In a paragraph of 3–5 sentences, compare the two opposing american opinions regarding expansion of u. s. territory after the spanish-american war.

The realities of the end of the century led the American ruling circles to a dilemma: either revise some of the provisions of the old isolationist ideology and camouflage it in a hidden aggressive form in order to maintain the “status quo” with the Western powers, or develop the theoretical foundations of a new expansionist ideology based on clear national and even nationalist guidelines for substantiating imperial ambitions in foreign policy strategy.

First of all, it was about more flexible interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine, especially after the Spanish-American War of 1898. In the classic version, the United States had to maintain political isolation, protecting the countries of the Western Hemisphere and their natural rights. In the new context of the doctrine that emerged after the war, the uniqueness of the geopolitical location of the United States between the two oceans, which now did not isolate, but were a link in the transformation of the United States into a sea power, was emphasized.

The differences between the political parties on the foreign policy course became clear namely after the end of the Spanish-American War. At the congress of the Democratic Party on July 4, 1900 in Kansas City, the expansionist course of the Republican administration was sharply criticized for abandoning the principles of the Monroe Doctrine. At the same time, the Democrats tried to amass additional ‘political capital’ by including in their platform the demand for immediate independence of Cuba, which found support among many Americans. The condemnation of militarism, which besides increasing the tax burden, intensified reaction within the country, was subordinated to the same goal. As their foreign policy credo, the Democrats put forward non-interference in the affairs of the European powers, relying on Jefferson's statement about the main principles of the United States: peace, trade, and honest relations with all nations. At the same time, criticizing the Republicans for their expansionist views, the Democrats themselves were not completely consistent in this matter, saying that they do not oppose territorial expansion when it refers to territory that can be raised to the level of states in the Union, and whose the people show a desire to become American citizens, while supporting the protectorate over the Philippines and the ‘open door’ policy in China.

Republicans, during the election campaign, denied plans for further territorial acquisitions. Thus, the Republican party platform, adopted at a congress in Philadelphia in June 1900, spoke of a firm commitment to the principles of the Monroe Doctrine, and the Administration, they claimed, approves expansionism, but only one that is carried out through the expansion of American trade and spheres of influence.

Explanation:

harding's opponent in the 1920 election was ohio governor and newspaperman james m. cox, who had won the democratic nomination in a 44-ballot convention battle. harding rejected the progressive ideology of the wilson administration in favor of the laissez-faire approach of the mckinley administration.

in person

online

by absentee ballot

by mail