Download Unit4EssayBlueprint copy - sls

Essay Blueprint
Your Name
Instructor’s Name
Course Title/Period #
Date
Essay/Research Question: Why did America need to become an Imperial Power?
Thesis Statement: trade (China trade, Open Door Policy), build economy, protect
American people, European Imperialism vs. American Imperialism=need for
resources vs. need for markets; Monroe Doctrine was a posture of defense, but
the Roosevelt Corollary was an expansionist foreign policy.
Paragraphs
Introduction
Topic Summary: Evidence: Quotes Analysis: Why is Evaluation: How
Mapping
What happened? or Statistics to this event/person does the evidence Sentence/Transiti
Answer in 5 Bullet add to summary
important?
support my
on Sentence
Points.
thesis?
•Mexican War 1846 1. 13-1 Manifest
Destiny by John
•Oregon
Compromise
L. O’Sullivan
•Industrial
2. 13-3 Davy
Expansion to MidCrockett and the
West
Alamo: Another
•Agricultural
View
Expansion to
3. 21-8 Theodore
Frontier States
Roosevelt: The
•Spanish-American Roosevelt
War
Corollary to the
•Definition of
Monroe Doctrine
Imperialism:
territory is
overtaken through
military or political
means.
Paragraphs
Topic Summary: Evidence: Quotes Analysis: Why is Evaluation: How
Mapping
What happened? or Statistics to this event/person does the evidence Sentence/Transiti
Answer in 5 Bullet add to summary
important?
support my
on Sentence
Points.
thesis?
Body 1
Government
Body 2
Business Leaders
1. 13-1 Manifest
Destiny by John
L. O’Sullivan
2. 13-3 Davy
Crockett and the
Alamo: Another
View
3. 21-8 Theodore
Roosevelt: The
Roosevelt
Corollary to the
Monroe Doctrine
•Andrew Carnegie:
The Gospel of
Wealth
•John D. Rockefeller:
Testimony Before the
US Industrial
Commission
Paragraphs
Body 3
Topic Summary: Evidence: Quotes Analysis: Why is Evaluation: How
Mapping
What happened? or Statistics to this event/person does the evidence Sentence/Transiti
Answer in 5 Bullet add to summary
important?
support my
on Sentence
Points.
thesis?
Military
•21-5 William James:
the Philippines
Tangle
•The Bayonet
Constitution
Conclusion
Why did America need to become an Imperial Power?
As early as the 1820s, American society began to shift its focus to the unknown frontiers of the Western parts of the continent.
President Jackson, a frontiersman himself, became famous for his heroic performance as an officer during the War of 1812 in the
Battle of New Orleans where he faced overwhelming numbers of British troops who wanted to capture the valuable trade center in
Louisiana and place a stranglehold on the American ability to conduct trade along the Mississippi River. Jackson had a dark side to
his character. His role as an Indian fighter is often less talked about because of his deep seeded hatred of the Native Americans which
stemmed from the Indian raids he experienced as a child in Tennessee. What Jackson did during his Presidency during the 1820s was
to infuse the American government, and thus the American society, with this frontier focus. America was a growing nation that was
beginning to realize its industrial capabilities and it could also support massive amounts of people using the agricultural production
that the fertile soils of the West could provide. By the time of the 1840s, the American culture had formed its focus on the frontier
into a social movement known as Manifest Destiny, which literally meant that Americans should “make their own destiny” into a
reality. Other nations in Europe and on the American continents were beginning to not only see, but feel America’s growing desire to
expand. The Mexican War, which took place during the 1840s, was fought to “free Americans” living in Texas and California under
the “iron-hand” of Santa Anna, a powerful Mexican general. The United States Government used these Americans to justify their
aggressive actions during this time. Today, Texans still garner some resentment at being a part of the Union. This resentment was
actually at its highest during the Civil War in which Texas produced some of the greatest Confederate generals. And then in the Civil
War itself, America focused its imperial tendencies not on expansion, but rather on the containment of slavery to a select few states.
While America was trying to smooth out issues within its own borders by settling disputes among its states and newly acquired
territories, the European Powers of France, Great Britain, Russia, the newly formed nation of Germany, and Spain were all vying for
political dominion over the resource-rich territories of Africa and Asia. In addition to these nations, the Asian nation of Japan was
emerging from nearly 700 years of feudalism into the nineteenth century with a newly democratizing government and modernizing
military. The chief reason why America became an imperial power was to challenge the authority of these rival nations, particularly
those in Europe, and to level the playing field with these powers. Three factors drove American imperialism. Manifest Destiny was
clearly the driving force behind this thinking. America had maximized the market for its products within its continental territory and
needed buyers for its products in other areas of the world. And lastly, certain Presidents with expansionist mentalities looked outward.
Historians cannot discuss Manifest Destiny without including some reference to John O’Sullivan, who first coined the phrase
in 1845. When O’Sullivan wrote about it, however, he was reflecting on the times in which he was experiencing, and did not view
what he wrote to be a driving force in the nation’s growth. In 1819, the United States acquired Florida from Spain but did little to
expand its borders in the years since. The Missouri Compromise was a bandage on the nation’s wound: slavery. This compromise
allowed for the creation of one free state for every slave state admitted to the Union. The extent of this compromise reached its limit
over the issue with Texas. American settlers in Texas successfully rebelled against the Mexican autocracy that ruled them, then
requested permission to join the Union, but they were rejected by President Martin Van Buren because Texas upheld the institution of
slavery for economic purposes and the President did not want to see his party split over the issue. The Texas controversy would be
taken up by James Polk, a Democrat, who would be the first of many expansionist Presidents to key in on the issue of slavery. Polk
talked much about expansion, but the slavery issue would again be pushed to the next generation of politicians. To O’Sullivan,
however, Manifest Destiny, did not imply that America should expand its for the economic and political benefit. America should
expand to spread its “gospel of democracy”, a term that Woodrow Wilson would later use as he presided over World War I. He
questions the elevation of the Texas issue into the main focus of America’s politics. He despised the American government for
wanting to take Texas and his sentiment was captured in this quote:
It is wholly untrue and unjust to ourselves, the pretense that the Annexation has been a measure of spoliation (destruction),
unrightful and unrighteous--of military conquest under forms of peace and law--of territorial aggrandizement (enhancement) at
the expense of justice, and justice due by a double sanctity (saintliness) to the weak...
O’Sullivan’s view was, and still is important, not because of the fact that his sentiment would be taken up by the Confederacy during
the Civil War, but because it highlighted the fact that while imperialism benefitted the imperialist nation, it hurt and alienated those
taken over by that same nation. During O’Sullivan’s time, those that were alienated were clearly slaves and Native Americans. The
thinking of O’Sullivan and the contemporaries of his time period supported the argument for the United States to have imperialist aims
because America was still greatly fearful of becoming a possession once again has it had once been at the end of the eighteenth
century. America’s aggression toward Mexico in the Texas and California territories, Great Britain in the Oregon territory, and Russia
in the Alaskan territory demonstrated this fear. Once the wealth of these regions were firmly under the grip of America did the
American government shift its focus outward. Although America’s concerns with its competitors ended with the Annexation of Texas
and California, and the acquisition of the Oregon Territory from Great Britain, and Alaska from Russia, America began to focus on
containing further foreign encroachment in the Pacific Region.
In the years following the Civil War, which in itself affected the global economy, America became involved in the growing
Pacific trade network. Whaling was an immense industry because it was not yet discovered that oil could be burned. European
nations scrambled to grab as many Pacific islands as they could. Whaling brought New England missionaries to Hawaii to spread
their gospel. The descendants of these missionaries became business savvy after their time as students at universities such as Harvard
and Yale. The Pacific islands were initially used as trading ports, but to the Americans, Hawaii had unique potential as a military
installation. And the Philippine Islands were at China’s door step. From the American perspective, whaling was an important
maritime industry, but from the European perspective, it was China that was the key to their success. Since the 1600s, European
nations, initially through their missionaries, had been in contact with the Chinese Imperial Government. Although the acquisition of
Chinese products had been the chief concern of European nations such as Great Britain, Russia and Germany, the byproduct of this
was the learning of Chinese government policy and medical practices which helped boost western culture. By the late 1800s, America
arrived on the “China Scene” by playing a key role in suppressing the Boxer Rebellion, which was an attempt by Chinese nationalists
to throw off the yoke of Western dominance over their land. It was because of this that the Americans could force an “open door
policy”, which was a series of treaties signed with a conglomeration of nations, chiefly, Great Britain, Russia, and Germany, who
represented the main European presence in China. The city of Shanghai in Eastern China had been marketed as the “Paris of the East”
and had housed the embassies of several nations, including that of another burgeoning imperial nation: Japan, which was included in
the “open door policy”. John Hay, the Secretary of State at the turn of the century in 1899 and 1900, drafted two “Open Door Notes”
in each of those two years. In the 1899 draft, Hay spoke to Andrew D. White, ambassador to Germany. His 1900 draft was sent to the
American embassies in all of the countries that wanted trade in China. Each draft was important in its own right. Hay stated in the
1899 draft that he wanted America to have the same “spheres of influence” that Germany had. It was in the 1899 draft that he listed
the conditions of international relations between America and the European powers. He stated “the government of the United States
would be pleased to see His German Majesty’s Government give formal assurance and lend its cooperation in securing like assurances
from the other interested powers, that each, within its own sphere of influence-First. Will in no way interfere with any treaty port or any vested interest within any so-called “sphere of interest” or leased
territory it may have in China.
Second. That the Chinese treaty tariff of the time being shall apply to all merchandise landed or shipped to all such ports as are
within said “sphere of interest” (unless they be “free ports”), no matter what nationality it ay belong, and that duties so leviable
shall be connected by the Chinese Government.
Third. That it will levy no higher harbor dues on vessels of of another nationality frequenting any port in such a “sphere” than
shall be levied on vessels of its own nationality, and no higher railroad charges over lines built, controlled, or operated within
its “sphere” on merchandise belonging to citizens or subjects of other nationality transported over equal distances.
By 1900, after experiencing the Boxer Rebellion, America began to assume its familiar role as a global police power captured in this
quote from the Circular Telegram to the Powers Cooperating in China or Hay’s second note:
...but the policy of the Government of the United States is to seek a solution which may bring about permanent safety and
peace to China, preserve Chinese territorial and administrative entity, protect all rights guaranteed to friendly powers by treaty
and international law, and safeguard for the world the principle of equal and impartial trade with all parts of the Chinese
Empire.
Creating the “open door policy” was the crowning achievement for America’s role on the global scene for this era. It leveled the
playing field, so-to-speak, and brought America to equal grounds as Europe. Although America never did, and never would, control
as many colonial possessions as its European contemporaries, it did reshape its own environment through key negotiations with
Europe. Its role as a negotiator and a drafter of treaties is clearly on display with these two quotes from the Open Door Note excerpts.
America’s chief weapon in the matter of China is the power of negotiation and it uses it expertly to assert itself into global affairs.
In the spirit of global competition, America had to revise its Constitution. How did America define its position on foreign
policy? During the fifth President’s tenure, a document called the Monroe Doctrine was crafted in his name. James Monroe and his
cabinet, in 1823, responded to incursions made by European Powers into certain areas of North and South America. The document
initially took a defensive posture by defining terms of interactions between the United States and those European Powers that had a
presence in each continent. These European Powers consisted of the British, Dutch, French, Russians, Spanish, and remnants of the
Portuguese Empire in South America. Years later, in 1904, it would be up to the very enigmatic President, Theodore Roosevelt, an
expansionist, to revise the Monroe Doctrine to fit his present times, and America’s future. The Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe
Doctrine (1904, 1905) supported the belief that Roosevelt should act as a policeman of the Western Hemisphere. Coining the phrase,
“walk softly and carry a big stick,” Roosevelt focused his terms as President on smoothing over problems in the Caribbean, Central
America, and the northernmost nations of South America, even going as far as creating the South American nation, Panama, to control
rights to use the Panama Canal. This quote from Roosevelt’s 1904 corollary demonstrates his stance on the issues in the Western
Hemisphere:
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.
In 1905, Roosevelt assured the European Powers that:
...It must be understood that under no circumstances will the United States use the Monroe Doctrine as a cloak for territorial
aggression. We desire peace with all of the world, but perhaps most of all with other peoples of the American Continent.
Roosevelt went on to say that the Monroe Doctrine will not be used as a shield to protect Western nations from retribution from
Eastern nations if those Western nations commit wrongdoings against the Eastern nations. The Roosevelt Corollaries are significant
because they define America’s global role as a police power, which would come into play during the World Wars, and the global
arena after the World Wars. More than any other piece of evidence, they support the notion that America wanted to level the playing
field with the European Powers, using the smaller South American nations to justify their stance as a regulator of affairs in the region.
In essence America needed to become an imperial power because that is what the Forefathers designed America to be with the
drafting of the Declaration of Independence in 1776. America’s role as an imperial power supports the belief that the United States of
America is more than just a nation, with borders on a map, it is an idea. It was designed to be an empire, became one in the political
sense, negotiating and using an industrial military force to overtake the North American continent. Today America still has an empire
that it maintains through the exporting of its cultural and economic ideals. European nations view America as a mediator that calms
dissent in specific regions and reduces the occurrence of genocide and ethnic cleansing that are still carried out during a time of
general cultural acceptance. To the Asian nations, America is seen as a regulator of trade within the region promoting peaceful
economic exchanges between the traditional enemies, China and Japan; and trying to bring about peace in Middle Eastern regions that
are displaying religious strife, like in the Israel-Palestine conflict. Are Americans proud of this role? Does it make us too egocentric?
Was America destined to play this part in role affairs? The world seems to be a better place with America in charge, but with the
industrially-focused China, the technological wonder-nation of India, and with the still unstable regions in Eastern Europe and the
Middle East, America’s dominance is now under scrutiny and this question is being investigated with increasing fervor and interest.