Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The reconstruction after the American civil war
Imperialism events 19th century
The effect of the civil war in the USA
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The reconstruction after the American civil war
The end of the American Civil War saw the country enter a period of isolationism , during which the nation sought to heal itself and regain internal stability. The conflict had left many states ravaged by war and resentment still lingered on both sides. In an effort to reunify the country, Americans chose to concentrate on domestic issues rather than international matters. During this time of reconstruction in America, there arose a small following of persons dedicated to bringing about an American Monarchy. These men became dubbed imperialists, because they sought to turn America into an empire, in the traditions of Caesar’s Roman Empire. While the movement never garnered enough serious support to become viable, it did spur much debate over …show more content…
Some in America continued to decry the policy as being wrong, and bad for America. The supporters of imperialism were quick to point to the drastic increase in America’s economic standing and all but silenced these dissenters. Of course, the anti-imperialists were never truly silenced. Even today we see a Democratic party more concerned with domestic issues and internal stability, while the Republicans seem to continue to embrace their heritage of global influence. During the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, the expansionism was known as new imperialism. The term was a carry-over from European imperialist endeavors, which had surged before dying out years before. These European countries had again turned to imperialism during this time, earning the age the title of new imperialism (Magdoff 117). While America’s imperialist ambitions never really disappeared, they have ebbed and surged. Some would cite the end of the nineteenth century as a unique time for America’s expansions, but it does not appear that imperialism has changed very much throughout human history. Even today, America cannot resist the base urge to expand its influence around the globe. In recent years wars have been fought in Iraq and Afghanistan for the proclaimed purpose of fighting a terrorist threat against America. Following the dismantling of the terror networks, the United States set forth to construct new governments in these countries. The ultimate goal would be the stabilization of the region by nations now sympathetic to American interests. This is much like the case of Cuba and its liberation from Spain. Of course, like Cuba eventually turned on America, it appears that America may be losing control of its interests in the Middle East. History does indeed repeat
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 ...
It is somehow strange for today’s reader to find out that the situation with America’s foreign affairs hasn’t changed much. As some clever people have said, “The History book on the shelf is always repeating itself.” Even after nineteen years, Americans think of themselves as citizens of the strongest nation in the world. Even after the September the 11th. Even after Iraq. And Afghanistan.
Throughout the course of history, nations have invested time and manpower into the colonizing and modernizing of more rural governments. Imperialism has spread across the globe, from the British East India Company to France’s occupation of Northern Africa. After their founding in 1776, the United States of America largely stayed out of this trend until The Spanish-American War of 1898. Following the war, the annexation and colonization of Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines ultimately set a precedent for a foreign policy of U.S. imperialism.
and stay true to the founding ideals (God, the belief in Manifest Destiny, etc.). The imperialistic ideals and highly effective policies and notions of both the "new" (1880-1914) and "old" (1776-1880) expansion periods are what truly allowed the United States to succeed, thrive, and grow into the amazingly prosperous, large, successful country that it is today.
I had learned lots of new things this year and especially this semester in U.S. History Since 1877. This history course required all students to complete twenty hours of service learning or to write a term paper. After considering the two options, I decided to give the service learning a chance because I thought it would be an interesting experience. There were a variety of projects to choose from, but I felt that the Sustainability Project was the right fit for me.
Imperialism is when a mother nation takes over another nation and become its colony for political, social, and economical reasons. Imperialism is a progressive force for both the oppressors (mother country) and the oppressed (colony), majorly occurring during the late 19th and early 20th century. It had more negative effects than positive effects due to its domination to other nations.
In the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, Imperialism was a popular trend among the large, powerful countries. Imperialism is defined as “The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations”. Imperialism cannot be said as either good or bad, but as a general rule: If you live in an annexed country, imperialism is not good, if your country annexes smaller ones to gain profit, land, and respect, then imperialism is good. The United States was not much of an imperialistic country until we won the Spanish-American war. As a result of this war, we annexed Guam, the Philippines, and Puerto Rico.
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.
Immediately following the war with Spain, the United States had both the political will to pursue imperial policies and the geopolitical circumstances conducive to doing so. But the way in which these policies would manifest was an open question; was the impulse to actively remake the world in America’s Anglo-Saxon image justified? Hence, there were several models of American imperialism at the turn of the twentieth century. In the Philippines, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Samoa, the United States asserted unwavering political control. In Cuba, and later throughout most of the Caribbean basin, the economic and political domination of customarily sovereign governments became the policy. Ultimately, the United States was able to expand its territory
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.
After the civil war, United States took a turn that led them to solidify as the world power. From the late 1800s, as the US began to collect power through Cuba, Hawaii, and the Philippines, debate arose among historians about American imperialism and its behavior. Historians such as William A. Williams, Arthur Schlesinger, and Stephen Kinzer provides their own vision and how America ought to be through ideas centered around economics, power, and racial superiority.
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.
There is one key difference between America and other empires from the past that I think is the deal breaker. We don’t think of ourselves as an empire. American’s never refer to it themselves as imperialists. We don’t like the word. The British liked the fact that they where an empire. It was a source of national pride that they had colonized nearly a quarter of the globe. To many in Britain today it still is. For the British being an empire was not something you did secretly and then claimed not to be as many accuse America of doing.
American imperialism has had a big influence on the world. We are notorious for expanding our trading. There have been some concerns considering if American imperialism is justified or not. There are many reasons why it is justified and there are four philosophies that work together to justify it. These are Frederick Jackson Turner, The Significance of the Frontier on American History, Alfred T. Mahan, The United States Looking Outward, Herbert Spencer’s Social Darwinism, and John Fiske's take on Social Darwinism.
Elements of self-interest primarily overshadow considerations of morality and justice. “Purely moral considerations play no part at all in Thucydides judgement of Athenian Imperialism” , is questionable as he cautiously advocates its ability to act as an effective constraint when individuals consider the utility of their actions. Within society there is a foundational commitment to conventions of justice, but within the presence of political and social upheaval such restraints dissolve meaning humans revert back to their natural ambitions of self-help. Therefore ethical compulsions are merely temporary. Doyle supports this by suggesting morals are subordinate as the needs of security and personal gain take superiority. Although humans are