US Foreign Policy: Monday 2/27 HW

[Matthew R. Giorgio]

Hi All,

Please read the DBQ prompt below:

"To what extent was late 19th century and early 20th century United
States expansionism a continuation of past United States expansionism
and to what extent was it a departure’?"

Now that you have read the prompt, use your notes and the readings
from chapters 27-31 to discuss one aspect of each side of the
question. For example:

(SUBJECT/TIME PERIOD) The question asks about US EXPANSIONISM in the
time period of (roughly) 1890-1910.
(QUESTION) Was it a CONTINUATION of PAST POLICIES or a DEPARTURE from
those PAST POLICIES?

What you need to do is find one piece of evidence for each side and
comment on others' evidence and analysis as well. Each person should
have at least one piece of new evidence and analysis.


CONTINUATION I DEPARTURE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evidence I Evidence
I
I
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis I Analysis



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Roxanna]

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the United
States’ expansion was to some extent a continuation of their former
foreign policy because they were again expanding to a close region who
as willing to be annexed by them. When the nation started to expand,
it spread out across the southwest because of proximity. American
beliefs in manifest destiny caused the nation to take that land; the
nation eventually took Texas, which was close and wanted annexation.
Similarly, in the late ninetieth century, American began to take
islands that were close, such as Hawaii, and Hawaii wanted to be
annexed. This practice, however, was to some extent a departure from
previous expansionism, because in the past the United States never
went further than their hemisphere and expected Europe to stay out and
adhere to the Monroe doctrine. The Monroe doctrine continued into the
early twentieth century, but the United States moved far beyond their
hemisphere, and expanded to the Philippines, Cuba, and even attempted
to excerpt some control over China.

---Roxanna Mendoza

On Feb 27, 10:48 am, "Matthew R. Giorgio"

[Bobby Dillingham]

[Edith Mata]

In the late nineteenth century to early twentieth century the U.S expansionism was a continuation of past U.S expansion to some extent because  they started to branch out more towards other countries across the ocean such as Cuba, Puerto Rico and Philippines and before they would mostly west. At the same time, the US in both nineteenth and twentieth century were looking for power(economic and political) to establish themselves. Social Darwinism applies because many Americans thought that the U.S should have the power and no one else.

[Ruth Morales]

I agree with Roxanna over that the U.S. departure of previous expansionism was to some extent because the U.S expansionism had not always been followd due to the Monroe Doctrine that the American people were following a few years before the expansionism and imperialistic perio in America began it wasn't until then that old expansionist ideas revived.

In the late nineteenth century to the the early twentieth century, the continuation of old United States expansionism and departure was to some extent on the basis of the U.S. interests in expanding for land and in the economy. With the eventual purchase of the Louisiana Territory, rivers such as the Mississippi and Ohio became very important for the development of the trade and economy in the United States. The colonial expansion interests of the United States was mainly to facilitate the growth of the population and an economic support to mantain the population. The American governemnet sought territorrial expansionism while keeping in mind the advices of the their forefathers. At this time the American governenmnet believes thta it has been given the imperialistic power to help the oppressed people like the phillippines. Under Roosevelt, the American governemnt was for expansionism because on "The Roosevelt Corollary," made that the new territorries acquired by the U.S like the Phillippines and Hawaii acceptable and legal. The American governemnet was taking in importance the land expansionism and aquired new naval power. At the extent that expansionism, there were issues that discontinued the expansion as the American Dream could not be achieved by all the people, and no chance of citizenship for the new aquired lands. Overall, this expansionism gained for the U.S. new dominance.

[Nelsy Equihua]

In the nineteenth and twentieth century expansionism was to some
extent a departure and a continuation from the previous expansionism
in the United States. During the Spanish conflict in 1898 the US aided
the Cubans and Filipinos to free themselves from Spanish rule so it
continued in enforcing the Monroe Doctrine, but after the war they saw
fit that the people were "uncivilized" thus they were responsible for
them. As others have said the Monroe Doctrine continued to take place
and was to supposed to keep out other European nations yet the US
intervened in the Philippines issues with Spain. If the US were so
strict on their declaration of the Monroe Doctrine they should not
have kept the Philippines as their land, that was exactly what the
European were doing- Imperialism.

[Danielle Esquivel]

In the late nineteenth century to early twentienth century united states expansionism was to some extent a continuation of past polices because the monroe doctrine was brought up again and the great rapprochement. The monroe doctrine was brought up again in a dispute of boundry lines with venezuela and britain. This shows that a policy that was made in the early 19th century was being put to use many years later. The great rapprochement showed even futher that foreign policy was being followed not just pushed aside. The united states expansionism was thus a continuation of past policy.

[m. r. giorgio]

So far pretty good indeed. Keep em coming. We are talking about foreign policy so anything goes. US intervention in foreign lands and US relations with foreign lands.

[Bobby Dillingham]

Peruse the articles above on the causes of the Great Depression. Upon which interpretations do each rely to make their case? What arguments have fallen by the wayside? Are you convinced?
			Your Answer: They all agree that the Harley-Smoot Tariff of 1930 caused the Depression to worsen. They believe that little investment and government spending caused the Great Dpression. They all believe that World War 2 helped bring America out of the Depression by stmulating the economy. Arguments that have fallen on the wayside include governmnet intervention in the economy, or "malinvestment". I lean more towrd the thery that little government spening caused the Depression because a motionles economy woud only fail to adress the needs of the people because there is no spending, which woud lead to recession.

