Imperialism and the Spanish-American War by torin Reading 1 Up to our own day American history has been in a large degree the history of the colonization of the Great West The frontier is the line of the most rapid and effective Americanization The frontier promoted the formation of a composite nationality for the American people The legislation which most developed the powers of the national government, and played the largest part in its activity, was conditioned on the frontier
American Foreign Policy in the Late 19th Century: In the years leading up to the Spanish American War, the United States experienced a growth in ethnocentrism, a belief in manifest destiny and Anglo-Saxonism. It was this combination of views that provided the moral impetus allowing for the U.
The ongoing debate over these views shaped American policy for years.
Throughout the 19th century, Americans discussed and debated issues connected to expansion. Westward acquisitions began with the Louisiana Purchase and continued through the mid-century period with the land gained through the war with Mexico.
From the early years of the century until the Civil War, policy debates centered on extending our North American borders. Each episode of expansion created an intellectual friction between those that supported territorial growth and those in opposition.
Debate varied in their particulars, however. The purchase of the Louisiana Territory, for instance, raised important constitutional issues concerning the legality of land purchase. In the ensuing years, geographic growth would be examined in the context of moral, economic and political issues.
It seems certain most Americans believed in a special manifest destiny for the nation, and this philosophical foundation enabled the United States to spread westward with confidence and moral assuredness. In the south, the policies of reconstruction were aimed at a quick reintegration of that region back into the union.
In the west, efforts as diverse as the building of a transcontinental train line, federal support for capital enterprises and a federal subsidization of land settlement all served to bring western territorial areas within the influence of eastern economic and political institutions. With the election ofsouthern reconstruction was considered complete, the mechanisms for settling, building and integrating western territories were in place, and the beginnings of a new age of industrialism were in evidence.
Fueled by corporate consolidation and supported through legislation and judicial interpretation, the American economy grew furiously. Industrial growth was similarly in evidence in Europe among certain nations, notably England, Germany, France and Russia.
In short time, Japan, too, would be seeing rapid industrial growth. 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: Many remembered the crusade of abolitionism, and were ready to apply the same standards of human rights to people in faraway lands. It was this tension that fueled foreign policy debates in the latter years of the 19th century and into the early years of the 20th century.
On one side of the debate stood those in favor of expansion. They advocated a strong navy, economic gain and military security. Anti-expansionists tended to emphasize the moral turpitude of colonization, and the hypocrisy attendant to holding others subjects as we held ourselves to the standards of the "Declaration of Independence" and the "Bill of Rights.
Extending the traditional parameters of manifest destiny, imperialists also argued that our destiny as a special people was not limited to the North American continent. Our fate, it was argued, was inextricably tied to the global community. Oceans were not barriers; rather, they were the connecting bridges that would lead us to a position of prominence throughout the globe.
Finally, expansionists felt that we had an obligation and responsibility to help others less fortunate. Uncle Sam watches as the "Goddess of Liberty" heralds freedom for Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines The theories of Charles Darwin were revolutionary in science and in the social sciences.American Imperialism: The Spanish-American War The United States has always been active in helping other nations gain independence, although historians argue about the United States’ motives for doing so.
Imperialism During The Spanish American War - Imperialism played a substantial role in the Spanish-American war. Imperialism is the policy of extending a country 's power and influence through diplomacy or military force. As a result of the Spanish-American war the United States emerged as a .
1. What does Frederick Jackson Turner believe was the significance of the frontier in American history? What might be the implications of the closing of the frontier? 2. What did proponents of American expansion argue?
How did anti-imperialists respond to their arguments? 3. Sep 05, · The US saw that Spain's hold on its empire was weak, and like some kind of expansionist predator, it jumped into the Cuban War for Independence and turned it into the Spanish-Cuban-Phillipino.
In the years leading up to the Spanish American War, the United States experienced a growth in ethnocentrism, a belief in manifest destiny and Anglo-Saxonism. It was this combination of views that provided the moral impetus allowing for the U.S.
public to support the efforts to . The League also argued that the Spanish-American War was a war of imperialism camouflaged as a war of liberation.
The anti-imperialists opposed the expansion because they believed imperialism violated the credo of republicanism, especially the need for “consent of the governed.”.