Blog #73 – Defending the Spanish American War
I would like to welcome guest columnist, former President and Rough Rider, Theodore Roosevelt.
I’d like to take this opportunity to address the next generation of future leaders who are enrolled in AP U.S. History, and remind them of their obligations towards this great nation we live in. We have to be men of action. “The worst lesson that can be taught a man is to rely upon others and to whine over his sufferings.” 1 Sitting on our duff waiting for others to help or lead is practically a sin. “To sit home, read one’s favorite paper, and scoff at the misdeeds of the men who do things is easy, but it is markedly ineffective. It is what evil men count upon the good men’s doing.” 2 We must remember that we are the greatest nation, the greatest race on all the earth, and that “Greatness means strife for nation and man alike. A soft, easy life is not worth living, if it impairs the fibre of brain and heart and muscle. We must dare to be great; and we must realize that greatness is the fruit of toil and sacrifice and high courage… We are face to face with our destiny and we must meet it with a high and resolute courage. For us is the life of action, of strenuous performance of duty; let us live in the harness, striving mightily; let us rather run the risk of wearing out than rusting out.” 3 Keep these thoughts in mind when choosing a career, when facing your own destiny. Don’t back down. Grab it and never let it go.
A few years ago, quite a few now, I must say, I was involved in fighting the Imperial Spanish Empire and freeing the Cuban people. It was the greatest time of my life. But the naysayers and the weak-willed looked upon America’s victory in 1898 as a betrayal of American values. To them, I say, you are wrong. “If we are to be a really great people, we must strive in good faith to play a great part in the world. We cannot avoid meeting great issues. All that we can determine is whether we will meet them well or ill. [In 1898] we could not help being brought face to face with the problem of the war with Spain. All we could decide was whether we should shrink like cowards from the contest or enter into it as beseemed a brave and high-spirited people; and once in, whether failure or success should crown our banners.” 4 And as you can see, we had prevailed mightily as a people.
As for the territories we have won, questions arise as to who will govern them. “We cannot avoid the responsibilities that confront us in Hawaii, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines… I have scant patience with those who fear to undertake to govern the Philippines, and who openly avow that they do fear to undertake it or that they shrink from the expense and trouble of it. But I have even scanter patience with those who make a pretense of humanitarianism to hide their timidity, and who care about “liberty” and “consent of the governed” in order to excuse themselves for their unwillingness to play the part of men…if we shrink from the hard contests where men must win at hazard of their lives and at risk of all they hold dear, then the bolder and stronger peoples will pass us by and will win for themselves the domination of the world.” 5
I hope that I have set the record straight with regards as to our entry into the arena of the world. You may not agree with what was done but look at all that has been accomplished since this time. Americans have not shrunk from their duty. They have fought tyranny around the globe and won. I am proud of what we have started.
Your job: Take a look at the Imperialism debate handout (on the back of the notes why we got into the Span-Am War + vocab), read over both sides of the debate, and respond to President Roosevelt’s brief address here as to whether you agree with him or not. Please keep in mind the context of the time period (1899-1901).
Due Wednesday, March 4, by class. 300 words minimum.
Quotes
1. http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/images/research/speeches/trhnthopb.pdf
2. http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/images/research/treditorials/o151.pdf
3. Address at the opening of the gubernatorial campaign, New York City (October 5, 1898)
4. “Governor Roosevelt Praises the Manly Virtues of Imperialism, 1899” Major Problems in American History.
5. Ibid.
Even though Theodore Roosevelt was an amazing president, I have to disagree with his thoughts on imperialism. I think the what we did to these countries was very immoral and wrong. The idea of Manifest destiny made sense we were only expanding through land that was right next to us and that we had use for, but to cross oceans and seas to take over islands and tiny countries is not a right that America had. At this point in American history, we are still a relatively new and developing country and we had bigger, more important issues to deal with at home. By taking over these countries, we are taking over their problems, and we have enough of our own for now. America should be stayed at home and deal with issues like women’s rights, children’s rights, or hygienic problems (like in “Jungle”). Not to mention taking over these countries is very hypocritical. We hated the way England tries to control us, so we fought for our independence when nobody thought the colonies would aspire to anything. So taking over these new and aspiring countries is doing the same thing GB did to us. It is not our job to fix “corrupt” countries if ti doesn’t involve us, especially if we have out own things in our own country that need attention.
