Question

If you lived during the early 1900s during American Imperialism would you be on the side of the anti-imperialists or the expansionists explain your answer using examples from history

Answer 1

I would have sided with the anti‑imperialists. My reasons mix moral principle (self‑determination and equality before the law) with practical concerns (costs, violence, and racial/paternalistic assumptions), all of which the record of early‑20th‑century American expansionism illustrates.

Why anti‑imperialist — with historical examples

- Self‑determination and constitutional hypocrisy: The overthrow and annexation of Hawaii (1893–1898) and the later Insular Cases (1901–1905) show the contradiction of proclaiming liberty while denying full constitutional rights to colonized peoples. The Supreme Court ruled the Constitution did not automatically apply in all territories, producing a two‑tier system of rights that conflicts with the nation’s own founding ideals.

- Brutal costs in blood and treasure: The Philippine–American War (1899–1902) followed the U.S. decision to annex the Philippines after the Spanish‑American War. It produced tens of thousands of Filipino deaths (estimates vary widely) and several thousand U.S. casualties, plus long guerrilla campaigns and atrocities on both sides. That war illustrated the human cost of ruling unwilling peoples and showed imperialism’s practical burdens.

- Racial paternalism and moral danger: Prominent anti‑imperialists (Mark Twain, William Jennings Bryan, Andrew Carnegie, the Anti‑Imperialist League) argued that empire was justified by a belief in Anglo‑Saxon superiority and “civilizing” missions (echoed in Rudyard Kipling’s “White Man’s Burden”). That paternalism was morally wrong and risked entrenching racism at home and abroad.

- Erosion of republican values and international precedent: The Platt Amendment (1901) made Cuban independence conditional on U.S. oversight (including a naval base at Guantánamo), showing how “liberation” could become domination. These practices set precedents for interventions justified by vague claims of stability or civilization.

Practical counterarguments from expansionists — and why they don’t persuade me

- Strategic and economic arguments: Expansionists like Alfred Thayer Mahan and politicians such as Theodore Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge argued for naval bases, coaling stations, access to Asian markets (Open Door policy toward China), and global standing. Those arguments had some force: naval power and overseas stations helped turn the U.S. into a global player and enabled projects like the Panama Canal. But strategic gains do not justify undermining the rights of others, and imperial possessions proved costly and sometimes strategically ambiguous (counterinsurgency drains, diplomatic entanglements).

- “Civilizing” mission: Proponents claimed the U.S. could raise living standards and institutions abroad. In practice, colonial rule often prioritized extractive interests and control over genuine development; Filipino aspirations for independence were suppressed despite earlier promises.

A balanced view of consequences

- The expansionist period did help make the U.S. a great power (navy, bases, influence in the Caribbean and Pacific), and some territories later benefited from American investment and ties. But it also produced moral contradictions, domestic racial politics, violent wars, and long‑term governance problems (e.g., Puerto Rico’s contested status; debates over the Philippines until independence in 1946).

Conclusion

Given the moral contradiction of denying self‑government while preaching liberty, the demonstrated human and financial costs (Philippine war, Cuban restrictions, Hawaiian overthrow), and the racist underpinnings of much expansionist rhetoric, I would have been an anti‑imperialist in the early 1900s. I would have favored influence through commerce and diplomacy—not territorial domination—and policies consistent with equal rights and the rule of law.