The United States held a strong belief in neutrality and non-interventionist foreign policy, which was mainly based on the Monroe Doctrine that allowed them to remain neutral without interfering in other state affairs while warning other powers and encouraging them to stay out of U.S. affairs [1]. However, in the late 19th and early 20th century, the U.S. foreign policy underwent a substantial transition that transformed them from isolationism and continental expansion and adopted imperialism like other European powers that were extending their influence and acquiring colonies across the world. The United States transition was driven by an intricate combination of economic, ideological, political, and strategic factors. This paper focuses on the major motivations and factors that influenced the United States’ change in its foreign policy from continental expansion and isolationism to imperialism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Economic interest was among the key drivers that made the United States transition to imperialism for them to use it as a tool for their prosperity. The United States’ imperialistic ambition was mainly driven by its need for resources and new markets during this period when it experienced tremendous industrialization throughout the country. The Industrial Revolution in this period made the U.S. a manufacturing hub that had an increased output capacity, which required new markets for its discovery. With their enormous potential for unexplored markets and an abundance of raw materials, colonies offered a solution to this problem since they represented a perfect opportunity for American enterprises, who were eager for growth and profitability, to expand their operations and guarantee a consistent flow of customers and raw materials [2]. For instance, the acquisitions of the Philippines provided the United States with access to the Asian market, which greatly strengthened its economic position.
Imperialism increased its appeal to the U.S. by providing new investment opportunities for American businessmen who were ready to spend their money on projects abroad. These businesses covered a wide range of options, including mining operations, infrastructure construction, and numerous industrial efforts. One of the most famous and significant examples of such investment was the building of the Panama Canal, a venture with significant geopolitical and economic ramifications [3]. Imperialism served as a doorway for American businessmen to diversify their holdings and attain significant profits in foreign markets, frequently in areas with a wealth of unexplored resources. For instance, the mining sector enticed investors to invest in the enormous mineral resources of recently acquired territories. This sort of investment not only promised high returns but also helped these areas expand and become more contemporary. The building of the Panama Canal is a prime example of the f mutually beneficial interaction between imperialism and economic factors, as the project was completed by investors for them to have a quick trade route between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans.
Political factors also influenced the United States’ shift to imperialism, especially the increased sense of nationalism that made Americans desire to assert themselves as a global force. The growing aspiration was motivated by the strong conviction that the country had a special obligation to spread its influence and principles beyond its boundaries, a view that would resound in the 20th century and beyond. The need for a more assertive foreign policy was supported by leaders such as Theodore Roosevelt, who popularized the adage “speak softly and carry a big stick” to push for his nationalistic passion [4]. The United States started to abandon its prior unwillingness to participate in international issues under Roosevelt’s leadership and adopted a proactive position in the world arena, where they attempted to wield influence and reshape world events rather than focusing solely on territorial conquest. The change was motivated by the political belief that the United States had a moral obligation to advance democracy and human rights across the world.
The geopolitical rivalry was also a major factor that led the U.S. shift to imperialism in the late 19th and early 20th century to create a presence in key areas throughout the globe to protect its interests while maintaining its role in influencing the developing global order as European nations enmeshed in a violent struggle for global domination. The acquisition of Hawaii is an example of U.S. strategic moves in 1898 that were focused on increasing American territorial control while serving as a building block for American influence and power in the Pacific region. The larger background of imperial aspirations served to further emphasize the geopolitical struggle of the time as the European powers involved themselves in aggressive territorial expansion in Africa and Asia that would easily lead to competition and war, hence the need for a strategic position on how to navigate the global power dynamics.
The United States shift from isolation to imperialism was also driven by ideological factors such as the manifest destiny idea. The manifest destiny idea expanded into a more general conviction that the country was destined to advance not only westward but also internationally, which increased the feeling among many Americans that they had a grave obligation to spread American institutions and ideals throughout the world [5]. In this new setting, the idea of Manifest Destiny acted as a strong ideological justification for imperialism, presenting the growth of American dominance as a moral mission of the highest significance, such as democratic principles, societal ideals, and technological advancements. The ideological change became more apparent in the imperialism era when the U.S. increased its influence in new regions such as the Pacific, the Caribbean, and Latin America.
The civilization mission also served as the imperialism overarching ideological pillar that suggested that nations that were more developed and evolved had a moral duty to progress and educate civilizations that were considered less advanced. American leaders claimed that by interfering in many areas, they would advance culture, knowledge, and development in the lands they acquired. The idea of the civilizing mission was based on fundamental assumptions that the more developed cultures would advance as a result of the dissemination of better knowledge, technology, and values that they had, with the imperial rulers posing as mentors leading people toward enlightenment. This idea was notably evident in American imperialism during the post-Spanish-American War annexation of territories such as Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines, where American officials believed that they had political, legal, and economic institutions that would be advantageous for these territories.
