Question

which argument would be used for a political imperialist to support united states acquisition of overseas possessions in the late 1800s?

the us was stronger than other countries (militarily), so they were able to conquer weaker territories.

the us should be the first world power to build a colonial empire.

the us needed to obtain raw materials and new markets

the doctrine of manifest destiny had become obsolete.

Explanation:

To determine the correct argument for a political imperialist supporting US overseas acquisitions in the late 1800s:

• Option 1: Military strength to conquer weaker territories aligns with imperialist logic (dominance over weaker regions).
• Option 2: The US was not the “first” to build a colonial empire (e.g., Europe had empires earlier), so this is incorrect.
• Option 3: While economic motives (raw materials, markets) were part of imperialism, the question specifies a “political imperialist” argument. Political imperialism emphasizes power/dominance, not just economic gain.
• Option 4: Manifest Destiny was about continental expansion, and its “obsolescence” does not support overseas acquisition.

Answer:

The US was stronger than other countries (militarily), so they were able to conquer weaker territories.