The spanish-american war marks a large shift in u. s. foreign policy. after this war, the u. s. became an imperial power. in at least 250 words, make a claim as to whether or not becoming an imperial power was good for the country, by following these directions:
research on your own and find a primary source on u. s. imperialism. consider looking for information on one of the countries that became u. s. protectorates.
a primary source is an original document or artifact that comes from the period of time being studied
someone from that time period actually wrote, created, or used the object the historian is studying
using the information from your primary source, and the information from the lesson, develop a claim as to whether or not imperialism was good for the u. s.
fulfill the following concerning your claim:
your claim should clearly state why imperialism was, or was not, beneficial for the u. s.
your claim must have supporting statements that are original ideas, as well as facts and evidence from your source, and information from the lesson, that supports it.
you must have a counterclaim that refutes your claim. your writing will identify the stance and prove that it is false.
write an informative essay that meets the following expectations:
establishes and maintains formal an objective tone
uses words, phrases, and clauses to link each section of writing together and creates cohesion between claims and evidence
follows expectations of conventions
provide a concluding paragraph that:
synthesizes your original claim
summarizes your key points
adds concluding thoughts
cite your primary source and this lesson as a secondary source at the bottom of your essay.99 points

i believe becoming an imperial power was not good for the country. imperialism had some benefits for the united states. for example, it opened markets around the world that would have otherwise remained close. moreover, the practice of imperialism allowed the united states to flourish economically.

however, imperialism had a lot of negative effects too. it negatively impacted the countries that were colonized. this left a legacy of instability, weak democracies and damaged economies. moreover, it negatively affected the reputation of the country in the eyes of the world.

“the world must be made safe for democracy.”[1] thus did president woodrow wilson, addressing congress in 1917, summarize america’s high purpose in entering the first world war.

at first glance, wilson’s particular vision of america’s role in the world may not sound radically new. since the founding, americans had fondly hoped that the united states, through its foreign policy and the example it set, would foster the spread of freedom and self-government among the peoples of the earth. this aspiration had always been central to what americans considered exceptional about their republic.

but wilson’s call to spread democracy was more urgent and pressing, more obligatory. to answer this call, the united states would be obliged to take on a much more active role in making the world into something new, and it would do so through force if necessary. wilson’s foreign policy demanded action for the sake of a principle—the spread of freedom and democracy—that he was unshakably certain was right in and of itself.

wilson’s approach to foreign policy, driven as it was by ideology, also eschewed the founders’ emphasis on the need for prudence in the application of just principles. in the realm of foreign affairs, the founders believed they should choose the best course in light of particular circumstances. prudence was also necessary to weigh the possible consequences—long- and short-term, harmful and beneficial—of our actions rather than acting impulsively in pursuit of even a just end. wilson’s replacement of prudence with ideology in american foreign policy meant that the tempered pursuit of what is best given the circumstances would give way to the uncompromising pursuit of what is simply right.

wilson’s foreign policy arose from a set of beliefs that were widely shared among progressives at the time and continue to exert influence on both the right and left today. these ideals are fundamentally opposed to the principles of the american founding. because they take their bearings from different foundational principles, heirs to the progressives and the american founders give very different answers to the questions of why and how we should go about promoting freedom abroad.

heirs to the progressives tend to emphasize that the primary, if not exclusive, purpose of the use of force abroad should be to promote the freedom and welfare of other peoples. heirs to the american founders, on the other hand, tend to believe that the use of force abroad should be employed first and foremost for the sake of securing the lives and liberty of america’s own citizens.

throughout the 20th century, americans struggled with the question of which approach should guide american foreign policy. the bitter fruit of that struggle has been division, inconsistency, confusion, and a lack of moral clarity among americans regarding how and for what ends our foreign policy should be conducted.

the confusion in popular opinion over the ultimate goal of the war in iraq illustrates this tension well. did the war aim to eliminate a threat to united states security, or to bring freedom and democracy to the iraqi people? in this and many other recent examples, we see the lingering influence of progressivism across the political spectrum in america. to varying degrees, elements of progressive foreign policy thought have embedded themselves in virtually every approach to foreign policy today, from liberal internationalists to hawkish neo-conservatives.hope this

c. typhoon

hope this

a

explanation: