71 thoughts on “Blog #73 – Defending the Spanish American War”

1. Brett Anger March 1, 2015 at 3:51 pm

   America is the greatest nation the world has ever seen. Tired of British rule, the colonies decided to create their own government, one where the people ruled, not a king. The colonists, by their own will, created the freest nation in history. A little over 100 years later, America is the world’s superpower. Americans have lost interest in looking into the heart of America, and have set their sight upon the Caribbean, China, and the Philippians. After the Spanish-American War, the United States is in control of these territories. It is not an option to give the territories back to the other imperialist powers, it shows weakness and will only reinstate what we fought to overthrow. Letting the territories govern themselves is almost the same as giving them back to the imperialist powers. As soon as the American people lose interest in these territories, other nations will overpower them and use the territories for their own benefit. The only way to maintain order and honor as a nation is to take these territories under our wing and protect them. Having these territories to trade with will reinvigorate the economy and maintain the position America is in. Adding more consumers to the market will help destroy the excess amount of goods that we have produced. As the European powers militarize, and war brewing on the horizon, America will keep the nations peaceful with our protection. The only way to ensure America stays a superpower is to nurture the territories we have liberated. Betraying what the American people want is an affront to the institution of democracy, and would be an insult to the Patriots who gave their lives to ensure a place that the common man was as powerful as any other. The expansion of America is a way for more people to become free.
2. Grace Sleder March 1, 2015 at 3:59 pm

   In this debate over imperialism I am against the possession of these islands because we want the areas for all the wrong reasons. I believe that possessing these territories for our economic gain and “civilizing” of the colonies are wrong reasons to rule people. To rule them as such, we would be no better than the British who ruled us or Spain who these territories belonged to. What if they rebelled against us? America could act as Britain did and the territories could fight against us for their true freedom. The people in these areas we possess would be exactly like the Native Americans in our country, practically no rights. America wouldn’t be rescuing these people, just changing who rules them which won’t help them develop. If we really wanted to help them we would let them be free and let them find a way of government that will be successful.
   I agree partially with what Theodore Roosevelt is talking about in his brief address. I agree with his quote of “The worst lesson that can be taught a man is to rely upon others and to whine over his sufferings,” but I apply this quote differently. This perfectly relates to why the territories should not be in the possession of the United States, we should let them grow, not control them. Our nation will not accept these people as American citizens so we will not be that diplomatic to them. They aren’t like us and when encountering people unlike us we never believe they are as capable as us, for example the African Americans in our country. I don’t agree with Roosevelt in his address where he says that it’s America’s duty to take care of these areas. We didn’t need to help them in their rebellion against Spain, the more we involve ourselves in fights, the more enemies we make.
3. Jaxon Bumbaugh March 2, 2015 at 5:56 pm

   From a standpoint of the time period, I agree 100% with good old Teddy Roosevelt. In right now’s situation, imperialism is heavily frowned upon. But in this era of history, where really any nation was at the mercy of big European empires, I can see why Teddy Roosevelt wanted the U.S.A to become an imperial power. Yeah, even if it is bad that we annex these territories without the people of their country’s consent, it is far better that we annexed them than it would be had we just given the territories back to the Spanish or have another imperial power do so. Eventually, we will give these people citizenship so we are giving them rights, which is way better than what European powers have done with their colonial subjects. Our control of new territories will give both of our people’s benefits, we will protect their rights from other imperialist powers who would otherwise be very brutal, and we also get the benefits of more markets for America and more resources for us. The biggest of countries are falling apart due to being non-imperialistic. A once proud china is beginning to collapse at the hands of the European powers, areas of central and Eastern Europe have been swallowed alive by the power-hungry German, Russian, and Austro-Hungarian empires, India once a large powerful country of its own, is fully controlled by Britain now. Our country was once a scrawny group of colonies, we revolted and won, and now we have built up strength and right at this instant, will be an important turning point for our country. If we let go of the countries we just took over, we will go in the wrong direction and may end up being eaten up by an imperial power like Britain, who has a 1000 mile land border with us (Dominion of Canada) and is still a little unhappy about how things went down in the American Revolution. With the new territories we have, we should keep them, treat the new people as Americans like us, and this will all make our peoples stronger.
4. Sam Z March 2, 2015 at 7:10 pm

   I have to say that I disagree with the acquisition of the territories. I think it is immoral, hypocritical, and totally against what America stands for (this is totally something America would do, but not something it ‘s morals should allow). The first “manifest destiny” was understandable- to want to acquire the whole continent. Even that, however, was immoral in the way that we treated Native Americans and still do treat them (i.e. they weren’t legal citizens for a long time even though they were here before the Europeans). However, I think that was a mistake and we should have learned from that time- trying to go and change a whole group of people without bothering to understand them/see them as equal human beings just ends up with violence and an increasingly bad reputation for the US. It doesn’t make sense to me, this renewed manifest destiny. It seems like the same thing just keeps happening again and again. America sees a people unlike them and feels they know what’s best and tries to help out. I think it’s great that we feel a responsibility to help other countries but we always conduct it in a negative and degrading way. If we’re going to go in and take over we should at least have the decency to make them citizens and give them equal rights. If not the same thing is going to keep happening over and over where the oppressed will get angry (rightfully so) and it 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 little better is we are providing provisions and vaccines, etc, but I think the moral thing to do is to put their health and those types of things before America’s own personal gain. I would agree more with acquisition if America would be mature enough to treat the acquired people as equal citizens if they’re governing them as such (if not more strictly). If we can’t handle that then we should just offer provisions and be trading partners and nothing more.
5. Cooper D March 2, 2015 at 7:54 pm

   As much as I would love to agree with President Roosevelt on the issue of Imperialism, I sadly disagree with him that conquering all of these countries can help us and them in the long run. I just can’t see how us invading these foreign lands saying we are going to help their economy and their government and ending up just trashing everything and throwing our weight around could possibly be a good idea. Some may argue that if we move into the Philippines, that we can now get into major trade with China and other Asian countries. Yes, that may be a possibility but if we forcibly without consent move into the Philippines, the political, and military costs would far outweigh the potential gains we may receive from Chinese trade at this point. If it is America’s god given right to protect these areas from foreign rule, why were they given to the foreign powers in the first place? The foreign powers could do a perfectly fine job of protecting the little areas without America interfering in the politics. And we all know that the fixing the things that are wrong with the country and making improvements is a complete front for some conquest of lands scheme, and America at this time shouldn’t be trusted meddling in foreign lands with no consequences. And why do we even need this extra land anyway, for some of the business elite to have vacation homes on some exotic beach. No, that’s not what we need. The rich will just benefit from this land acquisition and get rigger and the poor get poorer. Thus the wage gap increases and everyone except the 1% is unhappy. But I do have to agree that just sitting back and complaining about Imperialism is going to do nothing about it. So why didn’t more people actually do something about it? That’s my question.
6. Jane J March 2, 2015 at 9:09 pm

   I believe that in this time period (1899-1901) that imperialism was a good thing for America, and I would have to agree with Teddy Roosevelt. Although I disagree with the way the Americans annexed these countries, which included us telling Cuba we were freeing them because we sympathized with them then taking away their right to be their own country. Even though I completely disagree with that, I feel that they did them for the right reasons. Imperialism is looked down upon these days, but we were still a nation in making and we needed to show we were one of the big boys. Like Roosevelt said, “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 were under the rule of Britain for many years and we revolted to become our own nation, so why stop now? To achieve our greatness we needed to go further than just being free, we needed to strengthen ourselves so we could be the best. The best way to do this was imperialism and annexing other countries. Annexing gave us the benefit of putting us in a position to dominate trade with China. Plus back in the time, if McKinley did give the countries back to Spain, it would’ve been seen as cowardly. Countries wouldn’t have any respect for us. Also it could’ve been seen better at the time because Americans treated countries such as Cuba better than Spain. We saw this as a benefit for the Cubans because they weren’t under the imperialistic ways of Spain who was very brutal to the Cubans. Overall, I agree with Roosevelt and his ideas of why imperialism was necessary and important. It was for the benefit of this country which made it the way it is today.
7. Paige Baccanari March 2, 2015 at 11:25 pm

   CHECK THIS ONE
   If I was in the time period of President Roosevelt I would agree with him strongly. During this time period when someone tries to imperialize they would be called stupid cause there is no more need. But, during President Roosevelt’s time there were huge European powers that the US had to compete with so they needed to become a stronger nation. People would say that we should have never annex the countries that we did but it was that of make the Spanish even stronger by giving them the territories. Soon these people will have citizenship so we are giving them rights, this is better for the people in the territories because they will not have an overwhelming European power charging them around. Taking these countries will not only help the American people by getting them many more resources to be able to use but also it gives the people in the territories an easier way of living this also saves them from the European powers. Countries like China are falling apart because they are not imperializing like the other countries are. Our country has come so far and has been built up so much we can’t just let Europe ruin everything we have worked for. If we let go of the countries we just took over, we will go in the wrong direction and may end up being beaten up by an imperial power like Britain. With the new territories we have, treat the new people as Americans like us, and this will all make our peoples stronger.
8. Sam M March 3, 2015 at 10:35 am

