LONG ESSAY ANSWERS
Historical Causation
QUESTION Some historians have argued that supporters of Philippine and
Latin American intervention at the turn of the 20th century were primarily
motivated by economic interests. Support, modify, or refute this
interpretation, providing specific evidence to justify your answer.
Learning Objective Historical Key
Thinking Concepts
Skill in the
Curriculum
Framewor
k
WOR-6 Analyze the major aspects of Historical 7.3.I
domestic debates over U.S. expansionism in Causation
the 19th century.
Historical
WOR-7 Analyze the goals of U.S. policymakers in Argumentatio
major international conflicts, such as the Spanish- n
American War, World Wars I and II, and the Cold
War, and explain how U.S. involvement in these
conflicts has altered the U.S. role in world affairs.
ENV-5 Explain how and why debates about
and policies concerning the use of natural
resources and the environment more
generally have changed since the late 19th
century.
ANSWER
A good response to this question will support, modify, or refute the
interpretation that supporters of intervention in the Philippines and Latin
America at the turn of the 20th century were primarily motivated by
economic interests. An essay supporting this interpretation would craft an
argument using specific evidence that intervention was historically caused
primarily by economic interests. Although not required to do so, a good
response might also acknowledge that the situation is nuanced and to some
degree ambiguous. The essay might therefore contend that for the most part
the historical evidence supports the claim made in the question stem, while
pointing out that some contrary evidence exists as well.
, In supporting the interpretation, a good essay might cite historical
facts from any of a number of appropriate areas. It might note, for example,
that territories like Puerto Rico and the Philippines acquired after the
Spanish-American War were new sources of natural resources (like mineral
resources and petroleum) and markets for finished American goods.
Economic exploitation by companies like the United Fruit Company or the
introduction of oil investments in Latin America necessitated a policy of
intervention in order to protect American business interests.
Another analysis supporting the assertion made in the exam question
might examine U.S. foreign policy and transportation developments. In 1904,
President Roosevelt announced a “Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine, stating
that the United States would intervene in cases where Latin American
governments proved incapable of transitioning to democracy or were
economically/financially unstable. The U.S. made numerous interventions to
stabilize the shaky governments and permit the nations to develop their
economies, in turn promoting U.S. economic interests. Additionally, students
might examine another foreign policy, “dollar diplomacy” (1909-1913). Here,
students would examine the effort of the U.S., particularly under President
William H. Taft and his Secretary of State, Philander C. Knox, to create
stability and order abroad that would best promote American commercial
interests.
Other good responses might analyze the rapid growth of Pacific states
like California, which revealed the need for a method of transportation
connecting the Atlantic and the Pacific, resulting in the opening of the
Panama Canal in 1914. Once the canal was operable, trade revenues
increased because shipping time could be reduced by as much as three
months. Additionally, the trip was less dangerous.
Conversely, a good response might take the opposite approach and
refute the assertion cited in the exam question, using persuasive evidence to
contend that intervention in Latin America and the Philippines was not
primarily economically motivated. This argument could examine U.S. foreign
policy and intervention in the context of the “white man’s burden,” a phrase
popularized from the title of Rudyard Kipling’s 1899 poem. American
aspirations to expand and dominate the affairs of the rest of the world were
characterized as a noble desire to spread peace and democracy. Students
might also acknowledge theories that benefiting economically from
interventionist policies was simply a happy accident of honorable attempts to
help impoverished nations.
Other appropriate arguments refuting the interpretation might argue
that modern industrial nations must secure foreign markets for the purpose
,of exchanging goods and, consequently, sustain a military presence in order
to secure freedom and liberties at home and abroad. A good response might
reference the increasing capabilities of the U.S. Navy.
Finally, a good response might instead choose to modify the
interpretation presented in the question. In all likelihood, this approach would
emphasize that the totality of evidence is not clear-cut; that U.S. intervention
was both economically motivated and in other ways motivated by global
needs and processes. To make this argument, a good response would
probably select facts supporting each of the two possibilities listed above,
presenting proof that intervention was ambiguous.
In all of the above cases, a strong response will demonstrate
knowledge of relevant chronology and incorporate a detailed understanding
of historical events, arguments, and circumstances.
QUESTION Some historians have argued that the writers of the Constitution
were motivated primarily by economic interests. Support, modify, or refute
this interpretation, providing specific evidence to justify your answer.
