American foreign policy of the late 19th century is often defined by the manner with which it had asserted itself onto the world stage, namely in terms of its reinvigoration of the Monroe Doctrine and its new found sense of imperial expansion. Though it is true that such incidents as the War of 1812, and such notions as Manifest Destiny had demonstrated these characteristics, it seems that the expansionist zeal of the latter part of the century was differed significantly. To start, both periods did, however, remain quite similar in that they both justified expansion with notions of Anglo-Saxon supremacy, and of spreading the benefits of Western, Christian civilization. Outside of this singular similarity, one may find major discrepancies, specifically in terms of the manner whereby such imperialist pursuits were conducted, and in the subsequent questions raised, particularly by opponents of such endeavours. The former notion is perhaps most evident in the late 19th century emphasis on naval power and in its extension of the Monroe Doctrine; the latter being found in the new concerns with the constitutionality and morality of acquiring foreign lands. Essentially, imperial expansion of the late 1800’s remained quite similar to preceding ventures in the justification espoused by its opponents, particularly in their employment of Anglo-Saxonism, but completely differed in its methods of, and questions raised by, garnering direct, or more often indirect, control over new territories.
The notion that America should not only be allowed to, but in fact must, acquire new land so to spread the democracy, the Christianity and the modernity inherent of Western society most definitely pre-dated the expansionism demonstrated by the United St...
... middle of paper ...
...lief which parallels the reasoning behind previous movements such as that of Manifest Destiny. However, continental America has already been settled, and thus, new horizons have been opened, necessitating the adoption of new methods for expansion: namely an enlargement of the scope of the Monroe Doctrine - as evident in the Roosevelt Corollary - in conjunction with a newfound emphasis on naval power. This greatly contrasts with earlier expansionism, which focused on the obtainment of Western American territory through a policy of resettlement of natives and of providing incentives for Americans so to push the frontier further westward. Therefore, one can rightly assume that the imperialism characteristic of American foreign policy during the 19th century’s last few decades experienced a significant divergence from earlier precedents, in spite of similar ideologies.
Susan Harris’s book God’s Arbiters explores the religious rhetoric when discussing expansion of the United States. She focuses solely on the time period of 1898 through 1902. In this book, Harris calls on the works of numerous poets, authors, and political figures to show the perception of the United States imperialist motives from outside the borders. Harris uses Mark Twain as an epigraph at the beginning of the book with the quotation “I am an anti-imperialist.” Drawing upon authors such as Rudyard Kipling and his pro-annexation story The White Man’s Burden, Harris shows both sides of the debate through authors and poets alike. This use of writers offers an interesting perspective to the argument for and against imperialism, furthermore offering a look into the minds of intellectuals of the period. The main issue addressed by Harris is
Throughout most of the nineteenth century, the United States expanded its territory westward through purchase and annexation. At the end of the century, however, expansion became imperialism, as America acquired several territories overseas. This policy shift from expansionism to imperialism came about as a result of American's experience in the Spanish American War and the Congressional debates that followed the American victory.
At the turn of the century, and after gaining our independence, the United States land mass more than doubled through the use of purchasing, annexing, and war. However, the foreign policy of our government took a predominately isolationist stand. This was a national policy of abstaining from political or economic relations with other countries. General Washington shaped these values by upholding and encouraging the use of these principles by warning to avoid alliances in his farewell speech. The reasoning behind these actions was that the Republic was a new nation. We did not have the resources or the means to worry about other countries and foreign affairs; our immediate efforts were internal. Our goals that were of primary importance were setting up a democratic government and jump-starting a nation. The United States foreign policy up to and directly preceding the Civil War was mainly Isolationist. After the war, the government helped bring together a nation torn apart by war, helped improved our industrialization, and helped further populate our continent. We were isolationist in foreign affairs, while expanding domestically into the west and into the north through the purchase of Alaska. However, around 1890 the expansionism that had taken place was a far cry from what was about to happen. Expansionism is the nations practice or policy ...
The late 1800’s was a watershed moment for the United States, during which time the Industrial Revolution and the desire for expansion brought about through Manifest Destiny, began to run parallel. Following the end of the Spanish-American war, the United States found itself with a wealth of new territory ceded to it from the dying Spanish empire. The issue of what to do with these new lands became a source of debate all the way up to the U.S. Congress. Men like Albert J. Beveridge, a Senator from Indiana, advocated the annexation, but not necessarily the incorporation of these new l...
From western expansion to foreign imperialism the United States has always been an expansionist country. Early America’s focus was to conquer the natives and obtain western land within North America, but in the latter of America’s history, specifically in the nineteenth and twentieth century, foreign imperialism became the new focus. America’s activity in foreign imperialism was a continuation and departure of the United States’ early expansionism. It was a continuation in terms of manifest destiny, the spread of Christianity, and by the concept of “the city on a hill” and a departure in terms of foreign involvement.
