Final answer:
The U.S. employed varied strategies with new territories post-Spanish-American War, shifting from Manifest Destiny to imperialism. Debates ensued on incorporating these areas as democratic states vs. strategic outposts. Acquisitions like Hawaii and the Philippines highlighted tensions between strategic interests and values of liberty and democracy.
Step-by-step explanation:
After the Spanish-American War, the United States adopted various strategies with its new territories, reflecting a transitional period from isolationism to imperialism. The expansion of American territory was justified by the ideology of Manifest Destiny, which previously focused on continental expansion. With off-shore territorial acquisitions, there was debate about whether these new possessions should be integrated into the country as states, or ruled as colonies. Notably, territories like Hawaii and Puerto Rico had strategic military and economic importance while their inhabitants' citizenship rights hung in the balance.
The late 19th century's imperialistic drive was influenced by Europe's colonial activities, prompting the U.S. to secure strategic footholds in the Pacific and Caribbean. In the Philippines, debates raged over the assimilation of the islands into a democratic framework versus military and strategic control. Similarly, in places like Cuba and Guam, the U.S. grappled with balancing economic interests and the ethical implications of colonial rule.
In the early 1900s, the U.S. veered towards empire, established through military intervention, economic influence, and political manipulation. The approach towards each territory varied, reflecting America's uncertain path in its new imperial status, fluctuating between economic coercion and the promise of eventual self-determination.