Learning Objective Historical Key
Thinking Concepts
Skill in the
Curriculum
Framewor
k
ID-1 Analyze how competing conceptions of Historical 3.2.I
national identity were expressed in the Causation 3.2.II
development of political institutions and
cultural values from the late colonial through Historical
the antebellum periods. Argumentatio
n
WXT-6 Explain how arguments about market
capitalism, the growth of corporate power,
and government policies influenced economic
policies from the late 18th century through
the early 20th century.
POL-5 Analyze how arguments over the
meaning and interpretation of the
Constitution have affected U.S. politics since
1787
WOR-5 Analyze the motives behind, and
results of, economic, military and diplomatic
, initiatives aimed at expanding U.S. power
and territory in the Western Hemisphere in
the years between independence and the
Civil War.
ANSWER
A good response to this question will support, modify, or refute the
interpretation that the writers of the Constitution were motivated primarily
by economic interests. An essay supporting this interpretation would craft an
argument using specific evidence of economic advantage or concern.
Although not required to do so, a good response might also acknowledge
that the situation is nuanced and to some degree ambiguous. The essay
might therefore contend that for the most part, the historical evidence
supports the claim made in the question stem, while pointing out that some
contrary evidence exists as well.
In supporting the interpretation, a good essay might cite historical facts from
any of a number of appropriate areas. It might note, for example, that those
who attended the Constitutional Convention were a group of elite men with
an interest in protecting their personal property and investments. Those who
were wealthy, powerful, and influential were therefore present to write the
Constitution. George Washington, the wealthiest landowner in the country, or
the inclusion of the three-fifths compromise to placate slave owners could
serve as examples. This approach would argue that the Constitution was the
written result of the colonial elites’ rebellion against England’s oppressive
taxation.
Another analysis supporting the assertion made in the exam question might
draw upon the work of historians Carl Becker and Charles Beard. Becker
argued that the American Revolution was not really about home rule, but
who would rule at home: the elite. But it was Beard who contended that the
Constitution itself was an economic document with the intent to preserve
property interests. The Constitution, Beard claimed, was designed to contain
radicalism unleashed by the Revolution among the common people,
especially farmers and debtors. The framers, he stated, all owned more
public securities than anyone else. Note that since the question does not
confine the response to a particular time period, it would be appropriate to
cite events, like the American Revolution, and other evidence in the 1770s
and 1780s.
Historical Causation
QUESTION Some historians have argued that supporters of Philippine and
Latin American intervention at the turn of the 20th century were primarily
motivated by economic interests. Support, modify, or refute this
interpretation, providing specific evidence to justify your answer.
Learning Objective Historical Key
Thinking Concepts
Skill in the
Curriculum
Framewor
k
WOR-6 Analyze the major aspects of Historical 7.3.I
domestic debates over U.S. expansionism in Causation
the 19th century.
Historical
WOR-7 Analyze the goals of U.S. policymakers in Argumentatio
major international conflicts, such as the Spanish- n
American War, World Wars I and II, and the Cold
War, and explain how U.S. involvement in these
conflicts has altered the U.S. role in world affairs.
ENV-5 Explain how and why debates about
and policies concerning the use of natural
resources and the environment more
generally have changed since the late 19th
century.
ANSWER
A good response to this question will support, modify, or refute the
interpretation that supporters of intervention in the Philippines and Latin
America at the turn of the 20th century were primarily motivated by
economic interests. An essay supporting this interpretation would craft an
argument using specific evidence that intervention was historically caused
primarily by economic interests. Although not required to do so, a good
response might also acknowledge that the situation is nuanced and to some
degree ambiguous. The essay might therefore contend that for the most part
the historical evidence supports the claim made in the question stem, while
pointing out that some contrary evidence exists as well.
, In supporting the interpretation, a good essay might cite historical
facts from any of a number of appropriate areas. It might note, for example,
that territories like Puerto Rico and the Philippines acquired after the
Spanish-American War were new sources of natural resources (like mineral
resources and petroleum) and markets for finished American goods.
Economic exploitation by companies like the United Fruit Company or the
introduction of oil investments in Latin America necessitated a policy of
intervention in order to protect American business interests.
Another analysis supporting the assertion made in the exam question
might examine U.S. foreign policy and transportation developments. In 1904,
President Roosevelt announced a “Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine, stating
that the United States would intervene in cases where Latin American
governments proved incapable of transitioning to democracy or were
economically/financially unstable. The U.S. made numerous interventions to
stabilize the shaky governments and permit the nations to develop their
economies, in turn promoting U.S. economic interests. Additionally, students
might examine another foreign policy, “dollar diplomacy” (1909-1913). Here,
students would examine the effort of the U.S., particularly under President
William H. Taft and his Secretary of State, Philander C. Knox, to create
stability and order abroad that would best promote American commercial
interests.
