Precis Two Assignment – 400 words total (200 words per question)
After reading “Platform of the American Anti-Imperialist League” and “Roosevelt’s Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine” following the guidelines posted under “Pages” complete your second precis assignment and submit it here as a Word Document or PDF.
Readings Attached
Precis Guidelines Attached : Please follow
Example Precis Attached
No Plagiarismno copying
Document, Platform of the American Anti-lmperialist League, 1899
The American Anti-Imperialism League was founded in 1899 after the Spanish-
American War, in which the United States gained control over the Philippines, Puerto
Rico, and Guam. While most Americans supported the United States’ overseas
expansion, others were horrified by American imperialism. This group was founded to
prevent American annexation of the Philippines, though they were unsuccessful in their
mission.
We hold that the policy known as
imperialism is hostile to liberty and
tends toward militarism, an evil from
which it has been our glory to be free.
We regret that it has become necessary
in the land of Washington and Lincoln to
reaffirm that all men, of whatever race
or color, are entitled to life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness. We maintain
that governments derive their just
powers from the consent of the
governed. We insist that the subjugation
of any people is “criminal aggression”
and open disloyalty to the distinctive
principles of our Government.
We earnestly condemn the policy of the
present National Administration in the
Philippines. It seeks to extinguish the
spirit of 1776 in those islands. We
deplore the sacrifice of our soldiers and
sailors, whose bravery deserves
admiration even in an unjust war. We
denounce the slaughter of the Filipinos
as a needless horror. We protest against
the extension of American sovereignty
by Spanish methods.
We demand the immediate cessation of
the war against liberty, begun by Spain
and continued by us. We urge that
Congress be promptly convened to
announce to the Filipinos our purpose
to concede to them the independence
for which they have so long fought and
which of right is theirs.
The United States have always
protested against the doctrine of
international law which permits the
subjugation of the weak by the strong. A
self-govening state cannot accept
sovereignty over an unwilling people.
The United States cannot act upon the
ancient heresy that might makes right.
Imperialists assume that with the
destruction of self-government in the
Philippines by American hands, all
opposition here will cease. This is a
grievous error. Much as we abhor the
war of “criminal aggression” in the
Philippines, greatly as we regret that the
blood of the Filipinos is on American
hands, we more deeply resent the
betrayal of American institutions at
home. The real firing line is not in the
suburbs of Manila. The foe is of our own
household. The attempt of 1861 was to
divide the country. That of 1899 is to
destroy its fundamental principles and
noblest ideals.
Whether the ruthless slaughter of the
Filipinos shall end next month or next
year is but an incident in a contest that
must go on until the Declaration of
Independence and the Constitution of
the United States are rescued from the
hands of their betrayers. Those who
dispute about standards of value while
the foundation of the Republic is
undermined will be listened to as little
as those who would wrangle about the
small economies of the household while
the house is on fire. The training of a
great people for a century, the
aspiration for liberty of a vast
immigration are forces that will hurl
aside those who in the delirium of
conquest seek to destroy the character
of our institutions.
We deny that the obligation of all
citizens to support their Government in
times of grave National peril applies to
the present situation. If an
Administration may with impunity
ignore the issues upon which it was
chosen, deliberately create a condition
of war anywhere on the face of the
globe, debauch the civil service for
spoils to promote the adventure,
organize a truth-suppressing censorship
and demand of all citizens a suspension
of judgment and their unanimous
support while it chooses to continue the
fighting, representative government
itself is imperiled.
We propose to contribute to the defeat
of any person or party that stands for
the forcible subjugation of any people.
We shall oppose for reelection all who
in the White House or in Congress
betray American liberty in pursuit of
un-American ends. We still hope that
both of our great political parties will
support and defend the Declaration of
Independence in the closing campaign
of the century.
We hold, with Abraham Lincoln, that
“no man is good enough to govern
another man without that other’s
consent. When the white man governs
himself, that is self-government, but
when he governs himself and also
governs another man, that is more than
self-government-that is despotism.”
“Our reliance is in the love of liberty
which God has planted in us. Our
defense is in the spirit which prizes
liberty as the heritage of all men in all
lands. Those who deny freedom to
others deserve it not for themselves,
and under a just God cannot long retain
it.”
We cordially invite the cooperation of
all men and women who remain loyal to
the Declaration of Independence and
the Constitution of the United States.
1/17/18, 12(27 PMRoosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine | Teaching American History
Page 1 of 1http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/roosevelt-corollary-to-monroe-doctrine/
TeachingAmericanHistory.org
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/roosevelt-corollary-to-monroe-doctrine/
TeachingAmericanHistory.org is a project of the Ashbrook Center at Ashland University
401 College Avenue | Ashland, Ohio 44805 (419) 289-5411 | (877) 289-5411 (Toll Free)
info@TeachingAmericanHistory.org
© 2006-2018 Ashbrook Center | Design by CiV Digital
Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine
Theodore Roosevelt
December 6, 1904
[This is an abridged version of the document.]
