Motives for Imperialism (AQA A-Level History): Revision Notes
Motives for imperialism
Introduction
After the Civil War, the USA largely maintained a policy of isolationism, showing limited interest in overseas territorial expansion. However, between 1890 and 1914, American foreign policy underwent a transformation. The USA engaged in the Spanish-American War in 1898 and established colonial control over territories including the Philippines and Hawaii. Historians have offered competing explanations for what drove this imperial turn at the end of the nineteenth century.
Historiographical debates on American imperialism
Accidental empire
Accidental empire refers to the argument that the USA did not deliberately pursue imperial ambitions. Historian Harold Evans advanced this interpretation in his 1998 work The American Century. Evans contended that the decision to annex the Philippines resulted from the deciding vote of Vice-President Garrett Augustus Hobart rather than from any systematic imperial strategy.
According to this view, economic considerations rather than territorial ambitions shaped American policy. Evans highlighted that the USA conducted substantial trade with Britain and therefore had no practical need to acquire an empire. The annexation of the Philippines and other territories thus emerged from contingent political decisions rather than from a coherent imperial vision.
The "accidental empire" theory challenges the notion of deliberate American imperialism by emphasizing the role of chance political circumstances and economic pragmatism over systematic territorial ambitions. This interpretation suggests that America's imperial holdings resulted more from opportunistic decision-making than from a predetermined imperial strategy.
Progressive imperialism
Historian Walter McDougall presented a different interpretation in The American Encounter With the World Since 1776 (1997). McDougall argued that American imperialism stemmed from a genuine desire to improve the lives of non-Americans. This progressive imperialism involved exporting American values to less developed regions, demonstrated through initiatives such as the removal of yellow fever in Cuba and the construction of hospitals and schools. According to this interpretation, the USA believed that other nations would benefit from adopting American civilisation and values.
This outlook connected closely to American missionary activity overseas. The drive to undertake such work derived from the conviction that White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPS) constituted a superior people with a duty to assist members of "lesser races" in improving their lives by following American examples.
Some historians suggest that the USA pursued imperial power because it sought to reshape the world in its own image, believing that spreading American civilisation would benefit other countries. Missionaries frequently accompanied colonists, as occurred in the Philippines and Hawaii.
The progressive imperialism interpretation presents American expansion as motivated by idealistic rather than purely self-interested goals. This view emphasizes the role of cultural and religious beliefs in driving imperial policy, though critics note that such "civilizing mission" rhetoric often masked economic and strategic interests.
Need for markets
Economic motives formed the core of the interpretation advanced by historian William A. Williams in The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, written in the 1950s. Williams identified the need for markets as the primary driver of American imperialism. The USA believed this need could be met through the Open Door policy rather than through direct territorial acquisition.
The Open Door Policy
The Open Door policy was first formulated to guarantee equal trading privileges among countries engaging with China. The policy proposed maintaining China open to trade with all nations on equal terms, thereby preventing any single international power from exercising total control over the Chinese market. This approach represented an attempt to secure economic benefits without formal colonial control.
Historian Niall Ferguson reinforced this economic interpretation in American Colossus (2003), emphasising that the Depression of 1893 stimulated a desire to access new markets. The USA faced agricultural surpluses and required markets to absorb excess farm produce. Ferguson stressed that economic necessity, specifically the search for new commercial opportunities, drove imperial expansion during this period.
The end of Westward expansion
Some historians have proposed that the conclusion of continental expansion created conditions for overseas imperialism. Once Westward expansion across North America reached its limits in the second half of the nineteenth century, America redirected its attention towards foreign ventures.
Historian Frederick Jack Turner first articulated these ideas in 1893 through his thesis The Significance of the Frontier in American History. Turner's frontier thesis suggested that the closing of the American frontier would fundamentally alter the nation's trajectory, potentially encouraging external expansion as a substitute for internal territorial growth.
Turner's frontier thesis, published in 1893, coincided precisely with the beginning of America's imperial period. This timing has led many historians to see a direct connection between the exhaustion of continental expansion opportunities and the turn toward overseas ventures. The thesis proposed that the frontier experience had shaped American character and institutions, raising questions about national identity once that frontier closed.
Preclusive imperialism
Historian William Langer introduced the concept of preclusive imperialism, which refers to the practice of acquiring colonies to prevent rival powers from doing so. This interpretation emphasised strategic defensive considerations. The USA sought to emulate European powers such as Britain, France and Germany, which had constructed extensive empires across Africa and Asia during the later nineteenth century.
Given its predominant position in Latin America, the USA exploited this advantage by expanding into Central America and the Caribbean. This approach linked directly to the Monroe Doctrine, which asserted American primacy in the Western Hemisphere. By adopting preclusive measures, the USA aimed to block European colonisation in regions it considered within its sphere of influence.
Preclusive imperialism frames American expansion as fundamentally defensive rather than aggressive. According to this interpretation, the USA acquired territories not primarily for their economic value or to spread civilization, but to prevent European rivals from establishing footholds in areas close to American interests. This strategy reflected a "if we don't take it, they will" mentality common among imperial powers of the era.
Contemporary justifications
American political figures openly articulated imperial ambitions using racial and civilisational arguments. Republican Senator Henry Cabot delivered a speech in the 1890s that exemplified prevailing attitudes towards empire and race.
Contemporary Justification: Senator Henry Cabot's Imperial Vision
Senator Cabot declared in the 1890s:
"The great nations are rapidly absorbing for their future expansion and their present defense, all the waste places of the world. It is a movement which makes for civilization and the advancement of the race. As one of the great nations of the world the US must not fall out of line of the march."
This statement reveals several key aspects of contemporary imperial thinking:
- Imperial expansion was viewed as a defensive necessity for great nations
- Colonization was framed as contributing to civilization and racial advancement
- Competition among "great nations" created pressure to participate in empire-building
- Imperial activity was portrayed as participation in a natural global movement rather than aggression
This rhetoric of racial advancement and competition among "great nations" provided public justification for American overseas involvement, framing imperialism as participation in a broader global movement rather than as aggressive territorial acquisition.
Remember!
Key Takeaways: Motives for American Imperialism
-
Historians disagree fundamentally about whether American imperialism was deliberate or accidental, with Harold Evans arguing the Philippines annexation resulted from contingent political factors rather than systematic imperial strategy.
-
Economic interpretations emphasise the search for markets following the 1893 Depression and agricultural surpluses, with the Open Door policy offering a non-territorial approach to securing commercial access, particularly in China.
-
Progressive imperialism involved exporting American values through missionary work and development projects, reflecting WASP beliefs in their duty to civilise "lesser races" by American example.
-
Preclusive imperialism responded to European empire-building by establishing American control in Latin America and the Caribbean to prevent rival powers from gaining influence in the Western Hemisphere.
-
Frederick Jack Turner's frontier thesis suggested that the end of Westward continental expansion freed American attention for overseas ventures, redirecting expansionist energy externally after internal territorial growth concluded.