At the time period of the Spanish War I agree with President Theodore Roosevelt and America’s actions. A very large reason for our imperialistic mood was our eagerness to expand our markets across the world. On our “Great Debate Over Imperialism” sheet one of the quotes on the “For Possession” side is “We need the markets and raw materials now. It doesn’t matter that they are a noncontiguous. We didn’t need the purchase and new additional areas in continental America. Look at it now! We produce more than we can consume.” This quote supports Imperialism because in order to become a stronger nation we need to have more markets to trade with other countries so we can increase our economy. At the time we were the greatest manufacturing country so our GDP would sky rocket. Another factor is that if we were just to free these third world countries and not take them under our wing other large super power in the world could take it and use it to increase their markets or even use it for defense or offense in future wars. America was founded upon life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness which we offered to our new territories. When America was under G.B. rule we felt weak and oppressed being taxed without representation so we revolted and started the Revolutionary War. Although, without Benjamin Franklin going to France and asking them for help, we would have lost the war. Over 90% of our supplies were French and without them we would have been crushed by the English. This is similar to the Spanish-America war because without America helping countries like Cuba, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines they may have lost the war and they would still be under rule from countries like Spain. Once the Revolutionary war was won although France didn’t claim us as theres but we did that to these territories that were now free because without us they would fail. That is why I agree with former President Teddy Roosevelt and his beliefs about Imperialism.
Blog 73
Although President Roosevelt was a great president who did a lot of good for the United States, I disagree with his imperialistic policy. The way we treated the Pacific and Caribbean countries after invading them, which to begin with was immoral, is practically the opposite of The Monroe Doctrine. The United States is interfering with the progression of Latin American democracies, making itself look like a hypocrite to the European powers the Monroe Doctrine was directed against. Roosevelt would have been better off improving America instead of expanding US influence overseas. By trading with China and jostling for a spot with the current occupying European countries, the United States directly involved itself in foreign affairs, going against the many presidents before Roosevelt, all the way back to George Washington himself. Like the article stated, do we have to annex countries in order to trade with them? It seems we are the only country who believes in doing so, when we normally are against it. Laissez faire government is hands off of everything except other countries.
The way that I look at what teddy is saying is that the way we were taking over small countries that have no chance that we don’t have anything against is wrong. No matter what everyone else is doing you have to do what is right all the time and what is best for you. Doing the moral thing always is hard it’s never easy doing the right thing but it’s always the better route. I do believe that maybe that was better for the country though maybe that imperialism was the thing of the time period and that was just the route that teddy Believed would benefit the U.S it could’ve been that for the country it was the way it had to be. Teddy is a smart man and one of the greatest leaders to ever lead the U.S. So I know he knows best.
The best thing for the u.s is hard to say there are many ways you can look at it there are also may outcomes that could’ve came out of the decisions made. If I was leading the U.S. At the time I probably wouldve done the same thing teddy did because it was the trend of time period it wasn’t a good trend bullying the little guy but it was the trend. I get exactly what teddy is thinking and it makes sense. Teddy was man to remember he left his mark on the U.S. And the world as a great leader. At the end of it all imperialism is a hard subject to talk about because it can be looked at in so many ways. I believe that for the time period and because of all the countries it was a decision teddy had to make.
I believe that it is our nation’s duty to take over and control these nations. As a middle-class white male in 1900 I believe that the natives are unfit to rule themselves. That means we cannot leave them alone for 2 reasons. The first being that they will not be able to rule themselves and just go back into a state of bad ruling and suffering. The second reason being that if we leave them then another big country such as Spain, England, China, etc. will invade and take the islands. This means they could control trade in this area and close markets that we need to help get us through this depression. If we rule over them then we get to control a new market which we really. Our country is currently too poor to buy our goods meaning the companies are not making much money but if we control these new islands then we have a new market which we can block off from the rest of the world. This way we have no competition and with no tariffs it makes our goods cheaper. These islands can make it easier to trade with new shipping ports which will only help our economy. We also need to spread democracy and to keep these islands from coming under dictator or European rule. If we just leave them then later on European countries will just come back and according to the Monroe Doctrine we have to defend these islands. That can only lead to war which we never want. Gaining more land can never hurt us especially with Cuba’s major sugar export. That is one more thing America can monopolize and control was sugar trade. Nothing bad comes from taking over the islands but bad things such as war and dictatorships are all a possibility if we leave the islands alone.
