Now before I start this I want to clearly establish the fact that I am not anti-American, nor will I want this thread to turn into American-bashing. In fact I am scheduled to move to the United States in 5 months. This is a question I ask most of my American friends because I'm extremely curious:

Why is it that most Americans (at least the ones I meet) do not believe that the United States was an Empire before the Second World War?

I have looked into the American high-school curriculum and all Americans are taught about Manifest Destiny, the Monroe-doctrine, the American-Mexican War, the Spanish-American war and the multiple other territory purchases. The word 'empire' is never used but all evidence is outlined. It seems that all the dots are there but no one is drawing the lines.

I understand that the word 'empire' has a very negative association due to the break away from the British empire but in my opinion, territorial expansion is a natural part of the growth of any nation which almost every country in the world has experienced.

Now remember, I am talking strictly before World War Two, whether or not the United States is an empire today is a completely different debate that is for another thread. Thanks for reading my long post and please reply honestly and lets keep this civil.

I think americans have a very romantic view of their history and culturally like to think of themselves as underdogs and good guys something perpetuated by hollywood. Looking at themselves as the same as the rest of the world is jarring for them. ps they also attacked canada at one point

One response to the OP is that the term “empire” simply doesn’t apply, unless you use a very loose definition of the term which would probably apply to almost any nation on earth.

Well as an American I can answer what I believe to be the reasons for this.
First off the word "empire" is a word with, as you have said, negative connotations especially with the history of the American Colonies and the revolution and breaking from Britain.
America also is a very weird place when it comes to any form of patriotism (or lack thereof), the history books I believe try to instill from a young age that America is the "good guys". I believe it's all political propoganda really, and an attempt to bring people towards patriotism of their country, because to be honest, most Americans (again I am an American) do not have any sense of obligation/responsibility to their country or others, it's all about entitlement and self. And really most people have more loyalty to their state then the US as a whole lol.
To sum it up, it's because the US is a strange place with a lot of strange people, nit bashing them, just being honest

_________________
Commission Painting @FB http://www.facebook.com/squyrepainting
Commission Customers include:
GBHL Youtube Channel
MiniWargaming

I'm a US citizen and am currently in AP US history so I've recently learned about America's "Experiment in Imperialism"
Basically, America never reaally had colonies, they were called protectorates, countries the US would help set up and would leave when their governments functioned better (ex Philippines). They intervened in governments under different policies like the Roosevelt collorary, but only mainly used these countries as economic resources. the term colony was almost never applied. Also this wasn't a big period of time and no Americans really moved to these countries/spread an influence other than that of industry.
For these reasons and the reason that why would the US make this a significant part of everyones knowledge if to the country it didn't have THAT big of an effect is why i think many US citizens don't know about the US's experiment in imperialism.

Surely Hawaii is an American colony?

SM: Colony and state are different and it's not a subtle point. A state is fully integrated into the political and financial system. A colony would not be.

The US did not, in my opinion, have the same "imperial expansion" period the many European nations experienced where they went out and established far flung colonies. Obviously in its push for independence the US worked to secure by treaty or by arms, most of the lands that make up the nation to this date. This did include more lands in the Caribbean than I believe we still retain, most of them initially being Spanish and English colonies. Most of these have passed to other ownership though a few are still held as territories.

Hawaii and Alaska were, for a while, territories but they each petitioned for and were received as formal states a bit over 50 years ago. Guam, Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands are territories the US has been managing for about 100 years or so now. I'm not as familiar with these details as I was a couple decades ago but basically they have some degree of self governorship and laws but under the overview of the US government. Their citizens have US Citizenship status though there are limits to that in regard to voting and other status while they reside in the territory.

Some of this still sounds very much like a colony but I think the difference is that for the European nations that went thru the Imperial Period as you describe they directly set out with the intention of establishing that colony. The territories currently controlled by the US were generally acquired either during military conflicts around the time of its independence or during the military push during WWII (nearly all of these are mostly unihabbited Pacific islands though there are some exceptions).

Additionally, my understanding is that the ruling governor of the colonies (even the modern ones still held by France and the UK) are directly appointed by the leaders of the parent nation. The leaders of the US territories are directly elected by their population and I believe they have established their own constitution as well. PR has had a yo-yo history of some wanting formal statehood, others wanting full national independence, and others liking the status quo (all these really being the population of PR I am speaking of).