Other good responses might analyze the rapid growth of Pacific states
like California, which revealed the need for a method of transportation
connecting the Atlantic and the Pacific, resulting in the opening of the
Panama Canal in 1914. Once the canal was operable, trade revenues
increased because shipping time could be reduced by as much as three
months. Additionally, the trip was less dangerous.
Conversely, a good response might take the opposite approach and
refute the assertion cited in the exam question, using persuasive evidence to
contend that intervention in Latin America and the Philippines was not
primarily economically motivated. This argument could examine U.S. foreign
policy and intervention in the context of the “white man’s burden,” a phrase
popularized from the title of Rudyard Kipling’s 1899 poem. American
aspirations to expand and dominate the affairs of the rest of the world were
characterized as a noble desire to spread peace and democracy. Students
might also acknowledge theories that benefiting economically from
interventionist policies was simply a happy accident of honorable attempts to
help impoverished nations.
Other appropriate arguments refuting the interpretation might argue
that modern industrial nations must secure foreign markets for the purpose
,of exchanging goods and, consequently, sustain a military presence in order
to secure freedom and liberties at home and abroad. A good response might
reference the increasing capabilities of the U.S. Navy.
Finally, a good response might instead choose to modify the
interpretation presented in the question. In all likelihood, this approach would
emphasize that the totality of evidence is not clear-cut; that U.S. intervention
was both economically motivated and in other ways motivated by global
needs and processes. To make this argument, a good response would
probably select facts supporting each of the two possibilities listed above,
presenting proof that intervention was ambiguous.
In all of the above cases, a strong response will demonstrate
knowledge of relevant chronology and incorporate a detailed understanding
of historical events, arguments, and circumstances.
QUESTION Some historians have argued that the writers of the Constitution
were motivated primarily by economic interests. Support, modify, or refute
this interpretation, providing specific evidence to justify your answer.
Learning Objective Historical Key
Thinking Concepts
Skill in the
Curriculum
Framewor
k
ID-1 Analyze how competing conceptions of Historical 3.2.I
national identity were expressed in the Causation 3.2.II
development of political institutions and
cultural values from the late colonial through Historical
the antebellum periods. Argumentatio
n
WXT-6 Explain how arguments about market
capitalism, the growth of corporate power,
and government policies influenced economic
policies from the late 18th century through
the early 20th century.
POL-5 Analyze how arguments over the
meaning and interpretation of the
Constitution have affected U.S. politics since
1787
WOR-5 Analyze the motives behind, and
results of, economic, military and diplomatic
, initiatives aimed at expanding U.S. power
and territory in the Western Hemisphere in
the years between independence and the
Civil War.
ANSWER
A good response to this question will support, modify, or refute the
interpretation that the writers of the Constitution were motivated primarily
by economic interests. An essay supporting this interpretation would craft an
argument using specific evidence of economic advantage or concern.
Although not required to do so, a good response might also acknowledge
that the situation is nuanced and to some degree ambiguous. The essay
might therefore contend that for the most part, the historical evidence
supports the claim made in the question stem, while pointing out that some
contrary evidence exists as well.
In supporting the interpretation, a good essay might cite historical facts from
any of a number of appropriate areas. It might note, for example, that those
who attended the Constitutional Convention were a group of elite men with
an interest in protecting their personal property and investments. Those who
were wealthy, powerful, and influential were therefore present to write the
Constitution. George Washington, the wealthiest landowner in the country, or
the inclusion of the three-fifths compromise to placate slave owners could
serve as examples. This approach would argue that the Constitution was the
written result of the colonial elites’ rebellion against England’s oppressive
taxation.
Another analysis supporting the assertion made in the exam question might
draw upon the work of historians Carl Becker and Charles Beard. Becker
argued that the American Revolution was not really about home rule, but
who would rule at home: the elite. But it was Beard who contended that the
Constitution itself was an economic document with the intent to preserve
property interests. The Constitution, Beard claimed, was designed to contain
radicalism unleashed by the Revolution among the common people,
especially farmers and debtors. The framers, he stated, all owned more
public securities than anyone else. Note that since the question does not
confine the response to a particular time period, it would be appropriate to
cite events, like the American Revolution, and other evidence in the 1770s
and 1780s.
