Imperialism Debate

Alfred T. Mahan and John Fisk worked together. Mahan pushed for conquering the new frontiers while Fisk wanted to take the newly conquered places and make them one hundred percent english. Frederick Jackson Turner and Herbert Spencer worked together too. Spencer preached about survival of the fittest and that if America wanted to survive she needed to continue to gain territory and power in order to be on top and Turner wanted to continue conquering new frontiers to stay strong and American. All of these philosophers justified imperialism in their own ways.

Paine and Henry are alike in their opinions that they should’ve taken action sooner and if they did things wouldn’t be as bad. They emphasize that the cruelty of the British, without resistance and revolution, will lead the people down a path where their freedom is stripped from them. Together, with their influential writings, they helped to create the revolution. The works by Thomas Paine and Patrick Henry made a big difference but without the persuasive techniques used it would not have made as big of an impact.

How does the country truth fill about the Spanish-American War and, which side are they truly on; the Anti-imperialist or imperialist. Some American wanted to have a third party ticket to try and president McKinley because of the way the war turned out. The essential argument behind this was that the United States was intended to be a place where all men could vote and hold power in the government and furthermore, the United States from its Declaration of Independence was an anti-imperialist power. So when the Eastern conference had its session their discussion was on President McKinley being criticized and held responsible for criminal aggression of the country.

He attempts to instill a sense of self realization and motivation in those who have not joined with the revolutionaries, to receive respect and admiration by doing so. To finish out, Paine tries to identify with the reader in the middle of his pamphlet, saying that he “once felt all that kind of anger… against the mean principles that are held by the tories,” (Paine 334). He goes on to explain that he didn’t only feel that anger, he did something about it, like everyone else should. His usage of emotion and feeling is paramount to his claims and, without them, he would not be as persuasive as he is. On the contrary, Roosevelt, in his Pearl Harbor Address to the Nation, almost never uses pathos to persuade his audience, but uses ethos in order to show the people of America why they should fight for their country.

The chapter emphasises the decisive role of the United States in terms of shaping the modern world order and introducing the values of the highest importance due to its model. The independent position of the United States has contributed to its establishment as the world power, and their principle of seeking freedom and dignity rather than dominance were positively influencing the developements within the country. However, with the expansion of the contry and strenghtening of its role in the world, the consirations of power have changed. Thus, the policies have also changed, and the United States felt obliged to promote their understanding and their ideas all over the globe. The first President to make claims about the world importance of the United States was Theodore Roosvelt who believed that the foreign policy was aimed at imposing the American policy for the balance of global powers.

One reason was the fact that the United States began an embargo on Japan, ending the trade of Japanese weapons. This limited Japan from obtaining more resources in their expansion. Another reason was that Japan needed oil to help keep expanding and raise their economy. The U.S. Navy was in their way, by controlling the Philippines, which is why they thought they needed to get rid of them. Lastly, both Japan and the U.S. did not agree on each other’s ways of running government.

Washington would see that individual communities and movements have created change for themselves, while working against others. It’s amazing what could be done if we stopped working against each other. While political parties aren’t going away, which would be to Washington’s dismay, he would suggest that the next president figure out a way to stop the two main parties, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, from being convinced their beliefs are the “correct” beliefs. If we cannot get rid of political parties, the best we can do is unite them. The only way to change our country is by working with each other, not against each other.

Locke had stated that when an executive act for his own benefit, and not to serve the ends of the people. He “degrades himself” and becomes “but a single private person without power,” at which point he no longer has any right to rule over the people. Locke expresses the idea of rebellion against an unjust government. By giving the idea of rebellion, he also reveals that a human’s rights have changed over the years and that a man now has inherent rights. It was because of his declaration that the statement, “give me liberty or give me death,” become popular among the American people.

Summary: The purpose of “Civil Disobedience” was to open people’s eyes to the injustices committed by the government and to cause them to do something about it. Thoreau talks about how the American government is by definition unjust due to its support of slavery and the Mexican War and how change is needed very soon. He warned to “not at once [have] no government, but at once a better government.” in order to make it clear that he was not calling for a revolution, but a reform of the government.

While the Filipinos sought independence after being released from Spain, the U.S. perceived the nation as incompetent. William McKinley, the 25th President of the United States, in his decision on the Philippines mentions that they are ill-equipped to run a self-government and any attempt to do so will cause misfortune in the region, thus, the United States has no option but to rule over the Philippines. This concept of racial uplift influenced the treatment of Filipino citizens during and after the war, as Shi states the blatant racism and torture they experienced during the three years of war and after hindered any peaceful bonds between the two nations. After the Filipino resistance was reduced, the United States acquired the Philippines to mark its next bitter, controlling relationship with a foreign

Also, these two presidents were able to use public information as a tool for their causes, and it helped to gather support. Woodrow Wilson also sided with the pro-imperialists, believing that the United States had the right to do with these nations as they pleased. It was after both World Wars that arguments and actions occurred against extensions of presidential power. The author mentioned that Dean Acheson, who was President Harry S. Truman’s Secretary of State, criticized the right of the president to be able to use American troops in executing foreign policy, while the Congress has no say in the matter. Also, this was followed by actions by the Supreme Court to say “that Truman had gone beyond his authority by moving to take over strike-bound mills to ensure the steady production of war material”.

People who opposed the annexation of the Philippines were often anti-imperialists who believed conquering foreign lands went against the concepts of republicanism. In “Platform of the American Anti-Imperialist League” (Document A), we are presented with the common beliefs such as the fact that the U.S. did not have the authority to rule another country or colony without its permission. The document expresses that taking control of a land without its peoples’ permission is cruel and oppressive. An example of an anti-imperialist is William Jennings Bryan. In his speech “Paralyzing Influence of Imperialism” (Document D), Bryan asserts that U.S. intervention on the Island is unnecessary because the Filipinos are just seeking independence, they do not want any control.

An excerpt from an Anti-Imperialist league platform said “We do not intend to free, but to subjugate the people of the Philippines. We go there to conquer, not to redeem…” When America gained more land, we tended not to give the people who live there much freedom but tried to make them more like us. The people of the newly claimed land had to follow the same religion and same government. Another excerpt from the Anti-Imperialist league platform said “We hold that the policy known as imperialism is hostile to liberty and tends toward militarism. America was violating the core principle of republicanism.

And we have seen a rise in those who believe in partial isolationism with a direct correlation in the rise of non-interventionism as well. The events coincide with the statistics in that when a war goes bad or we receive statistics that seem too high for the average, it shows a positive increase in supporters of isolationism. Due to these facts, The United States should only exert its vast power unto those who show real threat to domestic lives. That means people that live within the borders, not those we send over the ocean in order to “protect from future attacks.” Non-interventionism will breed a new America that is better suited for the present day wars and the 21st

Later, the United States had problems with Indians, who Britain helped, supplying them with weapons and ammo, once again, making the tension rise. Taking a daring chance, the US declared they would stop the shipments and trade with the warring nation, if France or Britain (depending on who stopped first) stopped capturing their ships. Napoleon declared that France would respect the US’