Arguments for and against overseas expansion raised a foreign policy debate in the late years of the 19th century to the early years of the 20th century. People favored overseas expansion because they wanted the American economy to grow. Missioners, who wanted to convert the inhabitants of the new lands, also propelled this new policy, and theories such as the Social Darwinism and the Manifest Destiny made people believed it was right for America to expand its frontiers and help the less fortune. But there were some who disagreed with overseas expansion because they looked at it as a hypocrisy act among Americans, or as a way of subjugating other nations just for America’s benefits. Some others were concerned that making contact with under-developed nations would eventually dilute their racial stock and the strength of America.
At the end of the 19th century the growth in population and in production led many people to look outward. By expanding, America would ensure that there would always be access to foreign markets for America’s surplus products to be sold. To fuel America’s industrial economy, people found expanding very beneficial. Overseas territories offered a cheap labor force allowing American goods to be made at a lower cost and were full of natural resources and raw materials, which could be very useful in American manufacturing. These foreign territories could serve as possible coaling stations for the battleships, or as military basis. Many businessmen found very advantageous this idea because they saw it as investment opportunities. They were willing to use their surplus capital to invest in the mines of Philippines or to start producing in Hawaii because they knew this would give them higher returns that investin...
... middle of paper ...
...also disagreed in subjugating other nations just because America thought is was superior, and there were some who did not want to see their blood mixed up with those of inferior cultures.
Works Cited
Brody, David and Henretta, James A. America a Concise History volume 2: Since
1865. Boston MA: Bedford / St. Martin’s, 2010. Print.
"Imperialism, 1890-1914 (Overview)." American History. ABC-CLIO, 2010. Web. 19
Feb. 2010. .
Lewis, Chris H. “The Spanish- America- Philippino War.” Colorado.edu. University
of Colorado at Boulder, 07 Aug. 2002. Web. 18 Feb. 2010.
"Spanish-American War." American History. ABC-CLIO, 2010. Web. 19 Feb. 2010.
.
Williams, William. “Non-Self Governing Territories.” Reader’s Companion to
American History, (1991): 364. Print.
This was elucidated by Hook and Spanier by discussing the perception of "American destiny" by some public officials. The view regarding country's difference from other nations "also allowed the United States to behave hypocritically by acting like other nations in its continental expansion while casting its motives in the noblest terms (Hook and Spanier, p. 10)." This explains the imperial methods that were conducted by the US for the past ...
The most predominate justification for imperialism, at least for business America, was to expand its economic interests throughout the world. First off, as the American domestic market for manufactured goods seemed to be shrinking many American business interests started search for ways to keep their businesses expanding; the best way to do this was to rival European imperialism and thus rival European markets (Hewitt, 622-624). Additionally, during the 1870s and 1890s the economy cycle was characterized with booms then busts but it wasn't until the depression of the 1890s did America see its greatest economic contraction; this led political and business leaders alike to search for foreign markets and create them (Hewitt, 623). Furthermore, not only were business leaders looking to sell their goods overseas by acquiring territories as a launch pad into new markets, an example of this was acquiring Guam and the Philippines to have easier access into the Chinese Market, but business leaders also looked to acquire te...
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 ...
Many people were in favor of U.S expansion around the world. There are three men though that are in favor of the expansion but had created arguments to back themselves up. Frederick Jackson Turner’s most famous argument was on devoted to the American Revolution, it was about the frontier or “Old West” in America. Turner was not one for war but sometimes he would write about war. He argued a few points in his work, The Frontier in American History. The first point that he argued was that a violent frontier was established from Georgia to New England as a result of the wars with France. He then made a point about the self-sufficient society that had also ben established on the frontier that was much different from the rest of society. Then he
The departure from previous expansionism (up to 1880) developed alongside the tremendous changes and amplifications of United States power (in government, economics, and military.) The growth in strength and size of the United States' navy gave the country many more opportunities to grow, explore, and expand both in size and money. The better range and build of ships allowed the U.S. to enter the far-east "trade and money" lands of the Philippines (eventually a territory) and China. Because of the huge production of agricultural goods and the need for outputs and markets for these goods, the United States needed to find other places for shipping, trading, buying, ...
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.
For many year, 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. The U.S., along with countries like Britain
The United States saw its territory more than double in the first three decades of the 19th century. Bursting with nationalist fervor, an insatiable desire for more land, and a rapidly increasing population, the western frontiers of the United States would not remain east of the Mississippi. The eventual spread of the American nation beyond the Mississippi into Native and French land, referred to as “Manifest Destiny” by John O’Sullivan, was rationalized as a realization of their God given duty. The Louisiana Purchase set the precedent for unrestricted westward expansion in America, and allowed for others to follow in his footsteps. Characterized by racist overtones, a lack of the “consent of the governed, and ethnic cleansing, there is no valid distinction between this American continental expansion and the international expansion sought by Europe in the late 19th and 20th centuries, and is clearly imperialist in nature.
How do you see progress, as a process that is beneficial or in contrast, that it´s a hurtful process that everyone at one point of their lives has to pass through it? At the time, progress was beneficial for the United States, but those benefits came with a cost, such cost that instead of advancements and developments being advantageous factors for humanity, it also became a harmful process in which numerous people were affected in many facets of life. This all means that progress is awsome to achieve, but when achieved, people have to realize the process they had to do to achieve it, which was stepping on other people to get there.
After the American Frontier was officially closed according to the 1890 census, the push for American Imperialism increased to expand American opportunity. The Spanish American War in 1898 also lead to American Imperialism. The defeat of Spain left Guam, Puerto Rico, Cuba, and the Philippines to the United States. Most Americans during the turn of the 19th century were Christian Anglo Saxons who believed in Social Darwinism, or the idea of “survival of the fittest”. This lead to many Americans wanting to Americanize the obtained Spanish territories. The United States had also annexed Hawaii in 1898, which made many Americans question American Imperialism (c). Groups such as the Anti Imperialist League, lead the debate on whether Imperialism was proper and legal. American Imperialism during the early 20th century was proper because it helped American Industry and went along with the popular idea of social darwinism, but it was not legitimate because Imperialism went against the Constitution, and disagreed with America’s founding fathers’ views on foreign
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 major American aspiration during the 1790s through the 1860s was westward expansion. Americans looked to the western lands as an opportunity for large amounts of free land, for growth of industry, and manifest destiny. This hunger for more wealth and property, led Americans conquer lands that were rightfully someone else's. Manifest destiny and westward expansion brought many problematic issues to the Unites States verses the Indians that took the Americans to the Civil War.
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.
To what extent was the late nineteenth-century and early twentieth century United States expansionism a continuation of past United States expansionism and to what extent was it a departure?
Additionally, strategic concerns were contributing factors in expansionism. Since the U.S. wanted to expand and trade with foreign countries, it ensured that other countries were stable and open to trade. This was demonstrated in China and the Open-Door market. There was also the belief that Europeans would dominate the market if America did not become involved. Finally, Americans used their involvement in wars with foreign countries to build the U.