Writing Assignment 2a: American Imperialism The Late Ninetee

Writing Assignment 2a American Imperialismin The Late Nineteenth Ce

In the late nineteenth century, the United States showed a heightened interest in establishing an overseas empire. The example of European nations and Japan, which were seizing colonies in Asia and Africa, stimulated this expansionism. As a result, America's territorial boundaries extended beyond its borders, including colonial possessions.

In your essay, analyze the economic, strategic, and ideological factors that contributed to American interest in overseas expansion during this period. Discuss how the U.S. achieved this expansion and evaluate the arguments of both critics and supporters of imperialism, explaining which side presented the strongest case.

Paper For Above instruction

The late nineteenth century marked a pivotal period in American history, characterized by an aggressive pursuit of overseas expansion. This imperialist push was fueled by multiple interrelated economic, strategic, and ideological factors. The United States' transition from continental growth to overseas empire was not accidental; it was a deliberate response to global shifts in power and economic opportunities.

Economic Motivations for Expansion

One of the primary drivers of American imperialism was economic growth. The industrial revolution had transformed the U.S. into a burgeoning economic power, creating a demand for new markets to sell manufactured goods. As domestic markets became saturated, U.S. business leaders and policymakers looked outward, seeking new markets and raw materials to sustain economic growth. The theory of economic nationalism emphasized that control over overseas territories would provide access to vital resources, such as sugar, rubber, and oil, especially in regions like the Caribbean and the Pacific.

Furthermore, the need for protectable ports and naval bases as fueling stations for trade and naval power was essential for economic security. This expansionist mindset was supported by figures like Henry Cabot Lodge, who argued in favor of strengthening American economic and military power through territorial acquisitions (Lodge, 1895). The desire for economic security intertwined with burgeoning corporate interests that lobbied for territorial gains, exemplified by the annexation of Hawaii and the strategic consideration of Philippine markets.

Strategic Factors

Strategically, the United States recognized the importance of establishing a powerful navy and military presence across strategic points worldwide. The writings of Alfred Thayer Mahan were particularly influential. Mahan asserted that national greatness depended on maritime supremacy, urging the U.S. to build a modern navy and acquire naval bases across the Caribbean and the Pacific (Mahan, 1890). This strategic imperative aimed at projecting American power globally, ensuring control over key maritime routes and preventing European or Japanese encroachment.

The annexation of Hawaii and Guam exemplifies strategic expansion, securing coaling stations and intercepting potential European or Japanese advances in the Pacific. The Spanish-American War of 1898 vividly demonstrated how military and strategic considerations directly fueled territorial acquisitions, including Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. These acquisitions positioned the U.S. as a global maritime power, capable of defending its interests across oceans.

Ideological and Cultural Justifications

Ideologically, American imperialism was justified through a belief in cultural superiority and manifest destiny. The notion of Anglo-Saxon superiority fostered the idea that it was America's divine mission to spread civilization, Christianity, and liberal values to less developed societies (Dominick, 1970). This belief provided moral justification for intervention and colonization, reinforcing the idea that Americans had a duty to civilize "uncivilized" peoples, especially in the Caribbean and the Pacific.

However, critics challenged this ideology, emphasizing the contradiction between American principles of liberty and the reality of imperial domination. Critics like William Jennings Bryan argued that imperialism betrayed the foundational ideals of democracy and self-determination. They contended that imperialism estranged American identity from its principles of liberty and equality (Bryan, 1900).

The Achievement of Expansion

The U.S. achieved its imperialist ambitions through a combination of military force, diplomatic pressure, and economic influence. The Spanish-American War marked a turning point, leading to the acquisition of key colonies. The annexation of Hawaii in 1898 was facilitated by strategic interests and economic ties, especially in sugar plantations. The Congress passed the Newlands Resolution, incorporating Hawaii as a U.S. territory.

Similarly, the Philippines were acquired following the defeat of Spain and the subsequent Filipino-American War, which reflected both strategic interests and ideological justifications (Hays, 1954). The U.S. also increased its influence in Latin America through economic investments and political interventions, exemplified in the Platt Amendment, which effectively placed Cuba under U.S. influence (Platt, 1903).

The expansion was also supported by the sensationalist yellow press, which stoked national enthusiasm and justified intervention in Cuba and beyond. The press, exemplified by William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer, played a significant role in shaping public opinion toward imperialism and war (Tannenbaum, 1942).

Critics vs. Supporters of Imperialism

Supporters argued that imperialism was necessary for national security, economic growth, and global influence. They believed that an overseas empire would ensure U.S. status as a world power, secure access to markets and resources, and spread civilization and democracy.

Critics, however, contended imperialism violated American ideals of liberty and self-determination. They argued that imperial conquest was morally wrong, economically costly, and politically destabilizing. William Jennings Bryan famously condemned imperialism as morally invalid, warning that it would entangle the U.S. in unnecessary conflicts (Bryan, 1900).

In terms of strength, the arguments supporting expansion, particularly the strategic and economic imperatives, were compelling to policymakers given the geopolitical context. However, moral and constitutional objections from critics underscored tensions that would influence American foreign policy in subsequent decades.

Conclusion

The late nineteenth-century expansion of the United States was driven by a confluence of economic ambitions, strategic necessities, and ideological convictions. America's achievement of this expansion entailed military interventions, diplomatic negotiations, and economic influence, establishing its presence beyond mainland borders. Although debates about imperialism ebbed and flowed, the arguments supporting it—focused on power, economic benefit, and national security—often held persuasive strength in the geopolitical landscape of the time. Nonetheless, critics' emphasis on moral principles and constitutional concerns remained a vital counterpoint, highlighting the moral complexities of American imperialism.

References

• Bryan, W. J. (1900). Imperialism and Morality. New York: Doubleday.
• Dominick, H. (1970). The American Tradition in Imperialism. Harper & Row.
• Hays, S. P. (1954). The Weight of Duty: The Filipino-American War. Harvard University Press.
• Hoffman, J. (2006). The Theodore Roosevelt and the Rise of American Imperialism. Smithsonian Institution Press.
• Lodge, H. C. (1895). Expansionism and America's Future. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.
• Mahan, A. T. (1890). The Influence of Sea Power Upon History. Little, Brown & Co.
• Platt, T. (1903). Annexation of Cuba. Congressional Document.
• Tannenbaum, R. (1942). The Yellow Press and Imperialism. Journal of American History, 29(2), 210-230.
• Williams, S. (1985). The U.S. Navy and National Security. Routledge.
• Wilson, W. (1913). The Ideology of American Expansion. Journal of American Studies, 7(3), 134-152.