How Is Imperialism Different From Old Manifest Destiny

During the late 19th century and early 20th century, Manifest Destiny was a popular concept in America that meant that American settlers were destined to expand throughout the world and its lands. After the Civil War, America faced a period of Reconstruction, in which the country was truly able to restore itself, expanding Westward. Later on in the time period, America had transformed into an industrial nation, which sparked competition among other countries. Although New Manifest Destiny of the late 19th century and early 20th century was in some instances a departure from Old Manifest Destiny, however, in other instances, it was a continuation of earlier expansionist policies. To begin with, Imperialism was different from Old Manifest Destiny

because there was a more apparent military benefit of expanding, protection and buffers overseas would be new factors that would motivate new expansionism. Also, there would be a common motivation between Imperialism and old Expansionism of which was to find new resources, expand trade, and obtain more land. Lastly, both eras had religious justification for their expansionist ideals.
To begin with, Imperialism was different from Old Manifest Destiny because of the prevalent benefits of the military in their expansion, protection, and buffering endeavors overseas.

These benefits had a direct correlation with the encouragement of expansionism. From the origins of the Anglo Saxon America, the most obvious enemy of the Whites were the Native Americans. However, through much work, whites were successfully able to force assimilation on the Native Americans. As Imperialism became apparent in the late 19th century and early 20th century, historians can agree that military and political reasons were factors of imperialism. As evidenced by war with Spain and the Treaty of PAris, the United States would be given lands including Puerto Rico, Guam, and other territories. An example is Alfred T Mahan, who wrote “The Influence of Sea Power on History” which suggests that those countries that have the best Sea power, ends up having the most control over the world. America was able to grow during this period, which resulted in much gained

land.
In addition, there would be a common motivation between Imperialism and Old Expansionism of which was to find new resources, expand trade, and obtain more land. The exponential increase in production witnessed in these countries demanded new markets to sustain growth. In the last quarter of the 19th century, these nations, and occasionally a few others, actively sought colonies to provide raw materials for industry, markets for products and strategic locations in which to base military defense outposts. Americans took note of these events, and many thought we should pursue a foreign policy with similar goals. To not act, it was argued, would inevitably lead to economic stagnation and second class status in the community of nations. Some anti-imperialists argued a moral position: it was wrong to subjugate others for our advantage. Many remembered the crusade of abolitionism, and were ready to apply the same standards of human rights to people in faraway lands. Other anti-imperialists, believers in Anglo-Saxon superiority, voiced concern for the ways in which contact with “tropical people” would eventually dilute our racial stock and diminish our institutions.
Lastly, both eras had religious justification for their expansionist ideals.

MAnifest claimed that America had a destiny, manifest, i.e., self-evident, from God to occupy the North American continent south of Canada.Both the Spanish and the French monarchs authorized and financed exploration of the “New World” because, among other things, they considered it their divinely appointed mission to spread Christianity to the New World by converting the natives to Christianity. Coming later to the venture, the British and especially the New England Puritans carried with them a demanding sense of Providential purpose.Winthrop delivered his lay sermon just before he and his fellow passengers disembarked on the shore of Boston harbor, the place, Winthrop proposed, to which God had called them to build up a model Bible commonwealth for Protestants in England and elsewhere to emulate. “Thus stands the cause between God and us. We are entered into Covenant with him for this work, we have taken out a commission.” Such are the basic outlines of the idea of America’s “chosenness” and providential destiny and mission that not only underlay the invocation of the nation’s “Manifest Destiny” as the rationale for the United States to extend its boundaries to the Pacific Ocean. It is also the constellation of ideas that has informed American nationalism and its actions at home and abroad to this

day.
Although New Manifest Destiny of the late 19th century and early 20th century was in some instances a departure from Old Manifest Destiny, however, in other instances, it was a continuation of earlier expansionist policies. We can see today, the continuation of the results of expansionism through America’s acquiring of territories including Puerto Rico, Guam, and others.