1.

Even after the Civil War and Reconstruction, racism and white supremacy played a large role
in the United States. Explain several ways in which this was the case. Provide examples from
at least three of the readings.

After the Civil War and Reconstruction, not only did racism sustain laws that limited the rights of
minority populations, but it also incited graphic violence against immigrants and brought about the
establishment of a system that kept freed slaves in irrecoverable poverty. Many of these effects have
reverberated throughout American history and are still found today, even after decades of progressive
legislature. At the time, the Emancipation Proclamation was one of these policies that moved in the
direction of racial equality. However, at the time, many Southern states were able to reinstate legislation
that bypassed this, such as the black codes for the Louisiana town of Opelousas: “Section 4. No negro of
freedman shall reside within the limits of the town of Opelousas who is not in the regular service of some
white person or former owner, who shall be help responsible for the conduct of said freedman….” Even
with the abolition of slavery, black people were still thought of solely as laborers for white people.
Though they were technically not slaves, some of these black codes made it so that they were unable to do
practically anything: “Section 8. No freedman shall sell, barter, or exchange any articles of merchandise
or traffic within the limits of Opelousas without permission in writing from his employer or the mayor or
president of the board….” In this case, a freedman could not even sell goods without permission from
their employer which demonstrates the white supremacy in the black codes that existed throughout the
South and kept black people in a state of legal inferiority.
On the other side of the country, there were many Chinese immigrants who came to America to
earn money, whether it be for their own economic stability or for their families back in China. Whatever
the case, their lives were often quite dangerous not only because of the environment they worked in or the
explosives they used to pave paths for railroads but because of hostile groups of white workers. In Rock
Springs, Wyoming, a group of Chinese laborers describe the violence that they encountered: “Whenever
the mob met a Chinese they stopped him, and… they searched his person, robbing him of his watch or
any gold or silver that he might have about him, before letting him go… Some of the Chinese who had
hid themselves in the houses were killed and their bodies burned; some, who on account of sickness could
not run, were burned alive in the houses…” This attack resulted in the deaths and injury of dozens of
Chinese which is a staggering result for what was described as the catalyst for this event, a disagreement
over starting a strike. It is clear that racism was what drove the animosity of the white mob and their
prejudice against the Chinese workers since it is explicitly stated that their “object was to bring about the
expulsion of all Chinese from the Territory.” Such behavior demonstrates a desire for a sort of racial
purity, as if minorities pose a threat to their well being or possibly their job security and can be seen in
other white supremacist activities following the Civil War.
Around the turn of the twentieth century, there was much debate over the future of the Negro race
and whether acceptance or activism was the best course of action. However, it was clear that just because
slaves had been emancipated, they were not necessarily in a better social or economic position than they
had been. Booker T. Washington describes “The great responsibility of being free, of having charge of
themselves, of having to think and plan for themselves and their children, seemed to take possession of
them. It was very much like suddenly turning a youth of ten or twelve years out into the world to provide
for himself.” Without proper education or assets to build off of, freed slaves had no way to provide for
themselves and had to start their lives from scratch. It is from this problem that Washington proposes that
they settle back into manual labor and self-reliance. However, W. E. B. DuBois disagrees and notes that
“it is utterly impossible, under modern competitive methods, for working-men and property-owners to
defend their rights and exist without the right of suffrage… a silent submission to civic inferiority… is
bound to sap the manhood of any race in the long run.” It was very difficult for the freed slaves to make
progress in their political or economic status without any power or money to advocate for themselves.
With white people in charge and racism ingrained in American society, there was a perpetual cycle of
catchup that black people and the generations to come were forced into. Going into the twentieth century,
this would become even more apparent with growing movements for civil rights and equality for all races.
 2. How did Frederick Jackson Turner think the conquest of the frontier shaped a distinctive
American character? According to Turner, what were the aspects of that character, and how
did they result from the lived experience of those who moved west?

