engine of souls | forum 2

mre · Senior Member

Assignment #12: Imperialism Seminar Discussion

mre · Senior Member

By the way, for those of you who need a refresher on the handout, you can find it on my website here: http://engineofsouls.com/file-3.pdf

Tyler W. · Veteran Member

Tyler, Jarred, Christian, Zach

For the seminar question 6, i would like to say that the secession of Hawaii is constitutional. It is not illegal for a territory "conquered" by the United States to seceed, but it would be for a state. The archipelago of Hawaii was taken by the United States forcefully which defied the principle that the United States was founded on, making the possible annexation of Hawaii impossible, because it did not choose to be apart of the United States. Democracy is a priveledge, not a burden, so it should not be forced upon by a people, the Hawaiins should find out the truth about democracy themselves if they want to be a just people.

mre · Senior Member

Tyler W. wrote:

Tyler, Jarred, Christian, Zach

For the seminar question 6, i would like to say that the secession of Hawaii is constitutional. It is not illegal for a territory "conquered" by the United States to seceed, but it would be for a state. The archipelago of Hawaii was taken by the United States forcefully which defied the principle that the United States was founded on, making the possible annexation of Hawaii impossible, because it did not choose to be apart of the United States. Democracy is a priveledge, not a burden, so it should not be forced upon by a people, the Hawaiins should find out the truth about democracy themselves if they want to be a just people.

Tyler, you might find this interesting... according to http://www.secessionist.us/application_of_secession_theorie.htm,

Hawaii

US Public Law 103-150 sums up the case of Hawaiians and Hawaii best:

the indigenous Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands to the United States, either through their monarchy or through a plebiscite or referendum. Read more about Hawaii's claim to sovereignty here. Hawaii and Hawaiians have a solid right to secession utilizing the: Nationalist Variant of Primary Right and Partial Right Variant of Remedial Right theories. Clearly Birch's first point applies: the seceding region was included in the state by force and its people have displayed a continuing refusal to give full consent to the union.

Note: Hawaiians within the Hawaiian Independence movement do not use the term secession for what they desire. They contend that Hawaii was never legally added to the Union and therefore secession is not necessary. This is a viable argument with the exception of the fact that a de facto Hawaiian government does exist as a state and that state is part of the union. De facto governments can and do over time gain legitimacy, regardless of the nature of their birth. The de facto Hawaiian government will not simply admit it illegitimacy and concede power. Hawaiians seeking independence are then left with two choices, 1) revolt and over throw the de facto state government or 2) utilize the philosophy of secession to take the de facto government out of the Union and then reestablish a legitimate de jure sovereign government. The second option is the only bloodless choice.

James · Senior Member

GROUP: Branden Shorey, Walter Bohn, James Racine

Thesis:

The United States wanted the islands of Hawaii for two main purposes; to control a larger piece of the sugar trade and to establish a military base in the Pacific.

Supporting Info:
With the addition of the islands of Hawaii and the other islands in the Pacific, the United States would gain control of 75% of the sugar plantations, located on the islands but worked on by Chinese and Japanese immigrants, especially Japanese on the islands of Hawaii on which over 200,000 Japanese immigrants were used in place of native workers.

-- Edited by James at 13:10, 2009-01-06

becca · Veteran Member

2. The impact of Philippine Uprising in 1898-1945

Thesis: The Philipinne Uprising, beginning in 1898, displayed the hypocrytical side to American foreign policy and in the long run gave the Phillipine's independence.

Supporting Evidence: Fillipino- American War (1899-1902). After the Treaty of Paris, America takes over the Phillipines from Spain, and have every intention of annexing the country. America lays seige over the capital, Manila, from it's own people. Private Grayson shoots and kills a filipiono general, promting the War. Duing the war, America treated the Filipinos harshly and similar to Spanish treatment in Cuba. This was hypocrytical because they had fought Spain with one of their reasons being Spains treatment of the Cubans, yet used tortue methods such as the "water cure" on Filipionos.
The Philippine Uprising ended in 1945, showing the revolts paid off, granting Phillipines their independence.

Zachary W. · Veteran Member

1. Zachary White, Taran Riggs-Hart, Gregory Anton Larsen

2. Is it possible to spread democracy through "liberation?"
No, history has shown that democracy is something that cannot be gained through liberation. It is against the fundamental principles of democracy to force democracy upon "liberated" nations. Invariably "liberating" becomes excessively controlling of the liberated state if they don't allow the people to self-govern which doesn't happen particularly often. For example, in Hawaii at the end of the 19th century the United States of America helped oust Queen Liliuokalani and eventually made it a "democracy" for white planters. In the Philippines, Americans wiped out Spanish rule promising Filipino self-government. Instead they took over the country themselves and brutaly turned it into a colony after the slaughter of 18,000 Filipinos in combat.

Leslie · Veteran Member

1. Rebecca, Leslie
2. Thesis Philippine Uprising changed the dynamic and strength of American foreign policy.
Supporting Evidence: Roosevelt's administration. Teller Amendment. Platt Amendment.The impact of the Philippine Uprising on American foreign policy was a change in the dynamic and strategy of foreign policy. During the years surrounding the Philippine Uprising the United States used methods such as the Platt Amendment and the Teller Amendment that altered the typical foreign policy strategy of compromise and showed the beginning of a foreign policy that became more forceful and demanding. The United States had previously sought to avoid wars especially with European countries, but the new dynamic of American foreign policy was illustrated in the situation where the Maine was attacked and sank a factor that played a role in leading towards the Spanish American war. During this year, 1898, American foreign policy changed direction by adding a strong interest in imperialism which was fueled by the passing of the Teller Amendment.

The strength of American foreign policy changed when the United States became a stronger world power. In the years where imperialism became a strong interest of the United States government, the country liberated Cuba from Spain, purchased the Philippines, and gained control of Guam. The strength of this foreign policy was solidified through Theodore Roosevelts administration. Roosevelt believed in being very active in foreign policy and often took an aggressive side when implementing his foreign policy by creating a level of content with foreign leaders, creating a belief amongst them that they were getting a fair deal when Roosevelt was trying to create a strategy where the United States would ultimately benefit. Roosevelts methods of foreign policy became a model for future administrations used and developed. The Philippine Uprising led to a change in the dynamic and strength of American foreign policy.

