What Were The Arguments For And Against The United States Am

What were the arguments for and against the United States adopting a more expansionist foreign policy?

This essay addresses the historical debate surrounding the United States' expansionist foreign policy at the turn of the 20th century, particularly in the context of the Philippine occupation following the Spanish-American War. It explores the contrasting perspectives of expansionists who viewed territorial acquisition as a moral duty and a pathway to national greatness, and anti-imperialists who argued that such expansion violated American principles of self-determination, democracy, and moral integrity. The paper examines how contemporary understandings of American identity and values shaped these differing views.

Paper For Above instruction

The turn of the 20th century marked a significant era in American history, characterized by a profound debate over the nation's expansionist policies. After the Spanish-American War in 1898, the United States acquired the Philippines, sparking fierce disagreements about the country's identity and its role on the world stage. Advocates of expansionism championed the idea that American destiny was to spread its values and civilization across the globe, aligning with notions of manifest destiny and racial supremacy prevalent during the period. Conversely, anti-imperialists argued that imperial conquest was incompatible with core American principles of liberty, self-governance, and equality, warning that expansion might corrupt the moral fabric of the nation (Gordon, 1994).

Expansionists, such as Senator Albert J. Beveridge, articulated their rationale with fervor, emphasizing America's divine mission to civilize "savage" peoples. Beveridge famously declared that "God has not been preparing the English-speaking and Teutonic races for nothing but for the", asserting that Americans had a duty to bring "liberty and civilization" to the Philippines and other territories (Beveridge, 1898). This viewpoint reflected a broader cultural assumption rooted in racial hierarchies and Social Darwinism, which justified imperialistic ambitions by portraying non-Western peoples as inferior and in need of Western guidance (Herman, 2001). The expansionists believed that acquiring overseas territories would strengthen America's geopolitical stature, open new markets, and manifest American strength as a global power, reinforcing a national identity focused on dominance and global influence.

In stark contrast, anti-imperialists challenged these assumptions by emphasizing the moral and constitutional implications of territorial conquest. Figures like William Jennings Bryan condemned imperialism for betraying the foundational American ideals of self-determination and consent of the governed. Bryan argued that sovereignty derived from the people’s consent, and that ruling over others without their agreement was both unjust and morally wrong (Bryan, 1900). This perspective reflected an evolving national identity rooted in democratic principles, which many believed should prohibit the annexation of peoples incapable of self-governance or unfit for American-style democracy. Anti-imperialists warned that imperial conquest would entangle the United States in costly wars, undermine its moral standing, and threaten domestic liberties (Gronow, 1994). They saw the empire as a potential source of racial and cultural conflict, challenging notions of American equality and liberty.

The differing views also stemmed from how Americans understood their national identity—whether as a shining city on a hill destined to lead the world or as a republic bound by principles of liberty and non-intervention. Expansionists viewed America's manifest destiny as a divine calling—an extension of the nation’s mission to bring order and civilization to the "uncivilized." Their rhetoric was infused with religious and racial overtones, positioning the United States as a moral救援model for others to emulate (Klein, 2004). Anti-imperialists, however, emphasized the importance of self-restraint, emphasizing that true American greatness was rooted in adherence to constitutional principles and respect for the rights of others (Lazarus, 2002).

Furthermore, perspectives on race, culture, and capacity for self-governance heavily influenced these debates. Expansionists believed that non-white peoples, such as Filipinos and other Asians, were inherently inferior and incapable of self-rule. This racial hierarchy justified the imposition of American sovereignty as a benevolent civilizing mission (Herman, 2001). Anti-imperialists rejected these racial justifications, arguing that America's core identity as a promoter of liberty was incompatible with racial domination and conquest.

In conclusion, the debate over expansionism in early 20th-century America was deeply intertwined with conflicting ideas about national identity, morality, and racial hierarchy. Expansionists viewed overseas empire-building as consistent with America’s divine mission and national destiny, while anti-imperialists saw it as a betrayal of democratic principles and moral integrity. These contrasting perspectives highlight how understandings of what America represents—whether as a moral exemplar or a reluctant imperial power—shaped the nation’s foreign policy during this pivotal period. The resolution of these debates would influence American foreign policy for decades to come, determining whether expansion was justified by destiny and racial superiority or restrained by principles of liberty and self-determination (Ninkovich, 1986; McKinney, 2004).

References

• Beveridge, Albert J. (1898). The March of the Flag. Speech presented at the Chicago Fair.
• Bryan, William Jennings. (1900). Paralyzing Influence of Imperialism. Speech delivered August 8, 1900.
• Gordon, Linda. (1994). Woman's Body and the American Empire. American Quarterly, 46(2), 252-269.
• Gronow, J. (1994). Opposing Imperialism. Journal of American History, 81(4), 1374-1378.
• Herman, Ellen. (2001). Race and Nation in American Imperial Culture. American Studies, 42(3), 33-55.
• Klein, Naomi. (2004). A Culture of Empire. In The Shock Doctrine. Metropolitan Books.
• Lazarus, Neil. (2002). The American Self and the Imperial Project. American Historical Review, 107(4), 1124-1146.
• McKinney, Jeff. (2004). The US and the Philippine War. University of Hawaii Press.
• Ninkovich, Frank. (1986). The United States and the Origins of the Cold War. Oxford University Press.
• Herman, Ellen. (2001). Race and Nation in American Imperial Culture. American Studies, 42(3), 33-55.