There was not a period in US history where it actively sought to acquire lands from another political entity and set up its own colonial governing body anywhere close to the dramatic expansion of the European nations during the peak in the 1500-1800s. This is very likely because the US didn't exist for much of that and was fighting to establish itself FROM those same colonial efforts for the rest of it. Had the US been a solid political and economic force during the time I have little doubt that it would have sought to do so. But I don't think it's the same to say that the territories gained during the war of independence (and which can achieve their own independence or formal statehood if their population votes for it) or that retaining control of half dozen or so islands occupied during WWII that are now either uninhabited, only inhabited by government personnel or protected 'wildlife areas' is the same as saying there was a Colonial Period.

Not trying to sound fan-boy over the US. I have many issues with modern political practices, know our history books tell the 'winning side' of things like any other nation's do, has some very dark periods of our history, and feel many citizens relate more to their favorite sports team than they do to the country. But I don't think colonial expansion / "Empire" is a period that the US really experienced.

_________________
Wait ye the finish! The fight is not yours.
Beowulf

http://TacticsInMiniature.com

America could certainly be considered something of an empire by the late 1800s.

The reason many Americans don't really view America as an empire before WWII is because of the nation's historiography, as well as the fact that imperialism did not take the same domineering form it did in Europe. Recall that European nations literally had a conference to divide Africa amongst themselves; in America, nothing so extreme or obvious happened. Imperialism in America was a mix of power-grabbing and "moral imperative."

American imperialism is best demonstrated in 1898 with American intervention in the Cuban War of Independence against Spain. Progressives at this time hyped the plight of the Cubans; the US government saw a chance for a gain. Cuba was a valuable resource, and rather than see it independent, President William McKinley decided that if Spain was not to manage Cuba, the US would. With popular support, McKinley declared war against Spain with promises to the Cuban rebels that America was helping Cuba gain independence. Of course, at war's end, the Americans declared Cuba unfit for independence and established themselves as a protectorate. Cuba was nominally independent, but could do nothing without consent of the US. The war with Spain also allowed the US to gain control of Puerto Rico and the Philippines, which became annexed. These were totally imperialistic moves, but were not open empire building.

In Hawaii, the hereditary monarchy had caused the nation to grow weaker in power. American businessmen migrated to the region and eventually caused enough raucous to warrant a US "intervention." Hawaii's government was overthrown and the islands became a territory.

Was Manifest Destiny imperialistic? Yes. But imperialism is most obvious as the forceful military subversion of a sovereign state, rather than any grasp at territory that isn't yours. The movement west certainly devastated American Indian tribes (I'm something of an Indian sympathizer). Manifest Destiny had a lot of religious undertones, a progressive attitude, and heaps of nationalism.

Thank you all for your opinions and keeping this discussion civil.



I do believe almost every nation on earth was imperialist at some form in its history. Why do you believe it is a loose definition of the term? In my opinion, an empire is the military conquest of foreign territory that is integrated into either your political status or complete economic dominance.



That is an interesting theory which does somewhat answer my question, thank you.



Thank you for your opinion but I completely disagree with you. I believe protectorates were simply colonies in practice but with a 'nicer' sounding name. This was the same case with the League of Nations mandates. The British and French took control of former Ottoman and German colonies as 'mandates' to help them develop but in practice were simply added to their collection of suppressed states. You discard 'used these countries as economic resources' as not important but that is clearly the reason why the Americans were in there in the first place, to ensure that economic conditions are favourable to the US rather than to the Philippine people. I also disagree with you when you say 'it wasn't a big period of time.' The first act of imperialism committed by the US was the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 where thousands of Natives no longer had the right to live there and were forced to reallocate and lost their territory to the US. This was the first of many similar actions to other ethnicities. So in conclusion, Imperialism was a very large part of US history. I realise that this answer may sound degrading to the US but I do not intend to degrade it or praise it. Many other countries did the same to other people and some were even worse.



