if you were in mckinley's position, what would you have done? Would you have annexed the phillippines? why or why not? first, make a list of pro and con arguments about this question. you will use that list to support the decision you would make

Arguments in Favor of AnnexationArguments Against Annexation

1The United States could use the Philippines for naval and air bases in Asia.

It would mean stifling the right to self-governance in the Philippines.

2The United States could get access to agricultural products and other raw materials that are not available in the United States.It would involve a shift in American ideologies which had been supporting liberty.

3The United States could facilitate trade with Asia.It would involve forcing American ways and ideas on peoples who may be reluctant to adopt them.

4The United States could help in education, the governmental system, and instill ideals of democracy in the Philippines.It could result in revolt and unrest and possibly, a war.

5It would prevent other imperialist nations from annexing and taking undue advantage of the Philippines.

Sample answer for Edmentum and Plato

Like and Rate

du boi was considered a radical because he wanted the immediate end for segregation. the biggest different between him and booker t. washington is that, even though washington believed that segregation should be considered illegal, he did not believe at all that a law was needed to keep blacks away from whites and that this would be something natural (to have the races apart) for a long time until society adjusted, while du boi believe that agitation was the only way to end segregation.

yuy neded   ot chows usss charts   owoi cwioej oie