Expansion of US
Why did the USA fight the 'Indian Wars' in the period from 1865 to 1890?
1)'Wars' often followed treaties between Native Americans and the USA 2)the Medicine Lodge Treaty of 1867, the first to try and 'civilise' the Native Americans, was never fully accepted by either side.
Why did the USA annex the Republic of Hawaii in 1898?
1)Hawaii sugar hit hard by the McKinley tariff of 1890 - Annexation removed tariff wall 2)Hawaii halfway between Panama Canal and markets of China (valuable coaling and cable station)
Why was the Platt Amendment agreed in 1901?
1)Many Americans did not believe that Cuba was ready for self-government 2)US got naval bases in Cuba (Guantanamo Bay)
Why did the USA sign the Washington naval treaties?
1)Political pressure for disarmament within the USA led by the Republicans such as Senator Borah, an isolationist from Idaho. 2)Desire to avoid another naval arms race, similar to that which occurred before the First World War.
Why, in 1848, did the USA sign the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo with Mexico?
1)The USA's 'man on the spot', Nicholas Trist, disobeyed the orders of President Polk, stayed in Mexico City, which by late 1847 was occupied by US forces, and negotiated the Treaty in early 1848. 2)Polk, though furious with Trist, accepted the Treaty in order to end the growing divisions within the USA between those wanting to end the war and those who wanted to continue to fight.
Explain why, in 1898, the USA went to war with Spain.
1)War was fought to further American economic interests 2)Intervention would control the process of independence - preventing establishment of a black republic similar to Haiti
Why, in 1867, did the USA acquire Alaska from Russia?
1)William Seward, agreed to buy Alaska - or Russian America as it was also known - from Russia for $7.2m. Seward was an expansionist, seeking to acquire new lands for both commercial and political reasons 2)Seward saw the purchase as putting pressure on British Colombia which he was still hoping to acquire.
Why did the USA expand its naval forces in the 1890s and early 1900s?
1)closure of the (land) frontier caused many Americans to look to expanding their power overseas, especially in the Pacific 2)The popularity of this war caused Congressmen to support naval expansion
Explain why the European great powers did not formally take sides in the American Civil War
1)great powers most likely to intervene in the Civil War in 1861-65 were Britain and France, 2)great powers to intervene in terms of self-interest - UK cotton trade, especially given the North's naval blockade, France cotton and Mexico - and for humanitarian reasons,
Why was the war with Mexico in 1846-48 important to the expansion of the USA in North America?
1)important to US expansion in North America because it resulted in a clear victory for the USA and the gaining of a huge slice of territory known as the Mexico Cession. 2) 500 000 square miles, included lands which later formed three states - California, Utah and Nevada - most of Arizona, half of New Mexico as well as parts of two more - Colorado and Wyoming
How beneficial to the USA was the acquisition of Alaska in 1867?
Beneficial: 1)It strengthened the US presence in both North America - linking with manifest destiny, containing the potential threat of British Canada - and the Pacific Ocean. 2)It would provide naval bases and refuelling stations on the way from 'mainland' USA to East Asia. [That expectation of 1867 was never fulfilled. Pearl Harbor in Hawaii had this role.] These facilities would help improve US trade across the Pacific. Not beneficial: 1)Acquiring Alaska made the USA an expansionist, imperialist state, which went against the best traditions of the USA. 2)Governing Alaska would be a drain on the US Treasury. [It was not a great expense in practice because so few people lived there, most of them Native Alaskans.]
How far did US relations with European Great Powers change between 1865 and 1917?
Change: 1)In 1865, strained relations, especially with the UK over its Civil War policies and protectionism [USA] vs. free trade [UK]. Neither were longer-term issues. Cultural ties were stronger. 2)In 1917, relations were much closer, if only with one half of Europe. The USA became involved in the Great War in Europe in response to the expansionist policies of Germany - a state which had not existed in 1865 Not change: 1)US dependence on Europe for immigrant labour. 2)US dependence on Europe for investment capital - though less than it had been.