Again, I respect your answer but I disagree with you on many points. You mention that the US's expansion was not as dramatic as European nations yet considering the United States grew over 6x its original size is extremely dramatic. How is the US's expansion of conquering native land any different to that of the growth of the Russian empire or the Ottoman Empire? You say that the territories controlled by the US were acquired during military conflicts, well does that not count as imperialistic control? You say that the US never directly set out with the intention of colonialisng but Manifest Destiny specifically states that it is the US's fate and right to control land stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific. You also say that the US allowed for elections in some of its colonies, that is true to an extent, but the United States held firm control of who would be the leader of Cuba for a long while. You can still be imperialistic and allow elections as the British did with Canada, Australia and New Zealand.



I agree with the vast majority of what you stated. But isn't 'forceful military subversion of a sovereign state' identical to 'any grasp at territory that isn't yours?'

Both areas are occupied--the difference is what they're occupied by. It's still imperialism. But the US participating in the inter-tribal warfare of the Plains Indians is somewhat different than sneakily subverting the government of Cuba. Just my opinion.

I did learn about imperialism is school, but I do think it was downplayed. I think American historiography also has a lot to do with the way Americans view the US empire. Re-branding the conflict between Cuba and Spain the "Spanish-American War" says a lot. Additionally, like I said, the Europeans were much more obvious about their intentions to establish empires, based on my studies. Imperialism in the US was often accompanied by progressive values.

Also, I found your comment interesting JamesR. Out of curiosity, have you always lived in Texas? I am currently attending school in Texas and have but have lived most of my life in other states. I've observed an enormous amount of Texas pride I've not seen in other states (ie, most Americans take pride in country over state). In addition to that, pride for the US remains pretty consistently high no matter which state I've lived in.

Thank you for your answer. I think that helps a lot in answering my question. The only thing I wish to question you upon is your statement that 'Imperialism in the US was often accompanied by progressive values.' My question to you is, was it any more/less progressive than other Empires in history? In my opinion, I don't think it was any more progressive than most other empires but I want to hear your reasoning behind your statement.

I may have left my area of knowledge, as I'm unfamiliar with the exact specifics of what was going through the minds of Europeans as they spread their empires in the late 1800s and beyond. I'll just state what I know and you can corroborate or correct based on your knowledge.

Of course, if you're referring to imperialism in other eras in history--progressivism as a political ideology had not really been established.

The specific example I was thinking of was what I mentioned earlier--European nations had a council to divide Africa to specifically further their empires, whereas in America, the support for the war in Cuba, the movement west, etc, were specifically (popularly) promoted by an interest in addressing "people's well being" as opposed to just conquest.

The motives may have been slightly different, but they were still misplaced. It's White Man's Burden. I know that concept originated in Britain but I'm not sure how much it permeated European thought. If you take a look at the painting "American Progress," you can see a good example of how American empire-building looked in the western US. American settlers pushed forth, with or without the help of their government, to bring the American way of life to the Natives. A key here is Christianity as well.

I may not have explained that to the extent you were looking for as I have no strong case for challenging the progressive nature of Europe. I am interested to see what you have to say and would be open to attempting to describe what exactly progressivism looked like in the US at this time period if need be.

I understand what you mean but one of the reasons Europeans had a council to divide up Africa (and other parts of the world) was to avoid direct military conflict as there was serious competition. In the early days of European Imperialism beyond its continent, the attitude was 'if I don't claim that land, my enemy will.' So it had more practical intentions.

I also believe that European empires (just like the Americans) also believed they were bringing progress. They were spreading religion, their economic customs and 'civilising' natives by introducing technologies and industries. So to the eyes of many European Empires, they thought they were improving the world, obviously turning a blind eye to all of the famine, massacres and brutalities under their rule.

So what I'm trying to say is that both the Americans and Europeans thought that they were bringing liberty to the world through conquest.

I can get behind that and I don't really think we're actually arguing anything. I wasn't sure if there was a difference or not.

With the Monroe Doctrine, the US expressed that Europe was not entitled to expand in the New World. Of course, the implication there was that the US was the one entitled to conquer the New World, though they didn't act on that nearly as much as they could have. Likewise, the US was invited to participate in the division of Africa but declined. The US was not as concerned as Europe as expanding their empire or competing with others to do so.