-- Edited by Leslie at 13:17, 2009-01-06

-- Edited by Leslie at 13:19, 2009-01-06

keithfortin · Veteran Member

The Panama Canal was taken by any means necassary. A canal in Panama was being thought of long before a canal was actually built. Obviously, a canal would be a great change to ships, because it would only take a fraction of the time it took to sail around. Also, who ever controlled the canal, would basically control all shipping on that side of the earth. The United States, as well as England, saw this as an oppurtunity for more control. England made a treaty wit the United States so that they would help the U.S. build the canal, as long as they shared control of it. The treaty was made in 1850, even though neither country owned the land to build the canal. Secratary of State, William Seward, spoke of building anm Amreican made canal in Panama, to control the whole continent, and eventually the world. So even before the actual plans of the building of it were actually thought of, Americans wanted the canal by any means necassary. Panama was a part of Columbia at the end of the 1800's. When Americans were actually serious about building it, they asked to buy the land. When Columbia refused, the U.S. encouraged revolts and independence to the people of Panama. (People even thought of building the canal in Nicaragua, but engineers said it would be too difficult, and Panama was the better area) The U.S. even sent aid to help them gain indpendance. When they finally won their independance, they asked to buy the land from the new independant Panama. Panama sold them the land, and the plans were being set to build a canal.

James · Senior Member

James wrote:
GROUP: Branden Shorey, Walter Bohn, James Racine

Hawaii was not annexed into the union by choice of the Hawaiians, but through the chocie of the white sugar plantation owners, who with the help of US marines, overthrew the native monarchy and its nationalistic queen Liliuokalani, putting the whites in the positions of power necessary to annex Hawaii.

Walter · Veteran Member

The United States also gave Hawaii exclusive rights to ship sugar to America duty and tax free with the Recipritory Act of 1875. This caused plantation profits to increase dramatically. In 1890 the McKinley Tarrif Act decreased the price of competitive prices of Hawaiian sugar. This caused a decrease of prices on Hawaiian sugar.

JarredCondez · Member

mre wrote:

Tyler W. wrote:

Tyler, Jarred, Christian, Zach

For the seminar question 6, i would like to say that the secession of Hawaii is constitutional. It is not illegal for a territory "conquered" by the United States to seceed, but it would be for a state. The archipelago of Hawaii was taken by the United States forcefully which defied the principle that the United States was founded on, making the possible annexation of Hawaii impossible, because it did not choose to be apart of the United States. Democracy is a priveledge, not a burden, so it should not be forced upon by a people, the Hawaiins should find out the truth about democracy themselves if they want to be a just people.

Tyler, you might find this interesting... according to http://www.secessionist.us/application_of_secession_theorie.htm,

Hawaii
US Public Law 103-150 sums up the case of Hawaiians and Hawaii best:
the indigenous Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands to the United States, either through their monarchy or through a plebiscite or referendum. Read more about Hawaii's claim to sovereignty here. Hawaii and Hawaiians have a solid right to secession utilizing the: Nationalist Variant of Primary Right and Partial Right Variant of Remedial Right theories. Clearly Birch's first point applies: the seceding region was included in the state by force and its people have displayed a continuing refusal to give full consent to the union.
Note: Hawaiians within theHawaiianIndependence movement do not use the term secession for what they desire. They contend that Hawaii was never legally added to the Union and therefore secession is not necessary. This is a viable argument with the exception of the fact that a de facto Hawaiian government does exist as a state and that state is part of the union. De facto governments can and do over time gain legitimacy, regardless of the nature of their birth. The de facto Hawaiian government will not simply admit it illegitimacy and concede power. Hawaiians seeking independence are then left with two choices, 1) revolt and over throw the de facto state government or 2) utilize the philosophy of secession to take the de facto government out of the Union and then reestablish a legitimate de jure sovereign government. The second option is the only bloodless choice.

http://www.hawaii-nation.org/art73.html
Article 73 basicly states that In order for Hawaii to sucessed then the have to have there own stong central government of there own for the good of there people and that the United states wants to help with this , but Hawaii should honor the union untill that time.

piracine · Veteran Member

Pamela Racine

Question 10: What long term impact does imperialism have on American territories?

Long term impacts imperialism had on American territories can be classified under changes of political, economic, military, diplomatic, enviromental, or business types. A prime example of all these changes occurring because of imperialism is Hawaii. It began with two things; Captain Alfred T. Mahan who stated that the Pacific islands, including Hawaii, would be useful as naval bases because he said that Americans survivial depended on a strong navy and missionaries from New England in the 1800s who found a vast amount of economic oppurtunities on the islands. So the interests of expansionists spread to Hawaii, first for the land at Pearl Harbor, perfect for a naval base, then for the wide expanses of land for plantations. Sugar planters began to move in and establish profitable businesses, building huge plantations, warehouses, railroads, banks, hotels, stores and such. This led to both economic and enviromental changes for Hawaii as their land began to revolve around a plantation society and the Americans began to dominate the islands economy with their businesses, beginning to influence its government. The Americans went as far as to create and control Haiwaiis legislature and cabinet, limiting the power of the native king.

As the Americans began to take control it began the political, military, and diplomatic changes of Hawaii. The natives of Hawaii, called Kanaka, began to fight for the traditional ways of their islands, wanting to stop the Americans from ending their traditions. Other people on the island desired the annexation of Hawaii by the United States, for this would eliminate the recent trade restrictions on sugar and revive the islands faltering economy. Even with the efforts of their Queen Liliuokalani in 1894 the American Anexxation club took over the Hawaiian government and declared an independent Republic of Hawaii. Rebels of this new government began to fight back and military groups were sent to Hawaii by the President in response. Then in 1896 under McKinleys administration an annexxation treaty was passed and Hawaii joined the United States.

Jessica! · Veteran Member

Jessica Jacintho, Robert Krupa, Monica Vasconcelos, Joel Spinale

Why did America promote and follow an imperialist policy?

Ideological and cultural reasons were two of the many that caused America to start to promote and follow an imperialist policy. Manifest destiny was popular during this time, as many Americans believed in was their God given right to expand across the continent. Once they had conquered the entire continent, however, Americans started to look beyond their borders into Cuba and the Philippines. Racism came into play here as most white Americans strongly believed that other races were inferior to them and could not govern themselves. This belief also goes along with the popular idea of Social Darwinism. Darwin, Americans said, believed the strongest race would survive, so why should they not apply it to humans instead of animals? Americans believed that since they were the dominant race, it was their duty to expand and help other countries. Thus, an imperialist policy was formed.

Shorey · Member

James wrote:

GROUP: Branden Shorey, Walter Bohn, James Racine
Thesis:
The United States wanted the islands of Hawaii for two main purposes; to control a larger piece of the sugar trade and to establish a military base in the Pacific.

Supporting Info:
With the addition of the islands of Hawaii and the other islands in the Pacific, the United States would gain control of 75% of the sugar plantations, located on the islands but worked on by Chinese and Japanese immigrants, especially Japanese on the islands of Hawaii on which over 200,000 Japanese immigrants were used in place of native workers.

-- Edited by James at 13:10, 2009-01-06

In 1899, after annexation into the U.S., half of Samoa was American controlled and gave the U.S. abilities of having a coaling station and naval base to help protect peacetime shipping lanes. The annexation also made the U.S. a world naval power

Zachary W. · Veteran Member

Zachary W. wrote:

1. Zachary White, Taran Riggs-Hart, Gregory "Jerkface" Anton Larsen

2. Is it possible to spread democracy through "liberation?"
No, history has shown that democracy is something that cannot be gained through liberation. It is against the fundamental principles of democracy to force democracy upon "liberated" nations. Invariably "liberating" becomes excessively controlling of the liberated state if they don't allow the people to self-govern which doesn't happen particularly often. For example, in Hawaii at the end of the 19th century the United States of America helped oust Queen Liliuokalani and eventually made it a "democracy" for white planters. In the Philippines, Americans wiped out Spanish rule promising Filipino self-government. Instead they took over the country themselves and brutaly turned it into a colony after the slaughter of 18,000 Filipinos in combat.

The use of "liberation" as the Americans did during the age of Imperialism and in today's world can't possibly be used to spread democracy. When the United States went to these small countries and ousted the government they had, whether it was a monarchy, dictatorship, or provincial.
Not only was it impossible to liberate a country and spread democracy 100 years ago, but it still doesnt work, which any person with a working cerebellum can see. Governments cant decide for another country if they want a democracy. Many people of this liberated country dont have government issues on top of their list of things that are important to them. Farmers and extreme rural people of a mountainous region worry about things like good crop turnout and the ability to clothe and feed their families.

The only "liberation" that ever brought a form of democracy to a region was during World War II when Allied troops pushed Axis troops (mainly German) out of occupied countries. This form of liberation didn't bring new types of democratic governments to the area it merely restored them, countries like; Belgium, Denmark, and France (yes these countries are Republic, but its a form of democracy).

-- Edited by Zachary W. at 23:47, 2009-01-06

Walter · Veteran Member

The United States also gave Hawaii exclusive rights to ship sugar to America duty and tax free with the Recipritory Act of 1875. This caused plantation profits to increase dramatically. In 1890 the McKinley Tarrif Act decreased the price of competitive prices of Hawaiian sugar. This caused a decrease of prices on Hawaiian sugar.

ZachB · Member

The Secession of the State of Hawaii goes against the Laws of the Constitution. Within our Constitution it states that no state is allowed to leave the Union. With the Constitution denying the right for any state to leave the Union it becomes evident that Hawaii secession from the Union is Unconstitutional. On the contrary the way we received the series islands goes against the core foundations of our nation. The time before Hawaii became a territory of the U.S. or a state it was its own independent nation, a Kingdom. But American business men eventually overthrew the Monarchy to establish a provisional democratic government that suited them and eventually annexed into the U.S. Technically Hawaii is a conquered nation by American business men who oppressed the people of this nation by taken away their culture, language, and their heritage. With this happening this contradicts our core fundamentals and morals by oppressing one people when we declared the Kingdom of Great Britain oppress us in the Colonies.

-- Edited by ZachB at 13:22, 2009-01-06

joel the not so brave · Veteran Member

Joel Spinale

Robert Krupa, Jessica Jacintho, Monica Vasconcelos, Joel Spinale

1. Why did America promote and follow an imperialist policy?

Religion played a role in American imperialism by converting all who were not WASPs into what many Americans thought was correct. Religion was a way to oppress the weaker people and convert them into a stronger American society. The argument was that of modernizing all nations that were not, as many thought they should, playing the American game. Missionaries expanded to all corners of the world, from the once Spanish-owned Mexico and even all the way to China. Americans believed that Christianity should be the dominant religion in the world, and that those who did not convert were not civilized. One missionary claimed that The Christian nations are subduing the world in order to make mankind free.

yawn

-- Edited by joel the not so brave at 13:23, 2009-01-06

Jessica! · Veteran Member

Jessica Jacintho, Robert Krupa, Monica Vasconcelos, Joel Spinale

Why did America promote and follow an imperialist policy?

Ideological and cultural reasons were two of the many that caused America to start to promote and follow an imperialist policy. Manifest destiny was popular during this time, as many Americans believed in was their God given right to expand across the continent. Once they had conquered the entire continent, however, Americans started to look beyond their borders into Cuba and the Philippines. Racism came into play here as most white Americans strongly believed that other races were inferior to them and could not govern themselves. This belief also goes along with the popular idea of Social Darwinism. Darwin, Americans said, believed the strongest race would survive, so why should they not apply it to humans instead of animals? Americans believed that since they were the dominant race, it was their duty to expand and help other countries. Thus, an imperialist policy was formed.

