Title: Age of Empire—American Foreign Policy (1890-1914)
Course: Question Banks

Q: What approach did William Seward take to American foreign policy during his tenure as Secretary of State between 1861 and 1869?
- Following the U.S. Civil War, he refrained from foreign involvement so that the United States could focus its money and energy on rebuilding. (Incorrect. While the United States did require time to rebuild following the Civil War, Seward strove to advance American interests abroad.)
- Seward utilized a strong U.S. Navy to expand American interests in the Pacific. (Incorrect. While Seward oversaw the annexation of the Midway Islands, and spoke openly of wanting to acquire Hawaii, the United States was hindered in its foreign influence during Seward’s tenure by its lack of a functional Navy. For this reason, in subsequent years, the U.S. would focus on building a competitive Navy.)
- He focused his attention on settling international disputes and building U.S. diplomacy. (Incorrect. Settling international disputes was the focus of Seward’s successor Hamilton Fish.)
- He sought to extend American influence in both Asia and Latin America. (Correct! Seward wanted to see America “control the world” and he focused specifically on treaties with Nicaragua that would pave the way for a canal across central America, and securing Asian trade routes.)
A: He sought to extend American influence in both Asia and Latin America.

Q: What was the role of American missionaries in the expanding American empire at the end of the 19th century?
- American missionaries clashed with imperial-minded businesses. (Incorrect. Missionaries frequently worked alongside American business interests, both benefiting from each other.)
- Missionaries fought the annexation of Native lands. (Incorrect. Missionaries did not oppose the imperialistic goals of the United States, and frequently supported it.)
- The U.S. government sent missionaries to serve as ambassadors in foreign nations. (Incorrect. While missionaries were often a kind of informal ambassador, they were not explicitly serving in formal positions.)
- Missionaries spread American values, culture, and democratic structure as well as the gospel. (Correct! Americans saw it as a moral responsibility to spread their values and version of democracy throughout the world.)
A: Missionaries spread American values, culture, and democratic structure as well as the gospel.

Q: How did economic pressure influence the United States’ foreign involvement in the late 19th century?
- The United States entered a period of isolationism, fueled by a desire to be self-sufficient economically. (Incorrect. The United States started to slowly expand its involvement in foreign affairs, including a significant increase in exports and imports.)
- Following the economic depression of the 1890s, the United States sought to avoid international entanglements. (Incorrect. Following the depression of the 1890’s, Americans felt it was worth risking international entanglements in order to grow our economy with an increase in foreign trade.)
- Imports fell as the United States ramped up domestic production following the Civil War. (Incorrect. U.S. imports more than doubled between 1865 and 1898. American businesses were looking for new markets for both imports and exports.)
- The United States needed to tap foreign markets in order to continue to grow economically. (Correct! As the United States started to run out of room to expand, America began looking for new markets for raw materials, as well as markets to sell exports to.)
A: The United States needed to tap foreign markets in order to continue to grow economically.

Q: Frederick Jackson Turner’s frontier theory influenced American ideas and politics for nearly a century. The main idea of the theory is that ________
- America was destined to expand its dominion and spread democracy and capitalism across all of North America. (Incorrect. This is the idea of manifest destiny, a related idea, and a precursor to Turner’s theory. Manifest Destiny led the United States to expand further and further into Native Lands. Turner’s theory is that this expansion and colonization shaped our democratic character as a nation.)
- The frontier is a symbol of American conquest, conflict, and marginalization. (Incorrect. This is the frontier theory that emerged in the 1980’s, in response to Turner’s frontier thesis. Rather than seeing the frontier as a beacon of hope and progress, as it had been seen for decades, new historians viewed the frontier as a place of conflict, of disenfranchisement, and of marginalization. They noted the many Native peoples that had been pushed out and marginalized, the ways that Asian immigrants in the West were discriminated against, and the conflicts that arose as the U.S. continued to expand.)
- Alaska was truly the last frontier available to Americans for expansion. (Incorrect. Although Alaska still claims to be the last frontier, perhaps rightly so, it received very little attention in Turner’s book or speeches.)
- American democracy was formed by the frontier, and America needed continual expansion. (Correct! In his presentation at the Chicago World’s Columbian Exposition he explained that in our struggle to tame the frontier, Americans became more democratic, less authoritarian, and less class conscious. The frontier created and defined us as people. His theory was very popular for many years, and led many leaders to believe that America needed to extend the frontier with overseas expansion, particularly in Asia.)
A: American democracy was formed by the frontier, and America needed continual expansion.

Q: Alfred Thayer Mahan provided a practical guide for the creation of an American empire. What did he propose that America should focus on?
- The development of a modern air force (Incorrect. America would not create the Air Force until after World War II.)
- The colonization of American borderlands (Incorrect. While Mahan didn’t oppose colonization of borderlands, he proposed that America focus on building a strong navy with the creation of naval bases in the Pacific.)
- Acquiring territory rich in natural resources to support growing American industries (Incorrect. There was pressure from American business for America to expand its territory in order to have access to natural resources. However, Mahan focused on America’s need for a strong navy.)
- The creation of a naval fleet and the acquisition of naval bases (Correct! In <em>The Influence of Seapower on History</em> he suggested that America should build a modern naval fleet, create a network of naval bases to serve as coaling stations in the pacific, and work towards the creation of a canal between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.)
A: The creation of a naval fleet and the acquisition of naval bases

Q: The works and ideas of both Frederick J. Turner and Alfred T. Mahan significantly influenced the ambitions and policy of America in the late 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century. Which best describes the impact of their ideas?
- They promoted the idea that different races had different intellectual and moral capabilities, thus paving the way for colonization of Indigenous lands and people. (Incorrect. This was an idea popularized in the second half of the 19th century and passed off as “science,” despite having no real scientific backing. This “racial science” was used to justify many forms of racism, colonization, and even genocide. However, these were not the ideas explicitly promoted by Turner and Mahan (although Turner’s theory has an underpinning of racism in its disregard for Native populations.))
- Turner and Mahan called for an inward-looking policy that led America into a period of isolationism. (Incorrect. Both Turner and Mahan proposed ideas and policies that were outward looking and would lead to an expansion of the American empire.)
- They promoted the idea that America would be a “shining city on a hill” and that the eyes of all people would be on us. (Incorrect. This was an idea first recorded by Puritan John Winthrop in 1630. It was then used and popularized by President-elect John F. Kennedy in 1961.)
- They laid the intellectual groundwork and practical roadmap for the creation of an American empire. (Correct! Turner laid the intellectual groundwork for an American empire by popularizing the idea that the frontier defined and created American identity and values, and that we needed to expand into new frontiers. Mahan proposed the creation of a modern navy as a way to practically build this empire.)
A: They laid the intellectual groundwork and practical roadmap for the creation of an American empire.

