The Pros And Cons Of American Imperialism

Jane Addams, the speaker in Document 4, criticized the Spanish-American War and the militarism it encouraged in the United States. This gave many people the idea that maybe imperialism wasn’t such a great idea. They shunned the idea of using violence in order to grow the American Empire. William Graham Sumner, also criticized imperialism (Document 2). He believed that assimilating people to American culture through military force would cause the United States to seem violent like Spain.

Latter President Ulysses S. Grant was another American in opposition to the war with Mexico. In his personal memoirs he wrote “To this day, I regard the Mexican War as one of the most unjust wars ever waged by a stronger nation against a weaker nation . . . in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory.” (Document 3) On the other hand, there were publications like The New-York Daily Tribune would called the war “piratical” and the invasion was a “flagrant outrage” and it was also called “immoral and unwise”.

Throughout time diverse regions have considered other societies to be barbaric, causing them to have the desire of “civilizing” them. Likewise, During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the American nativist groups, possessed a similar perspective towards immigration. Nativist’s opposed immigration, as they believed that it would negatively impact the United States socially, morally, politically, and economically. Socially and morally, the nativists feared that foreigners were a threat to the American society, as they were culturally inferior, possessed many ailments, and committed crimes. Politically, the ethnocentric nativists believed that immigrants would corrupt the government and negatively influence American politics.

They would not pay it” (Brinkley 94). This conversation between Parliament and Franklin goes on to denote that the American population believes that the tax to be unconstitutional. A conflict of ideologies had risen; Parliament believed that the Crown had the right to govern the Colony and the population no longer accepting authority of the ruling government to tax its population. Furthermore, his deposition further exposed that if the Stamp Act was not repealed, there would be “a total loss of the respect and affection the people of America bear to this country, and of all commerce that depends on that respect and affection” (Brinkley

agree that if I were alive at the end of the 19th century I would have supported the Anti-Imperialist League for the following reasons: First, imperialism is inherently antithetical to values upon which this nation was built. The United States Constitution explicitly states "...governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That, to whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it...". Clearly, to impose foreign rule on any population is a decidedly undemocratic act and a violation of the fundamental human rights identified by the founding fathers. Sources: Declaration of Independence www.archives/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html.

Imperialism is a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force. It is a great way to strengthen the economy and gain power and territory for countries that practice it, though it often failed and resulted in war and the deaths of innocents. Four intellectuals that played a big part in influencing American imperialism were Frederick Jackson Turner, Alfred T. Mahan, Herbert Spencer and John Fisk. All of these influencers had different ideologies and came together to justify American imperialism. They believed America needed to expand power and gain territories.

Soon after the Seven Years’ War, the British and the colonists learned that victory came with a rather expensive price (Kennedy, Cohen, & Bailey, 2010). Great Britain tightened its grip on the colonies in North America, expecting colonists to pay for their financial struggles. In order to make colonists pay for the war, Great Britain reminded the North American colonies who had authority by controlling the colonists to submit to various ordinances ratified by British Parliament. This action only showed that arrogance leads to rebellion socially, economically, and politically. Socially, a lack of communication between Great Britain and the North American colonies was to blame for the Revolutionary War.

While this was a huge inconvenience to the British it was harder on the colonials when backlash occurred, resulting in a full drive towards independence from Britain, winning the American Revolutionary War, and squandering all British control. To summarize, the Declaratory act was the least opposed  or even recognised act by the American colonials. As apart from the Tea Act which resulted in an event that would forever be branded in history as one of the boldest rebellions against a greater government. Both of these policies were direct gateways into the process of the American Revolution due to it’s contribution of collected agitation and animosity towards Britain 's control. Ultimately creating a feeling of desperation for freedom and exhaustion of government

Imperialism is the act of creating an empire, through extending a country’s power by force, often military, or forming international relations. In many cases the imperializer country reaps financial benefits and extracts resources and raw materials from the country that is colonized, leaving the natives with little to no resources or the ability to advance and develop. When, one country enters another and takes over, it silences the people living there, forcing their voices and their opinions, on how their country should be governed, to be silenced. In many cases this lack of listening to the people’s needs, by the colonizing country’s leaders, has disastrous results: destroyed economies, lives lost, and broken alliances, like the relationship between the British and the Chinese from early 1700s until around 1912.

He described several discrepancies regarding monarchies including negative effects of hereditary succession, calling the practice of passing crowns through family bloodlines "evil" (Paine, 62) and unfair to the common man. Paine feared that such a rule of American colonies would not be good for the colonial society. The English Bill of Rights was outlined to limit the powers of the reigning monarch in order to expand more power to the English Parliament and ensure equality for English citizens. Fed up with the misdeeds of James II and previous rulers, the document was a breaking point for Parliament and English citizens who did not have basic civil rights due to the absolutism of English monarchies. The document called for a more structured political authority through Parliament and not through a monarch who could make laws and impose taxes at their

89). During this time, the concept of American self-government rose to fruition and Royal bureaucrats exercised lax supervision over internal colonial affairs as they reaped the benefits of increasing trade and import duties (Henretta and Edwards, 2012, p. 89). In time, this concept and strategy would become known as salutary neglect (Henretta and Edwards, 2012, p. 89). Salutary neglect was a result of Sir Robert Walpole’s political system, which filled the British government with lazy political leadership; and whose strategies ultimately weakened the British Empire by undermining the legitimacy of the political system (Henretta and Edwards, 2012, p. 90). As a result, Walpole’s actions would inadvertently pave the way for an American revolution aimed at preserving American liberty (Henretta and Edwards, 2012, p. 90).

This was America’s right, however, Britain was not respecting that because they would seize American vessels that were going to or coming from a destination where the British did not want American commerce. A Democratic- Republican congressman made a speech where he foresaw the threat of war. In his speech he asked a question of whether to abandon or defend America’s commercial and maritime rights (Document 2). He also said that ours rights were being violated and if British continues to do this America will have to resist. America should definitely defend their commercial and maritime rights, because trading is a big part of its economy.

Part two, Covert Action, of Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq, by Stephen Kinzer, presents situations in Iran, Chile, South Vietnam, and Guatemala where covert actions were used to abolish governments that the United States claimed had communist influence and intentions. These threats were misguided, but the excuse was used to justify the actions to the public. The true intention of these interventions was to protect American businesses in foreign countries. These interferences are still causing problems for all countries involved. The actions taken in Iran, Chile, South Vietnam, and Guatemala were all to protect businesses in these countries.

Question Were the American colonists justified in declaring independence from the British? I think the American colonist were justified in declaring their independence. First, the British unfairly taxed the colonist. Secondly, the British made unfair laws. Thirdly, king George broke the laws he made and the American colonist wanted that to stop.

Americans were not justified in barging into weaker countries, and taking over for their own selfish gain. They mistreated the Filipinos and exploited the Puerto Ricans lands, they’ve done more bad than good which is why they are not justified. Americans entered weaker countries to ‘civilize’ the people. “U.S. soldiers attacked Filipino troops and civilians alike.” This shows