Ah, imperialism. As the world powers saw the last of the world’s territory disappearing before their eyes at the turn of the 19th century, decided to implement the policy of imperialism (where countries expand their sphere of control over other countries/territories, in this case, militarily) even more fervently than before. Europe was going crazy with conquering! Africa was quickly gobbled up. Asia was turning into a punching bag. Island life was quickly becoming a terrible lifestyle decision. But wait! Where does our favorite gun-toting, freedom-loving country play into this? It’s time for a spotlight! Obviously, American imperialism has always existed, especially with that whole Native American deal, but it really started kicking into high gear at the end of the 1800s. The U.S. (somewhat forcibly) opened up trade with Japan, bullied our way into Hawaii and other islands, and annexed the Philippines in the Pacific. We also started to interfere in our own hemisphere, building the Panama Canal, poking our noses around in Mexico, and sparking the Spanish-American War in Cuba, helped along by yellow journalism. Basically, the U.S. joined the party and started to demonstrate empire-istic tendencies across the world, for various reasons.
This brings us to today’s resolution: was imperialism a proper and legitimate policy for the United States to follow at the turn of the nineteenth century? This question is a bit difficult to answer. When you analyze the benefits and the harms of imperialism as a policy for the U.S., you have to look at both the economic/political side and the moral side and compare them, which is a bit like comparing apples and oranges. However, for reasons that will soon be clear, I ultimately would say that yes, imperialism was indeed a proper and legitimate policy for the U.S. circa 1900.
Imperialism took off in the U.S. for a multitude of reasons, but the main benefits of imperialism as a policy was its use as a political, and to perhaps a lesser degree, an economic tool. So, the U.S. is still a new, baby nation. But it’s starting to become way more relevant. It’s gone through its own civil war, had its fair share of leaders and wars, and went through an obligatory “take over stuff” period. This period of time is a make-or-break point. The U.S. has become huge economically after its own Industrial Revolution. And now, well, this imperialism thing comes along, a bit like a hazing ceremony. Peer pressure. You going to be one of the cool kids? Or are you going to be a pack mule? You either get into the game or you get trampled. The documents provided for us doesn’t really give much information about this tension, about the global scene. There is one, that’s kind of close, but not really, from Alfred T. Mahan, a U.S. Navy officer in the late 1800s, who wrote in his book The Interest of America in Sea Power, “Americans must begin to look outward. The growing production of the country demands it. An increasing volume of public sentiment demands it. The position of the United States, between the two Old Worlds and the two great oceans, makes the same claim.”(Doc 2). Basically, he’s saying that the U.S. needs to function as an economic liaison between Asia and Europe, to take advantage of the opportunities that are being presented to us. Albert Beveridge, a Republican senator says about the same thing in a speech he gave to the U.S. Senate in 1900, “We will not abandon our opportunity in the Orient...the Pacific is the ocean of the commerce of the future...The power that rules the Pacific...is the power that rules the world.” Imperialism is a strong political and economic policy, and those that advocate for it have these things in mind.
This makes a perfect transition into the second part of the question, the “legitimate” side: morals. From a moral standpoint, imperialism does not stand. There’s no point in beating around the bush, because morals are subjective. Every single person will have a different opinion. And when I look at the evidence, the people that are supporting imperialism and argue a moral standpoint sound like they’re trying to justify it to themselves. These justifications come off as incredibly racist (“It seems to me that God, with infinite wisdom and skill, is training the Anglo-Saxon race”) and also inconsiderate to the native people (Doc 1,3,5,6). I’ll be honest, “We insist that the subjugation of any people is ‘criminal aggression’”, sounds about right to me. But, like I said, morals are subjective.
So, let’s zoom out. The world was teetering. The U.S. was in the perfect position to make its own global debut. That’s what imperialism allowed us to do. We showed the world that we meant business. Taking that opportunity turned us into a world power and the 20th century became America’s. Culturally, France has been the center of the world for the past 200 years, but with the end of the Post-Impressionistic Era, around 1900, art shifted to the new capital: New York City. Militarily, the U.S. played a huge role in both World Wars. Economically, we became a(n even bigger) powerhouse. Perhaps using imperialism was the best method to achieve this. Perhaps it was not, but it is undeniable that using imperialism led straight into the U.S.’s debut as a global power. So, was imperialism a proper and legitimate policy? It was certainly proper. It was a suitable policy to use at the time. But legitimate? Just? Maybe not. But ultimately, ethics are subjective. Maybe we actually believed that we were helping people. But, imperialism undeniably worked, and in face of this question, I believe that at the time, it was indeed suitable and legally justifiable, if not morally so.