TaranComeDown · Member

Zachary W. wrote:

1. Zachary "Failure to Type Dave" White, Taran "Dave" Riggs-Hart, Gregory "Dave" Larsen

2. Is it possible to spread democracy through "liberation?"
No, history has shown that democracy is something that cannot be gained through liberation. It is against the fundamental principles of democracy to force democracy upon "liberated" nations. Invariably "liberating" becomes excessively controlling of the liberated state if they don't allow the people to self-govern which doesn't happen particularly often. For example, in Hawaii at the end of the 19th century the United States of America helped oust Queen Liliuokalani and eventually made it a "democracy" for white planters. In the Philippines, Americans wiped out Spanish rule promising Filipino self-government. Instead they took over the country themselves and brutaly turned it into a colony after the slaughter of 18,000 Filipinos in combat.

3. As it was said before, the definition of "liberation" was bent to justify the annexation of Hawaii. As long as "liberation" "means" imprisoning a country's leader and trading natives' work over to a different country for cheaper labor, instilling democracy through "liberation" is impossible. It's one thing to help "democracy" into a country's political system, it's another thing to force it. Essentially it's just calling militant annexation something it isn't..

-- Edited by TaranComeDown at 13:26, 2009-01-06

R. Krupa · Veteran Member

Robert Krupa

Jessica Jacintho, Joel Spinale, Monica Vasconcelos

Seminar Question 1: Why did America promote and follow an industrialist policy?

One reason that America promoted and followed an industrialist policy was for profit. (Economics) At this point in time, America was much like China is today, a vast producer of inexpensive goods and profits. Senator Albert Beveridge of Indiana bragged in 1898 that American factories are making more than the American people can use; American soil is producing more than they can consume. Fate has written our policy for us; the trade of the world must and shall be ours. Senator Beveridge was referring to the depression of the 1890s. During these post Civil War years, American production rate grew tremendously. This, combined with the low rate of consumption due to the depression, caused for a large overabundance of goods. Many Americans believed that it was better to expand to foreign markets rather than to have to lay off workers, cut wages, or have far too much overproduction. Also, many felt it would be beneficial to access the markets in places such as Latin America and Asia to gain access to the sugar, coffee, fruits, oil, rubber, and minerals that were abundant in these lands.

CEsteves · Member

JarredCondez wrote:

mre wrote:

Tyler W. wrote:

Tyler, Jarred, Christian, Zach

For the seminar question 6, i would like to say that the secession of Hawaii is constitutional. It is not illegal for a territory "conquered" by the United States to seceed, but it would be for a state. The archipelago of Hawaii was taken by the United States forcefully which defied the principle that the United States was founded on, making the possible annexation of Hawaii impossible, because it did not choose to be apart of the United States. Democracy is a priveledge, not a burden, so it should not be forced upon by a people, the Hawaiins should find out the truth about democracy themselves if they want to be a just people.

Tyler, you might find this interesting... according to http://www.secessionist.us/application_of_secession_theorie.htm,

Hawaii
US Public Law 103-150 sums up the case of Hawaiians and Hawaii best:
the indigenous Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands to the United States, either through their monarchy or through a plebiscite or referendum. Read more about Hawaii's claim to sovereignty here. Hawaii and Hawaiians have a solid right to secession utilizing the: Nationalist Variant of Primary Right and Partial Right Variant of Remedial Right theories. Clearly Birch's first point applies: the seceding region was included in the state by force and its people have displayed a continuing refusal to give full consent to the union.
Note: Hawaiians within theHawaiianIndependence movement do not use the term secession for what they desire. They contend that Hawaii was never legally added to the Union and therefore secession is not necessary. This is a viable argument with the exception of the fact that a de facto Hawaiian government does exist as a state and that state is part of the union. De facto governments can and do over time gain legitimacy, regardless of the nature of their birth. The de facto Hawaiian government will not simply admit it illegitimacy and concede power. Hawaiians seeking independence are then left with two choices, 1) revolt and over throw the de facto state government or 2) utilize the philosophy of secession to take the de facto government out of the Union and then reestablish a legitimate de jure sovereign government. The second option is the only bloodless choice.

http://www.hawaii-nation.org/art73.html
Article 73 basicly states that In order for Hawaii to sucessed then the have to have there own stong central government of there own for the good of there people and that the United states wants to help with this , but Hawaii should honor the union untill that time.

Hawaii was conquered by the United States and illegaly became a state in 1959. This is America being hypocrites because we seceeded from Great Britain back in our day and were not letting them do the same. We revolted and seceeded because we thought it was in our best of interests. And now that Hawaii is doing so, we're doing to them what Great Britain did to us. Legally, they cannot seceed, but since they were illegaly submitted to the Union, technically they arent even part of us now.

Rachel · Veteran Member

Rachel Marie Acevedo
Us Intervention in Latin America

During the late 1800s and early 1900's America began to expand into Latin America and other parts of the world. The expansion through Latin America during the Great Depression was a difficult but progressive one; At first America had no progress then America began using the heavy population in latin America for business and also for spreading Christianity. America was having economic set backs during that depression time.They needed business in foreign countries so that they did not overproduce in America. these heavy populated islands were exactly what they needed to progress back to number one.

During the late 1800's America was in no position to expand. they did not have the policy, money, or military power to do so. the tries to intervene in Nicaragua was denied by the europeans and the nicaraguan people. they lacked power over the Europeans and could not stop them with their affairs.

Towards the end, America was desperate for money, and they needed consumers from foreign lands so that overproduction would not occur in America. they turned to Latin American countries such as investing in Mexican railroads, mines and plantations. The National Association of Manufactures carved the path for american production in Latin America. they were the first to begin manufacturing for those specific consumers. America went from fourth manufacturer to the number one manufacturer in the world.

Christians so a need to spread their religion throughout the pagan countries during this time. Mexico was one of their main focuses during this time. Ministers such as Josiah Strong, were determined to bring light to a dark land. they wanted Mexico to become a Christian nation and sent many ministers to help the cause.

-- Edited by Rachel at 13:32, 2009-01-06

mfloyd24 · Veteran Member

Monica Vasconcelos'!!!
Joel Spinale, Jessica Jacintho, Robert Krupa

Politics was not as large of a reason for American imperialism, but it did have an influence in the matter. Opinions of worldwide events had a large influence in American politics. Because of the depression and troubles in America, turning to affairs outside of the country offered Americans a distraction from the troubles at home in an attempt to restore patriotism. A large help in this was the use of newspapers to spread worldwide new throughout the country. Two New York City newspapers succeeded in raising support for Cuban rebels against Spain which could not be ignored by politicians. Even President William McKinleys Democratic opponent, William Bryan, formed a Nebraska regiment of volunteers prepared for war, but clearly was not allowed to follow through with his plans. He thought that it was necessary that America intervene in Cuba in order to help the threatened. Clearly, politics were an influential method of gaining American support.

Kevin · Member

keithfortin wrote:

The Panama Canal was taken by any means necassary. A canal in Panama was being thought of long before a canal was actually built. Obviously, a canal would be a great change to ships, because it would only take a fraction of the time it took to sail around. Also, who ever controlled the canal, would basically control all shipping on that side of the earth. The United States, as well as England, saw this as an oppurtunity for more control. England made a treaty wit the United States so that they would help the U.S. build the canal, as long as they shared control of it. The treaty was made in 1850, even though neither country owned the land to build the canal. Secratary of State, William Seward, spoke of building anm Amreican made canal in Panama, to control the whole continent, and eventually the world. So even before the actual plans of the building of it were actually thought of, Americans wanted the canal by any means necassary. Panama was a part of Columbia at the end of the 1800's. When Americans were actually serious about building it, they asked to buy the land. When Columbia refused, the U.S. encouraged revolts and independence to the people of Panama. (People even thought of building the canal in Nicaragua, but engineers said it would be too difficult, and Panama was the better area) The U.S. even sent aid to help them gain indpendance. When they finally won their independance, they asked to buy the land from the new independant Panama. Panama sold them the land, and the plans were being set to build a canal.

Also, President Theodore Roosevelt reversed a decision made by the Walker Commission in favor of a Nicaraguan Canal to push for the Panama Canal which was an effort being made by the French. Prior to the encouragement for Panamanian revolt, the US and Colombia actually agreed on the US obtaining it in the Hay-Herran Treaty which was signed by both nations but nt ratified by Colombian Senate. After the successful revolts and Panama's indepedence on November 3 1903, the US bought the Panama Canal Zone on February 23, 1904 for $10 million as signed in the Hay-Buanau-Varilla Treaty which signed on November 18, 1903.

Jessica! · Veteran Member

James wrote:

James wrote:
GROUP: Branden Shorey, Walter Bohn, James Racine

Hawaii was not annexed into the union by choice of the Hawaiians, but through the chocie of the white sugar plantation owners, who with the help of US marines, overthrew the native monarchy and its nationalistic queen Liliuokalani, putting the whites in the positions of power necessary to annex Hawaii.

Did the Hawaiians try to revolt against the plantation owners? Or were they too outnumbered and weak?

G. Larsen · Veteran Member

Zachary W. wrote:

1. Zachary "Failure to Type Dave" White, Taran "Dave" Riggs-Hart, Gregory "Dave" Larsen

2. Is it possible to spread democracy through "liberation?"
No, history has shown that democracy is something that cannot be gained through liberation. It is against the fundamental principles of democracy to force democracy upon "liberated" nations. Invariably "liberating" becomes excessively controlling of the liberated state if they don't allow the people to self-govern which doesn't happen particularly often. For example, in Hawaii at the end of the 19th century the United States of America helped oust Queen Liliuokalani and eventually made it a "democracy" for white planters. In the Philippines, Americans wiped out Spanish rule promising Filipino self-government. Instead they took over the country themselves and brutaly turned it into a colony after the slaughter of 18,000 Filipinos in combat.

This is right in that you can't force a people to alter the way they self-govern, at least not advisably. The whole idea of self-determination is that the people of an area should be able to choose how the government acts. This includes how the government is formed. Also, annexation, which was the ultimate goal of the Philippine and Hawaiian efforts, completely ignores the peoples' right to self-govern. "Liberation" is a lie, and cannot result in a true democracy.

becca · Veteran Member

Leslie wrote:

1. Rebecca, Leslie
2. Thesis Philippine Uprising changed the dynamic and strength of American foreign policy.
Supporting Evidence: Roosevelt's administration. Teller Amendment. Platt Amendment.The impact of the Philippine Uprising on American foreign policy was a change in the dynamic and strategy of foreign policy. During the years surrounding the Philippine Uprising the United States used methods such as the Platt Amendment and the Teller Amendment that altered the typical foreign policy strategy of compromise and showed the beginning of a foreign policy that became more forceful and demanding. The United States had previously sought to avoid wars especially with European countries, but the new dynamic of American foreign policy was illustrated in the situation where the Maine was attacked and sank a factor that played a role in leading towards the Spanish American war. During this year, 1898, American foreign policy changed direction by adding a strong interest in imperialism which was fueled by the passing of the Teller Amendment.
The strength of American foreign policy changed when the United States became a stronger world power. In the years where imperialism became a strong interest of the United States government, the country liberated Cuba from Spain, purchased the Philippines, and gained control of Guam. The strength of this foreign policy was solidified through Theodore Roosevelts administration. Roosevelt believed in being very active in foreign policy and often took an aggressive side when implementing his foreign policy by creating a level of content with foreign leaders, creating a belief amongst them that they were getting a fair deal when Roosevelt was trying to create a strategy where the United States would ultimately benefit. Roosevelts methods of foreign policy became a model for future administrations used and developed. The Philippine Uprising led to a change in the dynamic and strength of American foreign policy.

-- Edited by Leslie at 13:17, 2009-01-06

-- Edited by Leslie at 13:19, 2009-01-06

The Teller and Platt Amendment regarded Cuba not, Philippines. I'm slightly confused as to how the Philippine revolts impacted those amendments. In addition to the foreign policy techniques that you mentioned of Roosevelt, the Treaty of Portsmouth is a perfect example of a treaty that kept the interests of America in mind. The Treaty kept the Philippines out of Japan's hands, "protecting it", but at the same giving America complete control.

-- Edited by becca at 00:06, 2009-01-07

becca · Veteran Member

CEsteves wrote:

JarredCondez wrote:

mre wrote:

Tyler W. wrote:

Tyler, Jarred, Christian, Zach

For the seminar question 6, i would like to say that the secession of Hawaii is constitutional. It is not illegal for a territory "conquered" by the United States to seceed, but it would be for a state. The archipelago of Hawaii was taken by the United States forcefully which defied the principle that the United States was founded on, making the possible annexation of Hawaii impossible, because it did not choose to be apart of the United States. Democracy is a priveledge, not a burden, so it should not be forced upon by a people, the Hawaiins should find out the truth about democracy themselves if they want to be a just people.

Tyler, you might find this interesting... according to http://www.secessionist.us/application_of_secession_theorie.htm,

Hawaii
US Public Law 103-150 sums up the case of Hawaiians and Hawaii best:
the indigenous Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands to the United States, either through their monarchy or through a plebiscite or referendum. Read more about Hawaii's claim to sovereignty here. Hawaii and Hawaiians have a solid right to secession utilizing the: Nationalist Variant of Primary Right and Partial Right Variant of Remedial Right theories. Clearly Birch's first point applies: the seceding region was included in the state by force and its people have displayed a continuing refusal to give full consent to the union.
Note: Hawaiians within theHawaiianIndependence movement do not use the term secession for what they desire. They contend that Hawaii was never legally added to the Union and therefore secession is not necessary. This is a viable argument with the exception of the fact that a de facto Hawaiian government does exist as a state and that state is part of the union. De facto governments can and do over time gain legitimacy, regardless of the nature of their birth. The de facto Hawaiian government will not simply admit it illegitimacy and concede power. Hawaiians seeking independence are then left with two choices, 1) revolt and over throw the de facto state government or 2) utilize the philosophy of secession to take the de facto government out of the Union and then reestablish a legitimate de jure sovereign government. The second option is the only bloodless choice.

http://www.hawaii-nation.org/art73.html
Article 73 basicly states that In order for Hawaii to sucessed then the have to have there own stong central government of there own for the good of there people and that the United states wants to help with this , but Hawaii should honor the union untill that time.

Hawaii was conquered by the United States and illegaly became a state in 1959. This is America being hypocrites because we seceeded from Great Britain back in our day and were not letting them do the same. We revolted and seceeded because we thought it was in our best of interests. And now that Hawaii is doing so, we're doing to them what Great Britain did to us. Legally, they cannot seceed, but since they were illegaly submitted to the Union, technically they arent even part of us now.

Being hypocritical seems to be habit for America during the imperialist era. In the cases of Hawii and the Philippines, both did not want to be part of America, yet America didn't really seem to care. The motives of profit, manifest destiny, and missionary interest overshadowed the basic principles which the foundation of America had been laid. Concepts such as life, liberty, property, government by the consent of the governed, were pushed aside in America's newly acquired territories.

becca · Veteran Member

CEsteves wrote:

JarredCondez wrote:

mre wrote:

Tyler W. wrote:

Tyler, Jarred, Christian, Zach

For the seminar question 6, i would like to say that the secession of Hawaii is constitutional. It is not illegal for a territory "conquered" by the United States to seceed, but it would be for a state. The archipelago of Hawaii was taken by the United States forcefully which defied the principle that the United States was founded on, making the possible annexation of Hawaii impossible, because it did not choose to be apart of the United States. Democracy is a priveledge, not a burden, so it should not be forced upon by a people, the Hawaiins should find out the truth about democracy themselves if they want to be a just people.

Tyler, you might find this interesting... according to http://www.secessionist.us/application_of_secession_theorie.htm,

Hawaii
US Public Law 103-150 sums up the case of Hawaiians and Hawaii best:
the indigenous Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands to the United States, either through their monarchy or through a plebiscite or referendum. Read more about Hawaii's claim to sovereignty here. Hawaii and Hawaiians have a solid right to secession utilizing the: Nationalist Variant of Primary Right and Partial Right Variant of Remedial Right theories. Clearly Birch's first point applies: the seceding region was included in the state by force and its people have displayed a continuing refusal to give full consent to the union.
Note: Hawaiians within theHawaiianIndependence movement do not use the term secession for what they desire. They contend that Hawaii was never legally added to the Union and therefore secession is not necessary. This is a viable argument with the exception of the fact that a de facto Hawaiian government does exist as a state and that state is part of the union. De facto governments can and do over time gain legitimacy, regardless of the nature of their birth. The de facto Hawaiian government will not simply admit it illegitimacy and concede power. Hawaiians seeking independence are then left with two choices, 1) revolt and over throw the de facto state government or 2) utilize the philosophy of secession to take the de facto government out of the Union and then reestablish a legitimate de jure sovereign government. The second option is the only bloodless choice.

http://www.hawaii-nation.org/art73.html
Article 73 basicly states that In order for Hawaii to sucessed then the have to have there own stong central government of there own for the good of there people and that the United states wants to help with this , but Hawaii should honor the union untill that time.

Hawaii was conquered by the United States and illegaly became a state in 1959. This is America being hypocrites because we seceeded from Great Britain back in our day and were not letting them do the same. We revolted and seceeded because we thought it was in our best of interests. And now that Hawaii is doing so, we're doing to them what Great Britain did to us. Legally, they cannot seceed, but since they were illegaly submitted to the Union, technically they arent even part of us now.

Being hypocritical seems to be habit for America during the imperialist era. In the cases of Hawii and the Philippines, both did not want to be part of America, yet America didn't really seem to care. The motives of profit, manifest destiny, and missionary interest overshadowed the basic principles which the foundation of America had been laid. Concepts such as life, liberty, property, government by the consent of the governed, were pushed aside in America's newly acquired territories.

Tyler W. · Veteran Member

G. Larsen wrote:

Zachary W. wrote:

1. Zachary "Failure to Type Dave" White, Taran "Dave" Riggs-Hart, Gregory "Dave" Larsen

2. Is it possible to spread democracy through "liberation?"
No, history has shown that democracy is something that cannot be gained through liberation. It is against the fundamental principles of democracy to force democracy upon "liberated" nations. Invariably "liberating" becomes excessively controlling of the liberated state if they don't allow the people to self-govern which doesn't happen particularly often. For example, in Hawaii at the end of the 19th century the United States of America helped oust Queen Liliuokalani and eventually made it a "democracy" for white planters. In the Philippines, Americans wiped out Spanish rule promising Filipino self-government. Instead they took over the country themselves and brutaly turned it into a colony after the slaughter of 18,000 Filipinos in combat.

