Why was the U.S. more anti-imperialist than the other Great Powers were?

royal744

Ad Honorem
Jul 2013
9,840
San Antonio, Tx
#31
ru
Puerto Rico is definitely not to small to be independent, there are states with both smaller land areas and smaller populations.
True. Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands next door taken together could definitely be independent states. In Puerto Rico there has nearly always been an Independence Party as there is today. Each time the issue comes up before the electorate, the issue of independence does not garner sufficient votes. Even then, the vote would have to be approved of by the Federal Government - in other words, approval of independence requires congressional approval.

Puerto Riquenos do not pay federal income taxes. Not sure if this applies to PR citizens who live stateside.
 
Likes: Futurist
Oct 2013
1,283
Monza, Italy
#32
I remember Robert Kagan saying that the Founders (ok, it's the late XVIII century) weren't particularly aggressive because they could't afford it - by the way a lot of them had a nationalistic-protectionistic agenda; I guess more or less the same logic for the late XIX century (there were still the great European colonial empires), actually when the U.S. became the only superpower after Cold war it could afford a very imperialistic logic, wheter the President was a Republican or a Democrat (Kosovo, Iraq 2003, embargoes against Saddam Hussein), I believe this is mainly due to the ruling elites , the "freedom and justice" cornerstone of the Declaration of Indipendence matter very little when it comes to realpolitik (especially international politics which involve the logic of profit of great corpororations and lobbies).
 
Likes: Futurist

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
5,770
#34
Bet they wish they never bothered with Puerto Rico

I think this OP just writes threads to wind everybody up. At the relevant time the US wasn't a 'Great Power', when they were, they did!!
The US expanded its contiguous empire, with many wars with native Americans, and taking Spanish and Mexican territory, as well as invading British territory. Then it took most of Spain's remaining overseas empire. It was a power in the Western Hemisphere, temporarily invading various countries. After WWII, it became a world power with bases all over and overthrowing many governments.

The US did not expand its empire overseas until 1898, but it was busy expanding its contiguous empire. It was in favor of decolonization, which allowed it more influence in former colonies of European countries, but generally did not directly aid independence forces. So by that you could say the US was anti imperialist.
 
Likes: Futurist
Dec 2011
3,549
#36
Why was the U.S. more anti-imperialist than the other Great Powers were?

In the U.S. in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, there was a lot of opposition to imperialism. For instance, William Jennings Bryan ran--in part--on an anti-imperialist platform and got 45.5% of the total nationwide vote. Also, opposition to imperialism in the U.S. was not limited to the Democratic Party--for instance, Republican U.S. Senator George Frisbie Hoar had this to say about the Philippine-American War:

George Frisbie Hoar - Wikipedia

"You have sacrificed nearly ten thousand American lives—the flower of our youth. You have devastated provinces. You have slain uncounted thousands of the people you desire to benefit. You have established reconcentration camps. Your generals are coming home from their harvest bringing sheaves with them, in the shape of other thousands of sick and wounded and insane to drag out miserable lives, wrecked in body and mind. You make the American flag in the eyes of a numerous people the emblem of sacrilege in Christian churches, and of the burning of human dwellings, and of the horror of the water torture. Your practical statesmanship which disdains to take George Washington and Abraham Lincoln or the soldiers of the Revolution or of the Civil War as models, has looked in some cases to Spain for your example. I believe—nay, I know—that in general our officers and soldiers are humane. But in some cases they have carried on your warfare with a mixture of American ingenuity and Castilian cruelty. Your practical statesmanship has succeeded in converting a people who three years ago were ready to kiss the hem of the garment of the American and to welcome him as a liberator, who thronged after your men when they landed on those islands with benediction and gratitude, into sullen and irreconcilable enemies, possessed of a hatred which centuries can not eradicate."

Even the U.S.'s acquisition of the Philippines and Puerto Rico were extremely controversial in the late 1890s.

Why was the U.S. more anti-imperialist during this time than the other Great Powers were?

Was it because of its own history being a British colony, or was there another reason for this?
I think the reason is more mundane, the US had so much territory of its' own it had no need for foreign acquisitions, it was imperialist against the native Americans
 
Feb 2012
3,888
Portugal
#37
Why was the U.S. more anti-imperialist than the other Great Powers were?

In the U.S. in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, there was a lot of opposition to imperialism. For instance, William Jennings Bryan ran--in part--on an anti-imperialist platform and got 45.5% of the total nationwide vote. Also, opposition to imperialism in the U.S. was not limited to the Democratic Party--for instance, Republican U.S. Senator George Frisbie Hoar had this to say about the Philippine-American War:

George Frisbie Hoar - Wikipedia

"You have sacrificed nearly ten thousand American lives—the flower of our youth. You have devastated provinces. You have slain uncounted thousands of the people you desire to benefit. You have established reconcentration camps. Your generals are coming home from their harvest bringing sheaves with them, in the shape of other thousands of sick and wounded and insane to drag out miserable lives, wrecked in body and mind. You make the American flag in the eyes of a numerous people the emblem of sacrilege in Christian churches, and of the burning of human dwellings, and of the horror of the water torture. Your practical statesmanship which disdains to take George Washington and Abraham Lincoln or the soldiers of the Revolution or of the Civil War as models, has looked in some cases to Spain for your example. I believe—nay, I know—that in general our officers and soldiers are humane. But in some cases they have carried on your warfare with a mixture of American ingenuity and Castilian cruelty. Your practical statesmanship has succeeded in converting a people who three years ago were ready to kiss the hem of the garment of the American and to welcome him as a liberator, who thronged after your men when they landed on those islands with benediction and gratitude, into sullen and irreconcilable enemies, possessed of a hatred which centuries can not eradicate."

Even the U.S.'s acquisition of the Philippines and Puerto Rico were extremely controversial in the late 1890s.

Why was the U.S. more anti-imperialist during this time than the other Great Powers were?

Was it because of its own history being a British colony, or was there another reason for this?
Many libertarians have been ferociously anti-imperialist. To be honest used to think traditional conservatives untill the Cold War and Barry Goldwater movement, though he latter became a libertarian, were closer to anti-imperialism and entertained the thought of going back, after the Cold War, to the "look inside" kind of attitude that seems to have been dominant in the US untill WWII.
Nevertheless wether or not the US were a great power, the dominant view seemed to be towards non interventionism. Someone correct this if it is wrong but saw in a documentary that when the Southern states threatened succession the public oppinion in the North was more inclined to let them go.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Futurist