 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
| Non-fiction and essays |
||||||||||||
| University essays |
||||||||||||
| American Studies First Year |
||||||||||||
| Introduction 102 |
||||||||||||
| Why did the US emerge as an imperialist power in the late nineteenth century despite its own anti-colonial history? (AMST 102, Spring 2002) In the 1890s, and indeed prior to that decade, the United States were fast becoming the leading industrial power in the world. The American people had expanded throughout the continent, creating markets and economic opportunities from coast to coast. However, through a combination of factors, including over- production, and the need for new markets, American eyes turned ‘outward, instead of inward only to seek the welfare of the country.’# This meant looking to foreign markets, notably Asia and Central America to alleviate the economic crisis. Albert J Beveridge, writing in 1898 expressed the situation: Today we are raising more than we can consume. Today we are making more than we can use. Today our industrial society is congested, there are more workers than there is work; there is more capital than there is investment…Therefore we must find new markets for our produce, new occupation for our capital, new work for our labour.# Therefore, these contemporary viewpoints suggest that the evolving imperialist nature of the United States was as a result of a growing necessity for market expansion overseas. The possession of territories of her own to act as a basis for these economic inroads became essential. For, in the words of Charles Denby: Commerce, not politics is king. The manufacturer and the merchant dictate to diplomacy and control elections.# However, while I will argue commercial reasons were the driving force behind America’s imperialist policy, other factors must be considered as possible explanations for the growth of American imperialism. There were ideological factors at work, the so-called ‘social-Darwinism’ theory. Another important factor was the influence of powerful people in the period, notably Theodore Roosevelt, who would seek to bring domestic squabbles to an end by uniting the nation in a new era of expansion. A period of industrial growth preceded the United States’ emergence as an imperialist power. However, the American production levels were far higher than their rate of internal consumption, a situation brought about by ‘an economy that was chaotic, unstable, unplanned and unpredictable.’# There was a problem of over- production, one that could not be solved by further internal developments, as put forward by Andrew Carnegie in his ‘Law of Surplus’: [The Law of Surplus] posited that the fixed costs of modern industrialisation demanded constant, full productivity; that the home market could not absorb the resulting surplus; and that foreign markets offered the only solution to that contradictory situation.# This idea would provide the impetus for American expansion. Businesses needed foreign markets in order to keep growing. In order to accomplish this, they needed footholds overseas. A Senator at the time, John McLaurin, discusses what course the United States should take with regards to the Philippines, illustrating the contemporary approach to the question of imperialism: The control of [the Philippines]… is the only safeguard of our trade interests in the East. I do not favour the adoption by this country of a colonial policy… but I do think that, if possible, the United States should maintain sufficient interests in the islands to command equal trade rights with other nations in China.# The commercial expansions that in turn led to the acquisition of territories overseas were often taken by considering how they would affect trade with China. The American Asiatic Association described it as ‘the greatest undeveloped market in the world’, and China would provide myriad economic opportunities for the United States. However, in order to exploit the potential of trade with China, the Americans would require a presence in the area, and not solely a commercial one. Indeed, as the historian Welch describes the situation: Business leaders, convinced that the home market was inadequate to the needs of expanding industrial production, persuaded the administration that an island empire would increase exports and foreign commerce and provide protection and stimulus for the China trade.# With American business interests at stake, an American presence overseas was a necessity. Looking back on the period of American expansion at the end of the nineteenth century, Woodrow Wilson wrote that: Since trade ignores national boundaries…and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nation which are closed against him must be battered down. Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked of left unused.# This idea of ‘following the flag’ would eventually result in conflicts, as Americans sought to either protect their interests abroad, or else to expand further when obstacles were placed in their way. The emergence of imperial expansionists put forth the idea that it was in the best commercial interests of the nation: To create a system of colonies and spheres of influence where American sovereignty…backed by military power, would permit Americans to monopolise markets and resources as they saw fit.# An example of this could be seen in the earlier annexation of Hawaii in the 1850s, which not only resulted in a ‘profound change in American economic development’ but also a ‘corresponding change in foreign policy.’# However, with regards to Hawaii, one can see evidence of another possible explanation for the later imperialist expansion of the United States: social Darwinism. Connected to Darwin’s theories on evolution, from the American viewpoint the basic premise of the social Darwinist ideology, held that ‘Anglo-Saxons and Americans specifically were a superior people chosen by the almighty to spread their civilisation everywhere’.# This was provided as justification for American actions in Hawaii. In the contemporary writings of Charles Denby, there is evidence of ideals of the superiority of the American people: We are stretching out our hands for what nature meant should be ours. We are taking our proper rank among the nations of the world. We are after market, the greatest markets now existing in the world. Along with these markets will go our beneficent institutions, and humanity will bless us.