Archive for the ‘Imperialism’ Category

Questions Chapter 27- Imperialism

Chapter 27 questions
Due Wednesday, January 18

1.What was the relationship between American industrialization and the sudden attention to foreign relations and imperialism in the post-Civil War era? (Think back to mercantilism for help.)
2. What 2 policy developments did Alfred Thayer Mahan help encourage?
3. How was the Big Sister policy paternalistic?
4. What three events were used as examples of America’s new belligerence?
5. Why did Britain finally decide to play nice with the US?
6. Why did the McKinley Tariff create a crisis among white plantation owners in Hawai’i? Why was the Hawai’ian situation not resolved for another 5 years?
7. What did Hawai’i and Cuba have in common?
8. What does “you furnish the pictures and I’ll furnish the war” mean?
9. What actually happened to the Maine? What was implied at the time, and why would this matter?
10. In what way was the Teller amendment like the Wilmot Proviso?
11. Where were the first shots fired in the Spanish-American War? How is that different from where the issue was that caused the declaration of war? What was the shape of the Spanish navy?
12. Why did the Spanish-American War make Hawai’i more important, strategically? What then happened?
13. What is the connection between Leonard Wood and Missouri (you may need to google this)? Why were the Rough Riders so famous?
14. What were the leading causes of American casualties during the war?
15. What were the terms of the Treaty of Paris of 1898? What specific religious concerns influence the negotiations? Why was the treaty controversial at home?
16. What were the concerns of the Anti-Imperialist League and its allies? What was the “White Man’s Burden?” How did the Insular Cases exemplify the confusion over our new overseas possessions?
17. How did the Platt Amendment attempted to lessen the impact of the Teller Amendment?
18. Why was the Spanish-American War called a “splendid little war?”
19. What were the causes and effects of the Philippine Insurrection?
20. What does “benevolent assimilation” mean?
21. Why did the United States find itself involved in China, and what were the consequences of that involvement? How did the Chinese feel about Western interference?
22. What specific criticisms did William Jennings Bryan make during the presidential campaign of 1900?
23. How (and when) did the plot to remove Theodore Roosevelt from influence backfire?
24. Explain the differences among the three treaties that dealt with the construction of an isthmian canal. Why were the French involved, but the British less so?
25. What was the total cost of building the Panama Canal, in money, lives, and time?
26. What was “preventive intervention,” and what was it better known as? Where did this apply?
27. How did Teddy Roosevelt become the first US president to be awarded a Nobel Peace Prize?
28. Why did anti-Asian sentiment break out in California again by 1906? What two agreements were concluded with Japan, specifically?


MC practice for Test 27-28 on Monday

Because I am being kind…

1. On the question of whether American laws applied to overseas territory acquired in the Spanish-American War, the Supreme Court held that

A. federal but not state laws applied.

B. only the President’s rulings counted and Congress had no voice in the matter.

C. American laws did not necessarily apply; it was up to Congress to apply constitutional protections on a territory by territory basis.

D. only tariff laws could be enforced.

E. only the Bill of Rights applied.


2. America’s initial Open Door policy was an argument to promote

A. free trade in China.

B. equal spheres of influence in China.

C. military protection for the Chinese emperor.

D. exclusive trade concessions for the US in Shanghai,

E. the principle of self-determination.


3. Teddy Roosevelt became the first US president awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for

A. his work as the assistant secretary of the navy.

B. negotiating the Treaty of Portsmouth ending the Russo Japanese War of 1904.

C. his treatment of the Filipino people.

D. his demand for fair treatment for Japanese laborers living in the US.

E. his principled status as a conscientious objector during the Spanish-American War.


4. The real heart of the progressive movement was the effort by reformers to

A. preserve world peace.

B. ensure the Jeffersonian style of government.

C. use the government as an agent for social welfare.

D. get the government off the backs of the people.

E. remove power from state and local governments.


5. The real purpose of Teddy Roosevelt’s assault on trusts was to

A. fragment big business.

B. establish himself as a bigger trustbuster than Taft.

C. halt the trend toward combination and integration in business.

D. prove that government, not big business, ruled the country.

E. demonstrate his complete mastery over the country.


6. All of the following were causes of US imperialism EXCEPT:

A. economic competition among industrialized nations.

B. a search for raw materials.

C. political and military competition, including the creation of a strong navy.

D. a belief in the racial and cultural superiority of American (WASP) people.

E. requests for American assistance from native peoples.


7. The acquisition of the Philippines resulted in the United States

A. gaining a weaker defensive position in the Far East.

B. openly challenging the British in imperialist competition.

C. gaining a new war to fight against nationalist Filipinos.

D. being hailed as saviors by the Filipino people.

E. gaining valuable spice sources.


8. The US gained a perpetual lease on the Panama Canal Zone in the

A. Hay- Bunau- Varilla Treaty.

B. Hay-Pauncefote Treaty.

C. Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.

D. Gentlemen’s Agreement.

E. Teller Amendment.


9. Female progressives justified their reformist political activities on the basis of

A. their actions being an extension of women’s traditional roles as wives and mothers.

B. America’s need to catch up with more progressive European nations.

C. women’s inherent rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

D. the harsh treatment of women by their employers.

E. the need to assert female power against male oppression.


10. In the United States, prohibition

A. began with passage of the 18th Amendment.

B. was already in place in most urban areas before being added to the Constitution.

C. was considered to be a proper issue for men only to discuss, since women were less likely to be drinkers.

D. was considered to be the same thing as temperance.

E. laws were first passed in the state of Maine in 1851.


11. In the 1908 landmark case of Muller v. Oregon the Supreme Court ruled that

A. sanitation codes were legal.

B. workingmen’s compensation was legal.

C. antiliquor laws were constitutional.

D. laws protecting female workers were legal.

E. antitrust laws were constitutional.


12. The public outcry  after the horrible Triangle Shirtwaist fire led many states to pass

A. mandatory fire escape plans for all businesses employing more than ten people.

B. safety regulations and workmen’s compensation laws for job injuries.

C. restrictions on female employment in the garment industry.

D. zoning regulations limiting where factories could be located.

E. laws guaranteeing unions the right to raise safety questions.


13. The Elkins and Hepburn Acts dealt with the subject of

A. regulation of the railroad industry.

B. the purity of food and drugs.

C. conservation of natural resources.

D. women’s working conditions.

E. regulation of municipal utilities.


14. The idea of “multiple use resource management” included all of the following EXCEPT:

A. recreation.

B. damming of rivers.

C. sustained yield logging.

D. summer stock grazing.

E. watershed protection.


15. The Supreme Court’s “rule of reason” as applied in the case of Standard Oil v. US in 1911 held that

A. it was immensely reasonable to assume that all trusts harmed the public welfare.

B. the amount of profits generated by Standard Oil was unreasonable, and therefore the company should be dissolved.

C.  only trusts that unreasonably restrained trade were subject to penalty under the Sherman Act.

D. any sort of limitations placed on corporations was unreasonable.

E. corporations reasonably behaved as persons under the law, and therefore were protected under the 14th Amendment.


16. Theodore Roosevelt defended his building of the Panama Canal by claiming that

A. other nations in Latin America had requested his help.

B. the canal would strengthen the American relationship with Latin American nations.

C. he had received a “mandate from civilization.”

D. Britain would have built the canal had the US not taken the initiative.

E. it would enhance the economic development of the West Coast.


17. The Roosevelt Corollary added a new provision to the Monroe Doctrine that was specifically designed to

A. enable the US to rule Puerto Rico and the Canal Zone.

B. stop European colonization in the Western Hemisphere.

C. restore cordial relations  between the US and Latin Americans countries.

D. establish a friendly partnership with Britain so that together the two countries countries could police Latin American affairs.

E. justify US intervention in the affairs of Latin American countries.


18. The “Gentlemen’s Agreement” that Teddy Roosevelt worked out with the Japanese in 1907-1908

A. concluded the Russo-Japanese War.

B. helped him win the 1908 Nobel Peace Prize.

C. restricted Japanese immigration to upper class Japanese males.

D. ended racist “yellow journalism” being practiced in the US.

E. caused Japan to halt the flow of laborers to the US in exchange for the repeal of a racist San Francisco school board decree.