That might well have been the case because there wasn't much competition in the New World. For example, I mentioned that if Spain wouldn't have Cuba, the US would. There wasn't a great impetus to conquer.

That was the propaganda, anyway, and how the average person rationalized being part of it. I guess blankets infested with smallpox bring their own kind of "liberty".

I think we have come to an agreement on the matter then. So going back to my original question, why do you think many Americans do not even consider the United States as an empire before WWII. The US was not as transparent about it as Europeans but as we have discussed the evidence is all there. I don't mean for this to sound rhetorical but do you believe that the reason is simply because the US was not transparent about their 'empire building?' Or do you believe there are other reasons.



Yes I agree it was all propaganda and your example is a classic one of the devastation that western nations brought upon native populations.

Speaking as a dual US-Canadian citizen who's lived for extended periods in both, I think it's the intersection of an overly developed sense of patriotism, and wide-spread ignorance. Canadians love Canada, but they tend to be more objective about it. Americans love the USA, and it's often difficult (or even dangerous, depending on who you're talking to) to discuss its negative aspects. Of course there are all kinds of personal opinions, but general tone is "love it or leave it".

American history as taught in America glosses over imperialistic behaviour and fosters myth-making. Few Americans I've talked to know about the War of 1812 (when the British sacked the White House), or if they do, they only know that's when the anthem was created. There are a lot of gaps, and the focus is on America-the-land-of-the-free, and being strong enough to kick b*** to keep it that way. The Statue of Liberty becomes a beacon of hope, and if you're a beacon of hope, how can what you do be termed "imperial"? It's all about freedom, after all.

I found a very interesting discussion a while back that showed reports of the first colonial visitors to the eastern coast of North America that encountered very large populations of natives. There were obviously fairly large gaps between those visits and the more establish colonial settlements. As future visitors arrived the native populations were already much smaller and in some areas continued to decline. This was hardly noted at the time but some now believe those first visitors brought along one or more 'common European diseases' that then did a number on the native populations of the area, weakening them significantly and making it much easier to simply 'move in'. It is believed by many that had this not occurred the early colonial attempts may not have been nearly as successful. I'm sure much of the same happened as 'civilization' pressed west. There were many military actions but I am sure disease played a big role in softening up things.

whafrog - you are absolutely right about the War of 1812, and others such as the Mexican-American war and the Barbary Wars, being hardly on the radar of many school lessons.

_________________
Wait ye the finish! The fight is not yours.
Beowulf

http://TacticsInMiniature.com

Sorry to digress on the thread, but the book "1491" is a fascinating overview of this exact issue: that the first European visitors brought smallpox that devasted 90% of the native populations. The premise is that native populations were upwards of 25 million in NA alone, and the "bounteous nature" witnessed by early explorers (think Lewis and Clarke) was an ecology on the rebound from widespread native control by fire that had not yet reached an equilibrium.

First of all we try really hard to hide our real history (like most nations) here as well as distance our self from curtain imagery. Sense we out right lie in many of our history texts in public schools its very easy to understand that most Americans don't really understand what Imperialism is nor how to correlate it to our own history. Most modern people do not put much emphasis on history and as such, what history they do know is only what is taught in school. If what is taught in school is slanted or a lie and they never look any deeper they remain ignorant of the facts of what really happened (if the records even exist to show what happened). Keep in mind that all History documents are slanted to the views of those who wrote them and that is why I place more value in anthropology then history.

Words like Imperialism and Socialism are taboo here when speaking about our own country. We prize more our slanted views then the facts and many Americans will get down right hostile when you try and point out what really happened or is happening to them.



Yes some of this was intentional while the initial infections where not. Sense they had not come into contact with many of our diseases it created a pandemic and drastically reduced the populations here in the Americas.

But we did not take by force all of the lands that we expanded into. As stated, many were purchased. The tribes that would sell us their lands made a fortune and those tribes continue to be wealthy to this day. Those that resisted where met with steal and fire and we took it by force while moving them to reservations. Yes we were the invaders and the whole concept of Manifest destiny is Imperialism but like all human beings we justify our actions however we can so that we can sleep at night.

Basically to answer your question: The majority of Americans do not see the actions of our forefathers as being Imperialist do to a lack of understanding of what Imperialism is as well as ignorance of the real history of our own country.