   When you look at today, the problems America is facing, and how America is being viewed around the world, we may have been smart not to interfere with other nation’s business so much. But back in 1898, before the start of the Spanish-American War, I would have to agree with former president Theodore Roosevelt. The main argument against going annexing Spanish territories in the Caribbean was that it would put us into a constant state of worrying about war, and when you send off the best we have to offer to go fight, that would weaken our home front. We have the strongest army in the world. Even if these territories revolt, we will be able to put down their revolutions in an instant. Plus, if they were to revolt against us, which merely means that they would have revolted against the Spanish even sooner. It also seems unlikely that the territories would revolt, as we are replacing that Spanish monarchy that controlled them with good old American democracy. The democracy would allow for their people to have a say in their own government, without having total control of course, as we will still be their governing country. Now, before you all start bringing up that we will simply end up like Spain, a once great power that is struggling to survive, think again. Spain had its greatness. We have only just risen to being a global power in the last couple decades. America will not fall for the same reasons that Spain did, as we learn from others mistakes. Lest I not bring up the point that by annexing these territories we will get control of the Gulf of Mexico and get the easiest trade route to China. Face it, the best option is to go to any means necessary to obtain these territories, the rewards far outweigh the risks.
9. Daniel A March 3, 2015 at 1:11 pm

   I firmly believe that Theodore Roosevelt, with his pro imperialistic viewpoint, is correct in this debate. I think that America should be in possession of these islands for a number of reasons. The possession of the islands would greatly benefit the nation. They are located in such a way that if we control them, we will be able to dominate trade with China and the Orient. The strengthening of these external markets will help to build up the American economy to a status never before thinkable until this age. The islands will strengthen the economy in more ways than one. The islands will also help to strengthen the internal economy of the nation. By annexing new area we will be able to use resources that were previously unavailable to us. By increasing the number of internal markets, we can help to ensure economic stability if we are cut off from international trade in one way or another. While some may argue against America becoming an imperialistic nation, they are missing the greater picture. Of all the nations on God’s green Earth, America is without a doubt the greatest of them all. Our morals and sense of liberty are unsurpassed and we are great because of it. Both our morals and sense of liberty stem from the same common source, the individual citizens who call America their home. These islands represent people who have yet to learn what it means to be free. If we give the islands over to the Spanish we will lose the chance to spread our ideals and instill upon these people a sense of liberty and of freedom that was previously unknown to them. If we leave the islands to other countries we will be denying these people their basic rights as humans, and I do believe that there are in-alienable rights which no one should have to live without.
10. Vickie L March 3, 2015 at 2:02 pm

    Dear President Roosevelt,
    As I was reading through your letter, I was inspired in many of the words you said but also found several flaws. You said in your letter, “The worst lesson that can be taught a man is to reply upon other and to whine over his sufferings.” I agree with you and feel that yes, people shouldn’t rely on others because it doesn’t make them stronger and if there was no one to no longer rely on, then they’ll just become weaker because without the support they were used to have, they wouldn’t know where to go because they gained no strength to pick themselves up. It is the same with the islands; Hawaii, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines. We are being hypocrites by “helping” the people because even though we had a good initial intention, it can become an intention that will only be advantageous to us. Our importing an exporting from these islands makes our economy boom and the benefit of being able to increase our marine mobility is another advantage. In return, the people of the islands will only live under the strict governing style that we believe is good for them. However, our virtues and beliefs differ from theirs and by taking control of the islands; the islands hope of freedom is lost since we, Americans, tend to limit the way things are governed based on the pros and cons in the goal of keeping the U.S. strong, not the islands. Another thing you said, “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,” I believe this is true also but the U.S.’s “courage” cannot be defined by simply becoming an imperial power. We should focus on making things better on the homeland, not elsewhere. There are other ways to help the economy boom and there are other ways to stand up as a strong power among the other countries. By showing our improvement inside the homeland and not adding on our list of countries with bad-relations, we will become stronger than any other country. Following these guidelines, we will become a country “striving mightily”. The issue with the Spanish probably wouldn’t have occurred if we didn’t get involved. Our decision to “enter into it as beseemed a brave and high-spirited people,” was not necessary, we could’ve showed our braveness in other ways and not to be afraid of being a coward once in awhile, because everyone makes mistakes. Learning from our mistakes makes us stronger, not a symbol of weakness. In addition, you also said that, “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.” I also agree on that there are competition in the world and that the individual countries like China or Spain. Of course, they are going to want to bring themselves up, but how is not gaining the islands hurting us? We are just causing trouble for ourselves by interfering with world affairs that weren’t meant to be interfered with. We will bring enemies to our lands and bad relations. Overall, we have done much to the islands and as a country and because of these actions, we have become a stronger country every year. Through our annexations of the islands and our beliefs as a nation, I believe we must take into account of the islands’ opinions as well.
11. Miriam Goldstein March 3, 2015 at 2:19 pm

    Personally, I am leaning against imperialism. Although I agree with Roosevelt in the second and fourth quotes in the way that I think that we, as a privileged people, have a responsibility to aid those who are not as privileged as us. I will not digress and discuss how this view of America and this “responsibility” has gotten us to several wars in recent years. Strictly thinking about the era when Roosevelt would have made those quotes, he was correct; America was very privileged and advanced. But on the other hand I also agree with point number five against imperialism on the hand out. I think that though we have a responsibility to help others, this particular mission to “civilize” is not for the gain of the people we are aiming to civilize but for America’s economic growth which will be obtained by draining the resources of those colonies. Yes there are people in those colonies that do need assistance but if we are going with the idea that we are helping them, we should be actively doing so, not just saying we are and going there just for money. I also am not too excited about imperialism because it goes directly against what George Washington said to do in regards to foreign affairs. He said not to get involved in other countries business, which we promptly ignored by getting involved with the war of 1812 and which we are now ignoring again which leads me to number four on the list of arguments against imperialism. Argument four states that it will get us involved with global politics and set the stage for war. As someone who is strongly against war unless it is strictly necessary, the idea of getting involved with this situation for economic gain is not very appealing to me.
12. Caitlin Mc March 3, 2015 at 3:00 pm

    On the topic of imperialism and the taking over of the islands, I have to disagree with Mr. Roosevelt. I believe what America has done is not right and can have harmful consequences. For example, Americans are already having a hard time in the workforce and having control over these islands will give islanders the right to come to America and compete with the Americans also looking for work. More competition means a bigger burden on the unemployed American people. Also, war is never a good thing. It leads to draftings, sons being taken away from homes and thus one less person to help support the family. What if that family already had one person unemployed? The army does not pay well. It also threatens the security of America and increases taxes to support the army. Taxes that also hurt struggling American families.
    We want these islands for the wrong reasons. We don’t really want to go through all the trouble of war just to help the islanders, no matter how many people want to believe it. No, we want to conquer these islands so we can trade using their ports, take their natural resources, and loot colonies. Does no one remember how the English treated us? We are doing the same thing. Some politicians had different reasons for annexation. Mckinley thought the Filipinos were unfit to rule for themselves, but why? Did he have any proof of their unfitness? White superiority is not a legitimate answer. America should not think they know what is best for anyone, they are also human being with minds of their own that can decide for themselves. Roosevelt thought imperialism invigorated a nation and “kept it healthy”. Taking away teenage boys from their homes and forcing them into war just to “invigorate” a nation seems extremely wrong and immoral.
13. Lexie Seidel March 3, 2015 at 3:42 pm

    In this debate, I don’t agree with Theodore Roosevelt and the possession of the islands. Based on the reasons given on the notes sheet, the reasons we wanted the islands was to expand our trading partners and our markets or because they weren’t civilized enough to govern themselves. We treated them just as Britain had treated us when we were just thirteen colonies. We wanted to “take the white man out” of the Latin American people. We wanted to Americanize and make them forget their culture and where they came from, just like we did with the Indians and the slaves we that brought over from Africa a century earlier. One of the “pro possession” claims that I specifically disagree with was when — said that the 14th Amendment wouldn’t apply to these people, so they couldn’t vote. I think it is completely immoral to take over a country and call it part of America, but not refer to the people living in that country as American citizens. We as Americans cherish our freedom and our equal rights, but if you’re Latin American, then you don’t get these equal rights.
    Aside from how I believe invading these countries is wrong morally, I also believe that it is wrong financially a bad choice. The military cost to invade and continue to monitor the country would be much more than the effect of China as one of our trading partners. This land wouldn’t affect the people of America that greatly, and if people from these islands wanted to come to America for better work, they would be shot down by the same nationalists that insisted on invading the country they were from. I do think that America is a great nation, I just think that we can be great by helping a country instead of helping and then invading them.
14. Nate Wagner March 3, 2015 at 4:06 pm