This is right in that you can't force a people to alter the way they self-govern, at least not advisably. The whole idea of self-determination is that the people of an area should be able to choose how the government acts. This includes how the government is formed. Also, annexation, which was the ultimate goal of the Philippine and Hawaiian efforts, completely ignores the peoples' right to self-govern. "Liberation" is a lie, and cannot result in a true democracy.

Zach, i totally agree with you that democracy can't be in total affect when tried to be gained through liberation. It has to be chosen by the consent of the people, otherwise, the transition of power will not work

joel the not so brave · Veteran Member

I pretty mush agree with this. I also think that some Americans in charge wanted very much to be as powerful as many European nations, such as Great Britain or France. If they were big enough and powerful enough, economically, politically, physically and militarily, then they could conquer and colonize many outside countries and races, much like what Great Britain did to the Eastern coast of North America. Now that they were shying away from being the "underdog" country, they wanted to play with the big boys. And many wished to be the largest world power in the world.

This is a reply to what jessica wrote, i dont know why it states that. I hit the 'reply' tab on her post. ah well.

-- Edited by joel the not so brave at 02:23, 2009-01-07

mre · Senior Member

joel the not so brave wrote:

This is a reply to what jessica wrote, i dont know why it states that. I hit the 'reply' tab on her post. ah well.

Joel, you have to click 'Quote' to reply to a specific post, like I did here.

TaranComeDown · Member

Jessica! wrote:

James wrote:

James wrote:
GROUP: Branden Shorey, Walter Bohn, James Racine

Hawaii was not annexed into the union by choice of the Hawaiians, but through the chocie of the white sugar plantation owners, who with the help of US marines, overthrew the native monarchy and its nationalistic queen Liliuokalani, putting the whites in the positions of power necessary to annex Hawaii.

Did the Hawaiians try to revolt against the plantation owners? Or were they too outnumbered and weak?

It was a coup. They barged right in with no conflict, really.

G. Larsen · Veteran Member

becca wrote:
Being hypocritical seems to be habit for America during the imperialist era. In the cases of Hawii and the Philippines, both did not want to be part of America, yet America didn't really seem to care. The motives of profit, manifest destiny, and missionary interest overshadowed the basic principles which the foundation of America had been laid. Concepts such as life, liberty, property, government by the consent of the governed, were pushed aside in America's newly acquired territories.

(I gutted the quote so only the most recent one would show up. Otherwise, a wormhole of quotes quoting quotes quoting quotes might be created)
I agree with you about the Philippines and Hawaii, but in the interest of pure contradiction, I'd like to bring up certain aspects of the war in Cuba. Congress decided to send troops to aid the newly-formed Cuban government. Attached was the Teller Amendment, which further layed down the fact that the U.S. was not going to annex Cuba and respected the Cubans' right to self-government. Although maintaining a small level of influence in Cuba, the U.S. largely let the new nation be. Clearly, the ideals of self-government were not entirely lost during the era. Perhaps this was because of the official, written and decided-upon promise of the Teller Amendment being more effective than vague, spoken promises to the Filipinos and Hawaiians.

R. Krupa · Veteran Member

Jessica! wrote:

Manifest destiny was popular during this time, as many Americans believed in was their God given right to expand across the continent. Once they had conquered the entire continent, however, Americans started to look beyond their borders into Cuba and the Philippines.

Why Cuba and The Philippines?

R. Krupa · Veteran Member

Zachary W. wrote:

1. Zachary White, Taran Riggs-Hart, Gregory Anton Larsen

2. Is it possible to spread democracy through "liberation?"
No, history has shown that democracy is something that cannot be gained through liberation. It is against the fundamental principles of democracy to force democracy upon "liberated" nations. Invariably "liberating" becomes excessively controlling of the liberated state if they don't allow the people to self-govern which doesn't happen particularly often. For example, in Hawaii at the end of the 19th century the United States of America helped oust Queen Liliuokalani and eventually made it a "democracy" for white planters. In the Philippines, Americans wiped out Spanish rule promising Filipino self-government. Instead they took over the country themselves and brutaly turned it into a colony after the slaughter of 18,000 Filipinos in combat.

However, if a country were to simply free another from the control of another, it is quite possible that democracy would spread. Unfortunately, intentions are never that pure. Therefore I agree..

Jessica! · Veteran Member

R. Krupa wrote:

Robert Krupa

Jessica Jacintho, Joel Spinale, Monica Vasconcelos

Seminar Question 1: Why did America promote and follow an industrialist policy?

One reason that America promoted and followed an industrialist policy was for profit. (Economics) At this point in time, America was much like China is today, a vast producer of inexpensive goods and profits. Senator Albert Beveridge of Indiana bragged in 1898 that American factories are making more than the American people can use; American soil is producing more than they can consume. Fate has written our policy for us; the trade of the world must and shall be ours. Senator Beveridge was referring to the depression of the 1890s. During these post Civil War years, American production rate grew tremendously. This, combined with the low rate of consumption due to the depression, caused for a large overabundance of goods. Many Americans believed that it was better to expand to foreign markets rather than to have to lay off workers, cut wages, or have far too much overproduction. Also, many felt it would be beneficial to access the markets in places such as Latin America and Asia to gain access to the sugar, coffee, fruits, oil, rubber, and minerals that were abundant in these lands.

And by using Dollar Diplomacy,the United States was able to take control of countires by taking control of their economy first. It kind of like taking them over from the inside.

-- Edited by Jessica! at 12:47, 2009-01-07

Jessica! · Veteran Member

Rachel wrote:

Rachel Marie Acevedo
Us Intervention in Latin America

During the late 1800s and early 1900's America began to expand into Latin America and other parts of the world. The expansion through Latin America during the Great Depression was a difficult but progressive one; At first America had no progress then America began using the heavy population in latin America for business and also for spreading Christianity. America was having economic set backs during that depression time.They needed business in foreign countries so that they did not overproduce in America. these heavy populated islands were exactly what they needed to progress back to number one.

