Should the United States between 1890 and 1920 be considered an imperialistic power or a liberating nation?

I. Introduction: A Nation at a Crossroads

Imagine a nation, barely a century removed from its struggle for independence, suddenly finding itself with the power and opportunity to exert influence far beyond its borders. The United States stood at a pivotal juncture between 1890 and 1920. Fresh off the heels of westward expansion and the closing of the American frontier, the nation turned its gaze outward, engaging in a series of actions that sparked intense debate then, and continue to do so today. Was this era defined by a burgeoning imperialistic drive, a hunger for territory, resources, and strategic dominance similar to that of the European powers? Or was it characterized by a nascent sense of global responsibility, a belief in American exceptionalism that compelled it to liberate oppressed peoples and spread the ideals of democracy? This webpage delves into the complexities of this transformative period, examining the motivations, actions, and consequences that shape our understanding of whether the United States was an imperialistic power or a liberating nation – a question with no easy answer.

II. The Case for Imperialism: Expansion and Domination

The late 19th century was a time of intense global competition, with European powers carving up Africa and Asia. Within this context, the United States, fueled by a potent mix of economic ambition, strategic considerations, and a belief in its own superiority, embarked on its own path of overseas expansion. The long-held ideology of Manifest Destiny, which had justified westward expansion across the North American continent, found a new iteration in the desire to project American power and influence abroad. As historian Walter LaFeber argues in The New Empire: An Interpretation of American Expansion, 1860-1898, economic imperatives, particularly the need for new markets and raw materials to absorb industrial overproduction, played a significant role in driving this outward thrust.

The Spanish-American War of 1898 serves as a crucial turning point. While the initial impetus for intervention was arguably the humanitarian crisis in Cuba and the explosion of the USS Maine, the outcome saw the United States acquire a significant overseas empire. Cuba, though granted independence, was heavily influenced by the Platt Amendment, which allowed the US to intervene in its affairs. Puerto Rico and Guam became outright American territories, and the acquisition of the Philippines sparked a brutal and protracted war for independence. As historian Howard Zinn points out in A People’s History of the United States, the suppression of the Filipino independence movement, with its accompanying violence and disregard for self-determination, starkly contradicts any notion of the US as a purely liberating force.

The annexation of Hawaii in 1898 further underscores the imperialistic tendencies of the era. American economic interests, particularly in the lucrative sugar plantations, played a key role in the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy. Strategic considerations, especially the potential of Pearl Harbor as a naval base, also factored into the decision. The desires of the Hawaiian people for self-governance were largely ignored.

In Latin America, the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine (1904) solidified the US as a regional hegemon. While ostensibly intended to prevent European intervention, it effectively granted the US the right to intervene in the domestic affairs of Latin American nations to ensure stability and protect American investments. Theodore Roosevelt’s “Big Stick” diplomacy exemplified this assertive approach. Similarly, Dollar Diplomacy, championed by President William Howard Taft, used American economic power as a tool of foreign policy, often leading to political and economic dependence in countries where the US held significant financial interests. The numerous interventions in Mexico during its revolutionary period further illustrate the US willingness to exert its influence in its southern neighbor.

III. The Case for Liberation: Ideals and Intervention

Despite the clear evidence of imperialistic expansion, it’s crucial to acknowledge the rhetoric and, in some instances, the genuine motivations that framed US actions as potentially liberating. The language of freedom, democracy, and American exceptionalism was frequently invoked to justify intervention. The plight of the Cuban people under Spanish rule, for example, genuinely stirred public sentiment in the United States and provided a moral justification for the Spanish-American War. The Teller Amendment, passed before the war, initially pledged that the US had no intention of annexing Cuba, suggesting a commitment to Cuban self-determination.

Woodrow Wilson’s entry into World War I was famously framed as a crusade to “make the world safe for democracy.” His Fourteen Points, while ultimately not fully adopted, articulated principles of national self-determination and the rights of nations, resonating with populations under colonial rule. While the application of these principles was often selective, particularly in the case of non-European colonies, the rhetoric itself held the promise of liberation.

Furthermore, in some instances, US intervention may have been driven by genuine humanitarian concerns, such as alleviating suffering caused by conflict or instability. However, even these actions were often intertwined with strategic or economic interests, making it difficult to disentangle purely altruistic motives from self-interest.

IV. A Nuanced Perspective: The Intertwined Nature of Motives

The reality of US actions between 1890 and 1920 is far more complex than a simple dichotomy of imperialism versus liberation. Often, these two seemingly opposing forces were intertwined. The desire for economic expansion could be couched in terms of bringing progress and development to other nations. The strategic need for naval bases could be presented as ensuring regional stability.

Different actors within the US government and society held varying motivations. While some policymakers were undoubtedly driven by a desire for empire, others genuinely believed in the superiority of American institutions and the need to share them with the world, albeit often in a paternalistic manner. Public opinion was also divided, with fervent expansionists clashing with a vocal anti-imperialist movement.

Moreover, the unintended consequences of US actions often belied the initial intentions. Interventions meant to promote stability sometimes led to further conflict and resentment. Efforts to establish democratic institutions in other countries did not always succeed and often resulted in the imposition of American-friendly regimes, regardless of popular will.

V. Voices of Dissent: The Anti-Imperialist League

A significant and often overlooked aspect of this period is the strong Anti-Imperialist League, which vehemently opposed US overseas expansion. Prominent figures like Mark Twain, Jane Addams, and William Jennings Bryan argued that acquiring and governing foreign territories contradicted the fundamental principles of American democracy and self-governance enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. They warned of the dangers of militarism, the potential for corruption, and the moral inconsistency of denying other nations the very freedoms the US championed for itself. Their arguments provide a crucial counter-narrative to the prevailing expansionist sentiment of the time.

VI. Legacy and Modern Relevance

The debates surrounding US imperialism versus liberation in the late 19th and early 20th centuries continue to resonate today. This period laid the foundation for America’s role as a global power and shaped its relationship with many nations. The legacy of territorial acquisitions, interventions, and the complex interplay of motives continues to influence how the world views the United States and how Americans understand their own history. Examining this era critically helps us to understand the enduring tensions between American ideals and the realities of its global power.

VII. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

VIII. Conclusion: A Contested Legacy

Ultimately, categorizing the United States between 1890 and 1920 as either purely an imperialistic power or solely a liberating nation is an oversimplification. The historical reality is a complex tapestry woven with threads of both. While the acquisition of territories and the assertion of dominance in regions like Latin America clearly demonstrate imperialistic tendencies, the rhetoric of liberation and the genuine (though sometimes flawed) belief in American ideals cannot be entirely dismissed. This era serves as a crucial reminder that national actions are often driven by a multitude of motivations, and their consequences can be both intended and unintended, leaving behind a legacy that continues to be debated and reinterpreted.