Mastering the 2017 AP United States History DBQ: A Complete Strategy Guide
The 2017 AP United States History DBQ (Document-Based Question) presented students with a key challenge: evaluating the extent to which the United States adopted an imperialist or expansionist foreign policy between 1898 and 1945. This task required not only a firm grasp of key events from the Spanish-American War to the end of World War II but also the sophisticated skill of constructing a historical argument using a provided set of primary sources. But for any APUSH student, understanding how to dissect this specific prompt, analyze its documents, and synthesize a compelling narrative is crucial for both exam success and a deeper comprehension of America’s transformation into a global power. This guide provides a comprehensive, step-by-step breakdown of the 2017 DBQ, offering strategies to craft a high-scoring essay that moves beyond summary to genuine historical analysis Not complicated — just consistent..
Decoding the Prompt: The Core Task
The official prompt stated: “Evaluate the extent to which the United States adopted an imperialist or expansionist foreign policy in the period 1898 to 1945.S. Because of that, was imperialist” or “no, it wasn’t. Now, ” The key verbs here are “evaluate” and “extent. Because of that, as a superpower. Practically speaking, s. The highest-scoring essays did not simply argue “yes, the U.Think about it: ” Instead, they presented a nuanced thesis that acknowledged complexity, change over time, and contradiction. In practice, the period (1898-1945) bookends two major wars: the Spanish-American War, often cited as the start of overt American imperialism, and World War II, which culminated in the U. But ” This is not a yes-or-no question. Your argument must address developments across this nearly 50-year span, showing how policies and rationales evolved.
Document Analysis: Understanding the Source Material
The 2017 DBQ included seven documents. Success hinges on analyzing each one for Point of View (POV), purpose, and historical context, not just summarizing its content. Here is a breakdown of each document and how to approach it:
- Document 1: A political cartoon from 1899 depicting Uncle Sam as a teacher instructing four children representing Cuba, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Hawaii. The caption reads, “School Begins.” Analysis: This clearly supports an imperialist interpretation. The imagery of “school” suggests a paternalistic, “civilizing mission” rationale for expansion. Consider the cartoonist’s likely audience—domestic supporters of the Spanish-American War—and the racial attitudes of the era that framed non-white peoples as needing guidance.
- Document 2: An excerpt from Theodore Roosevelt’s Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine (1904). Analysis: This is a foundational text for “informal empire.” Roosevelt asserts the U.S. right to intervene in Latin American nations to stabilize their economies and governments, preempting European intervention. It represents a shift from continental expansion to hemispheric policing, driven by strategic and economic interests.
- Document 3: A statement by Senator Albert J. Beveridge (1900) advocating for the annexation of the Philippines. Analysis: A classic “White Man’s Burden” argument. Beveridge cites economic opportunity (Asian markets), racial destiny (“the mission of the white man”), and strategic advantage. This is pure expansionist ideology, directly linking imperialism to notions of racial superiority and national vigor.
- Document 4: A 1914 political cartoon showing a “Dollar Sign” flag being planted in Mexico
Analysis: This cartoon powerfully illustrates the growing economic influence of the U.S. in Latin America. The "Dollar Sign" flag symbolizes economic imperialism, where financial control replaces direct military occupation. Consider the context of American investment in Mexico during the early 20th century and the perception of U.S. dominance in the region.
- Document 5: An excerpt from President Woodrow Wilson’s address to Congress requesting a declaration of war against Germany (1917). Analysis: While primarily focused on World War I, this document reveals the U.S. perspective on its role in global affairs. Wilson frames the war as a struggle for democracy and freedom, implicitly positioning the U.S. as a champion of these ideals, even as it pursued its own strategic interests. This connects to the idea of a global, albeit self-defined, empire.
- Document 6: A 1922 statement by President Warren G. Harding regarding U.S. policy towards Japan. Analysis: This document highlights the evolving relationship between the U.S. and Japan, demonstrating a shift from open hostility to a more pragmatic approach focused on trade and strategic alignment. It reveals the U.S. willingness to adapt its foreign policy based on changing global dynamics and economic considerations.
- Document 7: A 1941 speech by President Franklin D. Roosevelt to Congress following the attack on Pearl Harbor. Analysis: This speech underscores the U.S. justification for entering World War II as a defense of democracy and freedom against totalitarian aggression. While framed as a moral imperative, it also served to solidify American power and influence on the world stage, ultimately leading to its emergence as a global superpower.
Synthesizing the Evidence: Constructing Your Essay
After meticulously analyzing each document, the next step is to synthesize the evidence and construct a compelling argument. Consider the following points:
- Chronological Progression: How did American foreign policy evolve from the late 19th century to the end of World War II? Identify key turning points and explain the factors that drove change.
- Competing Rationales: Explore the various justifications for American expansion – economic interests, strategic considerations, racial ideologies, and moral obligations. How did these rationales interact and sometimes conflict?
- The Spectrum of Imperialism: Recognize that American imperialism wasn't a monolithic phenomenon. It manifested in different forms – territorial acquisition, economic dominance, political intervention, and cultural influence.
- Internal Contradictions: Acknowledge the internal tensions and contradictions within American foreign policy. How did the pursuit of democracy and freedom coexist with policies that undermined self-determination in other nations?
Conclusion: A Complex Legacy
Evaluating the extent to which the U.Which means s. adopted an imperialist or expansionist foreign policy between 1898 and 1945 requires a nuanced understanding of historical context and a careful examination of the evidence. Practically speaking, the U. Day to day, s. Day to day, undeniably pursued policies that extended its influence across the globe, acquiring territories, intervening in the affairs of other nations, and exerting economic make use of. Even so, labeling this period as simply “imperialist” oversimplifies a complex historical reality.
The official docs gloss over this. That's a mistake.
While the "White Man's Burden" and economic motives fueled much of this expansion, the U.also framed its actions as a defense of democracy, a commitment to global stability, and a response to threats to its own security. S. The evolution of American foreign policy, from the Spanish-American War to the aftermath of World War II, reveals a shifting rationale and a growing awareness of the consequences of its actions Nothing fancy..
When all is said and done, the legacy of American foreign policy during this period is one of both ambition and contradiction. That said, the U. On top of that, s. Think about it: emerged from World War II as a global superpower, wielding immense economic and political influence. While the nation often championed ideals of freedom and self-determination, its history during this era is inextricably linked to the pursuit of power and the assertion of its global dominance. Recognizing this complexity is crucial for understanding the trajectory of American foreign policy and its enduring impact on the world Small thing, real impact..
Continuing from the provided conclusion:
This duality – the simultaneous pursuit of power and the articulation of principle – defined the era. The initial burst of territorial acquisition following the Spanish-American War, driven by strategic concerns, economic opportunity, and a sense of racial destiny, set a clear imperialist trajectory. That said, the subsequent shift towards economic dominance (Open Door Policy), political intervention (often couched in Wilsonian idealism), and cultural influence reflected a more nuanced, yet still expansionist, approach. The Great Depression and the rise of totalitarianism further complicated this picture, forcing a pragmatic retreat from direct intervention in Latin America (Good Neighbor Policy) while simultaneously drawing the US deeper into the global struggle against fascism, ultimately culminating in unprecedented military and political hegemony.
Worth pausing on this one.
The competing rationales rarely operated in isolation. Economic interests frequently justified strategic interventions, while racial ideologies provided a moral veneer for expansion, often clashing with the rhetoric of self-determination. The spectrum of imperialism manifested clearly: formal colonies like the Philippines and Puerto Rico coexisted with informal economic empires in Latin America and China, alongside pervasive political influence and the global projection of American culture and values Still holds up..
Short version: it depends. Long version — keep reading Simple, but easy to overlook..
These internal contradictions were profound. Now, the championing of democracy abroad often seemed hollow when supporting authoritarian regimes or overthrowting elected governments perceived as unfriendly to US interests. That's why the commitment to self-determination rang hollow in the context of persistent neocolonial economic practices and the suppression of independence movements within US territories or client states. This tension between professed ideals and pragmatic actions became a hallmark of American statecraft, creating a persistent gap between the nation's self-image and its global behavior.
Conclusion: A Complex Legacy
Evaluating American foreign policy between 1898 and 1945 reveals a nation fundamentally shaped by its ascent to global power, a process inextricably linked to expansionist and imperialist impulses. The acquisition of territories, the assertion of economic dominance, and the interventions across the Americas and beyond cannot be dismissed as mere aberrations; they represent a consistent, if evolving, pattern of extending US influence. That said, to label this period solely as "imperialist" is to overlook the powerful, often competing, narratives that justified these actions. Economic necessity, strategic security, racial ideology, and a deeply ingrained sense of moral mission frequently intertwined, creating a complex tapestry of motivation.
The spectrum of American imperialism, from formal colonies to subtle economic and cultural hegemony, demonstrated its adaptability. Practically speaking, more significantly, the era was characterized by profound internal contradictions. The relentless pursuit of power and control coexisted uneasily with the nation's foundational commitment to liberty and self-determination. This tension between action and principle, between the assertion of dominance and the advocacy for democracy, became a defining characteristic of America's global role.
Easier said than done, but still worth knowing Easy to understand, harder to ignore..
In the long run, the legacy of this period is one of immense transformation and inherent paradox. The US emerged from World War II not merely as a victor, but as the preeminent global superpower, wielding unprecedented economic, military, and cultural influence. This position was forged through the very expansionist and imperialist policies examined here. While the US often positioned itself as a beacon of freedom and a force for global stability, the historical record reveals a path marked by the pursuit of national interest, the exercise of power, and, at times, the subversion of the very principles it claimed to uphold.
The aftermath of World War II marked a turning point, as the United States emerged as a central architect of the new international order. This period saw the nation grappling with its identity: a beacon of democracy clashing with the realities of economic dominance and political influence over regions once considered beyond its reach. The shift from overt imperialism toward a more sophisticated form of global engagement was both a response to changing global dynamics and a reflection of internal debates about the nation’s role in the world Turns out it matters..
Diplomatic efforts, such as the establishment of the United Nations and the pursuit of collective security, underscored America’s attempt to redefine itself as a guardian of international peace. The tension between idealistic rhetoric and pragmatic engagement became more pronounced, as policymakers navigated the complexities of alliances, trade, and intervention. Yet, behind these initiatives lurked deeper tensions, as the US continued to apply its economic clout and military presence to shape outcomes in various parts of the globe. This era also witnessed the rise of new institutions and alliances, signaling a move toward a more cooperative, albeit still power-driven, international landscape It's one of those things that adds up..
Despite these shifts, the echoes of past actions resonated through the decades, influencing contemporary debates on sovereignty, intervention, and the responsibilities that come with global influence. Understanding this historical arc is crucial, as it illuminates the enduring challenges of balancing national interests with universal values.
Worth pausing on this one Easy to understand, harder to ignore..
Pulling it all together, the story of American foreign policy between 1898 and 1945 is one of evolution and contradiction. While it forged a powerful global presence, it did so within a framework shaped by both aspiration and the imperatives of power. Now, recognizing this duality allows for a more nuanced appreciation of the nation’s journey and its ongoing impact on the world. The path forward must grapple not only with the past but also with the enduring questions of equity, justice, and the true meaning of self-determination Nothing fancy..