Theodore Roosevelt, though being one of the greatest presidents ever to run this lovely country (sarcasm about the country), I believe that he is wrong in his thought and ideas of taking over the Central American counties and the islands in the pacific. I agree with those who oppose the anaxation and aquiring of these territories. The first reason being, one of the main reasons our country our country was founded in the first place was because we wanted to break away from the smaller country that was ruling over us from across the world. If the United States was to aquire the islands and small countries, it would only further prove that we are nation that bases its decisions off of hypocrisy. It’s almost as though the people in charge of our country got a case of historical amnesia and forgot where they came from and how they got to run a country in the first place. Secondly, the fact that certain people can go and say that it’s “their job” to go in and colonize people because they don’t live the same way we do in america is just plain disrespectful. That’s why people hate America. We stick our noise in other peoples business and try to fix problems that aren’t even problems and go in and try to change different countries when our country still needs a lot of fixing itself. Why do we need to go and colonize the citizens of a different country or island when we still have segregation and women’s and work rights problems still at home? Finally, if we make too many products here at home that we can’t use ourselves, then that’s our problem. We should slow down production and maybe try to make bigger deals with those we already trade with instead of using it as an excuse to take over other places. In total, I disagree with the idea of take over and trying to “colonize” the islands and other Central American countries.
From the given time period, I agree with President Roosevelt. Given our great desire to expand and to make a statement to the world and establish our country as a superpower, imperialism was an ideal way to do so. With this being said, our seizing of Cuba, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the Philippines was beneficial both to us and the islands themselves. The islands gave us raw materials and large flow of unskilled labor. This could be viewed as good and bad but from a pro-imperialist standpoint, we are giving opportunities to the islands by taking them in and they are giving us benefits in return. Along with the economic gain we are achieving, we are also giving the islanders an opportunity to reinvent themselves as an american. This should not be viewed as “civilizing” the islands, but rather there chance to become americanized and start a new life under capitalism and democracy. The annexation of the islands by america was the better option because if we had not taken these islands for our own, another imperialist power (most likely Spain) would take them. Imperialism is taking the world by storm in the time period with several successful empires and countries being run down and dominated by imperialist nations that are thriving off of these failing non-imperialist countries. With this being said, we would have been in danger and at the mercy of imperialist nations. If we had not taken up these imperialist ideals and strategies it would have been much more difficult to establish our role as the worlds dominating super power and would have yelled such title to a European nation. Yes, we might have exploited these islands but they gave much more to us and we offered much more opportunity to them than any other imperialist country would have.
Even though President Roosevelt was thought, by the people, to be a wonderful president, I disagree with his imperialistic policy. With the Monroe Doctrine in mind, the immorality we displayed after invading Caribbean and Pacific countries was not supposed to be the goal. The Monroe Doctrine was specifically against the interference of Latin America and their democracy and progression, making us the extreme hypocrite in the situation. In order to create a better situation for the U.S. and everyone else, we should’ve focused on the improvement of the United States before anyone else. But Roosevelt was focused on other “oppurtunites”. George Washington himself said us getting into foreign affairs was a bad idea, but Roosevelt insisted that securing a spot in other European countries and trading with China was more important. The article brought up an important idea, why do we have to take over and control another country just to trade with them? It seems we are the only country who is interested in doing this when we claim we are normally against it. Laissez faire government is hands off of everything except other countries, and I believe that that is deeply wrong.
I think that the imperialistic movement was not the greatest move by Theodore Roosevelt. It was morally wrong to take over these countries just after they revolted and got away from Spain. If you look at this imperialistic movement during the time period it was much more moral and it would show weakness to let these countries have their freedom back. I believe that it wasn’t the right move because looking at Spain and what happened to them, they took over these countries expanded out their empire and lost it all. Spain was the first in the Imperialist movement when conquistadores came and took over the Mayans and Incas within Mexico and Central America. If America takes over these countries they will have to deal with constant rebellion and have to keep a larger army on hand. A larger army will cause more taxes within the nation. If they take over these nations a flood of cheap labor jobs would go there and cause unemployment to increase. You can see this happening today in China where it is cheaper to send work there than provide jobs for America. Looking at a side where imperialism would be the right move to do if you let these countries go you look like a coward. If you do let these countries go they will just get conquered by other imperialistic powers which would be bad business. If you annex these countries it would put the US in a great position to dominate trade with China and the Orient. Also annexation will be easy because the US already controls the islands. The raw materials from these countries would help the market greatly because it would provide jobs for the islands as well as in America.
Keeping in mind the context of the time period, I’d say I have to agree with Theodore Roosevelt’s opinion on Imperialism, though I do understand how the topic could be much debated. For America at the turn of the century, expanding our markets globally was very important. Islands in the Caribbean and elsewhere (Cuba, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and The Philippines) had valuable resources that the United States could use to their benefit. Their locations also provided optimal positioning for military bases. The possession of these islands would be extremely useful for our country and add to the GDP and prosperity of already the world’s greatest superpower. Some may say that invading these third world countries is morally and ethically wrong, but think about it. These third world countries are very undeveloped, and for the most part, poor. Becoming a part of the world’s greatest superpower, a land of prosperity and freedom would be a boon for the civilizations living in these countries. The citizens lives would not be ruined, they would definitively progress. The people in these countries would ultimately live better lives and become a part of a righteous government. Also consider that if we were not to assume control of these islands, another superpower would surely do so in the near future. With the locations, resources, and relative ease of takeover, countries will rush to claim the precious land. There is no point in letting or rival superpowers progress while we stand pat and do not. The benefits of taking control of the islands clearly outweigh the certainly questionable cons. The points our good president Theodore Roosevelt stated in his message to us make complete sense to me and, in my opinion, reaffirms how great a president he was in his lack of fear for taking action.
I think that the acquisition of the territories is immoral and against, what I believe should be, Americas morals. The first wave of manifest destiny was understandable in my opinion, it makes sense that we wanted to acquire the whole continent as our country. Even that, however, was immoral in the way that we treated the Natives living on the land that we wanted to acquire. I think the treatment of the natives during the 1st wave of manifest destiny should have been a learning lesson, come the 2nd wave. I think the second time, Americans could have tried to acquire the land without and changing a whole group of peoples morals and beliefs. America sees a group of people who are unlike them, and feel that they know what’s best and tries to help out. I think America feeling as though it is their responsibility to help other countries is a good thing overall, but we always end up hurting, more than helping. If America is planning to invade another nation and take over, we should at least have the decency to make them US citizens and give them equal rights. If we don’t, the same thing is going to keep happening over and over where the oppressed will get angry and they will turn into violence. It’s entirely hypocritical how we are scorning Spain for what it’s doing when we just go in and do the exact same thing. The thing that we’re doing a better than the 1st time is we are providing provisions and vaccines for the citizens of the countries we are taking over. I would agree more with acquisition if America would handle the situation better and have enough decency to treat the acquired people as equal citizens if they’re governing them as though they take it. If we can’t handle the that then we should just offer provisions and be trading partners and nothing more.
Blog #73
I am going to have to disagree with President Roosevelt. Even though it is hard for me to go against this great man I must. There are too many points that go against imperialism and what America did to countries. I will most likely be called a coward and a naysayer by him and his cabinet but I must say my point of view and say what I think is right. The actions that happened caused a war which puts a physical and mental strain on our country. That was my first point I will mention. War is never a good thing only in the most extreme manner when you have to do something. If you just go and try to conquer extra pieces of land for no reason it doesn’t make sense. You send countless troops to acquire a nation just so you can have it and teach them your ways. The whole moral of the country is always down in a war so that is a negative. Another thing is that Spain tried to conquer a lot of countries and no one liked them. We are America and we can’t lose allies and especially we cannot be hated by everyone. Besides the land and people that we take over have their own cultural ways and they won’t accept ours. They have lived their life the way they’ve wanted for many years and do not want to be disturbed. Imperialism is immoral. Our country has fought for the rights of liberty and freedom. Taking over these countries goes completely against what we have fought for and gained. We think we know what’s best for them but in reality we do not. Imperialism is not a good thing in any measure especially not good for the United States of America.
