurz, which of the goals of imperialism can be secured without
actually colonizing other countries? Why is imperialism not necessary to achieve
these goals?
5. What is Schurz’s major argument about American imperialism?