19. In the Root-Takahara agreement of 1908,

A. the US and Japan agreed to respect each other’s territorial holdings in the Pacific.

B. the Japanese government agreed to limit Japanese laborers entering the US.

C. the US agreed to accept a Japanese sphere of influence in China.

D. the US recognized Japanese control of Korea.

E. Japan  accepted US control of the Philippines in exchange for Japanese control of Manchuria.


20. When the US captured the Philippines from Spain,

A. Filipinos were granted US citizenship.

B. they did so without Filipino assistance.

C. Spain immediately asked for an end to the war.

D. Hawai’i was annexed as a key territory in the Pacific.

E. America granted the Philippines their independence.

1993 Resolution of Apology to the Native Hawai’ians

Go here ( to read the resolution. You can click on a link at the top and see a picture of President Clinton signing the document.

Make sure you note the disclaimer at the bottom of the resolution.

Chapter 27 Outlines

Due Tuesday, January 18– I will give extra credit to those who do the terms INCLUDING SIGNIFICANCE, as well.

Make sure you place the details where they go, and EXPLAIN THE SIGNIFICANCE OR EFFECTS OF EVENTS IF YOU WANT FULL CREDIT!!!!!! You must also use your own words, not paste from the internet.

I. What factors contributed to the American adoption of imperialism as a foreign policy?
—–A. Frontier
—–B. Raw materials and industrialization
—–C. Monroe Doctrine- had it been significant previously? Why now?
—–D. Alfred Thayer Mahan and the birth of the American navy
———-Significance of Hawai’i, the Philippines, and a Canal
—–E. “Big Sister” policy in Latin America
—–F. Diplomatic crises
—–G. Cleveland vs. McKinley and the cause of imperialism
—–H. How do imperialism and nationalism impact each other?
—–I. What role does Theodore Roosevelt play?

II. Neutrality Ends: The Spanish- American war
—–A. Cuba oppressed
—–B. “Remember the Maine”—was it really a just cause for war?
———-yellow journalism
—–C. Dewey in the Philippines
———-Battle of Manila
———-Emilio Aguinaldo
—–D. The Invasion of Cuba and the Rough Riders
—–E. Terms of the Treaty of Paris of 1898
—–F. “A Splendid Little War” – Why did Spain put up so little fight?
—–G. Now that we have an “empire,” what do we have to do now? How does it change us?
—–H. Arguments for anti-imperialism at home and abroad
—–I. Is imperialism consistent with tradition American political values? Explain.
—–J. Consider: Why does the war make an isthmian canal necessary?

(II-I and II-J are higher level thinking questions not found in the book)

Review of American Imperialism and Star of the 20th Century

Mr. Wallace describes how we begin to really pay attention to our place in the world and getting our late start on imperialism in the Spanish-American War.

Links regarding the Annexation of Hawai’i

Here’s the State Department’s modern explanation:

A timeline of events regarding the annexation of Hawai’i:


103d Congress Joint Resolution 19

Nov. 23, 1993

President Clinton signs the apology resolution in the presence of the Hawai'ian congrressional delegation

Here is the actual (excerpt) apology from the US House of Representatives:

….Whereas, it is proper and timely for the Congress on the occasion of the impending one hundredth anniversary of the event, to acknowledge the historic significance of the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, to express its deep regret to the Native Hawaiian people, and to support the reconciliation efforts of the State of Hawaii and the United Church of Christ with Native Hawaiians;

Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


The Congress –

(1) on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii on January 17, 1893, acknowledges the historical significance of this event which resulted in the suppression of the inherent sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people;

(2) recognizes and commends efforts of reconciliation initiated by the State of Hawaii and the United Church of Christ with Native Hawaiians;

(3) apologizes to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the people of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii on January 17, 1893 with the participation of agents and citizens of the United States, and the deprivation of the rights of Native Hawaiians to self-determination;

(4) expresses its commitment to acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, in order to provide a proper foundation for reconciliation between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people; and

(5) urges the President of the United States to also acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii and to support reconciliation efforts between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people.


As used in this Joint Resolution, the term “Native Hawaiians” means any individual who is a descendent of the aboriginal people who, prior to 1778, occupied and exercised sovereignty in the area that now constitutes the State of Hawaii.


Nothing in this Joint Resolution is intended to serve as a settlement of any claims against the United States.