Strategic factors also played a huge role in shaping the U.S. imperial ambitions, especially the emphasis on naval strength and building strategic bases across the world. The urgent need to be a global power and protect its interests greatly drove the U.S. strategic emphasis on its naval superiority. The United States made significant investments to enhance its naval capabilities as it understood the importance of having a powerful navy that would strengthen the nation’s defense and protect trade routes while enforcing maritime regulations [6]. The acquisition of territories such as the Philippines and Guam is an example of strategic consideration as the Philippines is strategically located in the middle of Southeast Asia while Guam is located in the western Pacific, thus offering the U.S. important naval bases [7]. The territories provided U.S. American battleships with staging locations, maintenance facilities, and logistical support, allowing the country to maintain its influence and control in the Pacific region.
Imperialism was a vital means by which the United States was able to get access to important international resources that were essential to the country’s rapidly developing industrial expansion that required natural resources, such as rubber, sugar, and minerals. The strategic need to power the United States’ economic engine drove the country to acquire new territories that were producers of resources, such as the Caribbean Island, which was well known for its sugar production. In the same way, rubber became a significant resource due to its significance in the expanding industrial and vehicle sectors; thus, American companies were well aware of the necessity of a consistent rubber supply to sustain their manufacturing operations. The strategic need for rubber plantations drove the U.S. state imperialist desire to control places like Southeast Asia [8]. The acquired territories, such as in the South Asia region, ensured that the U.S. had a reliable and secure supply of important resources for their industry.
In conclusion, the complex interaction between the political, economic, ideological, and strategic elements in the late 19th and early 20th centuries greatly contributed to the United States’ transition to imperialism from the isolation policy. During this time, the United States’ foreign policy was significantly influenced by a variety of factors, including political aspirations, economic interests, ideological explanations, and strategic concerns. Nationalism, economic growth, and geopolitical competition propelled the country towards a more aggressive global position, while the belief in manifest destiny and the idea of the civilizing mission served as the intellectual basis for imperialist operations across the world. In the end, these elements came together to turn the U.S. into an imperial power, which had long-lasting effects on how it acted across the world.
References
Cowen, Deborah. “Following the infrastructures of empire: Notes on cities, settler colonialism, and method.” Urban Geography 41, no. 4 (2020): 469-486. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2019.1677990
Laderman, Charles. “Theodore Roosevelt’s statecraft and the American rise to World Power.” A Companion to U.S. Foreign Relations: Colonial Era to the Present (2020): 288-303. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119166139.ch14
Scarfi, Juan Pablo. “Denaturalizing the Monroe Doctrine: The rise of Latin American legal anti-imperialism in the face of the modern U.S. and hemispheric redefinition of the Monroe Doctrine.” Leiden Journal of International Law 33, no. 3 (2020): 541-555. https://doi.org/10.1017/S092215652000031X
Unterman, Katherine. “Trial without Jury in Guam, USA.” Law and History Review 38, no. 4 (2020): 811-841.
Vakulabharanam, Vamsi. “South Asian Economies in Two Imperialist Regimes between 1950 and 2020.” The Oxford Handbook of Economic Imperialism (2022): 411.
[1] Scarfi, Juan Pablo. “Denaturalizing the Monroe Doctrine: The rise of Latin American legal anti-imperialism in the face of the modern US and hemispheric redefinition of the Monroe Doctrine.” Leiden Journal of International Law 33, no. 3 (2020): 541-555. https://doi.org/10.1017/S092215652000031X
[2] Vakulabharanam, Vamsi. “South Asian Economies in Two Imperialist Regimes between 1950 and 2020.” The Oxford Handbook of Economic Imperialism (2022): 411.
[3] Cowen, Deborah. “Following the infrastructures of empire: Notes on cities, settler colonialism, and method.” Urban Geography 41, no. 4 (2020): 469-486. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2019.1677990
[4] Laderman, Charles. “Theodore Roosevelt’s statecraft and the American rise to World Power.” A Companion to US Foreign Relations: Colonial Era to the Present (2020): 288-303. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119166139.ch14
[5] Laderman, Charles. “Theodore Roosevelt’s statecraft and the American rise to World Power.” A Companion to US Foreign Relations: Colonial Era to the Present (2020): 288-303. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119166139.ch14
[6] Laderman, Charles. “Theodore Roosevelt’s statecraft and the American rise to World Power.” A Companion to US Foreign Relations: Colonial Era to the Present (2020): 288-303. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119166139.ch14
[7] Unterman, Katherine. “Trial without Jury in Guam, USA.” Law and History Review 38, no. 4 (2020): 811-841.
[8] Vakulabharanam, Vamsi. “South Asian Economies in Two Imperialist Regimes between 1950 and 2020.” The Oxford Handbook of Economic Imperialism (2022): 411.
write