    As Americans, we are defined by our character and desire for more: land, opportunity, and liberty. Let’s remember, this is ‘merica for pete sakes! This strength of character is exactly why I am in favor of going to war with Spain in defense of our imperial acquisitions. As we have in the past, now is the time for America to expand its rule over new land for a variety of reasons. First off, it is time to stand up to the European bully which has governed for so long. It is now time for the United States of America to assert itself as a world power. If we do not assert ourselves as well as our land, the bolder countries will pass us by in domination of the world, as Teddy Roosevelt said. Also in support of TR, it’s not only that, but Americans have a thirst for war nowadays. Coming out of a depression and labor disputes, war with the Spanish is something that could really create a sense of nationalism. Let’s also focus on our contiguous friends. Annexing the Philippians will not only be easy, but it will be great for our economy, with an abundance of raw materials from foreign lands that we may manufacture and sell to people for cheap. Annexation also helps us trade with the growing superpower China. Lastly, we may help them govern themselves because they are undoubtedly mishandled when governed by themselves. These lands are under our control for a reason, it is our destiny to acquire them, as we have the western United States. Not only that, but we are they shining star of democracy and government. Passing on our ideals to the citizens of the Philippines, Hawaii, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and others, is beneficial to both parties. We are responsible for those who cannot take care of themselves. ‘merica.
15. Shannon Smith March 3, 2015 at 5:14 pm

    Although imperialism is frowned upon in modern day; when we refer back to the imperialistic age of 1898 to 1901, I agree with Teddy Roosevelt that imperialism is key to being a world power and being able to compete and trade with nations that are much older than ours. It would be dishonorable and discreditable to leave these countries out in the dust after being newly freed. Although I detest with the racism involved with imperialism, these people would need a sense of how to govern themselves first. Plus, it is America’s value of Manifest Destiny that requires us to spread Democracy and Christianity around the world. When we fought against the British in the Revolutionary War, we fought for our right to be free, to have a choice in society, and to represent in government. Leaving these islands alone would be going flat right against what we fought for and what is written in the Constitution. These territories would be so easy to annex anyways because the army already controls them. Also, some of these islands might be crucial defense points if we encounter any future wars with Europe or Asia. Imperialism also benefits trade and the gain of raw materials so America can produce their goods and so that the farmers will be able to produce more products because the heavy tariffs will be elsewhere than the main land. Other imperialistic countries would regain control of the already oppressed countries, and oppress them to where they would not be able to do anything for themselves as they would be chained to the bondage of oppressive imperialistic Europe. Also, if America annexed the islands, the people would be given technological, medical, and scientific advances as well. Their living conditions would improve, not to mention the introduction of education to the children of the oppressed peoples. Once America spreads the values of democracy to the countries, then they would be able to have true independence from the re-grasp of imperialism in other countries.
16. Joey Devine March 3, 2015 at 6:43 pm

    I disagree with Roosevelt here, and his imperialistic ideals.

    The first manifest destiny era was a complete and unmitigated disaster, resulting in the genocide of a Native people for the sake of turning a profit and because we didn’t like their culture. As with the America in the 1700s, Cuba and other distant lands are already populated and filled with their own people. It’s not necessarily a good thing to run in and stomp into a nation of less developed people, wreck their stuff, and leave, declaring preemptive victory. (Not that that would ever happen, of course.) One could argue about the morals of the situation forever, so instead of dealing with the complexity of morality, let’s face the facts.

    The acquisition of Cuba, for instance, is really just a proxy war with Spain hiding behind a blanket of “supporting the rebels” and “expanding the American way”. And the American way of liberty and justice for all is great! In theory. Remember what happened when we tried to westernize Native American tribes? Remember how that turned out? Could the same thing not happen to Cuba?

    And though we can all understand that war is a bad thing, let’s be honest, it turns a profit. Many industries thrive off of it. Could the people supporting the war not necessarily desire safety and freedom for Cubans, but rather desire the cash associated with the process?

    While we can assume that many soldiers and businessmen won’t buy into this, Occam’s Razor suggests that we err on the side of caution. I mean, wars cause a lot of death, destruction, and widows standing on clifftops looking wistfully into the middle distance. Is it really worth it?

    The arguments for invasion support the expansion of America. Must we really go into Cuba to bring our own peace, rather than finding a peace that is native to the country? Or do we really need to go in and plant an American flag, then proceed to westernize the locals? This goes against my promise to keep morals out of it, but frankly, it’s too obvious to gloss over. Maybe the Cubans wouldn’t thank us for our help. Maybe they’d grow upset with these outsiders charging into their homes and stating, “This place is ours now, thanks,” then gleefully skipping off stating that we’ve “freed Cuba”. It’s like if somebody walked into your very own home and said that it was their house now because they heard you weren’t very happy with how your mom was running the place. And when you said, “Hey, can’t we just put my other parent in charge?” they proceeded to scream about how they freed you and you better be grateful. And when you decided to just shut up they made you read all their books while they eat all your food and piss on your carpet.

    Maybe that analogy got a little out of hand, but you can see what I mean.

    I’ve asked a lot of questions in this response without giving many answers. Were I in charge, I’d ask to leave Cuba alone completely. But if we must involve ourselves with the conflict on the side of the Cubans, let’s at least be diplomatic. The best way would be to ask the leaders of the country if they want our assistance, and communicating with them. Or maybe have a sit down with Spain. Try and find a diplomatic solution so we can avoid the death and horror of war. We can, by all means, assist in the freedom of others without having to expand our own borders, instead giving them the tools to find their own freedom. Morally, this is gentle, kind, and proves that we’re willing to allow other nations to keep their customs. And factually, it means that fewer people will die. In conclusion, I see no downside to offering a diplomatic solution and staying far away from an invasion.
17. Jacob B March 3, 2015 at 7:22 pm

    America needs to solve its own problems before becoming impearilistic. There is no point in attempting to seem strong and powerful to European nations, when our great nation is having problems in our own country. It is not the duty of America to fight to free foreigners. It is the duty of the government to free the poor and oppressed from their suffering. Litigation needs to be passed to help improve the lives of the American people. War money should be reinvested in projects which could actually help people. Americans should take precedent over foreigners. There are people, who throughout their lives have been loyal, tax paying citizens who receive none of the attention that these “suffering” Cubans have had. They deserve to be helped before foreigners. Additionally, George Washington, our Nation’s founding father even said to avoid tangling with European affairs. Involvement with can only lead to trouble. Many Americans would prefer money being spent on America and not wasted on the funding of a war. Also, the invasion and conquest of foreign lands will benefits very few. The common man will not care whether Europe views America as “strong” or whether America possess pacific island trading posts. They care about how their government, who they loyally support, focus on their own people or monetary interests abroad.
    What will these imperialistic endeavors bring? Tax burdens and unhappy colonists. People believe that imperialism will increase economic capability, they are wrong. It will cost a fortune to renovate, upkeep, and protect our interests. It’s possible that the Philippians could easily be taken by the Japanese in a war, it would be hard to protect them. They might get abandoned. Money would be better spent domestically. Also, Colonies acquired will be very resentful of our rule. If you look at American history it took very little to stir us into rebelling successfully. America needs to look at herself before taking over the world.
18. Olivia R March 3, 2015 at 7:29 pm

    I disagree with the mentality here for three reasons. First, we as a nation have established a strong internal American workforce and industry. By introducing a new group of people who need work as well, we run the risk of having people in America who are citizens be unemployed and the corruption within the industry can manifest itself upon this fact. Cheaper labor supply means that American citizens will not be holding as many jobs when employers can take work elsewhere. That brings me to the second point, of whether or not the United States would even include newly annexed people as citizens and voters. By allowing a plethora of new people into the nation as enfranchised citizens, there is the risk of upsetting the balance of party power with ing the nation. That being said, if we don’t allow the residents of these islands the right to citizenship and a vote, then it is likely that they will petition in the same way African Americans did in past years. This could be peaceful or it could become violent and dangerous and lead to rebellion. That leads into the third point: we are inheriting all responsibility regarding the inhabitants and the land itself from the Spanish and should we choose to be oppressive we run every risk of dealing with volatile revolution and we cannot fault them, given that America itself is born from the ashes of revolt and turmoil against oppression in the same fashion. Looking at Spain, if they possess these countries and are slowly losing power is the ownership of these islands to blame? And if so is the United States fated similarly? It isn’t worth taking the chance of losing the power of the United States, the balance of our politics and the control of our industry only to act as divine imperialistic intervention upon established nations as if they are substandard to our own. Even if the nation did treat the people of these countries with the respect and dignity they deserve, the incorporation of these lands into America would not serve in the countries best interests at this time
19. Parker T March 3, 2015 at 7:35 pm

    I would have to disagree with Teddy Roosevelt over the debate of imperialism and the conquering of all of the new islands. Imperialism, above all other things, is immoral; the US is supposedly a nation based on freedom and liberty and yet, we went into the different islands thinking that we knew what was best for them without even attempting to understand them. This attitude always ended up poorly, as the US usually ended up forcefully and violently getting the people to accept the new customs. We saw this earlier in history when we took over the Native American’s land and tried to “take the Indian out” of Native Americans while forcing them into society, yet not granting them equal rights. When the US was still the thirteen colonies and Britain ruled us, we hated the fact that we were basically trapped by British rule and could not do anything about it since we were still a developing nation. It was not until we went to war that we finally gained some of our rights. The US treated the new islands just like Britain treated us. Not only is pursuing the new islands immoral, but it is also a poor financial choice. During this debate over imperialism, the US had just recovered from a depression which had greatly weakened the economy. Conquering Cuba, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and the Philippines would only put us into world politics and we would have the constant threat of war. The US at this time did not have the money to be able to fight wars and have a strong army. In order to have a large army, there would need to be a heavy tax which no one had the money for. I think that the US could be more of a help to the islands instead of simply invading them in order to expand their trade partners and markets.
20. Emily Lulkin March 3, 2015 at 8:11 pm

    I disagree with Teddy Roosevelt; I am against taking possession of these Nations. By taking these nations, we would be going against what America believes in. What makes America so special is our right to practice freedom and I believe that we should allow other countries to practice their freedoms. By taking over these countries, we are conforming them into something that doesn’t want to be and forcing them to do things they don’t want to do which is violating their freedom. It would be different if they asked for help but all these countries were happy with the way they were being governed and if they weren’t they had their own plan on how to change it. We are taking away their freedom to benefit ourselves by taking possession of these countries. We should learn from Spain- they took over lots of countries when The Americas were first discovered. Now the countries are rebelling or have already rebelled and Spain is a diminishing power. Besides all this, if annexing these countries is only so we can have more trade there is no reason to take over them. We can trade without taking over their countries. We have established many trading deals with other countries and I’m sure we can do it with these ones as well. Furthermore, We would need to have a larger standing army, which would result in more taxes. Annexing the countries are supposed to lower taxes because we would have access to more goods so this just backfires and is completely unbeneficial. Lastly, to think that taking over these countries is “civilizing” them is incredibly pretentious and condescending. We are not the answer to everybody’s problems. These countries have survived for hundreds of years without us and they can continue to do so without us.
21. Amelia P March 3, 2015 at 8:18 pm

    I disagree with Teddy Roosevelt because not only is imperialism wrong in general and for this nation, we wanted it for the wrong reasons. To address my first point, imperialism is wrong. To take away a nation from its people is wrong. We especially, as a nation, should see it as wrong because we became a nation because we broke off and earned our way to being a bug nation. Though we made mistakes along the way, we are a nation now. Other countries have done the same thing, yet we want to take that away from them. In this case, I think Teddy is being a hypocrite, in a way. He’s coming up with all of these reasons to justify hi actions, but in reality, its just plain immoral. Teddy had morals, but was choosing to disregard them. Not only were his reasons immorally wrong, but in some cases, were just plain stupid. One reason was that we had “easy access” to the islands. Its just silly. While it could help as a nation, we were being greedy and selfish to try and take over these lands. I think that at this time, everyone was in over their heads. American exceptionalism was at a high. America is great! We can do anything! We can do whatever we want! Because this is America, land of the free! We weren’t thinking clearly, and what this would do to our credibility as a nation; or how everyone would begin to view America. e had one thing on our collective mind: expansion. We wanted to expand our amazing nation into the seas! We had exceeded the limits on the continental America-it was time for something new. We didn’t think of the risks. We would have a much higher chance of going to war, which we didn’t have the money for. All in all, we were unprepared for this decision and what was to come of it.
22. Charlotte B. March 3, 2015 at 8:34 pm

    Considering the fact that I am writing from the time period, I believe that Theodore Roosevelt is correct. I am for possession of the Caribbean and Western Pacific. If I were writing from the 21st century, I would have another opinion. Imperialism is a good thing. It helps to keep a nation strong. It shows the world what a nation is capable of. We have to arise, or as Theodore puts it, not be cowards who shrink up in a shell. Many people from the time period believe that The Great Depression was caused by the production of too many goods with a low demand. By annexing these countries, we can gather more resources for raw materials, and buy markets. Hawaii would serve as a great place for imports and exports to and from Asia, especially China, for trade. People would argue that bring the foreigners into our country would take away the jobs from Americans. But these people need help, just as much as us Americans do, and we can provide that for them.

    If I were speaking from the perspective of myself from the 21st century, looking back at what happened, I would disagree with Theodore Roosevelt. I think annexing these territories would deprive these people of their culture and turn them into white men. In the end we probably would not give them citizenship, which wouldn’t benefit them, only us. We need to take care of ourselves before we take care of other people in the world. We would just be doing more damage. They would take away the jobs of deserving Americans. Lincoln Steffens said, “The commercial spirit is the spirit of profit, not patriotism; of credit, not honor; of individual gain, not national prosperity; of trade and dickering, not principle.” He is trying to say that people are trying to get profit and money out of imperialism, but what we really need is patriotism and honor in our own country.
23. Caty H March 3, 2015 at 9:05 pm

    I have to disagree with Roosevelt, although, he did make compelling arguments for imperialism. America wants control of land because of greed and power; but in addition, the Americans saw it as their right. Americans believed that they were the superior nation and race. This is an aspect of American exceptionalism that flowed into the idea that led to the need of expansion. One thing I found very hypocritical was when in Roosevelt’s first quote he said that people shouldn’t rely on others. However at that time America was forcing other nations to need America. America wanted to control trade by annexing many nations, we can trade without annexation. The country thought these nations were inferior which thereby gave the United States reason to control them. However, how could America be a free country if we were forcing foreign nations to do what we say? Why does America have the right to decide what is best for any other countries?
    The whole essence of America is freedom. We fought for freedom against the British because we felt oppressed. We fought for the right to self-govern, to be independent and free so why would we take those rights away from others? With imperialism we were oppressing other nations doing that which we fought so hard against in the American Revolutionary War.
    Imperialism not only negatively affects the nations America was expanding to, but America as well. Imperialism could have negatively affected job availability, specifically for that time period (1899-1901). If America gained control of all of the nations they were trying to control than there wouldn’t be enough jobs. It was hard enough at that time to find a job but if the job market flooded with cheap foreign labor, than all the lower working class Americans would be out of jobs.
    The whole premise of imperialism demeans what America stands for, its core values such as freedom and independence. By contradicting that upon which America was built, freedom, we cut ourselves off at the knees. A large reason America is and was such a strong nation was its values, and without them America is weak.
24. Max Robinson March 3, 2015 at 9:14 pm

    I completely agree with Theodore Roosevelt on his policy on imperialism for three main reasons. In this time period every single European power was trying to expand their empire and adopt new colonies for the purposes of trade. Therefore, to take advantage of smaller weaker countries, at that time period is not remotely close to being morally wrong, if America does not take advantage of it’s neighboring countries, then some European power will. No matter what those countries will be taken, however America has the choice to benefit from it’s accquisition. The second reason is China. Right now, mr. T., every single country wants to be China’s number one trading partner, unfortunately for them their countries’ geological position, makes it harder to trade. However this great nation has no countries that it cannot easily take over blocking the path to China. Taking these countries will give us a huge economic advantage over the world because we have a serious chance to engage with a nation that is extremely valuable in goods. The final reason why possession over colonies is a good idea, is that we already have a few of the countries in the pacific, and we can’t say we have fully taken advantage of our resources, which is beneficial to the citizens of the United States. If we already have taken over other countries, then their is no reason why this great nation, that’s overcome obstacles like revolutions, and slavery. A nation thats built skyscrapers that go as high as our immigrant’s hope, if we can do this we can take over a few petty nations in the middle of the Pacific. In conclusion, America should be an imperialistic nation for three reasons. The first is every other superpower is doing it, therefore if we chose not too, we would loose great business opportunities like trading with other countries. Also, America is blessed with being positioned only a few petty islands away from the world’s greatest trade partner, not to take advantage of America’s distance from China would be a terrible mistake. The final reason is we already have conquered countries in the Pacific, therefore we would be doing wrong by the citizens of America not to finish the job and take them all.
25. Robbie Juriga March 3, 2015 at 9:19 pm

    After hearing T.R.’s statement I would have to say I mostly disagree with him and his opinions on imperialism. This is because I think that the risks and problems that result in being overconfident and rash can be very dangerous especially when dealing with foreign powers. I believe it would be very unwise to underestimate your opponent or rather overestimate your own abilities. However I do understand why he is so rash to his conclusion on helping other countries. I believe the answer is that TR believes that if you have the opportunity to “help” a struggling state that is being overpowered by another, almost as a sense of sympathy (dating back to British imperialism). But, I still think that he is trying to paint democracy with too broad of a brush in this case and this is the same thing that gets us (the US) in trouble later. I think that we, in a way, are no better than the countries that had previously ruled over these countries. This is because we still have practically complete power over the country (trade, military, relations with other countries). In a quote from Theodore Roosevelt, “…let us live in the harness, striving mightily; let us rather run the risk of wearing out than rusting out.”, and this is what I believe to be one of the main reasons why we are appreciated and disliked by so many countries at the time because we don’t want to go unnoticed and would rather destroy itself fighting for a cause then thinking about the situation and not rushing into predicaments that we thought we were prepared for. But then again if we don’t help out our neighboring countries or other countries in general their fate without our help might be worse than with our help. I think we need a balance of too little and too much help to countries in “need” because who are we to says what is best, but it must all be taken into consideration to prevent being inconsiderate.
26. Sloan K March 3, 2015 at 9:22 pm

    I think that in the time period of 1899-1901, more people saw the conquering of the territories as okay, but now many more people view it as wrong. If I was living in that time period, I would disagree with Teddy Roosevelt’s opinion, I would not think the way we were taking over the islands was okay. It would go against what we, as a country, stood for; freedom and liberty, because we took away their freedom by trying to control them, when they didn’t want our help anyway. We would take away their liberty, all because we think we know what’s best for the rest of the world. Another reason why I think it’s wrong is because we did the same thing that Spain did, and we were against them. The Spaniards were suppressing the native people and we don’t want to be like them, because we wouldn’t want to be in trouble like Spain was. When we go into other countries like that, we must have an army and the money needed for that would have to come from taxes, which would only anger the people of America even more. America spent so much time trying to build itself up and in turn stayed out of the rest of the world’s problems for long time, but by taking over the islands, we are entering ourselves back into the world and are now taking part of different world events. This includes international politics and war. War was not a good idea at the time because it would take away the majority of our able bodied warriors leaving the country with less security which is risky when we are just getting back into world politics. Those were just a few reasons why imperialism was not beneficial for the country at that time in our history.
27. Colin C March 3, 2015 at 9:40 pm

    America is full of patriotism, and what better way to express it than imperialism, right? NO!! I disagree with Teddy Roosevelt’s idea that we should go to war with Spain and try to “liberate” these islands militarily. The first reason I disagree with Roosevelt is that I do not find the invasion of these island countries morally justifiable. TR justifies the invasion of these countries by saying that we are liberating them from Spain, but if we are truly liberating them, then why would we leave our own leaders and military in these countries after the war is over? Is it better to be liberated only to be taken over again than to never have been liberated at all? NO! We should truly liberate them by taking Spain out, and put native leaders in.
    The second reason why I disagree with TR is that I disagree with the whole idea that making America a world power is the only way to make it a GREAT nation. Frankly, I think this idea is idiotic and blindly patriotic. What a nation does beyond its borders is not what makes a nation great (even if this was true America would still be garbage). What makes a nation great is what it does to improve itself and it’s standard of living. I think that being patriotic is great, but until America is a great country to LIVE in, all patriotism will be hollow and insincere. Instead of taking out patriotism and turning it into war, we should channel it into public work projects. If we start small projects on a communal level, then work out way up to a national level, we will have a truly great country to live in and be part of. If you disagree, think of this: what will make you more proud of yourself, building a clean, beautiful, and safe house that you would love to live in, or murdering somebody who called you lame, only to go home to a ramshackle, rat infested “house”. Just imagine if America focused on itself instead of abroad. We would become a center for art, culture, education, and STANDARD OF LIVING. By using the money we would put into the military for conquest, we could eliminate poverty, hunger, and bigotry. We could make America a country to be truly, and whole-heartedly patriotic for.
28. Rori Mullen March 3, 2015 at 9:42 pm

    I personally do not agree with Theodore Roosevelt. I feel like the intentions of the time period of 1899-1901 is no different from our modern era. In fact, there are many connections between the older United States, to our present. America takes an idea, and eventually takes it to the extreme. For example; American imperialism could easily be harmless, and have no conflictions but we continue to take it to the extra mile. We take what’s not ours, and then when we are disciplined for our actions: we make ourselves the victims, and the one’s we intended to use–the antagonist. To put it in modern day, we are doing the same thing over ISIS. We intrude on the Middle East [countries], telling a country that, “we are only trying to help,” or, “this is in our best interest, and same for you.” Then, once they hesitantly trust us just a smidge, we turn it full circle and take over. Then, once a group uproars and is fed up with our American tendencies, trying to torment us like we did them, we act like it’s an absolute surprise that just fell into our laps! What I’m trying to explain right now (and eventually get into) is that America is doing the same with the Islands. The intentions that the American government has for the islands is completely not from the heart. We are feeding these countries lies, just for the sake of money. We are not taking in consideration of the fact that these countries are in fact, people. We are dealing with people, not some business or toys that we’ve stumbled upon. We are dealing with countries who were exactly like us once we were colonized by the British. We are hurting the countries who were once us, and the fact that we are forgetting this factor is just proof that we cannot handle the care and guidance of these islands. If we aren’t considering the needs of these foreign civilians now, than how will we treat them in the future? We are taking them, promising them for their own needed independence, but that’s the thing. We aren’t. They don’t want to be with us, they want to be themselves. We are repeating history. We are using people for our own economic pleasure and stability. Sound familiar?
29. Haley L March 3, 2015 at 10:14 pm

    I disagree with what Theodore Roosevelt is saying because America wasn’t supposed to be invading and taking over islands and parts of Latin America, the U.S. was supposed to be protecting them. I don’t think that it was right for them to be taking over all of the islands because it seems like the same thing that England was doing to America when it was still just colonies. Cuba was similar to America because America fought the British for independence and Cuba was trying to fight Spain for their independence. America said that they were going to help them become independent from Spain but when they got there, they just took it over saying they couldn’t give Cuba independence. This makes it wrong for America to be taking over these territories because it is the opposite of what America stands for. When America refused to give these territories their independence, they no longer were helping the territories. When the territories didn’t need help anymore but America wouldn’t leave them alone, it showed that the real reason they were helping was for trade and natural resources. I understand that during that time period, countries wanted to keep expanding so they could continue to strong and grow, but there were other ways to do it. The U.S. could have tried to buy these territories or they could have just traded with them without invading. Another reason that it wasn’t right for America to take over the territories is because there was already a big separation of wealth in the country and adding more territories could have made it worse. A lot of immigrants that came to the U.S. were willing to work for less money, more hours, and worse jobs than many Americans. Allowing these territories to become part of the U.S. could have forced a lot of industrial workers to become unemployed because there was a new, cheaper labor force. America shouldn’t have been invading territories because it was bad for industrial workers and it was the opposite of what America believed in when the country was formed.
30. Max Cohen March 3, 2015 at 10:31 pm

    If I was an American in 1898, I would have to agree with Teddy Roosevelt and think that America should go to war. Like TR said, “We must remember that we are the greatest nation, the greatest race on all the earth…” and as an American in a very pro-imperialistic nation I would love what he said. I would’ve jumped from my seat, run in the street and yelled ’MURICA over and over again. Also, by going to war with Spain we are freeing these countries from a cruel rule over them and helping them into the new American culture. Although the US did “rule” these countries they did not put harsh conditions on them like Spain did when they entrapped Cubans into concentration camps. In addition to freeing these people, by going to war (and winning) we would open up trade with these countries. The Latin-American countries are very rich in sugar, which unlocks whole new trading goods for the United States. As well as becoming trade partners with the Latin-American countries, the United States can become trading partners with China. Additionally, controlling these countries give America, a new up and coming nation, more power, which is the primary goal of any country, nation, and tribe in history. If we win this war it asserts international dominance and tells the world not to mess with America because we are awesome and that we can fight with whoever wants to. By also adding these new countries we add new citizens to the United States, which adds a more diverse culture. In this time period, our nation is still adjusting to blacks having more rights and the integration of a new culture but by adding new cultures the integration could become easier. Overall, I agree with TR and believe that our great nation, THE United States of America should go to war!
31. Allison Lammers March 3, 2015 at 10:34 pm

    Although in our time period and where we are at now I would disagree with imperialism, in this time period I would definitely agree with what it had in store. At this time as a nation we were still trying to build up and become more powerful. It was all about how we looked to neighboring countries and if we were tough enough to go against them or if we promising and people wanted to join. To us at this time particularly it was very important to have significant amount of trade in China because they produced so much at cheap prices for us and we wanted to dominate them and have them all for our own. And plus we were producing so much we needed to give our supplies out as soon as possible or else we would have a surplus of things we didn’t need and not enough money to keep us afloat. Another thing that came along with annexing other countries like Cuba and Puerto Rico for example was how we wanted assimilation. Officials and priests were eager for foreigners to convert as soon as possible so that they could blend in with our society and not go against our morals. We were all about making ourselves look good to outer nations as I said before so if we did annex these islands then we would look powerful as if we could take control of anyone we wanted we would also look as if we weren’t afraid to take on more land. Another thing that further encouraged us to take these countries was the fact that we believed they didn’t know how to control and govern themselves. We knew they would be much better off with us so that it would not only benefit the U.S but it would also benefit the other countries we wanted to annex as well.
32. Sydney B March 3, 2015 at 10:50 pm

    If I had been living in the time period of these decisions made by the United States President, I would have to disagree with Theodore Roosevelt. I do not think that the way in which the United States took over these islands was the right way to do so, but I also don’t think that these islands should have been taken over in the first place. America has always been set upon freedom and by going in and taking over these islands; we are taking away their freedom. If we want our country to have freedom as one of our main building blocks to the country, we shouldn’t been taking that right away from others. I think that this greatly show how America believes that they are superior to all other countries by saying that even though we want freedom, were taking you over so you can’t have it. It also shows that the United States thinks that they know what’s best for everyone and so it becomes a power struggle almost. Also by invading and taking these islands over, that would require us to build up our army/naval force quite a bit in order for us to do this. And in order to build up our army power/naval force, it makes the lives of tax payers even harder because this army needs to be supported in one way or another. In this time period and even before people were never happy about taxes, so what would make them want to pay even more money through taxes just so that we can build up our military? Overall, imperialism wasn’t the best approach for the United States since it shows that we think we are better than everyone else and that we rule over them. We show, in this case, that we think we are better for these islands, and that we can do better for them. But really, could we?
33. Nennaya L March 3, 2015 at 10:52 pm

    I agree with Teddy Roosevelt and his pro imperialist ways in the time of the Spanish American War. It is wrong to stand by and let Puerto Rico, Philippines, Cuba, and Hawaii to be oppressed by the Spanish. The Cubans under the Spanish rule is like America’s salutary neglect with Great Britain. America had promised the nations not to govern or annex them with the Teller Amendment allowing them to sprout as the own nation. Promoting imperialism we would put ourselves in the way of world politics and be disobeying our first father Washington’s Proclamation of Neutrality and the Monroe Doctrine. Times have changed. America is much stronger from the time of the American Revolution to the Spanish American War. The industrial revolution has fueled America and we are now independent. America had become a major threat to Great Britain and many other nations. Then if we let China and Britain take over the great trade that flourished in these islands, those nation would have total advantage of America. 1898-1901 there was great competition for economic expansion and we were just coming out of the depression of 1893. It would be foolish to not take the opportunity for such great trade and to not diversify the economy. I am only for imperialism in this situation. Present day I am not pro imperialism with the US. We are a quite economically stable nation and to take over other third world countries natural resources is actually self-righteous and greedy. With imperialism comes the menace of war, which isn’t right. Many people shouldn’t die because the US wants to inherit some resources that will increase the food supply or increase production of our basic wants that only the middle or upper class American can afford. I think imperialism blinds us of what really matters like helping other nations instead of “colonizing” them. Instead of just trading with other nations now in America we should help them strive by introducing to them our resources or help curing them of any epidemic. In this case I agree with President Roosevelt, “The worst lesson that can be taught a man is to rely upon others and to whine over his sufferings.”
34. Eric "Leviathan" March 3, 2015 at 11:15 pm

    The war with Spain was necessary the preserve the honor and demonstrate the power of The United States, but annexation of the territories of the Philippines, Hawaii, Cuba, and Puerto Rico was completely unnecessary. Unless the people of the islands were to become official U.S. citizens and receive the rights of the man naturalized in the U.S.; then the takeover of these emerging nations would be oppression not dissimilar to the kind inflicted unto them by Spain. When President Thomas Jefferson had purchased the vast Louisiana Territory from the French, he had decided that the acquired lands would become not colonies or holdings of an imperial nation like the British that our ancestors fought to become independent from, but states whose only difference to the original 13 states was geography. By annexing the territories and not granting them treatment with the same mindset that we gave to the territories on our own continent, we betray the values we founded the nation upon, freedom and liberty. Our goal in the war was to prove our loyalty to democracy and fight any power who would suppress the wills of it’s people, which Spain had done. The wills of the people in the territories was to be free and to govern themselves, and if the U.S. were to not allow them that, then we would simply be another, better territory coming to take them off the hands of their former owners. If we were to annex the territories it would not be dissimilar to France taking the U.S. after the War of Independence against Britain was won. We must simply inform the island’s people that the democratic ideology we hold dear was what allowed us to become a powerful, united nation that could fight for the rights of others in addition to own rights. It is morally wrong of us to annex these territories.
35. Nate Higley March 3, 2015 at 11:19 pm

    I disagree about the possession of these islands because we are wanting these island for not very good reasons. I think that acquiring these small land masses for us grow economically and the enriching of people are not correct reasons to rule other human beings. If we ruled them like that, we would look like the British who controlled Spain or us. What would happen if a rebellion were too occur against us? America might act like Britain did and the territories could fight back against us to try and gain their freedom.
    Owning the people living in those territories would be like having the Native Americans again, they would have no rights. America would want to look as if they were rescuing these people but in reality, they would just be changing the country who owns them and that would not improve anything. If American truly wanted to help these island and their people, America would let them try and govern and prosper themselves.
    I agree and disagree with what Theodore Roosevelt addressed in his short passage. I do agree with this quote he stated, “The worst lesson that can be taught a man is to rely upon others and to whine over his sufferings,” I like the quote but I look at it differently. I believe it shows exactly why the territories should not be owned by the America. To be honest I don’t think our nation would accept the people as American people so we will not treat them very well. They are not like us and when Americans meet people unlike themselves they don’t believe that they are as good as them or other Americans just like with slavery and the African Americans we had in our country. The part where I disagree with Teddy Roosevelt is in the part of his address where he states that it is the Americans job to take care for these territories, what that really means is that we want to take over the land to benefit from it not take care of it. We should not have helped them in their fight against Spain because that just makes America gain more haters.
36. Jack McCaff March 3, 2015 at 11:31 pm

    I disagree with Theodore Roosevelt it is an awful Idea from the standpoint of the time period. Imperialism would simply anger every country we would go to. As an example, when America began we hadn’t substantial amount of years of salutary neglect until the British came along and controlled us for their own gain. We need to empathize with the people of the other countries and realize that imperialism is an awful idea. In addition, we would have to deal with each of the countries fighting back, refusing to be controlled by us. Imperialism would just put us at the same level of the people who we fought endlessly against in order to how the strong country we have. On another note, we would save many military and naval expenses by not imperializing. We would spend massive amounts of money in order to go to places like the Philippines and take control. They would fight back just like we did even though we would we doesn’t mean we should endure the casualties and the costs of that voyage. Instead of using all of this money for expanding they could use it to make more jobs and decrease taxes in order to help the people in the country that are clearly suffering from unemployment or an inability to provide for their family because of the lack of money they are receiving in order to pay taxes. Going into various battles with different countries would also anger the people within our own borders. They could feel betrayed because the government is off in different affairs for their own benefit while they should be helping the people that are struggling. I disagree with Theodore Roosevelt and his pro imperialistic view because it is hypocritical and directs our attention away from the people who need the government to help them the most.
37. Sophie Erlich March 3, 2015 at 11:40 pm

    On this topic I have to disagree with president Roosevelt. Although I do see the benefits, the consequences are just too grand. This first major reason why I disagree is because we are being complete hypocrites. Not too long ago from this time the British controlled us. Without any representation on our government it is just unfair and hypocritical. They used us for our resources and treated us like dirt. We were just another business for them and we had no say in how we were being governed an ocean away. We want to go into these Islands to gain trade opportunities and natural resources until they have nothing left. This is exactly what the British did and we weren’t too happy about that. Another reason that I disagree with this is because of taxes. Recessions are popping up around every corner during this time period and this is just another call for tax raisings. To invade and take over these countries like we want to would involve military strength and that costs money and also men. Families will be separated and poorly paid for possibly a long time and no one would be happy. Another reason why this is could end badly for American’s is industrial. If we allow these islands to become a part of our country, could that eventually mean citizenship? With all the recessions mentioned before the American people of now need the work and the jobs. To find the balance in our up and down economy we need to work from within. If we allow these other countries in they can come and take our jobs. What if they do them better? Or for cheaper? The norm of the average American lifestyle is now threatened. All in all I truly disagree with Roosevelt because of the possible consequences and hypocrisy of the situation.
38. Gillian Tremonti March 3, 2015 at 11:48 pm

    I personally do not agree with the views and the opinions of President Theodore Roosevelt. We as a nation need to fix the problems in our country first, before going into, other countries, like the Latin America. In the United States we have people starving, working in unsafe conditions, and the majority of America’s population is poor. We need to show men and women how to mend the problems here before making them think they need to help others. Our workers in America are already struggling for an income to survive on and their pay is getting cut every minute we waste on problems that are not our own. If we go expand our trade to these other countries, it will flood our home markets with cheap goods making it even harder for workers to make a living.
    Also, with an abundance of new industrial labor there would be even bigger hunt for jobs that don’t exist. There are more people, but the same amount of jobs. Annexing these other countries will cost money for the soldiers needed, the food to feed the soldiers and the money needed to send them there. However, our nation is in a depression. The American people cannot afford the government sending U.S troops to these other countries like Cuba, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and the Philippines. The hard contests are in America. The leading men of this nation need to understand people are risking everything that they hold dear when they go to work. People need to understand we need to make the American economy and the nation’s people stronger before trying to dominate other countries. How much stronger and bolder would we look and the things we could do if our nation was at its best? If we help our nation first we will be able to do anything.
39. Jilly W March 4, 2015 at 12:01 am

    In this debate I disagree with Teddy Roosevelt on the possession of the islands. I think this because according to the notes the main reason we wanted to acquire the islands was because we didn’t think that they could run their countries on their own. We saw them as little children who knew nothing of politics and wanted to make them into educated, white men and leave the rest of their culture behind. This pattern has been seen throughout history, first we saw it when Britain looked over us, then we tried to do it to the Natives and then again we did it after abolition with the blacks. After we would take possession of these islands we would consider them a part of America, but they would not get all the same constitutional rights Americans have today. For example, they would not be able to vote which is in direct violation of the 14th amendment. If we take control of their country, make them obey our laws and then not give them the right to decide who was going to enforce the laws in which they have to obey. How is that remotely okay? Although the morals of the decision have a huge impact on my opinion over this debate, I also think that it is a bad decision politically as well. I believe this because even though the people were pushing for war because of the economic crisis, Mckinley should not have gone for it. He shouldn’t have because they were already in an economic crisis and sending military forces into these countries would not have been cheap and spending money on the military shouldn’t have been the priority of the Americans at the time. Mckinley was initially against the wars but felt he couldn’t stop the wars because that’s all the people wanted. In other words the only reason he went to war was to get the approval of the people.
40. Torry C March 4, 2015 at 12:12 am

    I would have to agree with President Roosevelt. I believe that imperialism would be the best choice for America in this time period. Gaining these territories would help America gain power and put us as a leading power. Annexing these islands would put American in a position to gain respect from many other of the world’s most powerful countries. We have to hold our honor and step up as President Roosevelt suggests in the first quote. We would not be the great country we are now, if we didn’t in the beginning spread our territory and assert our dominance. The only way to make progress is with action. Annexation would be easy for America there would be no burden. It would be foolish to let any other countries gain the power that comes along with these territories. America would not just gain power but many other valuable resources that we would not be able to acquire any other way. We would be able to dominate trade with Asian countries. That alone would have a huge impact, it would significantly boost our economy. Also the islands economy would improve. We would not just be helping our selves but the territories in addition. We would be rescuing these territories form other countries with the intention to take away basic rights. America could spread our idealistic views of freedom and liberty. America would have the choice it we wanted these new people to become citizens of the United States or just dependents. With keeping the new islands as dependents, there would be no political change to America. We could oversee them, while still letting them govern themselves. As America we have to help those in need but in the end we have to do what is best for America.
41. Beau Kewley March 4, 2015 at 1:04 am

    I agree with Theodore Roosevelt about the imperialistic viewpoints of America. The possession of the islands in the early 1900’s benefitted our country in many different ways. It opened up trade with the new ports and crops. America has always been defined by our aspiration for ways to assert ourselves as a world power, which is the very reason why I’m in support of America taking on the Spanish for new land. America must embrace it’s imperialistic desires and use this war to make America’s mark in the strong European powers. In the first and second quote, Theodore Roosevelt is saying that America can’t just expect to become a strong world power just because it’s America. The people of America must take action in expanding itself to fulfill its’ great American potential. Moving on to how this will all directly benefit America. The possession of these foreign islands would help America strengthen markets in Asia, specifically China. By annexing the Philippines, America will have access to new materials that hadn’t been available on the homeland. Theodore Roosevelt knew this and wanted to take action in expanding the different attributes of America’s potential future. It has been America’s destiny to expand ever since Europeans landed and wanted to explore the west. We’ve been able to get a shining democracy (compared to other governments) in place to the point where we are in a position to help other countries earn this ideal government. America is also going to these islands to help them. They’ve been misgoverned in the past, and with America’s help and liberty, they can help get these islands to a point of becoming a stable-running land. To not expand this beautiful nation’s liberty and freedom would be an insult to all Americans who know how much they’ve accomplished and know how much more the country itself can become.
42. Sydney Patton March 4, 2015 at 1:15 am

    I am in favor of the Spanish American War but against governing the islands after the Spanish political influence has left. At first, the intentions of our nation’s involvement were of only aiding the islands from the Spanish oppressing power. Now some form arguments that are based on meeting our self-interests solely. There has been talk of winning over the territories, not lending a helping hand to show our support because we too were in that position under Great Britain. Beveridge proposes that if we choose to possess these territories, after freeing them of the Spanish grip, there will be an increase of economic productivity and efficiency around the world. He states that, “Annexation would put us in position to dominate trade with China and the Orient.” Although I am against possession this is by far the most rational explanation as to what we as a people would gain from possession. By engaging in war, rather than completely leaving the islands to fend for themselves, it should most certainly secure a new market amongst the people on the islands. New markets and more consumers are needed to prevent another depression as severe as the one we were most fortunately lifted from recently. But I’m still not swayed by his statement of possession. Why should we force ourselves upon these foreign lands for economic benefit, we will have shown and proven ourselves as not only worthy allies but as business partners too after the war surely. Theodore Roosevelt says that, “Imperialism is good; it invigorates a nation and keeps it healthy…” I couldn’t disagree more with the man. Out of all the great things he has done and said, this has to be the most outrageous. As Americans the word Imperialism should never be associated with us. Imperialism is entirely hypocritical to the foundation of this country. Owning new territories creates more issues that we don’t need. Theodore adds, “Americans have not shrunk from their duty. They have fought tyranny around the globe and won. I am proud of what we have started.” He promotes nationalism in this quote which I am all for. Yet he also encourages Empires. So I’d have to agree with Sumner’s counter against possession, “Imperialism is immoral: it repudiates our commitment to human freedom and liberty. We instead think we what is best for them.” America shall always stand against injustices around the world but only when necessary and to a certain extent. Controlling others should stand as a goal never to be met, or else we’ll take on the role of Spain – a shriveling power. Leading to another a rebellion against us and we will have fought a war for nothing.
43. Cassie D March 4, 2015 at 6:55 am

    I disagree with the acquisition of the territories. I think taking over the Latina American territories was immoral, inconsiderate, and hypocritical. The first Manifest Destiny was understandable because we were trying to expand our living space to the whole country, though the way we treated the Native Americans in order to do that was completely unacceptable. I think this renewed Manifest Destiny is unnecessary and quite aggravating. It just sticks to this “Merica” mindset. I feel America is constantly stuck in this cycle of taking over everything and getting involved in everyone else’s business, when I think it would be more beneficial to look at how our own country is doing and fix those problems first. I think what bothers me the most about it is that we treated the people we are taking over or ‘fixing’ like they are less than us and often less than humans. We treat them like little babies just waiting for America the parent to step in and take care of them, which gets on peoples nerves. I find the “merica” mindset troubling because it makes us perceive the rest of the world as less than us. It makes issues because other places are proud of their country too, and then we come with the sense that we think we have it all figured out and their country is just a hot mess and we need to save them. I think it’s hypocritical because we are scolding Spain and saying they’re such horrible people, when we come in right after and do the exact same thing. We do offer some positive aspects like health advancements and provisions, but I think we should treat the people better, as humans or even better citizens. If this can’t be done I think America should just stick to having lots of trading partners rather than taking everything over. America is a great country and I feel we have good intentions somewhere behind all of the self-gaining schemes, but sometimes I just feel that we have too big of a national ego.
44. Tim B March 4, 2015 at 8:02 am

    Although I can see the immense appeal of becoming an imperialistic nation, I cannot help but to see the irony of the situation. Here we are, a nation of the men and women who fought the British Tyranny in order to release us from the then horrific and immoral clenches of imperialism, debating over whether we should fight another European power to gain control of an island to indoctrinate as a colony. America is being hypocritical. We say that we are a defender of peace and a warrior against injustice yet the second we become the top dog we flip on our values and start to embody the nation that we so desperately tried to get away from. Although I agree with the decision to go to war with Spain, we should not try to annex any territories at all. We should instead set them up with a democratic system similar to ours and have them run completely independently of the US. To let them continue as an imperialist colony in the clutches of Spain would be morally wrong, but to to then liberate them from their parent nation and then strip their new found freedom so that we may fill the void as the parent nation would make absolutely no difference whatsoever to the inhabitants. They would still be oppressed by imperialism. It makes almost no difference whether they were controlled by Spain or America. America should not become a superpower that oppresses other smaller nations as the superpower that we rebelled from. We will eventually become what Great Britain was to us in the late 1700’s. We as a nation have felt the troubles and unfair restrictions of imperialism and we fought back. Yet if Cuba was annexed and fought back, I can guarantee you that we would paint them the part of a spoiled child who bit off more than they could chew. Just like how we were labeled in the eyes of the British when we rebelled. If the Idea of American Exceptionalism is still with us, then we would recognize that we would swiftly strip ourselves of that notion the second we become an imperialistic power.
45. James Voss March 4, 2015 at 8:07 am

