MacPherson Alex Venetia Guerrasio 2/22/2008 History 406 Section14 American Imperialism Up until the Spanish-American War in 1898, America had been, rightfully so, an isolationist country. Isolationism is a foreign policy that avoids international alliances and foreign wars, that are not a direct threat to national security. This is ideal for newly formed countries with a wide range of serious domestic issues. America declared independence in 1776 and had just became a stable country when the Civil War began in 1861, which turned the national focus to civil liberties. Soon after the war had ended many American minorities began a campaign for equal rights, including African Americans, women and worker unions. However, it wasn't long until the scope of this civil liberties movement widened to foreign nations. Many people, including President McKinley, argued that the repressed people of foreign nations could not be disregarded by a liberty-loving and Christian people... (McKinley, 885). However, Carl Schurz, a fierce critic of American Imperialism, points out that ...our easy victories [against the Spanish Empire] had put conquest within our reach, and when our arms occupied foreign territory, a loud demand arose that... the conquests should be kept... (Schurz, 886). America should not have shifted their foreign policy so early in their existence while there were so many domestic issues yet to be addressed and therefore neither politician has a convincing argument. -1-
William McKinley, President from 1897-2001, was a devout supporter of American Imperialism. He argued that it was in response to the American people's conscious and not the result of crusade or conquest that Cavite, Ponce and Santiago are under control of the American armed forces (McKinley, 885). McKinley was a strong believer in that it was the supreme duty of America to spread freedom to the oppressed (McKinley, 885). This is especially ironic considering America's record of oppressing not only women but African Americans, Native Americans and every minority not considered to be the original settlers of the colonies. Under McKinley, America had begun to ignore its own history of oppression and inequality to oppressing the oppressors of other nations. Although the intention of America is right, it could be perceived the same as if after the first Gulf War, Saddam Hussein invaded Syria for developing chemical weapons. It is suspicious that America singled out the Spanish Empire for its atrocities against its own territories while other locations, like Africa, have always been known for its instability and genocides. The failure of McKinley to address the oppression of other nations is
unacceptable and discredits his argument. Although it was his main platform, it seems he was not liberating these Spanish territories for moral reasons, but because America had the capacity to become a world Superpower once it had acquired strategic territories around the globe. It has always been true that those who rule the sea rule the world and the key to ruling the sea is to have territories allowing them to spread their influence around the world. The crumbling Spanish Empire was an ideal target for global, American expansion because of the islands they controlled in the Pacific, which would open up the Asian market for -2-
businesses, if America controlled them. The acquisition of these islands were vital for the American economy because in the 1890's America had slipped into a depression and desperately needed to increase their exports to subsidize the surplus of goods in the economy. Advances in technology caused farmers to inadvertently flood the domestic market with goods, causing a steep drop in prices. As a direct result many farmers were forced into bankruptcy. The only option was to export excess goods to new, foreign markets, which prior to the Spanish-American war were unreachable. Previous to 1890, Asia received less than five percent of all American exports but by 1910 the amount of trade to Asia nearly tripled (Kramer, 6). McKinley himself talks about reward following the liberation of these
oppressed Spanish territories. What better reward than the beginning of a thirty year period of American prosperity (Bailey, 657)? Carl Schurz, Senator and Secretary of the Interior, is famous for saying Our country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right, (Schurz, 886). He believed the nation needed to be put right after the occupied remained territories under American rule. Schurz thought the best way to help an oppressed people was by doing it without military action. Schurz reasoned that: Are we not ingenious and charitable enough to do much for their civilization without subjugating and ruling them by criminal aggression?... However imperfect their own governments may still remain, they will at least be their own... and then [if this democracy] deliberately resists the temptation of conquest, it will achieve the grandest triumph of the democratic idea that history -3-
knows of, (Schurz, 886). Although Schurz also supported the prospect of assisting suppressed people of foreign nations, his approach was more familiar to American isolationism, where America does not engage in wars that are not a direct threat to national security. It is ideal for any nation, not only America, to help out a troubled nation without resorting to military action, however this plan can easily prove to be problematic. Simply sending money to a foreign country, especially one that oppresses its own people can be very counter-productive because it would be tempting for the leaders of the foreign country to squander the funds instead of allocating them to infrastructure and other domestic developments (Williams, 2). Throughout the 19th century, Europe committed large amounts of money as foreign aid to their colonies. This is similar to what Schurz had wanted to do except that these colonies were not run by the United States and therefore they had no way of regulating how this money was distributed. This is a big flaw in Schurz argument. He does not state a plan for helping these countries but simply says Are we not ingenious and charitable enough to do much for their civilization without subjugating and ruling them by criminal aggression?... (Schurz, 886). Schurz seems to be only asking the question that everyone else should be asking: Is this the right course of action to help these people? He warns people that this could start a dangerous path for America, by conquering territories and not relinquishing them after democracy had been instilled. The British Empire firmly believed they were right in seizing foreign territories and now America was becoming similar to the same Empire they fought for
-4-
their independence only a century earlier. Schurz's maintains a more sensible argument than McKinley's because he keeps a balance of isolationism and moral righteousness. He does not say that the liberation of Cuba was at all wrong but that we need to be careful of ruling these territories like second class [Americans] who are ruled... by Americans of the first class, (Schurz, 886). He believes McKinley's argument, of military action being the best action, to be ill-advised The 1890's was a defining decade in American foreign policy. Politicians, backed by unreliable journalism1, caused a shift in American foreign policy. The modern-day policies of America can easily be traced to the transformation from isolationism to imperialism which occurred during the Spanish-American War. Both President McKinley and Carl Schultz called for a change of foreign policy. Neither man thought the democratic capital of the world should stand idly by while other countries are being oppressed by their own government. McKinley believed military action was necessary for liberty to prevail while, Schultz believed in nonaggressive support for the people. Schultz does not provide a specific plan to support Cuba and the other Spanish colonies but calls on the government to devise an ingenious plan to help. Neither politician is convincing in their arguments. McKinley seems to want to liberate these colonies for the economic benefit of America however, Schultz criticizes McKinley, by saying there is a better way, but does not propose a solution.
1 Known as 'Yellow Journalism' which exaggerated the conditions of the Spanish Colonies
-5-
Works Cited Bailey, Thomas A. The American Pageant: a History of the Republic. Heath: Houghton Mifflin, 1961. 657. Gillon, Steven M., and Cathy D. Matson. The American Experiment. 2nd ed. Vol. 2. Houghton Mifflin, 2006. 885-887. Kramer, Roland L. Trends in United States Foreign Trade. American Academy of Political and Social Science. Sage Publications, 1940. 6. 25 Feb. 2008 <www.jstor.org>. Williams, Victoria. "Foreign Aid." Encyclopdia Britannica. 2008. Encyclopdia Britannica Online. 25 Feb. 2008 <www.britannica.com/eb/article-256255>.
-6-