Late Nineteenth-Century Expansionism

In the late nineteenth-century, American expansionism took on a different hue, but in many ways remained similar to the expansion of the preceding century. As the progressive era dawned and the frontier was declared to be closed, expansion efforts took on a more paternalistic and trade oriented attitude, rather than one of pure imperialism, but many Americans perceived the new expansionist ideology as a continuation of the old. The civilized nations of Europe were taking large swaths of land in Africa and Asia, and many Americans wanted to take part in this effort; intellectuals and politicians at home argued different sides of this new expansionism, some, like Mahan, saying a powerful imperialist navy was essential for the security of American …show more content…
In many ways, the new American ideal of expansionism was not new at all, but a continuation of older principles that were simply being adapted for a more progressive political environment, but even this is an oversimplification as many ideologies overlapped in the confusing rush for expansion.
America’s expansionism in the late nineteenth-century was a continuation of past United States expansionism in that the United States continued to annex lands not previously occupied and continued its habit of violent expulsion or elimination of native groups. The annexation of the contiguous West by the United States can be characterized as imperialistic; the United States absorbed lands into a growing empire and integrated those lands into the nation. Similar imperialist principles were present in the late nineteenth-century and early twentieth-century when the United States took control of many Spanish lands and occupied several Central American countries. Alfred T. Mahan expressed this ideal of imperialism in his book on sea power; he stated that “Americans must now look outward,” and argued that a strong American navy would …show more content…
Bidwell. The ideologies of paternalism and the rhetoric of the missionary are important points in Strong’s argument for expansionism. He states that God “is training the Anglo-Saxon race for … this competition of races.” Strong argues that Americans will “move down upon Mexico” and “South America,” claiming that the new expansionism will be a “survival of the fittest.” This talk is, of course, contains less of the rhetoric familiar to paternalism, in which it is argued that it is the duty of the white race to civilize those heathens of other nations, but it highlights many ideas that fit with both imperialism and paternalism; conquest and cultural superiority. Similar elements are highlighted in the Supreme Court decision; where the court decided that while acquiring territory is good for the “American empire,” the differences in “race, habits, laws, and customs” are great enough to prevent these conquered or acquired-by-treaty people from becoming automatic citizens of the United States. This is important because it brings to the forefront several important progressive era principles yet again: the inherent superiority of the white race over others, and the importance of asserting American influence abroad without being necessarily imperialistic in the European sense. Both these documents, while bearing