USA HISTORY

AMERICAN IMPERIALISM(1890 1919)

THE UNITED STATES IN WORLD WAR I

[SOURCES]
“Distance and oceans are no arguments. The fact that all the territory our fathers bought and seized is contiguous [connected], is no argument. In 1819 Florida was farther from New York than Porto Rico is from Chicago today; Texas, farther from Washington in 1845 than Hawaii is from Boston in 1898; California, more inaccessible in 1847 than the Philippines are now. Gibraltar is farther from London than Havana is from Washington; Melbourne is farther from Liverpool than Manila is from San Francisco.”-Senator Albert Beveridge, “The March of the Flag, “ September 16, 1898S enator Beveridge would agree with which one of the following statements?

(A) Imperial expansion went against the values of the U.S. founders.

(B) The U.S. should limit its imperial ambitions to the western hemisphere.

(C) ** New technologies made it possible for the U.S. to acquire a global empire.

(D) The U.S. no longer needed to enforce the Monroe Doctrine to protect its interests.

EXPLANATIONS BELOW

Concept note-1: -The corollary stated that not only were the nations of the Western Hemisphere not open to colonization by European powers, but that the United States had the responsibility to preserve order and protect life and property in those countries.

Concept note-2: -The 1904 Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine asserted the U.S. role as policeman of the Western Hemisphere and its right to involve itself in the affairs of Latin American countries.

Concept note-3: -The idea is negotiating peacefully but also having strength in case things go wrong. Simultaneously threatening with the “big stick", or the military, ties in heavily with the idea of Realpolitik, which implies a pursuit of political power that resembles Machiavellian ideals.

Concept note-4: -Roosevelt Corollary, foreign policy declaration by U.S. Pres. Theodore Roosevelt in 1904–05 stating that, in cases of flagrant and chronic wrongdoing by a Latin American country, the United States could intervene in that country’s internal affairs.