Although Theodore Roosevelt was a very strong man, I believe his strength impacted his decisions in a negative way. I do not believe his imperialistic policy was the best policy for America at the time, or now. On our “Great Debate Over Imperialism” handout, Sumner states that imperialism is immoral, and I agree with that statement. The policy America was built on and continues to live by is freedom and liberty. What happened to “give me liberty or give me death”? You are taking away many countries’ liberties rather than supporting it. America continuously does this again and again starting all the way back at the first Manifest Destiny and hunger for the whole continent. We treated the Native Americans heinously. Not only did we kill them with diseases and massacres we also pushed them off of their sacred land and forced them to assimilate with white people, or they would die. I do not understand how America has not learned from that mistake and why they think it is ok to do the exact same thing again. According to our handout one of the pros of imperialism is that we don’t have to treat Filipinos as citizens of the United States and therefore the 14th amendment doesn’t apply to them. It compares the Filipinos to the Native Americans! It’s a direct parallel between our treatment of the Native Americans and the treatment of the new islands that we are attempting to acquire. Still to this day America likes to stick our noses in issues that do not involve us. We see people who aren’t EXACTLY like us and all of a sudden feel like we need to teach them our perfect ways… Although occasionally we do succeed in helping other countries, generally that is not the case. I do believe we should help other countries, but not in the way that we do.
Viewing this issue within the context of the time period, I would have to agree with Mr. Roosevelt, for a variety of reasons, the majority of which stem from a simple “force” that affects the universe in which we live: entropy. Entropy is the idea that things will inherently revert back to more chaotic and simplistic version of itself as time goes on. Now, let’s apply that to the Spanish-American war at the turn of the 20th century. Once America had “vanquished” the Spanish and liberated the contested islands, the problem still remained of what to do with the newly-free territory. If we consider entropy, the logical thing to do would be to assume control of those territories: left to their own devices, they would simply revert to a base-level, chaotic, “savage” form of existence. Hence, leaving them to govern themselves isn’t an option. However, gifting them to another global power is not an option either; besides showing America as weak or willing to roll over for the European nations, doing so would sacrifice valuable lands that could be used to better America’s economy, considering the wealth of new market opportunities presented by the islands. This leaves the option of taking control of the nations. Some might argue that doing so would contradict America’s principles of freedom and liberty, and be hypocritical considering our own birth. However, by installing an American government in these lands, we can ensure that the people’s freedom and liberty will be protected, something we cannot do if we leave them be or give them to a rival nation. And, while some may argue that the people of these lands may not particularly want a democratic government in their land, it is difficult to deny that democracy has proven itself particularly effective in the ~125 (~250, if you’d like to like at this from a more modern perspective) that America has existed. In our relatively short history, we have accomplished things that other nations worked for centuries to achieve. So while these islanders may not want a democracy, it is best for them in the long run that they have it as a foundation to build off of, so that they too may accomplish great things.