As the boundary of the American nation pushed westward, there is a reciprocal relationship
between those who explore and the land being explored. In his “Frontier Thesis,” Frederick Jackson
Turner describes this interaction as transformative, with each leaving their influence on the other: “The
wilderness masters the colonist… It strips off the garments of civilization and arrays him in the hunting
shirt and the moccasin… Little by little he transforms the wilderness, but the outcome is not the old
Europe.” In the process of establishing American control beyond the frontier, Turner believed that
unfamiliar land challenged Americans to survive and fend for themselves in the wild. This, in turn, invited
the Americans to first “accept the conditions which it furnishes, or perish,” and then slowly take
command of the land. Essentially, as the American settler was a product of their environment, so too is the
environment a product of the American settler.
What makes this process different from European settlement, according to Turner, is the pure
nature that exists in the American frontier. The travelers of the frontier necessarily developed certain
ideals because of this and, as the frontier was repeatedly challenged, “the frontier became more and more
American”. Turner finds that “Complex society is precipitated by the wilderness into a kind of primitive
organization based on the family… It produces antipathy to control, and particularly to any direct control.
The frontier individualism has from the beginning promoted democracy.” In this way, there is a sense of
liberty and freedom tied to the pursuit of westward expansion. Turner derives these aspects of the
American character from the unrefined essence of the frontier and the reduction of those who moved west
to a primitive society. Living off the land forces people to build from the ground up, coercing
individualism through the need for personal survival. Also described are various other forms of
self-reliance and fundamental virtues such as “that practical, inventive turn of mind” and “that masterful
grasp of material things”. These complement the Enlightenment ideals found in the foundational
documents of the United States and as such can be seen as a “distinctive American character.”

3. Why did Theodore Roosevelt favor US control of the Philippines? Why did the
anti-imperialists object?

After the Spanish-American War led to the liberation of the Philippines, Theodore Roosevelt
pushed for the United States to assume control over the nation due to his policy of machismo through
foreign intervention. Similarly to Turner’s distinctively American frontier, Roosevelt finds a sense of
individualism and passionate righteousness in his argument for imperialism, saying “I wish to preach not
the doctrine of ignoble ease but the doctrine of the strenuous life; the life of toil and effort; of labor and
strife… We cannot avoid the responsibilities that confront us in Hawaii, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the
Philippines… To refuse to deal with them at all merely amounts to dealing with them badly.” Generally,
he feels that establishing a hold on the Philippines is essential if the United States is to be the strong world
leader it claims to be. Complacency in this matter is equivalent to cowardice and would be shameful to
our country. Being vigilant in the supervision of other nations is vital to “do our share of the world’s work
by bringing order out of chaos” and is not only the manly thing to do, but also keeps us on our toes and in
the running within the international power dynamic: “If we stand idly by… then the bolder and stronger
peoples will pass us by and will win for themselves the domination of the world.” Furthermore, Roosevelt
references domestic American history and says that if the people who disagree with foreign intervention
were to have their way, “would make it incumbent upon us to leave the Apaches of Arizona to work out
their own salvation, and to decline to interfere in a single Indian reservation. Their doctrines condemn
your forefathers and mine for ever having settled in these United States…” Just like the colonists with the
Native Americans, imperialism has always been a part of American history and taking control of the
Philippines would simply be a natural continuation of that policy. With this comparison, Roosevelt
challenges the anti-imperialist argument because if they were truly anti-imperialist, then they would also
oppose the takeover of Native American land and the foundations of the United States.
However, there is also the converse line of reasoning where certain aspects of American history
are used to denounce imperialism and consequently foreign intervention in the Philippines. The American
Anti-Imperialist League found 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 insist that the subjugation of any people is “criminal aggression” and open disloyalty to the distinctive
principles of our Government.” According to the League, by attempting to establish American governance
over a distinct and existing nation, the United States is violating their human right to liberty. Not only
that, but we directly revoke a democratic system and ignore the principle of the consent of the governed,
which is an ideal that we prize highly: “The United States have always protested against the doctrine of
international law which permits the subjugation of the weak by the strong. A self-governing state cannot
accept sovereignty over an unwilling people.” As opposed to Roosevelt’s idea of strength and dominance
in American ideology, anti-imperialists focus on freedom and democracy, also deeply ingrained ideals in
society. They point out how the former leads to the invalidation of the latter, though there is certainly a
debate to be had about which perspective should take precedence. It is clear that both exist and have
existed in the United States since its conception, which is why such conflicts of interest arise throughout
history.