In the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the United States expanded its territory by going overseas. They acquired many islands in an attempt to expand their influence upon the world. This oversea expansion, however, was met with split opinions on the matter. The views upon overseas expansion were divided due to conflicting opinions upon the social impact, anti European imperialism, and the desire to become a factor in world politics. One of the prime issues that divided opinion on the impact of overseas expansion was the social issues that were brought up during expansion. An example of how social issues were affected can be seen in document 1, where E.E. Cooper, and African American editor, explains to his readers how fighting …show more content…
for the U.S during expansion will cause those that had treated them poorly to find respect and diminish the racial prejudice of that era. Many minorities supported the conquest and annexation of islands because it allowed for a way for them to prove themselves to society. In contrast, people such as Jane Addams in document 4 opposed expansion due to the negative social impacts it had on society. The militaristic success of expansion along with the annexation of new territories and peoples cause for a renewed sense of nativism to spawn in the U.S. It was feared that these new peoples that became part of the U.S due to expansion would come and compete for jobs in mainland U.S.A. This threat to the job security of many caused them to oppose American expansion. Another issue present during the United State’s overseas expansion was the consensus of protecting the western hemisphere from that of European influence.
As shown in document 3, one of the prime reasons the U.S got involved in the philippines and various central american countries was to eliminate the European influence from these nations. The Monroe Doctrine solidified our stance against European imperialism in the America’s. Opposition to this idealism is usually displayed in protest of the far and ever expanding reach of the United State’s interventionism. Document 7 shows a satirical comic showing how out of place the conquest of the philippines was when compared to the other nations the U.S had intervened in at the time. It criticized the U.S’s abuse of it’s power upon these other nations who were believed to be inferior and not worth the cost to conquest and control them. This anti-imperialist sentiment was more nativist than …show more content…
moral. Additionally, the U.S’s attempt to achieve prestige in a worldwide political sphere played factor to the opinions of those judging American Overseas Expansion.
The U.S tried to play a role in worldwide politics in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. With promising markets developing in China, the U.S needed a path to Asia. It’s overseas expansion was the key to this path as they could use the island nations they had taken and use them as “stepping stones” for a path to China. This brought upon resistance through whether the U.S had overstepped its boundaries and pushed too hard for this path. Document 6 shows this anti-imperialist view in which William Jennings Bryan proclaims that the acquisition of overseas territories such as the Philippines was the action of an Empire and that a Republic can never be an Empire. His views are influenced by the inherent Nativism present in society. It is an opposed view in which the U.S was hurting itself in its goal for world power rather than help itself. Document 2 reinforces this ideal, with William Graham Sumner bashing at the U.S’s attempt to become a colonial power much like Spain was in the
1500s. To conclude, the views of United States oversea expansion varied due to issues relating to the matter at hand. These issues that affected the views of the United States’ colonial expansion were the social impact upon the U.S, anti European imperialism sentiment, and the desire to turn the U.S into a player in world politics. These issues led to contrasting ideals upon whether to support or opposed the U.S oversea expansion in which both anti-imperialist and imperialist sentiments were expressed for different reasons.
The late1890s signaled an imperial expansion of the United States. After the victory of the Spanish American War and the Annexation of Hawaii, the U.S. had successfully expanded its borders overseas. Through the Treaty of Paris 1898, the United States acquired territories in the Caribbean and the Pacific. For example, the Philippines, Guam, Puerto Rico, and Cuba were all obtained from the Treaty of Paris. That same year the U.S. also Annexed Hawaii into the Union. This massive expansion into the Caribbean and especially the Pacific created a political clash between Imperialist and Anti-Imperialist. During this time Anti-Imperialist and Hawaiian political leaders argued that the mistreatment of indigenous people was unethical. On the other hand, Imperialist like Albert Beveridge supported Imperialism. In Beveridge’s speech “The March of the Flag” (1898) he expressed imperialism was the Anglo-Saxon way, because it improved the prosperity of these islands and expanded American borders. Also, he stated that it’s America’s
The first reason the United States should have annexed the Philippines is because it is our duty to as a country to spread the values of democracy overseas. For example, as stated here in Albert J. Beveridge’s campaign speech he says, “ Do we owe no duty to the world?… it is ours to save for liberty and civilization (Doc B).” He is saying that it is our duty as a sovereign nation to help an uncivilized nation modernize, industrialize, . another example, is from William Mcki...
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
During the early to mid eighteen hundreds, there was great unrest across the country over territorial expansion. Half of the nation believed that it would be beneficial to the country if we expanded, while the other half were firmly opposed to expansion. Within the century, the United States managed to claim Texas, California, and the majority of Indian-owned lands. Opinions on this expansion were mixed around the country. Polls taken during the time period show that the majority of the south and west supported expansion, while northerns were opposed to it. (Document B) This was because the northerners had different values and beliefs than the southerners of westerners. Both the opponents and supporters of territorial expansion during the time period between 1800 and 1855, had a tremendous influence on shaping federal government policy. However, it can be argued that the supporters of territorial expansion had the largest impact. They were able to sway the federal government to create policies and new laws that were in favor of supporter’s beliefs.
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.
A reason America wanted to expand was because they wanted their economy to thrive. After the Spanish American war, Hawaii became extremely important to the US for business uses. Eventually, Hawaii and the US signed a trade treaty which allowed Hawaiian sugar to be sold in America. Soon after, President Mckinley decided to annex Hawaii because there were a lot of factors about Hawaii that could benefit America. The annexation of Hawaii allowed America to create more naval stations in order to protect it’s world trade. The growth of America’s economy was partly because of Hawaii's goods. The economy of the US would not be as successful as it is today if we did not expand our borders. The US had the most advanced economy, but that didn’t stop them from trying to achieve more success which leads to my second evidence. America needed new markets to sell US-made goods as well as raw materials like sugar and oil. So America’s plan was to trade with China and expand their trade routes. America didn’t want to risk the chances of losing trade opportunities with Japan, Africa, China and other nations so they had the intention of expanding abroad. Furthermore, the US was able to have a successful and wealthy economy by expanding
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.
It is the intention of this essay to explain the United States foreign policy behind specific doctrines. In order to realize current objectives, this paper will proceed as follows: Part 1 will define the Monroe Doctrine, Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 will concurrently explicate the Roosevelt Corollary, Good Neighbor Policy, and the Nixon Doctrine, discuss how each policy resulted in U.S. involvement in Latin American countries, describe how it was justified by the U.S. government, respectively, and finally, will bring this paper to a summation and conclusion.
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.
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.
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.
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 variety 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. . Works Cited http://www.course-notes.org/us_history/notes/the_american_pageant_14th_edition_textbook_notes/chapter_27_empire_and_expansion_18
In 1898, in an effort to free Cuba from the oppression of its Spanish colonizers, America captured the Philippines. This brought about questions of what America should do with the Philippines. Soon, controversy ensued both in the American political arena as well as among its citizens. Throughout its history, America had always been expansionistic, but it had always limited itself to the North American continent. Beginning in the mid-nineteenth century, however, there emerged a drive to expand outside of the continent. When America expanded to the Philippines, the policy it followed was a stark break from past forms of expansionism. Despite much controversy, America followed the example of the imperialistic nations in Europe and sought to conquer the Philippines as an imperialist colony that they would rule either directly or indirectly.