    Back on there wanted to be a great country, more of their own country under there supervision. They couldn’t go finished for the Spanish territory for smaller territories like the Caribbean. Understand that we do. Our respect countries all we are trading with them so I needed to have a patient for shipment of land and power. We would be taking advantage of if you were in our respect. So we got the Caribbean and prove to the other countries who we have a takes to be one of the top powerful countries of the world. This showing of power creates our marketplace for the better of our nation. I agree with Roosevelt because I believe those best thing to do for the country. He uses power conflict upon the nation to make us strong. His address he needs but Karen many ways that she United States the what it is today. I do realize that he thought of his presidency as a way of country more like him. This could’ve been a very bad thing if you have a bad president but he was a wonderful event. He showed his power and strength and aggression towards repairing of the people of documentation. Have a choice of having a greater power as a country was very helpful for our marketplace. We need to get this type of marketplace really jumpstart harp progression of rise to the top. The only people that I disagree with me at the people who live in America futile Roosevelt thought it was his temple here to take care of this temple if you wanted to have a stand for for many years. His aggression size reflected off of nation wake up Cara. If you know without the president I don’t know where we would be today.
46. Anna H. March 4, 2015 at 8:20 am

    I agree with Theodore Roosevelt, in the idea that America is the greatest nation that the world has ever seen, and been apart of. In this era of history he is talking about imperialism, and I can see why he wants America to become an imperial power. I agree with his quote “All we could decide was whether we should shrink like cowards from the contest or enter into it as beseemed a brave a high-spirited people; and once in, whether failure or success should crown our banners”. I agree with this quote fully because the war with the Imperial Spanish Empire was inevitable, and was going to happen sooner or later no matter how much people didn’t want it to. So when the war did come, we had to go into it with our spirits high and act like we had already won it, so that we would reach success. I believe that we helped Hawaii, Philippines, Cuba, and Puerto Rico with the war. Yes we could have let them try to revive themselves in hard times for their countries, but what is some of them failed? It was better for America to go in and help these people and change their government because other non-imperialism governments were also failing all across the world. Europe had taken over China, and was now controlling all of the trade between them and all other countries in the world. Europe was also creeping into other countries such as India. That is why I believe that it was good for the US to go in and help the Caribbean countries because they might have fell under control of the European powers. Some people could see the acquisition of the territories as immoral, and totally against what America stands for, but I disagree. I disagree because they would probably have crumbled without our help. That is why I agree with Theodore Roosevelt.
47. Isaiah J March 4, 2015 at 8:38 am

    Although I think that Teddy Roosevelt did make some great decisions for the country, I disagree with his mindset for this one. To me, he is only looking at this imperializing as just more land for America to call theirs/rule. Considering what Teddy said in your interview about how we are the greatest race on Earth, kind of gives me a vibe that he is a little more about power than what really would be the well-being of the country. I think that to try and take over these islands/lands would not only be wrong but difficult. We are talking even more people to govern than America already has and is growing with daily. What if these newly governed people want to move to America? Will we have enough jobs to suit all of them? Or will they just turn out homeless and unemployed? I think that this imperialism fight is the beginning of America becoming more nosy and greedy for power, and the beginning of them starting to police the world. Annexing these lands would in a way be taking their opportunity to grow as an independent nation, as we had when we broke off from the Brits. To use an analogy, Spain is to them as Britain was to us. We especially do not need more foreigners to take advantage of if we are still barely treating African Americans equally. America doesn’t need more people to oppress and give cheap or no labor. And do we really need another issue within our own country about being treated unfairly? Even if these newly annexed people were treated right, there is still the problem of enough jobs as well as how much land do they get? When do we run out? What do these people have to go through to acquire the right to vote? It just seems like we only care about having more land, and not the people on it, and I don’t really see how that helps us achieve anything in this time period.
48. Skyeler McQ March 4, 2015 at 8:58 am

    Skyeler McQueen
    APUSH-2
    Blog #73
    I agree with what the esteemed President Roosevelt that taking over and possessing the territories was the correct thing to do, within the time period. Yellow Journalism had fueled the American populace’s desire for possession of these mistreated territories with stories of terrible and unjust deeds. Hearst and Pulitzer had created an intense desire for war through their sensational tales. Our nation felt a kinship wit the revolting Cubans, as we had once thrown off the yoke of an imperial European country. It seemed necessary for us to assist our brothers and sisters in their fight. We felt the need to ride in on the eagle of liberty and free the Cubans and Puerto Ricans! Roosevelt could not have ignored the needs of the people or those of economic leaders. The United States of America had fallen into a depression in 1893, which we were still recovering from. The great businessmen of this era saw Cuba as an opportunity to expand our overseas markets, fixing our problem of over-production and under-consumption by adding new consumers to our market. Cuba was the gateway to the Caribbean, giving it the ability to integrate even more people into the American economic system. As senator Beveridge said, “We need the markets and raw materials now… We produce more than we can consume”. Even the political leaders saw our need to expand our markets.
    Theodore Roosevelt was most passionate about possessing these foreign lands as a means to fulfill our manifest destiny. During this time period, many Americans believed that it was our right to assert ourselves as a world leader. TR believed the best way to do this would be by taking imperialistic holdings. We needed to show European countries that we were just as powerful as they were. How else would we demonstrate that, if we hadn’t done exactly what they had- expand our nation to different areas of the world? The United States was playing the game, not making the rules. We needed the power that came with having colonies to assert ourselves as an important player in the world.
    Though in the time period of 1899-1901I think I would agree with and support Theodore Roosevelt, I would not if these events transpired in current times. In the early 20th century and late 19th century, people had different morals and different ideas of right and wrong. At this time, it had only been 40 years since slavery was abolished; we didn’t think that it was wrong to believe that the Filipinos were too irresponsible to govern themselves. We know better now and can learn from our forefathers’ mistakes.
49. Laura MacLean March 4, 2015 at 9:00 am

    As much as I respect President Roosevelt I do not agree that obtaining these countries can help them in the future. If the US Invades other foreign countries we will end up throwing away everything that they already have. Although their country might be a mess now, I think I think starting over from scratch will hurt them even more. Odds are they are not to different from us in the since that the rich control pretty much everything. If we invade their country to “help” then how will we prevent the same powers to go back in place once we leave. Some say that we should move into the Philippines in order to secure trade with Asian countries. I disagree with that but the cost and the amount of people that would be lost in the battle to obtain the Philippines is much larger than the benefit that we would get from the open trade routes. It is not and will never be Americans “God given right” to protect every little country. It simply isn’t our job we don’t have enough money to protect the world. There has to be a point in time where we step back and let other countries figure I out for themselves. They obtained that land in the first place so they should be perfectly capable of defending it without our help. Also you are lying to yourself if you think that America would want to use its own military and funds to invade a country, just to unsure that that country has a bright future. America at his time is obviously just looking for more land but what many don’t see is that we don’t need it. This new land will only benefit the extremely rich. This will widen the gap creating more problems for America.
50. Nicki Yost March 4, 2015 at 9:45 am

    Well Teddy. Can I call you Teddy? I see your point. We as a nation need to be strong, or how did you put it, “…then the bolder and stronger peoples will pass us by and will win for themselves the domination of the world.”5 So our goal is to pass up everyone and dominate the world.*blink blink* I have to respectfully disagree with you, Teddy. I think that to get to our goals, we don’t need to completely take over. Why do we feel the need to imperialize, or expand, new nations? To build our empire and trade are the main reasons, which I see. To build our American empire, we have to take over another nation. For example, with Cuba, we beat out Spain to save the Cubans from their razor- sharp grip. But remember that they were the ones to revolt, and we just simply stepped in to pick up the pieces. All good, right? No. Think about this. The moment we get too controlling, the Cubans will revolt again. Against us. And like you said, Teddy, “It is what evil men count upon the good men’s doing.”2 We try and work with Cuba and nationalize them to our tastes, which can just lead to Spain taking over again if they revolt. I ask you, is building our empire and spreading nationalism really worth the cost and risk of possibly losing a war? *cough cough* Then you look at trade. Do we really have to annex other territories in order to trade? Can’t we all just be friends about this and calmly work with them instead of controlling them? You can have this sugar cane while I get maple syrup. Instead of me getting everything and giving you, well, nothing of value. Where have I heard this before? See, we don’t want to repeat the past. Only work towards a better future. Because remember, the higher we build ourselves, the harder we’ll fall. You see that, don’t you…Teddy?