Q: What reason did President Grover Cleveland give for opposing the annexation of Hawaii?
- Cleveland did not want to engage in a military conflict against the nation of Hawaii. (Incorrect. The Hawaiian monarchy had already been deposed in a coup led by U.S. businessmen and with the unofficial support of the U.S. military. At the time of this debate, Hawaii was already a U.S. protectorate and it would not require a military conflict to annex Hawaii.)
- The annexation of Hawaii did not have the support of the American people or of the U.S. Congress. (Incorrect. Cleveland’s position was a minority one in Congress, although it was shared by many Americans. When he left office, Congress was free to go ahead with annexation.)
- Hawaii was ill-suited as a military base, as it is too remote and too far removed from Asia. (Incorrect. Those in favor of annexation argued that it was ideally situated as a gateway to Asia, and that the military base at Pearl Harbor was of strategic importance as a coaling station.)
- The provisional government had never existed with the consent of the people. (Correct! Cleveland said that “it has been the settled policy of the United States to concede to people of foreign countries the same freedom and independence in the management of their domestic affairs that we have always claimed for ourselves…” He acknowledged that the coup had been achieved without the support of the people, but with the force of the U.S. military, which he felt was morally wrong.)
A: The provisional government had never existed with the consent of the people.

Q: Who was responsible for staging the coup to overthrow Queen Liliuokalani which preceded the push for annexation?
- Hawaiian farmers (Incorrect. Increasingly disenfranchised, native Hawaiians were beginning to push back against the power held by white, American interests in Hawaii. This is when white sugar planters staged the coup to overthrow the Queen.)
- Supporters of King Mata’afa (Incorrect. Mata’afa Losefo was in contention to be the king of Samoa.)
- Japanese businessmen (Incorrect. Japanese businessmen were not involved in staging the coup to overthrow Queen Liliuokalani.)
- American sugar planters (Correct! When Queen Liliuokalani put her support behind native Hawaiians who opposed American control of Hawaiiian economic and political power, American sugar planters and American minister John Stevens staged a quick, bloodless coup to overthrow the Queen and install an American controlled provisional government.)
A: American sugar planters

Q: America was not the only nation with interests in the Pacific. Other nations saw the strategic importance and fought for control of territory in the Pacific islands. What statement best describes the outcome of the Tripartite Convention following the Somoan Crisis?
- America installed a provisional government in Samoa. (Incorrect. America did not install a provisional government in Samoa.)
- Malietoa Laupepa was installed as the King of Samoa. (Incorrect. Prior to the Tripartite Convention America, Germany and the UK decided that Laupepa would be King. However, he died shortly thereafter, throwing the country into conflict again.)
- America, Germany, and Great Britain relinquished control of Samoa to the Samoan people, led by King Mata’afa. (Incorrect. At that time America and European nations were invested in maintaining control of territory in the Pacific, and did not want to grant independence to island nations of strategic importance.)
- Samoa was partitioned into American Samoa and German Samoa. (Correct! Germany, America, and Great Britain all had interests in Samoa. Great Britain relinquished rights to Samoa in exchange for German controlled territory on other islands. Germany and America then partitioned Samoa into two sides. Today America still controls one side - American Samoa - as an unincorporated territory. The German side was granted independence in 1962 and is now known simply as Samoa.)
A: Samoa was partitioned into American Samoa and German Samoa.

Q: Which of the following increased the public support for war against Spain in Cuba?
- The victory of the Rough Riders in their charge up Kettle Hill (Incorrect. While the victory of the Rough Riders was highly publicized and celebrated, it occurred during the Spanish American war and was not a contributing factor in increasing public support to enter the war.)
- The urging of U.S. business leaders and executives on Wall Street (Incorrect. Many business leaders and Wall Street executives opposed entering the war. The United States was just emerging from an economic depression, and the uncertainty of war threatened a full economic recovery. The <em>New Jersey Trade Review</em> wrote that “War would impede the march of prosperity.”)
- A desire to annex Cuba to the United States (Incorrect. The Teller Amendment disclaimed any intent to annex Cuba after the war and ensured that the U.S. would not assume permanent control.)
- The explosion of the USS Maine (Correct! McKinley sent the USS Maine to Cuba to ensure the safety of U.S. citizens and interests. When it exploded on February 15th and sank, newspapers such as the ones run by Hearst and Pulitzer seized the opportunity to place blame for the explosion on Spain. While historians now believe it was an accidental explosion, the belief at the time that it was caused by Spain increased demand among the American public to intervene in the conflict.)
A: The explosion of the USS Maine

Q: What was the role of Black Americans in the Spanish-American War?
- Black Americans refused to volunteer for the war, in protest of their treatment as second class citizens in the U.S. (Incorrect. There was significant debate among the Black community on whether Black Americans should volunteer to fight in Cuba. Many believed it was not the responsibility of Black people who were citizens in name only, to fight for a country that did not respect or support them. Many others argued that serving was a chance to prove themselves and their patriotism to the rest of the country. The Black Americans who chose to volunteer served bravely and were instrumental in the U.S. success.)
- Black veterans fought bravely and were accepted as equal in the military. (Incorrect. While the Black soldiers served bravely and honorably, and it was called the most integrated battle force of the 19th century, Black Americans were still not treated as equals. They faced significant racism when they were billeted in the South for training, and were tasked as serving as hospital orderlies during the Yellow Fever outbreak.)
- Black regiments were strictly segregated and Black units were given the most mundane duties. (Incorrect. While fighting in Cuba, White and Black regiments served side by side in the most integrated fighting force of the 19th century. While Black soldiers still faced racism and discrimination, they were crucial the military success in Cuba.)
- Black veterans were integral to the success of the U.S. Army in Cuba. (Correct! One reporter wrote “If it had not been for the Negro calvary, the Rough Riders would have been exterminated.” Theodore Roosevelt said “no one can tell whether it was the Rough Riders or the men of the 9th [a Black regiment] who came forward with the greater courage to offer their lives in the service of their country.”)
A: Black veterans were integral to the success of the U.S. Army in Cuba.

Q: Many Americans saw the war against Spain in Cuba as a fight for human rights and for the liberation of an oppressed people. Why, then, did the U.S. Navy attack Spanish colonies in Asia?
- The U.S. wanted assist the Filipino people in overthrowing Spanish rule. (Incorrect. While the United States did utilize Filipino freedom fighters to overthrow Spain, the U.S. then took control of the Islands, which would lead to the Philippine-American War.)
- There was a desire to protect American interests in Hawaii from Spanish invasion. (Incorrect. Hawaii had not yet been annexed by the United States and was under no threat from Spain.)
- The United States wanted to disable the Spanish Naval fleet in order to secure victory in Cuba. (Incorrect. While the U.S. Navy did sink all the Spanish ships in the Philippines, the goal was the expansion of the American empire in the Pacific. It was not directly tied to the conflict in Cuba.)
- The United States wanted to expand its markets and its empire. (Correct! The United States had larger aspirations than simply liberating Cuba. America wanted to extend its empire, and seizing Spanish assets in the South Pacific would further Mahan’s vision of a network of Naval bases in the South Pacific, as well as expanding the U.S. markets for resources and trade.)
A: The United States wanted to expand its markets and its empire.

Q: Following America’s seizure of the Philippines from Spain, the Filipino people wondered if America would support their efforts for independence or would replace Spain as a colonial occupying force. What was the opinion of American leadership regarding America’s relationship with the Philippines?
- The United States wanted to be a favored trade partner with the Philippines, and so it supported the creation of a Filipino government and constitution. (Incorrect. This is more in line with the U.S. relationship with Cuba, wherein the United States helped them with a constitution modeled on our own, and then became an almost exclusive trade partner, importing 95% of the goods Cuba produced (and U.S. companies owned 60% of the sugar cane industry).)
- The United States wanted to annex the Philippines, with the future goal of adding them as a U.S. state. (Incorrect. The United States never had an expressed goal of allowing the Philippines to become a U.S. state.)
- In order to make peace with Spain in the treaty of Paris, the United States felt that it could not contest Spain’s occupation of the Philippines if they wanted independence for Cuba. (Incorrect. While Spain did not feel that the US had grounds to take the Philippines in a war that was arguably about the independence of Cuba, they were in no position to contest the US occupation militarily, and the U.S. settled by paying Spain $20 million for the Philippines.)
- The Philippines were strategically useful to the U.S., and the Filipino people were incapable of governing themselves. (Correct! Even though Spain contested the United States’ occupation of the Philippines, the United States viewed it as an important strategic asset. American and Spanish leadership never really considered turning the nation over to the Filipino people, as in line with the prevailing racism of the day, they considered the Filipino people as incapable of governing themselves.)
A: The Philippines were strategically useful to the U.S., and the Filipino people were incapable of governing themselves.

Q: Many prominent Americans opposed the creation of an American empire and formed the Anti-Imperialist League. The reasons Americans opposed imperialism were varied. Which of the following was one reason for opposing expanded American imperialism?
- The U.S. Navy was not strong enough to hold onto distant colonies. (Incorrect. This was not a common reason for opposing imperialism. The United States had quickly and with minimal losses overtaken the Spanish fleet and had proved the dominance of the U.S. Navy.)
- Leaders felt that all races and nations deserved equal treatment and respect. (Incorrect. Even though many opposed an American empire, a belief in universal equality was not common.)
- The Anti-Imperialists did not want to threaten fragile relationships with other European nations. (Incorrect. At this time many American leaders were interested in asserting American dominance on the world stage.)
- Imperialism violated the democratic principle that just government must derive from “consent of the governed.” (Correct! This was the stated view of the Anti-Imperialist League. Many Americans felt that the idea of annexing colonies was in direct opposition to the American ideals of self-governance.)
A: Imperialism violated the democratic principle that just government must derive from “consent of the governed.”

Q: Despite a growing debate and an even divide in the Senate over the role of America in empire building, the Senate ratified the Treaty of Paris on February 6, 1989. What contributed to the swing in votes which allowed the treaty to pass, officially ending the Spanish-American War?
- pressure from the Anti-Imperialist League (Incorrect. The Anti-Imperialist League lobbied <em>against</em> the ratification of the Treaty of Paris, as they opposed the annexation of the Philippines.)
- a speech by former President Grover Cleveland supporting the treaty (Incorrect. Grover Cleveland was a member of the Anti-Imperialist League and opposed the treaty and the annexation of the Philippines. President McKinley lobbied for the ratification of the treaty and the expansion of the American empire.)
- the passing of the Platt amendment (Incorrect. The Platt amendment secured the right of America to interfere in Cuban affairs if a stable government was at risk. It further established the relationship between Cuba and the United States, but it did not help undecided senators decide to vote for ratification of the Treaty of Paris.)
- fears that the Filipino uprising would lead to the intervention of another European power (Correct! Word of a Filipino uprising reached the senate just a week before the scheduled vote. Senators were worried that this would open the door for other European powers to intervene. This was enough to swing the undecided Senators towards ratification.)
A: fears that the Filipino uprising would lead to the intervention of another European power

Q: As a part of the Spanish-American War, the United States took control of the island nation of Guam. What is the relationship between Guam and the United States today?
- Guam gained its independence in 1946 and is an independent nation with close ties to the United States. (Incorrect. Guam remains an unincorporated territory of the United States, though many have called for independence.)
- Guam was admitted as a state in 1923, and natives of Guam are U.S. citizens. (Incorrect. Guam is a territory of the United States, not a state. People born in Guam are U.S. citizens, but they do not have the same voting rights as other citizens.)
- Guam is a U.S. colony run by a territorial government appointed by the United States. (Incorrect. Guam is a U.S. territory, but it does have its own elected governor and legislature.)
- Guam is a territory of the United States with their own elected governor and legislature, but no voting power in the House of Representatives. (Correct! Guam is an unincorporated territory of the United States. It has limited self-governance - natives of Guam elect their own governor, legislature, and have an independent court system. The island of Guam sends one representative to congress, but that representative does not have a vote outside of committee. People born on Guam have American citizenship, but they cannot vote in the U.S. presidential election. There have been many movements in Guam calling for independence or a different relationship with the United States (status as a commonwealth or as a U.S. state.))
A: Guam is a territory of the United States with their own elected governor and legislature, but no voting power in the House of Representatives.

Q: How did the United States expand their empire to include the territories of Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines?
- The United States sent their newly formed navy to subdue the native populations and occupy those islands. (Incorrect. The navy was only used in the Philippines while Guam and Puerto Rico were acquired without the use of military force.)
- The citizens of those islands voted to determine whether they wanted to align themselves with the United States. (Incorrect. The citizens of Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines never had any say in their political status. There have been movements for independence or altered political status ever since.)
- The United States had occupied Puerto Rico since the 18th century, as it was an important source of sugarcane and tobacco production. Guam was added following the Philippine-American War. (Incorrect. The United States did not acquire Puerto Rico and the other territories until 1898. At this time, the United States was deliberately trying to expand its empire in a way it hadn’t before.)
- Spain ceded those territories to the United States following the Spanish-American War. (Correct! As a part of the Treaty of Paris, the United States acquired Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines from Spain.)
A: Spain ceded those territories to the United States following the Spanish-American War.

Q: Despite Cuba’s independence, it was still an important part of the growing American empire. How did the Platt Amendment define America’s relationship with Cuba?
- According to the Platt Amendment, the U.S. had the right to appoint representatives to the Cuban legislature. (Incorrect. The United States did not have a direct representative in the Cuban government. Rather, they governed Cuba by intervening in politics, by restricting the nations that Cuba could create trade agreements with, and by maintaining a military presence on the island.)
- The Platt Amendment ended military governance in Cuba and established a democratically elected civilian government. (Incorrect. The Platt Amendment defined the relationship between the United States and Cuba, with the United States in a position to intervene politically and economically in Cuban affairs.)
- The Platt Amendment defined Cuba as an independent territory of the United States, with the ability to elect its own governor and legislature. (Incorrect. On paper at least, Cuba was an independent nation. However, the Platt Amendment ensured that the United States still had the ability to intervene in Cuban affairs, and that the U.S. would continue to hold a favored economic relationship with Cuba.)
- The Platt Amendment limited the authority of the Cuban government and gave the U.S. legal authority to intervene. (Correct! While Cuba was an independent nation on paper, the United States maintained its right to interfere in Cuban affairs. And it did so on multiple occasions by quelling protests and supporting a political coup. The Platt Amendment also gave the U.S. the right to build its own naval and coaling station at Guantanamo Bay.)
A: The Platt Amendment limited the authority of the Cuban government and gave the U.S. legal authority to intervene.

Q: When the United States came to the Philippines during the Spanish-American War, the Filipino people were already fighting for independence against the Spanish. Under the leadership of Emilio Aguinaldo, Filipino fighters helped the United States defeat Spain. Which best describes what followed this victory?
- The Philippines gained their independence and the U.S. helped them create a democratic government. (Incorrect. While the Filipino people were fighting for independence, the United States instead annexed the Philippines as an American territory. This would lead the Philippines to turn against the United States and fight for its freedom in the Philippine-American War.)
- Emilio Aguinaldo was elected as the new territorial governor of the territory of the Philippines. (Incorrect. Howard Taft was appointed as the civil governor of the Philippines, and Emilio Aguinaldo led Philippine insurrectionists in guerrilla warfare against the United States.)
- Spain refused to recognize the American annexation of the Philippines, until a Filipino uprising forced them to concede to the US. (Incorrect. Spain did contest the U.S. annexation of the Philippines. The U.S. paid Spain $20 million dollars for control of the Philippines. The Filipino uprising led the United States to ratify the Treaty of Paris, as they were worried that other nations might intervene in the conflict and gain increased influence.)
- The United States replaced Spain as an occupying force in the Philippines. (Correct! Filipinos were fighting for independence, but instead the U.S. replaced Spain as an occupying force. This would lead to the bloody insurrection known as the Philippine-American War, when the Filipino people fought for freedom against the same nation that claimed to have liberated them from Spanish tyranny.)
A: The United States replaced Spain as an occupying force in the Philippines.

Q: What was the strategy of the Taft Commission in regards to the Philippines?
- To subjugate the Filipino people until there was no more resistance to American rule. (Incorrect. While the military used brutal “pacification” methods, the Taft Commission was not a military operation.)
- To build a long-term plan for Filipino self-governance and eventual independence. (Incorrect. While the Philippines did achieve independence and self-governance by 1946, that was never the long term plan of the Taft Commission.)
- To isolate the civilian population from guerrilla fighters. (Incorrect. This was a military strategy, but not the objective of the Taft Commission.)
- To win over the Filipino people by implementing civic reform and improved infrastructure. (Correct! William Howard Taft was appointed civil governor in the Philippines. The Taft Commission implemented reforms meant to modernize and improve life in the Philippines. Americans built new roads, schools, and hospitals. They offered government appointments to resistance leaders to win their support. The strategy worked, and Philippine rebels lost influence.)
A: To win over the Filipino people by implementing civic reform and improved infrastructure.

Q: When the United States replaced Spain as an occupying force in the Philippines, the Filipino people fought back again, this time waging guerilla-style warfare against the American military. What was the outcome of the Philippine-American War?
- Despite being outgunned, Filipino forces knew the terrain and were fighting for their freedom. They eventually prevailed and the U.S. conceded their independence in 1908. (Incorrect. While the Filipinos did know the terrain, and fought bravely for their freedom, they were unable to prevail against the United States and eventually surrendered to American governance.)
- The war ended relatively quickly when the Filipino forces recognized they were under equipped and outgunned. They surrendered to the Americans after only ten weeks of fighting. (Incorrect. The war lasted four years and far more lives were lost than in the Spanish-American War. America was eventually successful in subduing the insurrectionists.)
- American soldiers were ravaged by tropical diseases, and were worn down by guerrilla attacks. The U.S. eventually agreed to a cease-fire and negotiated a peace treaty. (Incorrect. While the Americans were worn down by guerrilla attacks, the Filipino civilians forced into internment camps suffered from disease. Eventually, Filipino leader Emilio Aguinaldo surrendered to the United States and the fighting stopped.)
- Filipino forces were under equipped and rebels lost influence with the American implementation of reforms; fighting eventually stopped in 1901. (Correct. Even though they were outgunned, brutal fighting continued for four years. Eventually, rebels lost influence when the Taft Commission implemented infrastructure improvements and civic reform. Aguinaldo was captured in 1901, and pockets of resistance dwindled.)
A: Filipino forces were under equipped and rebels lost influence with the American implementation of reforms; fighting eventually stopped in 1901.

Q: As America sought to expand their empire they turned to economic influence, as well as military power. At this time, the Open Door Notes heavily influenced United States foreign policy. What were the Open Door Notes?
- A note from Secretary of State Hay to President Taft outlining a plan to open Chinese markets to American business, while shutting out foreign competitors. (Incorrect. While the United States was hopeful that they would be able to dominate the Chinese market, the Open Door Notes were not memos between Secretary of State Hay and President Taft.)
- A series of communications between the Qing Dynasty and American Secretary of State Hay outlining a plan for opening China’s markets to American trade. (Incorrect. The letter was written by Secretary of State Hay, and sent to other European nations.)
- A series of letters published by the Anti-Imperialist League outlining the reasons that America should not pursue a colonial objective in China. (Incorrect. The letters were not written by the Anti-Imperialist League, and they were supportive of expanded U.S. economic involvement in China.)
- Circular notes sent by Secretary of State John Hay stating that all nations should have total and equal access to Chinese ports and markets. (Correct! These notes were sent to the other European nations invested in China, stating that Chinese harbors, markets, and railroads should be open to all nations, and that China should be allowed to set and collect their own tariffs. The principle was only accepted begrudgingly, if at all, by the other European nations, but the U.S. viewed it as political doctrine in regards to China, even though they had no ability to enforce it. This open market was beneficial to the United States who held an economic advantage.)
A: Circular notes sent by Secretary of State John Hay stating that all nations should have total and equal access to Chinese ports and markets.

Q: Following the Spanish-American War, as America expanded its empire, it began to look to Asia. What was the objective of the U.S. government in China?
- To secure a significant sphere of influence for American businesses in China. (Incorrect. America was already at a disadvantage in trying to secure spheres of influence, as other European nations had already carved out territory in China. Instead, the United States sought to open the markets, which would put American businesses at an advantage because American industries could produce goods cheaply.)
- To prevent other European nations from trading with China. (Incorrect. The United States sought to create open markets that were equally accessible to all nations. In practice, this would be to America’s advantage.)
- To create an American colony in China. (Incorrect. America didn’t have the military power or the political will to create a colony in China.)
- To maintain open markets for American business, and to prevent territorial boundaries. (Correct! Open markets in China would be advantageous to America, who could produce goods more efficiently and cheaply than other European nations. America was already behind in securing spheres of influence, and didn’t have the military capability nor political will to try to seize territory.)
A: To maintain open markets for American business, and to prevent territorial boundaries.

Q: How did the United States’ response to the Boxer Rebellion demonstrate America’s ultimate aims in China?
- The United States sided with the Boxers to push other nations out, demonstrating America’s commitment to commercial hegemony in China. (Incorrect. America was committed to ensuring its continued commercial hegemony, however, it did so by sending troops to oppose the Boxers, not side with them.)
- America sent 2,000 troops to quell the rebellion, demonstrating the United States desire to rule China as a pseudo-colony. (Incorrect. America sent troops to China to fight the rebellion, but it had no desire, nor the means, to rule China as a colony or territory.)
- America joined with 8 other European nations to fight the Boxers, demonstrating America’s goal to join with Europe in dividing China into spheres of influence. (Incorrect. America was a part of an 8 nation alliance that fought the Boxers. However, America wanted to limit territorial expansion, and rather sought to preserve free access to China’s markets.)
- The U.S. sent troops over to quell the rebellion, demonstrating their commitment to protecting American commercial access to China. (Correct! The Boxers sought to eliminate Western influence and Christian missionaries in China. America intervened by sending troops, demonstrating the United States’ commitment to ensuring that it had continued free access to China’s commercial markets.)
A: The U.S. sent troops over to quell the rebellion, demonstrating their commitment to protecting American commercial access to China.

Q: Why was Roosevelt invested in brokering a peace agreement to end the Russo-Japanese War?
- The United States was invested in defending other Anglo-European nations from Asian nations. (Incorrect. While Roosevelt inherently believed Anglo-Saxon nations to be superior to non-white societies, he wanted to maintain a balance of power, and he respected Japan’s significant military force. The peace treaty was more about maintaining a balance of power than it was protecting Russia.)
- Roosevelt wanted to help Japan save face by negotiating a peace treaty rather than forcing them to admit defeat. (Incorrect. Japan was the victor in the Russo-Japanese War.)
- Roosevelt was interested in securing territory for the United States as a part of the peace treaty. (Incorrect. Roosevelt wasn’t trying to secure territory, but rather maintain a balance of power that protected American access to Asian markets.)
- Roosevelt was concerned that Japan would use its victories as an excuse to expand elsewhere in the region. (Correct! In the absence of a strong military presence in Asia, Roosevelt tried to maintain balances of power between other powerful nations in the region. By helping negotiate a peace treaty, Roosevelt ensured that Japan would not become too powerful and intrude on American interests in the region.)
A: Roosevelt was concerned that Japan would use its victories as an excuse to expand elsewhere in the region.

Q: How was the United States’ relationship with Japan different from its relationship with the rest of East Asia?
- Roosevelt’s personal respect for the Japanese Emperor, “a true gentleman,” meant that Japan was given preferential treatment in foreign affairs. (Incorrect. The “gentleman’s agreement” referred to a secret negotiation between Japanese and American leadership that Japan would quietly stop Japanese immigration to the United States and Roosevelt would stop school segregation and any overt immigration bans. It did not have to do with Roosevelt’s personal relationship with the Japanese Emperor.)
- Roosevelt saw the Japanese as a superior Asian race, and Japanese were afforded more respect than other Asian nations. (Incorrect. Roosevelt viewed Anglo-Saxon races as superior to non-white races.)
- Roosevelt saw Japan’s rising power as a threat to American interests, and so the United States took a more hostile approach to foreign relations with Japan. (Incorrect. Roosevelt <em>did</em> see Japan’s rising power as a threat, and it was a threat he took seriously. However, he did not respond to that rising threat with increased hostility.)
- Japan’s rising power meant that Roosevelt felt he had to cultivate a less-hostile relationship. (Correct! While Roosevelt’s feelings were complicated, he recognized that Japan’s military power and political influence meant that America needed a more amiable relationship than America cultivated with other Asian nations.)
A: Japan’s rising power meant that Roosevelt felt he had to cultivate a less-hostile relationship.

Q: How was Roosevelt’s “Great White Fleet” an example of America’s foreign policy approach with Japan?
- Using the Great White Fleet to demonstrate America’s naval power was intended to remind Japan of America’s place as the supreme force in the region. (Incorrect. America wanted to be a significant force in Asia, and the international tour of the Navy was certainly intended to demonstrate its naval capabilities. However, America also needed to ensure goodwill with the Japanese, who were proving to be the major military power in Asia.)
- The United States only sent 2,000 troops to suppress the Boxer Rebellion, but they were willing to risk the entirety of their navy in an engagement with Japan. (Incorrect. President Roosevelt had no intention of engaging in a full-force military confrontation with Japan.)
- The worldwide tour of the Great White Fleet ushered in an era of international cooperation and interdependence. (Incorrect. In this era of empire building, nations continued to compete with each other for territory and influence. The Great White Fleet was a demonstration of the United States naval capabilities rather than a call for international cooperation.)
- Rather than engage militarily, the United States’ interactions with Japan were a diplomatic balance between showing force and demonstrating goodwill. (Correct! The voyage of Roosevelt’s “Great White Fleet” was officially a goodwill tour, and Japan accepted it as such. However, it was also very much a demonstration of the United States’ naval capabilities - particularly the ability of the U.S. Navy to operate far from home in the Pacific.)
A: Rather than engage militarily, the United States’ interactions with Japan were a diplomatic balance between showing force and demonstrating goodwill.

Q: Which of the following is an example of President Roosevelt’s “big stick” approach to foreign policy?
- Sending 2,000 troops to put down the Boxer Rebellion in China (Incorrect. This is an example of McKinley’s foreign policy approach of using military and economic coercion to expand the American empire.)
- Annexing Hawaii by supporting a political coup (Incorrect. Hawaii was annexed under McKinley, and Roosevelt’s “big stick diplomacy” revolved around using diplomacy and the threat of force to achieve American aims.)
- Using U.S. banks to rescue debt-ridden nations in South America with loans and investments (Incorrect. This is an example of Taft’s “dollar diplomacy,” which was designed to encourage U.S. investments in South American nations.)
- Sending the Great White Fleet to tour the world while negotiating with Japan over immigration (Correct! Roosevelt’s approach to foreign policy was “speak softly and carry a big stick.” This meant that he pursued careful diplomacy while using the threat of military force.)
A: Sending the Great White Fleet to tour the world while negotiating with Japan over immigration

Q: In 1904 the United States dispatched gunboats to the Dominican Republic and demanded that the customs house be turned over to U.S. negotiators. The Dominican Republic was heavily in debt, and the U.S. was concerned that it was about to become a failed state. The United States intervened in this autonomous nation in order to ensure that it was fiscally and politically stable. What is this an example of?
- Big stick diplomacy (Incorrect. While this is an example of Roosevelt using military force to accomplish his means in South America, it is a better example of the United States intervening in the domestic policy of Latin American countries who have committed flagrant and chronic wrongdoings.)
- The open door policy (Incorrect. The open door letters and policy were the idea that China should be open for free trade without special spheres of influence.)
- The “good neighbor” policy (Incorrect. The good neighbor policy was a shift which led to the U.S. withdrawing troops from Latin American countries, and stated that the U.S. did not have a right to intervene in other nations’ internal affairs.)
- The Roosevelt Corollary (Correct! The Roosevelt Corollary states that the United States has a right to intervene in the internal affairs of Latin American nations if those nations committed flagrant and chronic wrongdoings, or if their stability was at risk.)
A: The Roosevelt Corollary

Q: In a speech before congress in 1904, President Teddy Roosevelt articulated what became known as “the Roosevelt Corollary,” an expansion of the Monroe Doctrine. Which of the following statements below best describes the Roosevelt Corollary?
- The United States would be a “good neighbor” and would not intervene in the internal affairs of foreign nations, and would engage in reciprocal exchanges with Latin American nations. (Incorrect. This is known as the “good neighbor” foreign policy. It was advanced by President Franklin Roosevelt, and was part of a new approach to foreign policy where the United States did not intervene in the internal affairs of other sovereign nations.)
- Any intervention in the foreign affairs of Latin American countries would potentially be seen as an act of hostility against the United States. (Incorrect. This is the original Monroe Doctrine, not the expansion of it which would come to be known as the Roosevelt Corollary.)
- The United States would send aid, support, and money to nations that were threatened by and/or resisting communism. (Incorrect. This is the Truman doctrine, and it was put into effect in the years following World War Two when the United States tried to prevent the spread of communism.)
- The United States had the right to intervene in the internal affairs of any country in the Western Hemisphere if they committed flagrant and chronic wrongdoings. (Correct! The Monroe Doctrine stated that the United States would not tolerate European interference in Latin America. The Roosevelt Corollary expanded that to state that the United States did have the right to interfere in the internal affairs of those countries to ensure their stability and prevent chronic wrongdoing.)
A: The United States had the right to intervene in the internal affairs of any country in the Western Hemisphere if they committed flagrant and chronic wrongdoings.

Q: When the Columbian senate rejected the treaty that would have allowed the United States to lease the land across Panama and indefinitely administer the Panama Canal, Roosevelt sent warships to the coast of Panama, and assisted the Panamanians in declaring independence from Colombia. America immediately recognized the new nation of Panama and were successful in signing the same treaty with the fledgling nation, giving the U.S. the ability to build the canal. This is an example of
- American isolationism. (Incorrect. Isolationism was practiced by the United States for many years after its founding, and immediately after the Civil War. Isolationism means that the United States tried to stay removed from foreign entanglements.)
- The Monroe Doctrine. (Incorrect. The Monroe Doctrine stated that any interference by European nations in the Western Hemisphere could be perceived as hostility to the United States. The Roosevelt Corollary took that a step further to say that the United States had a right to intervene in the Western Hemisphere and act as an international police force.)
- Dollar diplomacy. (Incorrect. Dollar diplomacy involved using America’s economic power to push for favorable foreign policies. This is an example of using the United States’ military capabilities to accomplish foreign policy objectives.)
- Big stick diplomacy. (Correct! This is a prime example of the way Theodore Roosevelt approached foreign policy. He attempted diplomatic negotiations first, but there was always a threat of military response if negotiations didn’t go the way America wanted. When Colombia rejected the treaty, Roosevelt put the big stick to use - utilizing the navy to assist in creating a new nation of Panama with a leader that was more amiable to the United States’ desires to build a canal. This was also known as “gunboat diplomacy.”)
A: Big stick diplomacy.

Q: Upon his inauguration to the Presidency, Theodore Roosevelt was determined to build a canal linking the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. In 1902, Secretary of State Hay signed a treaty with Colombian Foreign minister Thomas Herran to lease the land across the isthmus of Panama to the United States to build a canal. However, the Colombian people were not happy with the terms of the agreement, and the Colombian senate failed to ratify the treaty. How did President Roosevelt respond to the failed treaty?
- He threatened to withhold American economic support, which would result in Colombia defaulting on their loans. (Incorrect. This would have been an example of dollar diplomacy - an approach taken by Roosevelt's successor - President Taft.)
- He negotiated with Nicaragua to build the canal there instead. (Incorrect. During the course of the original negotiations, Roosevelt did threaten to take the project to Nicaragua. However, when the treaty failed Roosevelt took a different approach.)
- He instructed John Hays to renegotiate the treaty with terms that were more acceptable to the government of Colombia. (Incorrect. Theodore Roosevelt did not try to come up with an arrangement that was more palatable to Columbia.)
- He sent Naval warships to the coast of Panama to support Panamanian independence. (Correct! The United States then immediately recognized Panama as an independent nation and signed a treaty with the new Panamanian government to build a canal, with the same terms as in the previous failed treaty with Columbia.)
A: He sent Naval warships to the coast of Panama to support Panamanian independence.

