Republican? Democrat? During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, it didn’t matter what political platform you were on, all that mattered was the U.S. expansion to new territories and whether or not the U.S. should have stayed within its boundaries. After the U.S. won the Spanish-American War, attention was placed on new countries, such as the Philippines, and the benefits, or downfalls, of American Imperialism. Imperialism is the policy of extending a country’s power and influence through diplomacy or military force. Two main arguments, Imperialism or Anti-Imperialism, arose from the ashes of the war to spark new ideas on what the U.S. should be viewed as. On one side there are the pro-Imperialists who believe the United …show more content…
These are the Anti-Imperialists. The first of which is William Graham Sumner. Sumner is greatly against imperialism for the one sole reason, because it would show that the U.S. and Spain are not that different. He says, “What is that (use of force to extort foreign countries) but the policy of Spain to her dependencies?” (Document 2), and explains that the U.S. should not be abusing other countries to benefit the economy like how Spain does to its colonies. Sumner says this to point out the misdeeds that come from Imperialism. Next, a social reformer named Jane Addams expresses her take on Imperialism through her speech given in Chicago, “Then came the Spanish war… and again the moral issues are confused with exhibitions of brutality… The little children in the street played at war, … killing Spaniards. The humane instinct… gives away, and the barbaric instinct asserts itself.” (Document 4), which clearly shows that she against the Spanish-American War, and tells us the war brings cause to moral issues and primitive instincts. Addams gave this speech as a warning and a call back to reality, people really should not be uncovering new problems at the result of Imperialism. Lastly, one of the most Anti-Imperialist men during this time, William Jennings Bryan. During his campaign for presidency, Bryan delivered an amazing speech on the reason why America can not be influenced by Imperialism, “Imperialism is the policy of an empire. And an empire is a nation of different races, living under varying forms of government. A republic cannot be an empire, for a republic rests upon the theory that the government derive their powers from the consent of the governed and colonialism violates this theory.” (Document 6), here he explains in full that America by definition can not be an Imperialist country, for it goes against what America stands for in the first
In the late 19th century the U.S. got possession of Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines and the Anti-imperialist league were people who disagreed with U.S. 's colonial expansion and how it was becoming an imperial power. Both Moorfield Storey and Carl Schurz were Anti-imperialist. Storey believed that a country 's worth should not be measured by its might or size rather it should be measured by its moral standing. Carl Schurz believed that fake patriots always call for war but are unwilling to fight it, they do it just so they can be called brave and patriots. The War prayer was the antiwar piece that was written by mark twain.
Those who favored colonial expansion and the foundation of foreign colonies had different justifications for believing so. There were those who believed their race to be the superior race, and that because God had given them the gifts of knowledge and land, it was their mission to educate and govern the inferior races. Albert Beveridge, a former Uniter States Senator in the late 18th century, was a strong supporter and defender of imperialism. Using religion and divine right to justify the taking over of other nations, Beveridge claimed that God had given them the means and power to reach out to inferior nations and spread the ideals of Christianity. He even went so far as to state that it would be immoral and selfish of the American people to rise to this call of expansion.
According to Teddy, imperialist concepts consisted of securing as many ports and colonies as was possible, to reinforce America as a world power in both military and trade areas. At the close of the short-lived Spanish-American War, the U.S. Government had a new problem on its hands. The powers, that be, could not agree on how to resolve serious issues involving newly acquired colonies. Supporters of imperialism wanted to keep the Philippines, under U.S. control,
Rooted in American exceptionalism, the idea that the United States is different from other countries due to its mission to spread liberty and democracy, America acquired territories like the Philippines. Many Americans accepted the ideology of the white man’s burden; an important factor in the decision to rule, rather than liberate the Philippines after the country was taken from Spain after the Spanish-American War. One of America’s notable examples of American imperialism was the annexation of Hawaii in 1898 which became a state later in 1959. Imperialism greatly effected many nations throughout the late 1800s and 1900s. As countries fought for more power and influence, it became one of the main reasons for WWI in the early 1900s.
He argues that it would be dishonorable to give them back to Spain, it would be bad for business to give them to another big country, they cannot be left with no ruling government, and so there is no other option than “to take them all.” As McKinley, a powerful voice to the public, argued for expansion, more simple people came forward in opposition. A Yale University professor, expressed the same views as several Americans for anti-imperialism in a speech in 1899, believing that the U.S. would ultimately suffer the same fate as Spain, as at the “first touch of the test we throw the doctrine away and adopt the Spanish doctrine” (Doc 2). The professor, William Graham Sumner, was skeptical about the idea of using military force as a way of spreading American values. Some felt as though expansion was spreading the U.S too thinly, as expressed in Document 7.
