Expansionism, Imperialism, and Manifest Destiny

 Expansionism and Imperialism are closely related. Expansionism is a more benign term and usually refers to expanding a nation’s sphere of influence. Throughout the 19^th Century, Americans expanded their influence across the continent through the Westward Movement. Although sovereign Native American nations were suppressed and even eliminated in the process, America was not acting as an imperial power. Imperialism, although defined in several different ways, is always premised on a powerful nation that uses such powers to conquer other peoples. This was the case in the late 1890s when the U.S. annexed the Philippines.

 

Was America Imperialist?

 

In March 1961, Economist Mark Blaug [1] debated whether “Economic imperialism” as a foreign policy conformed to V.I. Lenin’s conclusions that imperialism reflected the “highest stage of capitalism.” [2] By the 1890s, the U.S. was producing more than it could consume. Political leaders like Senators Al Beveridge and Henry Cabot Lodge were urging that American interests globally should parallel those of France and Britain. Most of the world had, by then, been carved up by the great powers of Europe.

 

The Spanish-American War afforded an opportunity to plant the American flag. The “March of the Flag” greatly expanded American commercial interests but forced the virtuous Republic to don the image of an imperial power. American imperialism was already evident in the Caribbean, Central, and South America. James Blaine, Secretary of State under Presidents Garfield, Arthur, and Harrison, for example, earned the nickname “Jingo Jim” for his diplomatic efforts.

 

Although reasons given for the American annexation of the Philippines included the promises of positive benefit to the Filipino people, the act of annexation, strongly tied to economic factors, cannot be called anything but imperialist. Similarly, Secretary of State John Hay’s China policy (Open Door Notes) had the purpose of ensuring American participation in the lucrative China trade.

 

Opposition to Imperialism and the Antithesis of Global Interest

 

Several prominent Americans, like Mark Twain, felt so strongly about America’s departure from the ideals of a virtuous Republic that they formed the Anti-Imperialist League. Professor Albert Weinberg, in his analysis of Manifest Destiny, refers to the concept of “paramount interest” while detailing U.S. actions in Panama under Theodore Roosevelt. [3] “Two principal grounds supported the claim,” Weinberg writes: “supremacy of commercial interest and superiority of strategic interest.”

 

Weinberg, in his final chapter, points out an important factor that set the U.S. apart from the European powers. In terms of classic imperialism, the forging of and the maintaining of empires, World War I changed American policy. This may be the result of Wilson’s moralisms, retrenchment into isolationism, and what Weiberg calls “a willingness for contraction…”

 

Is There a Difference between Imperialism and Expansionism?

 

In the Ancient world, Greeks expanded their influence throughout the Mediterranean region through colonies and trade, but they never became an imperial power, unlike Rome after the transformation of the Republic. Historians of the ancient world, such as Peter Brown, have pointed out that even Hellenization, inspired by Alexander’s conquests, was limited.

 

The difference between the terms is important – important enough to prompt the recent amendment change to delete the term “imperialism” from history texts by the Texas Board of Education. Expansionism, as a concept, implies an inherent, inevitable occupation, something 19^th Century thinkers and politicians attributed to a providential mission. Imperialism, however, implies conquest and supremacy, regardless of motive. American history was both.

 

History professor Emily S. Rosenberg (“Bursting America’s Imperial Bubble,” Chronicle of Higher Education, November 3, 2006, Volume 53, Issue 11) states that, “Throughout the past, Americans have both embraced and rejected the word ‘empire,’” But empires are defined many ways and Rosenberg’s article reviews several scholarly books dealing with the thorny nomenclature.

 

Today’s Americans may prefer to see themselves as a “unipolar civilization” rather than an imperial power. Despite efforts in Texas to revise history based on terminology, the rest of the world still views the U.S. with great suspicion despite American egalitarianism, and this is one of the reasons why they hate the U.S.

 

Notes and References:

 

[1] Mark Blaug, “Lenin and Economic Imperialism Reconsidered,” Yale Review, L (March 1961), reprinted in British Imperialism: Gold, God, Glory, edited by Robin W. Winks, (Hinsdale, ILL: Dryden Press, 1963)

[2] V.I. Lenin, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism (NY: International Publishers Co., 1934)

[3] Albert K. Weinberg, Manifest Destiny: A Study of Nationalist Expansionism in American History (The Johns Hopkins Press, 1935)

 

Also:

 

Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers (NY: Random House, 1987)

First published May 22, 2010 in Suite101 by M.Streich. copyright