As the U.S. began to expand economic and political influence abroad, people began to speak out for and against imperialism. Interventionists stepped up to support imperialism. An interventionist is a person who supports American intervention in the affairs of other countries. Others felt that America was disregarding important ideals by ignoring the concept of the “consent of the governed” in newly acquired territories. Noninterventionists arose to oppose imperialism. A noninterventionist is a person who opposes American intervention in the affairs of other countries. Several prominent political and military leaders supported interventionist policies. Included in this group were President Theodore Roosevelt, Alfred Thayer Mahan, and Senator Albert Beveridge. Roosevelt felt it was the U.S.’s duty and right to police the Western Hemisphere. Mahan was a naval officer. He believed the U.S. needed a strong navy to ensure stability and secure foreign markets. Beveridge supported overseas expansion to gain economic markets and spread democracy. For the most part, the American public agreed with these imperialist thinkers. They wanted cheaper goods and a stronger military, and saw spreading Christianity and democracy as virtuous acts. There were many opponents of American imperialism. The Anti-Imperialist League had begun in opposition to the annexation of the Philippines. Two notable members of the American Anti-Imperialist League were George S. Boutwell and Mark Twain. Boutwell, a Congressman from Massachusetts, served as president of the league from its inception until his death. Twain was a noted American writer and humorist. Progressive reformer Jane Addams also joined the Anti-Imperialist League. For Addams, opposition to imperialism was a logical extension of her work against violence and in support of democratic freedoms. Other well-known members included former president Grover Cleveland, novelist Henry James, and his brother, the prominent psychologist William James. The Anti-Imperialist League had relatively few members, but they were people of influence and popularity. The Treaty of Paris nearly failed to pass due to their influence, and many ordinary Americans shared their perspectives on imperialism’s harm to America and to the countries it controlled. Anti-imperialists were not completely opposed to commercial expansion, but believed that imperialism was a betrayal of the American values of democracy and self-government. Instead of spreading freedom and democracy, the U.S. was using its territories and their people for economic benefit. Many felt that this was exploitative. Noninterventionists were also concerned about how imperialism would affect Americans. They worried that competition with the people of the new territories might hurt U.S. workers by driving down wages. Some also felt that people who immigrated to the U.S. from new territories might have trouble assimilating into American life. Not all noninterventionists were against all expansion, but some believed that the U.S. should return to isolationism.

Question

Explain the difference between the views of the interventionists and anti-interventionists in American politics in this era. (Imperialists = interventionists)

Answer 1

The views of interventionists and anti-interventionists during the era of American imperialism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries diverged significantly regarding the United States' role in foreign affairs and its approach to newly acquired territories.

Interventionists (Imperialists)

Support for Expansionism: Interventionists believed that it was the United States' duty to expand its economic and political influence abroad. They supported American intervention in foreign affairs as a means to promote stability, spread democracy, and secure international markets.

Key Arguments:

• Responsibility to Police: Figures like President Theodore Roosevelt advocated for the U.S. to act as a global police power, particularly in the Western Hemisphere, as a way to maintain order and prevent European powers from exerting influence.
• Strategic Military Presence: Navies, as emphasized by critics like Alfred Thayer Mahan, were seen as essential for protecting American interests overseas and facilitating trade. A strong navy was viewed as crucial for national security and asserting U.S. power.
• Economic Opportunity: Interventionists like Senator Albert Beveridge emphasized the need for overseas markets to support the growing American economy. They viewed imperialism as a pathway to new economic opportunities and a means to promote American values, including Christianity and democracy.

Public Support: Overall, many Americans resonated with the interventionist perspective, desiring cheaper goods, a mightier military, and the perceived ethical obligation to spread their way of life to other nations.

Anti-Interventionists (Noninterventionists)

Opposition to Imperialism: Anti-interventionists, including members of the Anti-Imperialist League, opposed U.S. imperialism, arguing that it contradicted the foundational American principles of democracy and self-governance.

Key Arguments:

• Betrayal of American Values: Opponents like Mark Twain and former President Grover Cleveland contended that imperialism was exploitative, as it sought economic benefit at the expense of the sovereignty and rights of the people in newly acquired territories. They believed that the U.S. should not impose its will on others, claiming it undermined the ideals of freedom and self-determination.
• Societal Impact: Anti-interventionists were concerned about the implications of imperialism on American society, including potential competition for jobs that could drive down wages for American workers. They raised apprehensions about the assimilation of immigrants from newly acquired territories and the social challenges they might pose.
• Alternative Ideologies: While many anti-interventionists opposed imperialism, some still supported trade and commercial expansion but advocated for policies that respected the autonomy of other nations. Others believed the U.S. should revert to a more isolationist stance to avoid foreign entanglements.

Influence and Reach: Although relatively few in number, anti-interventionists wielded considerable influence and popularity, successfully challenging imperialist arguments and significantly impacting public debate, especially concerning treaties like the Treaty of Paris.

Conclusion

In summary, interventionists viewed American expansionism as a moral and strategic imperative that could bring about beneficial changes for both the U.S. and other nations, while anti-interventionists strongly opposed imperialism on ethical grounds, advocating for adherence to principles of democracy, self-rule, and a more isolationist foreign policy. This debate reflected broader tensions in American society regarding identity, values, and the nation's role on the global stage.

Answer 2

3 sentences only

Answer 3

Interventionists, or imperialists, believed that the U.S. had a duty to expand its influence abroad to promote democracy, secure markets, and maintain order, often viewing military intervention as essential for national interests. In contrast, anti-interventionists opposed imperialism, arguing that it betrayed American values of democracy and self-governance, and raised concerns about economic exploitation and societal impacts on American workers. While interventionists sought to spread American ideals abroad, anti-interventionists advocated for a more cautious approach that respected the autonomy of other nations and prioritized domestic issues.