	Peruse the articles above on the Great Depression and briefly summarize their respective theses. What role does the government play in each case? Why do you think these authors come to such wildly different conclusions? What does this tell us about the historiography of the Great Depression and New Deal?
			Your Answer: The Macknac center believes that government intervention in the economy worsened the depression. The Neoclassical Perspecive believes that the New Deal policies slowed recovery from the Depression. The Huppi article believes that the bank failures were significant in bringin about the Depression. The first one states that the government inflates and then readjusts the currency, causing prosperity in the first and decreased prfits in the later. The second one claims that governmetn sending had something to do with the Depression, and the third article states that the lack of interention on the part of the federal government caused the problem. Theycome to widely different conlcusions becuase they rely on different policies. The first shows certain New Deal Programs as factor exacerbating the stuation, the second shows different New Deal programs as the factors, and the third asserts that little spending of the government brought about the Depression. This shows that many people in the United States overrate the policies of the New Deal and that they utiize a shallow reason such as the Crash of '29 to say that it caused the Great Depression.

[Bobby Dillingham]

Also, the link to the third question did not open so I was unable to answer it.

[Nazeera Siddiqui]

During the late 19^th century and early 20^th century, the United States expansionism was a departure, but also, a continuation of the previous expansionism to some extent. As others have mentioned, the Manifest Destiny and Monroe Doctrine ideals were displayed during the expansionism during these decades. The United States still believed they had a God given right to expand and refine others' cultures so they could live the civilized way (similar to the Manifest Destiny). As for the Monroe Doctrine, it was their way to substantiate their reason to take place in other countries to “protect” them and to keep European nations from intervening with Latin America (done through the Roosevelt Corollary). Imperialism preceding and following the beginning of the twentieth century had followed similar reasoning and reflected older methods, but however, contained newer strategies of taking control and the geographic location of the territory sought after, which proved to be a substantial departure from the past expansionism. This is what led to define the United States as a world power.

 

The Founding Fathers of America fashioned a republican form of government that showed disdain for imperialism and belief in self-governance. However, by the end of the 19th century the U.S. competed with the Old World for markets and geopolitical influence throughout the globe, mainly in Asia, the Caribbean, and South America. While the Americans had been expansionists long before the early 20th century, that expansion had been confined to the neighboring lands and was accomplished through diplomacy, demographic movements, and armed conflicts. It was directed primarily at the Native Americans who resisted the inevitable expansion of the American settlers.  But by the 1890s, we can see that Americans would look abroad for new markets and areas of influence.

[Pedro Oliva]

During the time period of the late 19th century(1890s) to the early 20th century(early 1900s),United States expansionism was more of a departure,but to some extent a continuation.Reasons being it could be foreseen as a continuation of previous expansionism  could be the factors of doucuments such as the Monroe Doctrine coming into effect into the early 20th century just as if not more effectively than the late 19th century.The U.S, like others have mentioned expanded to regions beyond the wstern hemisphere and to other continents beyond their own.When the U.S expanded to countries such as Cuba,Puerto Rico,and part of the Philipenes,this was going beyond previous expansionism thus it being a departure rather than a continuation.Although things such as the Monroe Doctrine were being used to prevent other nations from invading the countries the U.S had visited.The Open Door Policy was also a factor of departure rather than a continuation becase of the U.S going into conflict with other nations in a different continent than their's.

[Pedro Oliva]

During the time period of the late 19th century(1890s) to the early 20th century(early 1900s),United States expansionism was more of a departure,

but to some extent a continuation. Reasons being it could be foreseen as a continuation of previous expansionism 

could be the factors of doucuments such as the Monroe Doctrine coming into effect into the early 20th

century just as if not more   effectively than the  late 19th century.The U.S, like others have mentioned expanded to regions beyond the wstern hemisphere and to other continents beyond their own.When the U.S expanded to countries such as Cuba,Puerto Rico,and part of the Philipenes,this was going beyond previous expansionism thus it being a departure rather than a continuation.Although things such as the Monroe Doctrine were being used to prevent other nations from invading the countries the U.S had visited.The Open Door Policy was also a factor of departure rather than a continuation becase of the U.S going into conflict with other nations in a different continent than their's.

On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 7:38 AM, Nazeera Siddiqui <nazee...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Pedro Oliva]

During the time period of the late 19th century(1890s) to the early 20th century(early 1900s),United States expansionism was more of a departure,but to some extent a continuation.Reasons being it could be foreseen as a continuation of previous expansionism  could be the factors of doucuments such as the Monroe Doctrine coming into effect into the early 20th century just as if not more effectively than the late 19th century.The U.S, like others have mentioned expanded to regions beyond the wstern hemisphere and to other continents beyond their own.When the U.S expanded to countries such as Cuba,Puerto Rico,and part of the Philipenes,this was going beyond previous expansionism thus it being a departure rather than a continuation.Although things such as the Monroe Doctrine were being used to prevent other nations from invading the countries the U.S had visited.The Open Door Policy was also a factor of departure rather than a continuation becase of the U.S going into conflict with other nations in a different continent than their's.

On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 7:38 AM, Nazeera Siddiqui <nazee...@gmail.com> wrote: