1

American Imperialism & World War I

Name

Institution

History 1201

Instructor

Date
 2

American Imperialism & World War I

1. What were the economic reasons for US expansion overseas?

However, overexpansion was majorly based on the panic state of 1893. First, it was

triggered by the overexpansion of industries in the U.S. The over-expansion led to increased

debts, which put the economy at risk. Secondly, the U.S. was reacting to overproduction

necessitated by technological growth. America wanted to search for more markets for surplus

products, purchase raw materials, and handle an economic recession. Expanding would create a

safety valve for the U.S. to resolve and drop prices. Other financial reasons include economic

security from competition from superior nations. 

2. What were the philosophical justifications for expansion? 

Philosophical justification of extension was based on Americans subscribing to the

philosophy of Darwinism. They had a belief in the racial superiority of Anglo-Saxon Americans.

Here, they believed it was their duty to spread American culture and Christianity to the world for

the inferior people. Besides, in support of his vision, President Wilson said America had to help

bring peace since he believed America was a world model. Therefore, in the context of survival

of the fittest, America sought to dominate the weak nations.

3. Why did the U.S. become involved in the Cuban Revolution? How did this

involvement lead to the Spanish-American War?

The U.S. got involved in the Cuba Revolution due to its concerns about Spain’s misrule

of Cuba. Besides, Cuba’s economy was based on sugar production, and many of the sugar

production farms and plantations were owned by American capitalists. The plantations were

parts of the sugar trust. The revolution attempts involved the massive destruction of properties,
 3

and many Americans lost their wealth, including sugar plantations. As a result, the U.S. had to

intervene and ask for restoration of order. 

Spain appointed a general to restore order in Cuba. His method of handling the situation

was inhuman and referred to as “reconcentration.” It involved harsh means of managing the

Cubans and resulted in the deaths of over 100 thousand civilians. The U.S. would later demand

to intervene using diplomatic measures and long-held neutrality. This strategy was not enough

for the Americans. Later, U.S. Marines were sent to Cuba to bring back peace. They were to

protect the Americans and help them evacuate. Although looking like a friendly visit, the

strategy ended Spain’s rule in Cuba.

4. How did the United States gain control of Hawaii? How was this justified?

The U.S.’s intention to control the Hawaii islands started in the 1790s when American

merchants used the region as refueling stations on their way to China. U.S. citizens also became

superior farm owners in Hawaii. These farmers became owners of ¾ of the wealth in the Islands.

The U.S. could buy their sugar duty-free until the status was removed in 1890 to enable Islands’

farmers to compete in the U.S. market. American-owned farm owners cried for the annexation of

the Islands by the U.S. The king was forced to limit voting rights to wealthy landowners

comprising majorly of Amirian missionaries and their descendants. The then Hawaii King

Kalakaua died in 1891, and his sister Queen Liliuokalani took over and attempted to remove the

voting right to restore control of the Islands to the Hawaiians. In response, American

Landowners overthrew the queen with the help of U.S. Marines, and power was granted to

Sanford B. Dole. The territory was considered an American territory in 1898 with the support of

President William McKinley, who favored annexation. 

5. What were the pro and anti-Imperialist arguments during this period?
 4

Pro-imperialism saw imperialism as nationalistic and patriotic. The U.S. rescued nations

like Hawaii, Cuba, and Pana, among others, from oppressive rulers. This view drew America

into pro-America, pro-imperialism, and pro-glory of the U.S. due to expansionism. The eventful

result of imperialism was promoting trade profits in nations like Manila. These nations benefited

from imperialism and could significantly contribute to the global economy. They argued that the

U.S., by expanding, could help developing countries, such as by adequately utilizing natural

resources in these territories. The constitution was applicable in every region captured and would

offer them liberty and protection from oppression. 

On the other hand, anti-imperialists argued that the strengths and advantages possessed

by America could be transferred to the other territories. They argued that production, among

other amenities, could be swayed away by establishing governments in the new regions. Others

believed that the government would be breaking the democracy in these territories, which meant

the same could be perpetrated at home. For fear of swaying of strengths, they believed

technological and military power could be sub-sectioned, favoring the new territories and

weakening American power.

6. What was “Gunboat Diplomacy”? What was “Dollar Diplomacy”? 

Gunboat diplomacy is a primary display of the nation’s strength. It was a corollary to the

Monroe Doctrine. Under President Roosevelt, the U.S. would be on the watch for countries in

debt from being forcefully attacked for repayment. The strategy was referred to as “Preventive

Intervention.” He was ready to protect those around the U.S. from being attacked for debts.

These bankrupt nations would be covered in strategic measures making America the policeman

of the western hemisphere.

On the other hand, Dollar diplomacy was a foreign policy designed by President Taft to

protect the wall-street dollars invested abroad. The strategy was to use the wall-street dollars to

uphold the foreign policy. Here, foreign powers like Germany could be reduced and barred from

taking advantage of the bankrupt Caribbean nations. Bankers would work to strengthen U.S.’s

foreign policies and defenses while bringing prosperity to America. Pumping money into these

nations would make them dependent on America, barring them from welcoming the help or

being under the control of other imperial powers.

7. Was Woodrow Wilson anti-Imperialist? Why or why not?

Woodrow Wilson was not an anti-imperialist. While anti-imperialists strongly advocate

for avoiding any form of engagement in other nations, Wilson was indirectly advocating for the

same. For example, after the Germans sunk the British ship, Wilson took a strong stance and

issued a stem warning to the Germans. He ordered them to opt for prior announcements. This

was a risky move that an anti-imperialist could not endure.

For this reason, pacifists and anti-imperialists were angered and termed the act anti-

diplomatic. They believed it could make the U.S. obligated to intervene. Besides, his call for

peace through the League of Nations was not fighting imperialism as he claimed. The conquered

nations could still be retained as trustees.

8. Was American involvement in WWI inevitable? What forces worked to maintain

neutrality? What propelled the U.S. into participation in Europe?

America’s involvement in WWI was inevitable. As highlighted in the Zimmerman

telegram, President Wilson was facing a huge struggle to sway away from overturning public

opinion. The involvement was halted by the forces of public opinion and the Monroe doctrine.

These forces tied the government to engaging other nations or supporting allies for fear of going
 6

against what they believed. Forces that propelled the U.S. into involvement in Europe were

economic stability and aspects. The country was in a stiff financial position, making it necessary

to trade with allies. This force pushed the U.S. to denounce some aspects of neutrality as

Wilson’s administration claimed adhering to the Blockage of the Germans by Great Britain while

retaining trade with allies did not break neutrality.

9. How were U.S. citizens convinced to support the war effort? How was dissent

suppressed?

Wilson managed to persuade Americans to his crusade. He created an idealism in

people’s minds. First, he showed them that his war was to end the existing war, “War to End

War.” He persuaded them that they were not fighting for profit or territory. Instead, their fight

was to shape international order based on democracy. He believed in democratic ideals and that

America was a world model for others. In these trickery moves, the Americans were persuaded

to embark on the crusade to make the world safer for democracy.

10. What were Wilson’s 14 Points? Why was Wilson’s vision for peace opposed in the

U.S.? Why did many in the U.S. oppose the League of Nations?

1. The first point was to ensure that treaties would be negotiated in the open with no secrets.

2. The second point was an assurance of freedom in the seas with no blockade from

countries like England. The privilege barred nations from sinking ships in neutral

territories or neutral waters. 

3. The third point was the breakage of economic barriers to create peace based on economic

barriers. 

4. Reduced arms burdens urging nations would be encouraged to reduce military output

instead of engaging in destructive arms races that trigger the eruption of war.  
 7

5. Adjust colonial claims so that there is an agreement ensuring neither the German nor

other imperial nations would have to lose their territories.

6. Another reason was the strong self-determination presented by the colonized countries

and the native people in these regions.

7. International organization for security where countries would sit down and engage in

talks before turning into war again.

Republican senators opposed the League of Nations because they believed that the U.S.

would be obligated to intervene if they were involved in the League of Nations. Obligation to

intervene would mean going against the Monroe document. Besides, they believed the U.S.

should not be obligated to intervene in European affairs.