Compare And Contrast Mahan And Beveridge
Dylan Gerdes
Mr. Ballinger
US History
11/19/15
Part 1
Alfred Thayer Mahan and Albert Beveridge both strongly supported imperialism. They both viewed imperializing as a positive thing for the US. Albert Beveridge wanted imperialism because he wanted to spread US customs around the world. He wanted to show countries how we did things in America. He did this as an attempt to gain control over countries. He wanted to spread things like our culture, religion and democracy all over the world. Mahan believed that a powerful naval base was needed to be built, so we would be able to control trade with more ease. Having a strong naval army would allow us to control waterways. Mahan also believed that in order for us to imperialize, we needed to maintain an armed navy, so we could protect our people. He wanted a navy that was not only large, but extremely powerful. A tenacious military would allow the US to control land better when we were taking over other countries. …show more content…
These two individuals saw the idea of imperializing as unconstitutional. William Jennings Bryan knew imperializing would not be beneficial to everyone. Not everyone would be making a lot of money from imperializing, only some people. He saw these as just opportunities for the rich to get richer. Jennings also saw that many farmers could potentially lose their jobs. Another thing was that imperializing meant that many soldiers could potentially die at war. Carl Schurz argued against imperializing because he found the idea of us trying to control others comparable to the way Britain previously controlled us. His logic was that since we didn’t like being controlled by Britain, why should we attempt to control others. Both men agreed that the idea of imperializing was a poor decision because it didn’t grant any freedoms to the Filipinos. It only gave freedoms to the Cubans, which isn’t fair at all and totally goes against Americans moral
Mr. Ballinger
US History
11/19/15
Part 1
Alfred Thayer Mahan and Albert Beveridge both strongly supported imperialism. They both viewed imperializing as a positive thing for the US. Albert Beveridge wanted imperialism because he wanted to spread US customs around the world. He wanted to show countries how we did things in America. He did this as an attempt to gain control over countries. He wanted to spread things like our culture, religion and democracy all over the world. Mahan believed that a powerful naval base was needed to be built, so we would be able to control trade with more ease. Having a strong naval army would allow us to control waterways. Mahan also believed that in order for us to imperialize, we needed to maintain an armed navy, so we could protect our people. He wanted a navy that was not only large, but extremely powerful. A tenacious military would allow the US to control land better when we were taking over other countries. …show more content…
These two individuals saw the idea of imperializing as unconstitutional. William Jennings Bryan knew imperializing would not be beneficial to everyone. Not everyone would be making a lot of money from imperializing, only some people. He saw these as just opportunities for the rich to get richer. Jennings also saw that many farmers could potentially lose their jobs. Another thing was that imperializing meant that many soldiers could potentially die at war. Carl Schurz argued against imperializing because he found the idea of us trying to control others comparable to the way Britain previously controlled us. His logic was that since we didn’t like being controlled by Britain, why should we attempt to control others. Both men agreed that the idea of imperializing was a poor decision because it didn’t grant any freedoms to the Filipinos. It only gave freedoms to the Cubans, which isn’t fair at all and totally goes against Americans moral