During the late 1800's America was in no position to expand. they did not have the policy, money, or military power to do so. the tries to intervene in Nicaragua was denied by the europeans and the nicaraguan people. they lacked power over the Europeans and could not stop them with their affairs.

Towards the end, America was desperate for money, and they needed consumers from foreign lands so that overproduction would not occur in America. they turned to Latin American countries such as investing in Mexican railroads, mines and plantations. The National Association of Manufactures carved the path for american production in Latin America. they were the first to begin manufacturing for those specific consumers. America went from fourth manufacturer to the number one manufacturer in the world.

Christians so a need to spread their religion throughout the pagan countries during this time. Mexico was one of their main focuses during this time. Ministers such as Josiah Strong, were determined to bring light to a dark land. they wanted Mexico to become a Christian nation and sent many ministers to help the cause.

-- Edited by Rachel at 13:32, 2009-01-06

I thought Mexico was already a Christian nation at that time and that missonaries focused on places such as China and Africa. It wasn't?

Jessica! · Veteran Member

R. Krupa wrote:

Jessica! wrote:

Manifest destiny was popular during this time, as many Americans believed in was their God given right to expand across the continent. Once they had conquered the entire continent, however, Americans started to look beyond their borders into Cuba and the Philippines.
Why Cuba and The Philippines?

Cuba was looked at because it was so close to the United States, only 90 miles away. Also, we had interests in the sugar production that went on there. We wanted the Philippines because it had the best port in the Pacific which would open up more trade with Asia.

mfloyd24 · Veteran Member

joel the not so brave wrote:

Joel Spinale

Robert Krupa, Jessica Jacintho, Monica Vasconcelos, Joel Spinale

1. Why did America promote and follow an imperialist policy?
Religion played a role in American imperialism by converting all who were not WASPs into what many Americans thought was correct. Religion was a way to oppress the weaker people and convert them into a stronger American society. The argument was that of modernizing all nations that were not, as many thought they should, playing the American game. Missionaries expanded to all corners of the world, from the once Spanish-owned Mexico and even all the way to China. Americans believed that Christianity should be the dominant religion in the world, and that those who did not convert were not civilized. One missionary claimed that The Christian nations are subduing the world in order to make mankind free.

-- Edited by joel the not so brave at 13:23, 2009-01-06

those are really good points! but it was not just the fact that imperialists thought other cultures with different religions were uncivilized, they just believed their religion, in this case christianity, to be the best and most sufficient for leading a 'wholeful' lifestyle free of evil and the like. they believed it basically to be the only true religion basically.

mfloyd24 · Veteran Member

Rachel wrote:

Rachel Marie Acevedo
Us Intervention in Latin America

During the late 1800s and early 1900's America began to expand into Latin America and other parts of the world. The expansion through Latin America during the Great Depression was a difficult but progressive one; At first America had no progress then America began using the heavy population in latin America for business and also for spreading Christianity. America was having economic set backs during that depression time.They needed business in foreign countries so that they did not overproduce in America. these heavy populated islands were exactly what they needed to progress back to number one.

During the late 1800's America was in no position to expand. they did not have the policy, money, or military power to do so. the tries to intervene in Nicaragua was denied by the europeans and the nicaraguan people. they lacked power over the Europeans and could not stop them with their affairs.

Towards the end, America was desperate for money, and they needed consumers from foreign lands so that overproduction would not occur in America. they turned to Latin American countries such as investing in Mexican railroads, mines and plantations. The National Association of Manufactures carved the path for american production in Latin America. they were the first to begin manufacturing for those specific consumers. America went from fourth manufacturer to the number one manufacturer in the world.

Christians so a need to spread their religion throughout the pagan countries during this time. Mexico was one of their main focuses during this time. Ministers such as Josiah Strong, were determined to bring light to a dark land. they wanted Mexico to become a Christian nation and sent many ministers to help the cause.

-- Edited by Rachel at 13:32, 2009-01-06

China was actually also a large focus of Imperialists America as far as religious conversion went as well.

joel the not so brave · Veteran Member

mre wrote:

joel the not so brave wrote:

This is a reply to what jessica wrote, i dont know why it states that. I hit the 'reply' tab on her post. ah well.
Joel, you have to click 'Quote' to reply to a specific post, like I did here.

Ah. Tricky little devil, that was. Thank you.

-- Edited by joel the not so brave at 21:50, 2009-01-07

becca · Veteran Member

G. Larsen wrote:

becca wrote:
Being hypocritical seems to be habit for America during the imperialist era. In the cases of Hawii and the Philippines, both did not want to be part of America, yet America didn't really seem to care. The motives of profit, manifest destiny, and missionary interest overshadowed the basic principles which the foundation of America had been laid. Concepts such as life, liberty, property, government by the consent of the governed, were pushed aside in America's newly acquired territories.

(I gutted the quote so only the most recent one would show up. Otherwise, a wormhole of quotes quoting quotes quoting quotes might be created)
I agree with you about the Philippines and Hawaii, but in the interest of pure contradiction, I'd like to bring up certain aspects of the war in Cuba. Congress decided to send troops to aid the newly-formed Cuban government. Attached was the Teller Amendment, which further layed down the fact that the U.S. was not going to annex Cuba and respected the Cubans' right to self-government. Although maintaining a small level of influence in Cuba, the U.S. largely let the new nation be. Clearly, the ideals of self-government were not entirely lost during the era. Perhaps this was because of the official, written and decided-upon promise of the Teller Amendment being more effective than vague, spoken promises to the Filipinos and Hawaiians.

Yeah, the teller amendment was nice, but our old friend Zinn kindly points out the the Platt amendment took away some of rights promised in the teller Amendment, basically telling Cuba they could be as free as America let them be free. I mean that the Platt amendment gave America economic rights and Cuba could not do any foreign trade without permission from America.

G. Larsen · Veteran Member

becca wrote:
Yeah, the teller amendment was nice, but our old friend Zinn kindly points out the the Platt amendment took away some of rights promised in the teller Amendment, basically telling Cuba they could be as free as America let them be free. I mean that the Platt amendment gave America economic rights and Cuba could not do any foreign trade without permission from America.

You know, maybe it would have been better if I'd finished reading the packet before I said that. You're absolutely right.