# This ideal could be extended to apply to later actions in the Philippines, where the annexation of those islands was based upon the implied consent of their inhabitants. This was in spite of the rebellions and violence that resulted from the American presence in the Philippines. This use of the military formed a shift in the nature of actions abroad carried out by the United States. Their involvement in the Philippines had altered how foreign policy was conducted. As the historian Akira Iriye writes: In 1889 American diplomacy… was primarily concerned with national security and the protection of economic interests…Within ten years much had changed. The United States joined the ranks of imperialist countries, with new overseas possessions, and it considered itself a new world power.# There were some people in the United States who saw their overseas expansion as a continuance of the old frontier mythology that had pervaded the country in the nineteenth century. With the continental United State settled, there was no remaining frontier on their own soil, which meant that ‘it was only natural to conclude that the new frontier would lie overseas.’ However, the ideas of the new frontier were more an additional explanation for economic expansion than a separate reason for the United States’ emergence as an imperialist power.# Even those in the United States who might have been opposed to the founding of overseas American colonies were swayed somewhat by the benefits that these colonies could provide. These ‘pragmatic imperialists’ acknowledged that a degree of ‘insular imperialism’ was acceptable, and that they ‘would not balk at securing selected island outposts as stepping-stones to major market areas.’ Indeed, it was to be this pragmatist approach, in conjunction with minimal government support of market expansion that characterised American expansion.# The impact of influential men such as Theodore Roosevelt undoubtedly had an effect in the emergence of an imperialist United States. Implicated in the issuing of naval orders that helped precipitate the Spanish- American War, Roosevelt could be described as a man with an imperialist vision of the United States. He envisioned a civilised world order, in which the United States would not be just a world power, but ‘the leader of the world powers.’ His expansionist desires involved the attempt to convince European powers such as Britain and Germany to ‘respect American hegemony in the Caribbean’ and to establish that America was able to ‘defend her strategic interests.# Roosevelt also had a role in the American government’s attitude regarding Cuba. Although not taken as an American possession, Cuba definitely experienced assertions of American power: While [President Grover] Cleveland did not feel that the “pecuniary” and strategic factors were sufficient to impose American rule over foreign territory, Roosevelt, Mahan and [Henry Cabot] Lodge saw it as a step on the broad path of empire – and they effectively converted a humanistic demand for liberty into the “realistic” advance of empire.# While there is little doubt that such men as Roosevelt had some influence over the nature of American imperial expansion, they cannot fully explain the actions of the United States without reference to the commercial expansion that came before. There are suggestions that the Americans of the time saw a clear distinction between their version of imperialism and that promulgated by the European powers. As William Jennings Bryan declared in 1900: A European protectorate often results in the plundering of the ward by the guardian. An American protectorate gives to the nation protected the advantages of our strength, without making it the victim of our greed.# It could be argued however that the ideology of expansion was ever present in the United States, and that this period saw a more noticeable emergence of imperialist aspirations due to the economic situation in the United States. The industrial and commercial growth experienced by the United States required an outlet for the products it created. A saturated domestic market necessitated the development and expansion of overseas trades, most notably in Asia. In order to support this growth, an American presence was required near to these newly opened markets, which resulted in the establishment, by various means of American colonies. While there were differing ideologies as to how this expansion should occur, as the historian Welch puts it: The participants had only quarrelled over the most effective means for the uninterrupted development of American industrial and agricultural markets throughout the world.# There were definitely ideological reasons involved in the justification for the adoption of such an imperialist policy, but they are simply ways to justify the American action rather than a reason for it. Indeed, despite discussions of social Darwinism and the influence of ‘large policy’ men like Theodore Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge, it seems the influence of commercial expansion was the true driving force in catapulting the United States into a new era of expansion. This idea was neatly summarised by historian JW Pratt: Expansionists of different periods had invoked a God of Nature, a God of Democracy, a God of Evolution. It seems appropriate enough that those who inaugurated the last phase of territorial expansions, at the close of the nineteenth century, should have proclaimed their faith in a God of Business.# It was clearly a faith in their ‘God of Business’ that led the United States into a policy of expansion and their development as an imperialist power. Bibliography: Boyer, P et al. The Enduring Vision, (Boston, 2000). Collin, RH (ed.). Theodore Roosevelt, Culture, Diplomacy and Expansion (Baton Rouge, 1985). Gardner, LC et al. Creation of the American Empire: US Diplomatic History (Chicago, 1973). Iriye, A. From Nationalism to Internationalism: US Foreign Policy to 1914 (London, 1977). Lens, S. The Forging of the American Empire (New York, 1974). Lorence, JJ. Enduring Voices Volume Two: From 1865 (Boston, 2000). Miller, RH (ed.). American Imperialism in 1898: The Quest for National Fulfilment (New York, 1970). Nearing, S & Freeman, J. Dollar Diplomacy: A Study in American Imperialism (New York, 1926). Welch, RE. Response to Imperialism: The United States and the Philippine-American War, 1899-1902 (Chapel Hill, 1979). |
||||||||||||
| Non-fiction |
||||||||||||
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |