Question

How would you have responded to this letter as President Grant? Would you have been swayed by the Japanese arguments for treaty revision?

A) I would have responded favorably to the Japanese arguments and supported treaty revision.
B) I would have responded negatively to the Japanese arguments and rejected treaty revision.
C) My response would have been neutral and required further discussion.
D) I would have responded diplomatically and sought to negotiate a compromise.

Answer 1

As President Grant, I would likely take a diplomatic approach to the Japanese request for treaty revision, seeking a compromise that respects Japan's status while considering American interests, basing this on Grant's own historical disposition towards diplomacy and humane policies.

Step-by-step explanation:

As President Grant, responding to a letter concerning Japanese arguments for treaty revision involves complex diplomatic considerations. The historical context suggests that the Japanese government, after emerging victorious from the Russo-Japanese War, sought global recognition and equality in its treaties with Western nations. They argued, as with the Gentleman's Agreement of 1907, for respect on the international stage without compromising their own national policies on immigration and labor.

Considering President Grant's efforts to encourage humane treatment of Native Americans and his attempts at international diplomacy, such as with the failed Santo Domingo annexation, it is plausible that he might have been inclined to pursue a more diplomatic approach to treaty revision with Japan.

Thus, the response might be to diplomatically seek a compromise that honors Japan's wishes for respect and equality while considering American interests and public sentiments domestically. This realization is colored by Grant's own experiences with domestic and foreign challenges during his presidency, as well as the complexities of international relations at the time.