Q: Which of the following is an example of the United States using “gunboat diplomacy” to achieve its foreign policy goals?
- Acquiring the territories of Guam, American Samoa, and the Philippines in order to maintain a Naval presence in the Pacific. (Incorrect. This was part of a larger strategic goal of having and supporting a strong U.S. Navy. Those re-coaling stations in the Pacific certainly supported gunboat diplomacy, but was not a direct example of gunboat diplomacy itself.)
- Sending American troops to Cuba to support Cuban independence from Spain. (Incorrect. In the Spanish-American War, the United States waged physical war on land and sea to liberate Cuba from Spanish rule. This is not a good example of gunboat diplomacy.)
- Roosevelt using threat to break the naval blockade of Venezuela and force arbitration between the involved nations. (Incorrect. This is a better example of the application of the Roosevelt Corollary of the Monroe Doctrine - where Roosevelt intervened in the internal affairs of a Latin American nation in order to keep Europe out and to preserve stability.)
- Sending warships to Panama after the Colombian senate refused to approve the Panama canal treaty. (Correct! Gunboat diplomacy refers to utilizing the threat or use of naval power to achieve foreign policy objectives.)
A: Sending warships to Panama after the Colombian senate refused to approve the Panama canal treaty.

Q: How did the foreign policy approach of William Howard Taft differ from that of his predecessor, Theodore Roosevelt?
- Taft abandoned the idea of overseeing or intervening in the internal politics of Latin America. (Incorrect. This didn’t happen until the Presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt.)
- Roosevelt was invested in exerting U.S. influence in Latin America; Taft pushed for acquiring more American colonies. (Incorrect. President Taft was not interested in acquiring new territories.)
- Taft’s focus was primarily on U.S. relations in Asia, while Roosevelt was focused on Latin America. (Incorrect. Both Presidents attempted to expand the United States influence and power in both Asia and Latin America.)
- He attempted to minimize the use of threat or force and instead further national goals by using the United States’ economic power. (Correct! Often referred to as “dollar diplomacy,” Taft believed that the United States could achieve its foreign policy goals by wielding its economic might, with less use for military force or threats of force.)
A: He attempted to minimize the use of threat or force and instead further national goals by using the United States’ economic power.

Q: William Howard Taft promoted a foreign policy approach coined “dollar diplomacy,” which differed slightly from the methods of his predecessor. What is the best definition of dollar diplomacy?
- Taking advantage of the United States superior industry and production and advocating for open markets, which would be most beneficial to the United States. (Incorrect. This is similar to the open door policy pursued in China. However, this was not the approach taken in the Western Hemisphere, where the United States attempted to push out European nations.)
- Supporting political coups and rebellions in Latin America, which would weaken foreign currency and increase the value of the U.S. dollar. (Incorrect. Instead, the United States pursued a policy of intervening in Latin American countries to prevent political upheaval and ensure stability.)
- Using the United States economic power to bribe governments and leaders in order to secure treaties that were favorable to the United States. (Incorrect. The United States did not have an explicit policy of bribing governments and officials.)
- Furthering the United States’ aims in Latin America by using its economic power to guarantee loans made by other foreign countries. (Correct! Guaranteeing the loans made to Latin American countries desperate for cash served the dual purpose of eliminating European involvement in the Western Hemisphere, and giving the United States leverage in Latin America.)
A: Furthering the United States’ aims in Latin America by using its economic power to guarantee loans made by other foreign countries.

Q: Which of the following is an example of President Taft’s “dollar diplomacy” in action?
- Sending warships to the coast of Panama to pressure the government to accept the U.S. treaty. (Incorrect. This is an example of Roosevelt’s “big stick” diplomacy)
- Building schools and roads and hospitals in the Philippines to earn support for the U.S. occupation. (Incorrect. This was one of Taft’s early initiatives when he was appointed the governor of the Philippines.)
- Pressuring other European nations to accept open markets and free trade in China. (Incorrect. This is the open door policy pursued by Secretary of State John Hay in China.)
- Arranging international financing to help China further develop the railroad industry. (Correct! Taft thought that if the United States could increase their economic presence in Asia, they could limit the scope of other powers. The loans he secured for the Chinese railway led to pushback from organizations opposed to foreign intervention, and his economic initiatives led to resistance from Japan and Russia.)
A: Arranging international financing to help China further develop the railroad industry.

Q: In Rudyard Kipling’s Poem “The White Man’s Burden” it states

Take up the White Man’s burden—

Send forth the best ye breed—

Go send your sons to exile

To serve your captives’ need

Kipling believed that nations like the United States had an important role to play in the world. His views shaped those of leaders like Theodore Roosevelt. According to Kipling, what is the “White man’s burden?”
- To exile Black Americans and Native Americans from their country (Incorrect. The reference to exile in the poem refers to sending out men and boys to colonize foreign, “less-civilized” nations.)
- To overpower weaker nations with superior military might (Incorrect. While Kipling advocated colonizing what he perceived as less developed and civilized nations, he was not advocating for violent military take-over, but rather a more benevolent approach.)
- To spread throughout the world to acquire new sources of resources and wealth (Incorrect. Kipling was saying that the White man’s burden was to spread civilization throughout the world. While nations like America were happy to acquire new sources for natural resources, that was not the primary focus of Kipling.)
- To spread their empire and lift up the Native people in the nations they colonize (Correct! Kipling and Roosevelt believed that more “civilized” nations like the United States had a burden to colonize, and thus “lift up” weaker, “less-civilized” people, like those in the Pacific and in Asia.)
A: To spread their empire and lift up the Native people in the nations they colonize

Q: In his speech, “The Strenuous Life” Theodore Roosevelt said

“A life of ignoble ease, a life of that peace which springs merely from lack either of desire or of power to strive after great things, is as little worthy of a nation as of an individual. I ask only that what every self-respecting American demands from himself and from his sons shall be demanded of the American nation as a whole. Who among you would teach your boys that ease, that peace, is to be the first consideration in their eyes-to be the ultimate goal after which they strive?”

How did the views Roosevelt articulated in this speech influence American imperialism?
- Americans should seek peace over power, reconciliation over war. (Incorrect. On the contrary, Roosevelt argued that national power and strength were more important than peace that comes from not engaging.)
- Americans had a duty to colonize nations where the native people were lazy and weak and unable to govern themselves. (Incorrect. While Roosevelt certainly did think this, the ideas in this particular speech are that in order for America to thrive, it needed to tackle the struggle of building an empire. That peace and ease made for weak men and weak nations, and that expansion was the key to the character of America as a nation.)
- American manhood was defined as strength built through struggle and courage in the face of danger. (Incorrect. It’s obvious that Roosevelt does define masculinity in this way. However, the question asked how Roosevelt’s ideas influenced imperialistic thought. Roosevelt believed that the same qualities that made strong men would make strong nations. Growing an American empire was crucial to the national character - America needed to compete with other nations, to seek out new resources, to be a power player on the world stage.)
- Americans believed they could find strength as a nation only through competition, struggle, and expansion. (Correct! Roosevelt argued that peace and ease made not only weak men, but weak nations. For America to thrive, it needed to expand its borders, it needed to compete with Europe to colonize the globe, and the fighting that would be required for America to expand and compete was preferable over a stagnant peace.)
A: Americans believed they could find strength as a nation only through competition, struggle, and expansion.