Fourth Annual Message to Congress
To the Senate and House of Representatives: …
It is not true that the United States feels any land hunger or entertains any projects as regards the other nations of the
Western Hemisphere save such as are for their welfare. All that this country desires is to see the neighboring countries
stable, orderly, and prosperous. Any country whose people conduct themselves well can count upon our hearty friendship.
If a nation shows that it knows how to act with reasonable efficiency and decency in social and political matters, if it keeps
order and pays its obligations, it need fear no interference from the United States. Chronic wrongdoing, or an impotence
which results in a general loosening of the ties of civilized society, may in America, as elsewhere, ultimately require
intervention by some civilized nation, and in the Western Hemisphere the adherence of the United States to the Monroe
Doctrine may force the United States, however reluctantly, in flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence, to the
exercise of an international police power. If every country washed by the Caribbean Sea would show the progress in stable
and just civilization which with the aid of the Platt amendment Cuba has shown since our troops left the island, and which
so many of the republics in both Americas are constantly and brilliantly showing, all question of interference by this Nation
with their affairs would be at an end. Our interests and those of our southern neighbors are in reality identical. They have
great natural riches, and if within their borders the reign of law and justice obtains, prosperity is sure to come to them.
While they thus obey the primary laws of civilized society they may rest assured that they will be treated by us in a spirit of
cordial and helpful sympathy. We would interfere with them only in the last resort, and then only if it became evident that
their inability or unwillingness to do justice at home and abroad had violated the rights of the United States or had invited
foreign aggression to the detriment of the entire body of American nations. It is a mere truism to say that every nation,
whether in America or anywhere else, which desires to maintain its freedom, its independence, must ultimately realize that
the right of such independence can not be separated from the responsibility of making good use of it. …
Source: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29545
mailto:info@teachingamericanhistory.org
http://www.civdigital.com/
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/50docs/
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29545
HIST1302: Spring 2020
Précis Guidelines
Guidelines for Précis: For each reading assigned for a week, you should write approximately one to two paragraphs telling me some of the important aspects of each document, as well as the who, what, where, when, and perhaps most importantly, why the document is important and how it fits into the themes and ideas we have been learning in class. Do not summarize, though you should bring up key points. Each précis must be at least 400 words and include a word count. There will be a 10-point deduction for not including a word count. An example of a précis can be found on Canvas under “Pages.”
Please note: all of the information should come from your understanding of the documents themselves, NOT outside sources.
Name
HIST1302
The Atlanta Compromise Speech
The Atlanta Compromise speech was given by Booker T. Washington in 1895. In this speech, which Washington gave at the Cotton States and International Exposition in Atlanta, Georgia, Washington asks for blacks to be given equal opportunities in terms of gaining economic rights. Washington, however, does not ask for any civil rights for blacks, and does not push the audience to accept blacks as their equals. Instead, Washington says blacks and whites “can be as separate as the fingers, yet one as the hand in all things essential to mutual progress.” Washington acknowledges that blacks had initially gotten rights after slavery but says that blacks did not know how to handle these rights. This speech is important because it shows Washington’s attitudes towards civil rights in the turn-of-the-century. It proves that Washington believed that economic progress was the best way for blacks to prove themselves to whites, and it also is important because it shows that Washington was concerned that the new immigrants, which we discussed in class, would be taking jobs away from blacks. This speech shows how bad conditions were for blacks during the Jim Crow era and how the black leadership was trying to make things better.
Of Mr. Booker T. Washington and Others
“Of Mr. Booker T. Washington and Others” was published as part of W.E.B. Du Bois’s 1903 book The Souls of Black Folk. In this essay, Du Bois comes out as extremely critical of Booker T. Washington, especially Washington’s Atlanta Compromise Speech. Instead of pushing only for economic rights, like Washington suggests, Du Bois argues that American blacks needed to have full citizenship. Du Bois suggests that Washington is no different than black leaders during the time of slavery and was willing to settle for less than what blacks deserved. Du Bois was against Washington’s program of industrial education and said “it startled the nation to hear a Negro advocating such a programme after many decades of bitter complaint; it startled and won the applause of the South, it interested and won the admiration of the North; and after a confused murmur of protest, it silenced if it did not convert the Negroes themselves.” This highlights a key difference between Washington and Du Bois because Du Bois did not believe blacks needed to be limited to industrial education. Throughout this document, Du Bois states why he thinks that Washington’s ideas were so dangerous for blacks. This document is important because it shows that not all blacks believed in Washington’s ideas, and that there were different methods put forth for helping blacks achieve their rights during the era of Jim Crow. Du Bois’s background and education led him to believe that blacks could- and should- do more than what Washington expected.
Word Count: 465