AP Statements

Progressives AP Statement:

Progressive municipal reforms expanded democracy to a decent extent by opening opportunities for civilians to argue their beliefs in government against perceived corruption; however, some minorities still struggled to gain representation. Document 1 explains how reformers rallied against corrupt political machines, which they thought were demanding and controlling their cities through money manipulation in government. Also, according to document 1, reformers sought more means of control from below, with advocacy from civilians for choice in council members through voting, and added requirements of education and experience for the job market. This increase in advocacy by these reformers helped reduce machine control, allowing for a more merit-based government run by the people, and restructured the system to enable more fairness for the majority of civilian groups. However, growing restraint was still placed on minorities due to the at-large waves of voting in response to advocacy. Document 1, written in 2003 by modern historian David Stradling, gives us a perspective that emphasizes the changes made in the government that we can still see today. His modern viewpoint also evaluates the events in terms of goals and struggles by minorities who took part in the reforms.

Imperialism AP Statement:

Americans disagreed over imperialist expansion between 1885 and 1914 to a major extent because the nation was divided between believing that imperialism went against our morals or that self-governing only applied to those who were capable of it. In document 1, we are tasked with the question of when we, or the supposed audience of those who believe the opposite, will begin to realize that we cannot rule over another country without unrest. This question takes the side of imperialism being a negative, and that we cannot do what we sought to rebel against in the first place when we escaped rule from Britain. William Bryan, the writer of the document from 1901, had a fresh mindset from actively watching the imperialism of the US expand, and probably even had some experience prior to the start of our expansion. His perspective and writing sound almost desperate, urging how this argument saw imperialism as something that needed to be stopped quickly to ease the unrest in the Philippines and other areas. On the other hand, document 2 argues the opposite. It explains how the self-rule we fought for only applies to us because we are capable of it, and that the other countries the US was in control of at the time were unable to handle the burden of self-governance. It brings up examples of other everyday things we govern due to their lack of ability, such as children. The writer of the document, the then-current senator of Indiana, had a far more political perspective in comparison. He sees the countries as territories and the people as less than due to his higher power status, along with the fact that he believes the US benefits from the territories. His view is less empathetic than the opposing one, showcasing how America disagreed on the concept of Imperialism.