Q: “In the West Indies and the Philippines alike we are confronted by most difficult problems. It is cowardly to shrink from solving them in the proper way; for solved they must be, if not by us, then by some stronger and more manful race. If we are too weak, too selfish, or too foolish to solve them, some bolder and abler people must undertake the solution. Personally, I am far too firm a believer in the greatness of my country and the power of my countrymen to admit for one moment that we shall ever be driven to the ignoble alternative.”

Based on this passage from Roosevelt’s speech “The Strenuous Life,” how did the United States view the nations and people of the West Indies and the Philippines?
- As capable of governing themselves and determining their own destiny (Incorrect. He believed that if the United States didn’t intervene, then another “stronger and more manful race” would - but he never believed that the Philippines were capable of governing themselves.)
- Simply as a source of wealth and resources to be mined by the United States (Incorrect. While the United States would benefit from the resources of places like the Philippines, President Roosevelt and many Americans saw it as a moral imperative to rule over nations in order to “lift up” the people living there.)
- As a risk to the success and stability of the United States (Incorrect. The Philippines were never a threat to the stability of the United States, but Roosevelt did believe that avoiding competition and expansion <em>would</em> be a threat to American society.)
- As a weaker and less-civilized race, in need of the intervention by “stronger” nations (Correct! Roosevelt saw the Philippines and the Islands of the West Indies as needing to be managed and governed by a “stronger and more manful race.”)
A: As a weaker and less-civilized race, in need of the intervention by “stronger” nations

Q: The following is taken from the Supreme Court opinion issued in Downes vs. Bidwell.

“Choice in some cases, the natural gravitation of small bodies toward large ones in others, the result of a successful war in still others, may bring about conditions which would render the annexation of distant possessions desirable. If those possessions are inhabited by alien races, differing from us in religion, customs, laws, methods of taxation, and modes of thought, the administration of government and justice according to Anglo-Saxon principles may for a time be impossible, and the question at once arises whether large concessions ought not to be made for a time…”

How do the ideas of Social Darwinism contribute to the decision on how new territories acquired by the United States be treated?
- All territories could work toward achieving statehood, even if they weren’t prepared for it now. (Incorrect. Some territories were on track for statehood, while some territories were not ever going to be offered statehood. They were simply a possession of the United States.)
- The United States should not annex new territory, since the people of those nations are incompatible with the citizens of the United States. (Incorrect. While some members of the Anti-Imperialist League did feel this way, this was not the argument made by the Supreme Court. This court opinion states that the United States will and should acquire new territory, but that the residents of those territories will not be equal to citizens of the United States.)
- Anglo-Saxons were an inferior race, and would always be subservient to more powerful societies. (Incorrect. Anglo-Saxon refers to White people with European heritage. It was believed that Anglo-Saxons were a superior race, with more developed laws and forms of governance.)
- Americans believed that some races were not prepared for or capable of living by Anglo-Saxon principles of law and governance. (Correct! This meant that some territories were incorporated - and on a track for statehood, while some territories remained unincorporated - and were viewed as a possession of the United States, and some, but not all, Constitutional protections were offered to the residents of those territories. Americans just didn’t believe that all races were worthy of equal Constitutional protections and privileges.)
A: Americans believed that some races were not prepared for or capable of living by Anglo-Saxon principles of law and governance.

Q: Following the devastation of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico in 2017, the Mayor of San Juan, Carmen Yulin Cruz, called on the United States to do more to provide aid to the territory. Then President Trump tweeted in response “Such poor leadership ability by the Mayor of San Juan and others in Puerto Rico, who are not able to get their workers to help. They want everything to be done for them when it should be a community effort. 10,000 federal workers now on island doing a fantastic job.”

How did the ideas of Social Darwinism contribute to the American aid response in Puerto Rico?
- According to Social Darwinsim, women are not capable of being successful in major leadership roles. (Incorrect. While Social Darwinism has been applied to sex, asserting that women were naturally inferior, this is not the claim being made here. Rather, this tweet is asserting that Puerto Rican were not doing enough to help themselves, evidence of a weaker society.)
- Social Darwinsim promoted community collaboration and aid at the local level. (Incorrect. Social Darwinism espoused the idea that both state welfare and private charity, no matter whether at the federal or local level, would lead to weak people and weak societies.)
- Natural disasters are evidence of nature separating the weak from strong. (Incorrect. While proponents of Social Darwinism claimed to be drawing their theory from natural selection as presented by Charles Darwin, they didn’t make connections between natural disasters and natural selection of human races.)
- A strong people should be able to help themselves; welfare creates weak people and weak nations. (Correct! Proponents of Social Darwinism argued that state welfare and private charity would lead to societal degeneration. According to the views expressed in this tweet, the people of Puerto Rico were not doing enough to help themselves - evidence of a weak society. They were being assisted by federal workers coming from a stronger society.)
A: A strong people should be able to help themselves; welfare creates weak people and weak nations.

Q: In early 2022, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote an opinion in which he urged the Supreme Court to take up a case that would allow them to re-evaluate the Insular Cases. Gorsuch said “The flaws in the Insular Cases are as fundamental as they are shameful. The Insular Cases have no foundation in the Constitution and rest instead on racial stereotypes. They deserve no place in our law.”

What about the Insular Cases leads Gorsuch to believe they were based on racial stereotypes?
- They deny residents of US territories such as Guam and Puerto Rico basic Constitutional protections, such as the freedom of religion. (Incorrect. In <em>Downes v. Bidwell</em>, the Supreme Court made it clear that some Constitutional protections apply to everyone, citizen or not. Some of those are freedom of religion, freedom of expression, etc.. However, the court ruled that those Constitutional privileges don’t extend to voting, for example, leaving the people of those US territories in a kind of political limbo.)
- The Insular Cases determined that slavery was still legal in US territories and colonies, even after it had been abolished in the states. (Incorrect. Slavery had been abolished in both America and its territories at this time.)
- According to the Insular Cases, White residents of American territories such as Puerto Rico were allowed to vote while Black residents were denied that privilege. (Incorrect. Residents of US Territories were not granted the right to vote in State or Federal elections, no matter their race.)
- They classify natives of some US territories as less-than full citizens, based on racial prejudices. (Correct! The people of some US territories were not granted citizenship, and their nation was not put on a path to statehood because officials in Washington viewed the native population as “uncivilized” and “absolutely unfit to receive…the immediate bestowal of citizenship.”)
A: They classify natives of some US territories as less-than full citizens, based on racial prejudices.