There were other anti-imperialists, like Jane Addams, who believed that imperialism lead to militarism. Addams was one of the few people who actually argued that the Spanish-American War caused more problems at home because of how people started to openly hate Spaniards and wanted them dead. This was something that the United States could not stand for in the eyes of her. William Bryan Jennings argued and believed a similar idea to this (Doc. 6). In his beliefs, he thought that the government of the United States could not accurately represent the desires of both citizens and the foreigners equally.
Throughout American History, imperialists and anti-imperialists ideals have opposed each other, but each for a valid reason. The imperialists were for expanding the United States and for spreading their ideas of government. The anti-imperialists wanted to play it safe and prevent any conflict that could have risen. It is also existent in today's world with modern day conflicts about the current imperialistic values. The views of American Imperialism were similar about the concerns for racism, but the views also differed because some believe the US was strong when others do not.
Gail Bederman from the university of Notre Dame claims that Theodore Roosevelt, who was the greatest supporter of the attack on Spain and Philippines, had it engineered by both race and gender. These two concepts made him perceive imperialism as being the next stage of growth in a healthy republic. To him, expansion and domination were necessary if America was to civilize the world. For people like Theodore Roosevelt, as the United States advanced, the democratic vision was also progressing (Bederman, 1996). Theodore Roosevelt, just elected to office in 1882, felt that he was very important and had many ambitions.
Roosevelt gains criticism from the Congress and American people for his imperialist approach. Through his speech, he tries to convince the audience of his imperialist approach. His argument relating to it is quite weak and makes the argument less viable and credible. He believes that it is the role of developed nations to play role for “advancing the…civilization. This point deteriorates his argument as he tries to prove the people of developing nation less sensible.
Alfred T. Mahan and John Fisk worked together. Mahan pushed for conquering the new frontiers while Fisk wanted to take the newly conquered places and make them one hundred percent english. Frederick Jackson Turner and Herbert Spencer worked together too. Spencer preached about survival of the fittest and that if America wanted to survive she needed to continue to gain territory and power in order to be on top and Turner wanted to continue conquering new frontiers to stay strong and American. All of these philosophers justified imperialism in their own ways.
However when it came to America’s decision to annex the Philippines, the despotism that came with it appeared to not be an issue to them at first, but anti-imperialists strongly gave their statements as to why it was a bad idea. For a first example, in October of 1899, the American Anti-Imperialist League created a platform, which was a series of beliefs that the entire party supported. The platform advised against the United State’s dictatorial presence in the Philippines, stating “We earnestly condemn the policy of the present national administration in the Philippines. It seeks to extinguish the spirit of 1776… We protest against the extension of American sovereignty by Spanish methods…We hold with Abraham Lincoln, that “no man is good enough to govern another man without that other’s consent” (Document A).
Presidents during the time, William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt, thought and America should expand and spread its good fortune on other countries . There was opposition by William Bryan Jennings and Mark Twain. They condemned imperialism. According to Jennings and Twain, imperialism didn't suit the American identity and violated
Essay One: Imperialism Flies circle great black lumps as the moist air ravages the corpses. Dried blood soaked into the ground after faceless soldiers brutally destroyed its owners’ lives. These were the stories in the newspapers, the movies, and the films. Horrified by these crimes against humanity, the American public was spurred into action against the Spanish oppressors. the United States invaded Cuba in 1898 to pursue humanitarian efforts.
Between the era of Mahan Beveridge, Schurz, and Bryan, there have been many outlooks and opinions about whether or not imperialism is good or bad; some similar, some different. One is the speech by Obama being similar to Bryan’s opinions in relations to them both believing that imperialism is pointless, and overall not a good decision since there can be other ways to solve the problems they may have for imperializing in the first place. They both saw the same effects that can come out of imperializing; the consequence being an unnecessary war that can be avoided in the first place. Webb’s is also similar to both Bryan and Obama’s opinion because he also believes that it is an unnecessary thing to do in order for us to get what we want. They
In being an anti-imperialist the worrisome is not that one opposes the idea of expansion of religion, commercial, and constitutional. It’s that with the annexing of these tropical islands would come to a result of the American system of self government would be that America might abandon this idea that makes America that nation it is to this point. Three reasons why the U.S should avoid imperialism is because it fails to follow that criteria of the constitution, could lead to tyrants like behavior, and could lead to conflict One argument that can’t be missed is the fact that the constitutions sets forth a principle that states “consent of the governed” after further research this means that to imperialize and annex other islands would violate