Theodore Roosevelt is one of the greatest presidents in this great nation’s history, and I totally agree with him on the issue of foreign policy. We needed to expand if we wanted to keep up and compete with imperialistic Europe. If we did not expand, we would fall behind and be cast aside and not be a world power. This is the beginning of America becoming the greatest superpower the world has ever seen! Also, annexing these new colonies stimulates our economy, and opens up new markets to sell our goods. Our economy was in crisis due to overproduction of cheap goods, but through annexation, we have opened up new trade routes into the orient, giving us new markets to sell to. Also, now that we have many islands in the pacific, we are in a position where we can basically control the entire ocean! We can now build key naval bases in places like Hawaii, Guam, and the Philippines. This allows us to control trade in the area and better protect America. Also, people who oppose the annexation of places like Hawaii need to understand that we basically already controlled it; it was just a matter of officially annexing it. On top of all this, we are helping free people from the oppression of European nations. Many people have criticized our control over these territories as immoral, but I guarantee you we are running them way better, and not oppressing the people nearly as much as the Spanish. Had we not intervened, those colonies would have been left to rot under an oppressive Spanish rule. Now that we control them, they are being much less oppressed, and they are now better off under our control. Finally, for those who say that what we have done goes against the Monroe doctrine, think about it this way, we have simply intervened to protect the Americas from European cruelty, and in the process have eradicated European rule from many places in the Caribbean. We are simply doing as the doctrine intended and defending the little guys in the Americas that can’t defend themselves. In conclusion, teddy Roosevelt’s actions are not only justified, but vital for a country that needs to expand on to a world scale and be a super power that it sure deserves to be.
I believe that Theodore Roosevelt’s ideals have a good deal of solid logic behind them. However, Mr. Roosevelt gives himself and the American imperialist cause too much credit. He paints over the true intentions of imperialism to make it more appealing to the public. He says he invaded Cuba to ‘help free the Cubans’, when it was clear that we were more interested in their market than their political problems. The Spanish War was fought for one reason, and that was to secure already existing markets to which we could export and trade our goods with. I do understand the importance that these markets posed to the American economy, but was invasion and appropriation of foreign lands the best way to do it? Did it follow the ideals of democracy, and was it morally right? Without a doubt, it was not. Rather than helping them rebel against the European powers and becoming their first allies, as we should have done, we took over their governments claiming that they were ‘not ready’ to govern themselves. Then, with you as their leader, Mr. Roosevelt, the American army was used as debt-collectors throughout South America. The Army, which should only be used to defend freedom and destroy oppression, was used by American businesses and politicians in a way that I can only describe as disappointing. Thus I conclude my point, Mr. Roosevelt, that imperialism has many advantages. But that only applies to the people with the largest guns, the largest stick you might say. Imperialism is exactly why we rebelled against Britain during colonial times, so why have we adopted it. It betrays the goodwill of the American people and the poor islanders, and it is morally wrong. Mr. Roosevelt, you didn’t participate in the Spanish war for the good of the world, you did it for America, and America only.
Looking over the notes from class and trying to form an opinion during that time period, I agree with President Roosevelt. One of the main points for possession was “Annexation would put us in a position to dominate trade with China and the Orient”. This was a major factor because not only would we have control over China, we would also have control over other major european countries who were trading with them at this point. Also, because of yellow journalism, many rumors of depression and unrest were circulating. This caused a huge panic over the future of the United States. This new control over not only China, but powers such as Britain and France could be of major help to our economy. Back then, the whole ” ‘Merica frick yeah” idea was basically what our country was run on and this control over China would make us a huge world power. Another huge reason we went into war was the Cuban people were stuck under the Spanish rule just like we had been under Britain many years prior. Although in the end we may not have dealt with them the most morally right way, we still fought a major war to help them and they did get to break away from Spain even if it wasn’t ideal. But, making Cuba a “protectorate” also had many economic advantages (not so much for them… but ya know we’re America soooo). With this new port in Cuba, we were open to trade with the entire Caribbean. Also, with plans to build a canal, America can steady our economy after the depression of 1893 and dominate trade in the Caribbean.
I agree with President Roosevelt. We are one of the best and most powerful nations in the world because we were able to take over other nations. We never backed down from a fight which gave us countries like Cuba and the state of Hawaii. As President Roosevelt said before Imperialism is go and it invigorates a nation and keeps it healthy. I think he believes this because it keeps the country on their toes and makes the country feel better about its self. When he also said a slothful nation falls victim to those who maintain soldierly virtues. When he says this I think he means if a country is not engaged in what is happening around the world and taking stuff over becomes lazy. When a country becomes lazy it is so much easier for this country to fall to a country that is more involved with world affairs. Also the US only took over places who didn’t seem fit to govern themselves which in the United States eyes was doing that country a favor. They believed if they didn’t do so it was doing a disservice to the country and that is bad. Many presidents have agreed with what President Roosevelt said about imperialism being a good thing such as Howard Taft and Calvin Coolidge. So in all I think imperialism is a good system and we wouldn’t be the great and powerful country we are with out it.