Approved November 23, 1993


SENATE REPORTS: No. 103-125 (Select Comm. on Indian Affairs)

The Roosevelt Corollary

Foreign intervention in Latin American resurfaced as an issue in U.S. foreign policy at the turn of the century as European governments began to use force to pressure several Latin American countries to repay their debts. For example, British, German, and Italian gunboats blockaded Venezuela’s ports in 1902 when the Venezuelan government defaulted on its debts to foreign bondholders. Many Americans worried that European intervention in Latin America would undermine their country’s traditional dominance in the region. As part of his annual address to Congress in 1904, President Theodore Roosevelt stated that in keeping with the Monroe Doctrine the United States was justified in exercising “international police power” to put an end to chronic unrest or wrongdoing in the Western Hemisphere. This so-called Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine contained a great irony: whereas the Monroe Doctrine had been sought to prevent European intervention in the Western Hemisphere, the Roosevelt Corollary justified American intervention throughout the Western Hemisphere.

Questions for understanding:
How does Roosevelt justify American intervention in the Western Hemisphere? What national interests are involved?

The Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine
Theodore Roosevelt’s Annual Message to Congress
6 December 1904

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

The Nation continues to enjoy noteworthy prosperity. Such prosperity is of course primarily due to the high individual average of our citizenship, taken together with our great natural resources; but an important factor therein is the working of our long-continued governmental policies. The people have emphatically expressed their approval of the principles underlying these policies, and their desire that these principles be kept substantially unchanged, although of course applied in a progressive spirit to meet changing conditions.

Foreign Policy
In treating of our foreign policy and of the attitude that this great Nation should assume in the world at large, it is absolutely necessary to consider the Army and the Navy, and the Congress, through which the thought of the Nation finds its expression, should keep ever vividly in mind the fundamental fact that it is impossible to treat our foreign policy, whether this policy takes shape in the effort to secure justice for others or justice for ourselves, save as conditioned upon the attitude we are willing to take toward our Army, and especially toward our Navy. It is not merely unwise, it is contemptible, for a nation, as for an individual, to use high-sounding language to proclaim its purposes, or to take positions which are ridiculous if unsupported by potential force, and then to refuse to provide this force. If there is no intention of providing and keeping the force necessary to back up a strong attitude, then it is far better not to assume such an attitude.
The steady aim of this Nation, as of all enlightened nations, should be to strive to bring ever nearer the day when there shall prevail throughout the world the peace of justice. There are kinds of peace which are highly undesirable, which are in the long run as destructive as any war. Tyrants and oppressors have many times made a wilderness and called it peace. Many times peoples who were slothful or timid or shortsighted, who had been enervated by ease or by luxury, or misled by false teachings, have shrunk in unmanly fashion from doing duty that was stern and that needed self-sacrifice, and have sought to hide from their own minds their shortcomings, their ignoble motives, by calling them love of peace. The peace of tyrannous terror, the peace of craven weakness, the peace of injustice, all these should be shunned as we shun unrighteous war. The goal to set before us as a nation, the goal which should be set before all mankind, is the attainment of the peace of justice, of the peace which comes when each nation is not merely safe-guarded in its own rights, but scrupulously recognizes and performs its duty toward others. Generally peace tells for righteousness; but if there is conflict between the two, then our fealty is due first to the cause of righteousness. Unrighteous wars are common, and unrighteous peace is rare; but both should be shunned. The right of freedom and the responsibility for the exercise of that right can not be divorced. One of our great poets has well and finely said that freedom is not a gift that tarries long in the hands of cowards. Neither does it tarry long in the hands of those too slothful, too dishonest, or too unintelligent to exercise it. The eternal vigilance which is the price of liberty must be exercised, sometimes to guard against outside foes; although of course far more often to guard against our own selfish or thoughtless shortcomings.