How far were the motives for waging war against Native Americans in the period from 1840 to 1890 economic?
Economic: 1)Land - Wars were often fought either to control the lands needed for agriculture, whether cattle or arable, or to develop the new railroads 2)Minerals - Many lands contained gold and silver. Gold discoveries lead to wars in Colorado (1858) and the Black Hills of Dakota (1874) Other: 1)Political - desire to assert power - to enforce the superiority of the new Americans - evidenced by US violating treaties 2)Cultural - manifest destiny - justified wars as necessary to break Native American resistance and to civilize them
'The Washington Naval Treaties were a great triumph for US diplomacy.' How far do you agree?
Great: 1)Washington Naval Treaties were a set of three treaties concerning international relations in the Pacific: Four Power, Five Power and Nine Power. 2)Five Power Treaty addressed naval issues. The UK, USA, Japan, France and Italy agreed to fix the size of their battleship fleets Not great: 1)There were limits to the success of US diplomacy. The naval treaty covered battleships only. Germany and the USSR were absent. 2) Collective agreements on paper were not always obeyed in practice
How far does the Mexican-American War of 1846-48 deserve to be known as 'Mr Polk's War'?
Initiative: 1)Polk took hardline stance against Mexico in Texas and California 2)He sent troops to the Rio Grande knowing that Mexico considered it their territory -when Mexican troops attacked US forces, Polk had a justification for going to war Enterprise: 1)It was a sectional war - South supported the war because they saw it as leading to the gaining of territories which could become slave states 2)It was a national war - Country could be united behind concept of Manifest Destiny
How far did the purchase of Alaska by the USA deserve to be called 'Seward's Folly'?
Not Deserve: 1)Financial - Russians might have given it away for free and it was expensive to administer a vast unpopulated area 2)Belief that land was not bought to benefit US but to deflect public attention away from impeachment of President Johnson Deserve: 1)Economic benefits - fishing, whaling, and ice trade 2)Did not get British Colombia to join US but made US the dominant power in the region
How far were US relations with the great powers of Europe affected by the Civil War?
Not affect: 1)Civil War saw Russia, smarting from the Crimean war, a steadfast ally of the North throughout, united by a common dislike of Britain in North America - 2)France, led by Napoleon III, had imperial designs in the Americas; it tried to exploit the Civil War by installing a Habsburg prince, Maximilian, as Emperor of Mexico in 1864. Affect: 1)USA seized two Confederate diplomats on their way to the UK in a British vessel, the Trent, a major crisis occurred 2)Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation did much to swing British public opinion behind the North
How far did the 1911 Chinese Revolution affect US policy towards China?
Not affect: 1)US caution in its policy towards China. It maintained the Open-Door Policy developed in 1899. This policy was the basis of the 1922 Nine- Power Treaty on China. 2)Its greater concern with containing the growing power of Japan, especially following the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-5. Only when Japan made its 21 Demands on China in 1915, which the USA saw as excessive, did it act to support China. Affect: 1)The criticism of Japan following the Twenty-One Demands shows some desire to help China. 2)The Nine-Power Treaty of 1922 showed the USA taking further diplomatic steps to help the ROC.
How successful were the 'Indian wars' of the late nineteenth century?
Successful: 1)Native American resistance to US rule was broken. 2)1887 Dawes Act, which replaced the tribal basis of Native American life with one which focused on Native Americans as individuals Not successful: 1)brutality of the methods used by US forces 2)Native Indians remained second class members
How far was US policy towards Native Americans in the later nineteenth century simply one of force and repression?
Was: 1)The Indian Wars themselves, which broke the resistance of the Plains Indians to US power, sometimes massacring groups of Indians, e.g. Wounded Knee 1890. 2) The repression of the Indian way of life, especially after the 1887 Dawes Act, which broke up the lands reserved for the Native Americans and focused on the individual rather than the tribe. Wasn't: 1)The establishment of reservations from the 1850s, areas of land being reserved for tribes. 2)The policy of assimilation briefly introduced by President Grant in 1868.
