Hist 1302 Short Essay Assignment Due April

Hist 1302 Short Essay Assignmentthis Assignment Is Due April 17 And Sh

Compose a short essay addressing a problem related to American identity, including a thesis statement, arguments for both sides of the issue, and a conclusion. Use the provided sources, textbook materials, and other credible sources, citing them appropriately. The essay should be approximately two pages long, double spaced in 12-point font, with your name in the header of each page. Do not include a cover page. Your submission must be uploaded as a Word document via eCampus before 11:59 pm on April 17.

Paper For Above instruction

American identity has historically been a complex and evolving concept, shaped by internal and external influences that have both unified and divided the nation. The debates surrounding U.S. expansionism, especially during the Spanish-American War and the subsequent annexation of the Philippines, exemplify the multifaceted nature of American identity and its relationship to imperialism. This essay will analyze the arguments for and against adopting a more expansionist foreign policy, considering how prevailing understandings of national identity influenced these perspectives.

Proponents of expansionism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries argued from a sense of destiny and civilizational duty, often invoking the concept of American exceptionalism. Advocates like Senator Albert J. Beveridge championed the idea that the United States had a divine obligation to spread its values and institutions overseas, asserting that American superiority and the aim to civilize others justified imperialist actions. Beveridge, in his “March of the Flag” speech, famously proclaimed that Americans were chosen by Providence to bring liberty and civilization to “less fortunate” peoples (Beveridge, 1898). Similarly, Theodore Roosevelt’s “The Strenuous Life” emphasized the need for strong leadership and action to ensure American greatness through overseas expansion. These arguments were rooted in a sense of national pride, manifest destiny, and a belief that the U.S. role was to uplift “uncivilized” peoples, which was viewed as consistent with American ideals of progress and democracy.

Conversely, opponents of imperialism warned that such policies betrayed core American principles of self-determination, democracy, and moral integrity. Critics likeWilliam Jennings Bryan and George F. Hoar questioned the morality and legality of governing peoples without their consent. Bryan, in his speech “Paralyzing Influence of Imperialism,” argued that conquest and forced rule would undermine America’s foundational belief that governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed (Bryan, 1900). Hoar contended that governing foreign peoples against their will was incompatible with the principles of liberty enshrined in the Declaration of Independence (Hoar, 1899). These critics believed that imperialism risked undermining American moral stature and threatened to entrench racial and cultural superiority, which conflicted with ideals of equality and justice.

Furthermore, perspectives on national identity during this period influenced these debates profoundly. Pro-expansionists saw America’s destiny as a global power grounded in manifest destiny and exceptionalism, emphasizing strength, duty, and the civilizing mission. In contrast, anti-imperialists often prioritized the ideas of self-governance, anti-racism, and international morality, reflecting a more restrained ideal of American identity aligned with democratic ideals. The debate thus encapsulates a fundamental tension in American identity—whether America’s role was to spread its values through conquest or to exemplify the principles of self-determination and liberty.

Historically, the arguments on both sides reveal underlying assumptions about what it meant to be American. Expansionists believed that America’s greatness was rooted in its capacity to lead and civilize, viewing the nation as a model that deserved to be extended worldwide. Opponents, however, believed that true American identity was rooted in principles of democracy, liberty, and moral responsibility to oppose oppression—values that could not be upheld through conquest and subjugation.

In conclusion, the debate over expansionism exemplifies how understandings of American national identity shape foreign policy perspectives. Whether Americans saw their country as a future world leader responsible for civilizing others or as a bastion of liberty that must resist imperialist urges depended largely on their interpretation of what it meant to be truly American. The historical discourse reveals that national identity is often a battleground, influencing decisions that have lasting impacts on both domestic values and international relations.

References

• Beveridge, Albert J. (1898). The March of the Flag. North American Review.
• Bryan, William Jennings. (1900). Speech, “Paralyzing Influence of Imperialism.”
• Hoar, George F. (1899). Speech, January 1899.
• Roosevelt, Theodore. (1899). “The Strenuous Life.”
• Digital History. (n.d.). “The Philippines.” Retrieved from https://digitalhistory.org
• Gompers, Samuel. (1898). Speech on the Philippines annexation.
• Sumner, William Graham. (1899). “The Conquest of the United States by Spain.”
• McKinley, William. (1899). Speech to a group of clergymen, November 21.
• Philippine Digital History. (n.d.). Spanish-American War and Philippine occupation.
• United States Congress. (1898). Records on annexation debates.