I believe that it was against what American stood for. Although we were just trying to help the small Countries but really it wasn’t good for us or for them. It was against everything that we built our country on. We said that we were going to help their economy and government but really we just took over. We tried to control everything but we made everything so much worse. We wanted these Islands because it would help us with trade. We really didn’t even need them for trading ports. We have made so many other deals with countries before we could have done it again. We concerned them and treated them just as Britain had treated us. That was what we fought against and said that we never wanted to be controlled again. Going and invading the Countries was very hypocritical on our part. Our goal was to Americanize them and take their culture away from them. We did this to the Native Americans and the slaves we brought over from Africa. When we took over part of the country but wouldn’t consider them American citizens was really wrong. Not giving them any rights or any privileges because they weren’t like us was not right on our part. Also if American got control of all the nations they wanted then there would be enough jobs for everyone. People were already struggling with finding jobs and adding more people would just cause more issues for the American job industry. In the end I completely disagree with Theodore Roosevelt and his idea on imperialism. It would just cause more issues for our country. It would always put us in a place we never wanted to be in. That is controlling other nations just like Britain did to us when we were the 13th colonies.
Theodore Roosevelt was a great president who did a lot of great things for the country, but his imperialist policies in the Caribbean and the South Pacific was not the right thing to do. The United States had no business in the Caribbean or Pacific and should have left those areas to develop on their own. It was immoral to take away their right to self-government and it should not have been done. All of those points are from today’s point of view, however. Even in the time period, though, there are plenty of reasons to not to invade these Caribbean and Pacific nations. Workers in the time period would be afraid that new, cheap labor would flood in and take jobs. Pro-imperialists argued that imperialism would be good for trade, but there was no need to take over a country to trade with it. There is a very real fear that with taking over the nations would come with rebellion and defiance from the native people, which could cripple the new and growing nation. People were afraid that inheriting the nations would be inheriting Spain’s problems along with Spain’s dismal fate. Worst of all, starting this imperialistic adventure would plunge the U.S. into world politics and put the U.S. at risk of war. The U.S. was still a relatively new nation, still in the early stages of development (compared to Spain, France, Great Britain, etc.), and was not ready to head onto the world stage at this level. One wrong decision, one wrong alliance, or even a botched diplomatic meeting (which was very likely with Teddy constantly greeting European leaders informally, as opposed to “your highness”) could put the U.S. in a war which could have the potential to end this new nation as quickly as it started. Although Teddy was a good president, his ideals on imperialism should not have been put into action.
EDITED
Although, yes, President Roosevelt was one of the greatest and most well-known presidents in the whole of American history, I have to say that I disagree with him when it comes to the subject of imperialism. Mostly I disagree with this whole idea of a second Manifest Destiny. Sure, the first one was fine and it left other countries out of harms way. But the take over of these Latin American countries is morally wrong and quite frankly unnecessary. While on the one hand, we may be able to offer a few benefits, we still are trapped in this mindset that places outside of the US are in trouble and needs us to fix them. Typically, however, that is not the case. In fact, most of the times that America steps in to “fix” something , they end up screwing everything up in the end. Just look at the Indians. We massacred their entire culture and way of living, leaving them to stay on small reserves when they were doing just fine without our “help”. Also I am still unsure as to why we really, truly need this sum of land. Honestly, it’s ridiculous. It’s not like we are running out of room anytime soon. We need to learn to stop meddling with the smaller foreign countries affairs and worry a little more about ourselves, especially because we take control and annex these countries without a single word of consent. Also by doing this wouldn’t it only create a bigger struggle for Americans to get jobs. I mean are you blind? Not to be disrespectful, but it’s quite clear to all US citizens that this is one of the most difficult times to find jobs. By doing what you’re doing we’d inherit even more problems with jobs. There’d be a bigger struggle to find work and maybe more strikes would even break out. I hate to break it to you, Mr. President, but you are wrong. I am NOT proud of what we have started.