If these self-evident truths are kept before us, and only if they are so kept before us, we shall have a clear idea of what our foreign policy in its larger aspects should be. It is our duty to remember that a nation has no more right to do injustice to another nation, strong or weak, than an individual has to do injustice to another individual; that the same moral law applies in one case as in the other. But we must also remember that it is as much the duty of the Nation to guard its own rights and its own interests as it is the duty of the individual so to do. Within the Nation the individual has now delegated this right to the State, that is, to the representative of all the individuals, and it is a maxim of the law that for every wrong there is a remedy. But in international law we have not advanced by any means as far as we have advanced in municipal law. There is as yet no judicial way of enforcing a right in international law. When one nation wrongs another or wrongs many others, there is no tribunal before which the wrongdoer can be brought. Either it is necessary supinely to acquiesce in the wrong, and thus put a premium upon brutality and aggression, or else it is necessary for the aggrieved nation valiantly to stand up for its rights. Until some method is devised by which there shall be a degree of international control over offending nations, it would be a wicked thing for the most civilized powers, for those with most sense of international obligations and with keenest and most generous appreciation of the difference between right and wrong, to disarm. If the great civilized nations of the present day should completely disarm, the result would mean an immediate recrudescence of barbarism in one form or another. Under any circumstances a sufficient armament would have to be kept up to serve the purposes of international police; and until international cohesion and the sense of international duties and rights are far more advanced than at present, a nation desirous both of securing respect for itself and of doing good to others must have a force adequate for the work which it feels is allotted to it as its part of the general world duty. Therefore it follows that a self-respecting, just, and far-seeing nation should on the one hand endeavor by every means to aid in the development of the various movements which tend to provide substitutes for war, which tend to render nations in their actions toward one another, and indeed toward their own peoples, more responsive to the general sentiment of humane and civilized mankind; and on the other hand that it should keep prepared, while scrupulously avoiding wrongdoing itself, to repel any wrong, and in exceptional cases to take action which in a more advanced stage of international relations would come under the head of the exercise of the international police. A great free people owes it to itself and to all mankind not to sink into helplessness before the powers of evil.

Arbitration Treaties–Second Hague Conference
We are in every way endeavoring to help on, with cordial good will, every movement which will tend to bring us into more friendly relations with the rest of mankind. In pursuance of this policy I shall shortly lay before the Senate treaties of arbitration with all powers which are willing to enter into these treaties with us. It is not possible at this period of the world’s development to agree to arbitrate all matters, but there are many matters of possible difference between us and other nations which can be thus arbitrated. Furthermore, at the request of the Interparliamentary Union, an eminent body composed of practical statesmen from all countries, I have asked the Powers to join with this Government in a second Hague conference, at which it is hoped that the work already so happily begun at The Hague may be carried some steps further toward completion. This carries out the desire expressed by the first Hague conference itself.

Policy Toward Other Nations of the Western Hemisphere
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.

In asserting the Monroe Doctrine, in taking such steps as we have taken in regard to Cuba, Venezuela, and Panama, and in endeavoring to circumscribe the theater of war in the Far East, and to secure the open door in China, we have acted in our own interest as well as in the interest of humanity at large. There are, however, cases in which, while our own interests are not greatly involved, strong appeal is made to our sympathies. Ordinarily it is very much wiser and more useful for us to concern ourselves with striving for our own moral and material betterment here at home than to concern ourselves with trying to better the condition of things in other nations. We have plenty of sins of our own to war against, and under ordinary circumstances we can do more for the general uplifting of humanity by striving with heart and soul to put a stop to civic corruption, to brutal lawlessness and violent race prejudices here at home than by passing resolutions and wrongdoing elsewhere. Nevertheless there are occasional crimes committed on so vast a scale and of such peculiar horror as to make us doubt whether it is not our manifest duty to endeavor at least to show our disapproval of the deed and our sympathy with those who have suffered by it. The cases must be extreme in which such a course is justifiable. There must be no effort made to remove the mote from our brother’s eye if we refuse to remove the beam from our own. But in extreme cases action may be justifiable and proper. What form the action shall take must depend upon the circumstances of the case; that is, upon the degree of the atrocity and upon our power to remedy it. The cases in which we could interfere by force of arms as we interfered to put a stop to intolerable conditions in Cuba are necessarily very few. Yet it is not to be expected that a people like ours, which in spite of certain very obvious shortcomings, nevertheless as a whole shows by its consistent practice its belief in the principles of civil and religious liberty and of orderly freedom, a people among whom even the worst crime, like the crime of lynching, is never more than sporadic, so that individuals and not classes are molested in their fundamental rights–it is inevitable that such a nation should desire eagerly to give expression to its horror on an occasion like that of the massacre of the Jews in Kishenef, or when it witnesses such systematic and long-extended cruelty and oppression as the cruelty and oppression of which the Armenians have been the victims, and which have won for them the indignant pity of the civilized world.

Theodore Roosevelt