United States expansionism in the late nineteenth-century and early twentieth-century is both a continuation and a departure of past United States expansionism. Expansionism in the United States has occurred for many reasons. Power (from land), religion, economics, and the ideas of imperialism and manifest destiny are just a few reasons why the U.S. decided to expand time and again throughout the course of its 231 year history. Expansionism has evolved throughout the years as the inhabitants of the country have progressed both socially (the Second Great Awakening, the women's suffrage movement, the populist party and the early 19th and 20th century social reformers) and economically (factories, better farms, more jobs, etc.) Expansion changed from non-interference policies to the democratic control of the government as the United States grew in both size and population. Through the use of the documents and events during two major-expansion time periods (1776-1880) and 1880-1914), I will display both the continuation and departure trends of United States expansionism.
Before considering Professor X’s assertion that the Roosevelt Corollary actually corrupted the Monroe Doctrine’s “benevolent intent,” it is worth considering whether or not the Monroe Docterine was as benevolent as the unnamed professor seems to suggest. Professor X considers Monroe’s 1823 Doctrine an act of benevolence, in which an increasingly dominant world power generously extends protection over its continental neighbors. Yet the Professor ignores the inherently imperialistic subtext that is contained within the Doctrine, and thus his comparison of the Monroe Doctrine to the Roosevelt Corollary omits a fundamental aspect of America’s colonialist history.
The United States of America has never been content with stagnation. The landmass of the Thirteen Colonies was enough to rival that of the Mother country from which they separated. The forefathers believed that it was the manifest destiny of this nation to eventually claim the expansion from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. By 1890, nearly a hundred years following the original claim of Manifest Destiny, the land that was once open, was now under American control. But no sooner was the Great American Frontier closed, than was the door to East Asian expansion opened with the great gold key of American diplomacy. In a world where imperialism was contagious, and cartographers had to work around the clock to keep up with an ever-changing geopolitical landscape, the United States seized the opportunity to establish herself as a significant world power. With great expansionist minds at her helm, such as Theodore Roosevelt and Howard Taft the United States began to grow beyond her border to claim stake in this wide-open world. This new expansionism of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century was a different institution than its early to mid nineteenth century counterpart. Still, the drive to exercise the sovereignty of the United State and to propel itself over the world’s stage was the same then as it was in the time of Thomas Jefferson. In order to understand this assertion, attention must be given to three levels of analysis. First, the similarities that exist between the drive and purpose of old and new expansion must be taken into account. Second, the differences in the global political scene must be considered. Finally, there exits differences in the means by which expansion occurred.
The United States, as a young nation, had the desire to expand westward and become a true continental United States that stretched from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Various factors, strategic and economic, contributed to the desire to expand westward. According to John O’Sullivan, as cited by Hestedt in Manifest Destiny 2004; "the U.S. had manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence to the free development of our yearly multiplying millions" (¶2). As Americans ventured westward to settle the frontier, their inherent superior beliefs, culture and the principles of democracy accompanied them. America’s ruthless ambition to fulfill its manifest destiny had a profound impact on the nation’s economy, social systems and foreign and domestic policies; westward expansion was a tumultuous period in American History that included periods of conflict with the Native Americans and Hispanics and increased in sectionalism that created the backdrop for the Civil War.
Expansionism in the late 19th/ Early 20th century Expansionism in America during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century shared many similarities and differences to that of previous American expansionist ideals. In both cases of American expansionism, the Americans believed that we must expand our borders in order to keep the country running upright. Also, the Americans believed that the United States was the strongest of nations, and that they could take any land they pleased. This is shown in the "manifest destiny" of the 1840's and the "Darwinism" of the late 1800's and early 1900's. Apart from the similarities, there were also several differences that included the American attempt to stretch their empire across the seas and into other parts of the world.
During the late 1800s and 1900s in various societies, imperialism played a major role. Imperialism consists of a country's domination of an economic and cultural life in another country. Within the 1800s and 1900s, Europe became a large-scale global leader. Europeans set up colonies all over the world, specifically Africa, India, China, and Japan. Imperialism is viewed through two different major points such as the imperialist and colonialist.
Like previous American expansion, American imperialism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was motivated by desire for new economic gains and improvements. However, the social justification, diplomatic and military approach and geographical aspect of imperialist expansionism varied greatly from previous American growth. Therefore, American expansionism underwent more change in this period than continuity. For many years, the American boundaries expanded as people moved, at the governments urging, westward for new economic opportunities and later imperialist expansion was no different. While many factors contributed, economic possibility was a driving factor in the expansionist aspirations.
“History never says goodbye. History says see you later” (Eduardo Galeano). History teaches us valuable lessons from the past, which can be used for the present time, yet our leaders usually overlook these lessons and repeat previous mistakes. I have recently immigrated to the United States and since in my home country history classes are not a place to really discuss the history, I was amazed by the way that this history class challenged every event and fact. I have learned that history is told by bias, so we should be able to think critically and question what we are taught. History is usually written by the dominant group of the society, so if we are looking for the truth, we should study each event from different resources and different
At the end of 1800s and early 1900s, U.S start taking control and expand all over the
As shown, America’s rapid change as the 19th century came to a close was supported by a various amount of imperialistic beliefs, motives, and incidents that almost jumpstarted the U.S. onto the world stage. Many of these incidents such as the public’s thirst for expansion, the annexation of several faraway lands, and the build-up of U.S. military forces would not have been possible without the Spanish American War. Moreover, the Spanish American war would not have been possible without the American people. Imperialism was a consequence of the American Democratic experiment, giving the people what they want.