alternatehistory.com

Despite the existence of dissenters, territorial expansion was throughout the 18th an 19th century favored by a majority of Americans and considered a "good thing" with all frankness.

Despite exceptions in practice (U.S. Virgin Islands, 1917, Micronesia, 1945, admission of 5 new states in 20th century), 20th and 21st century America switched over to a model of informal empire and alliance networks, and took to contrasting itself favorably with other powers precisely because it no longer sought additional territory.

The first instance of self-denial it seems to me was the Teller Amendment during the Spanish-American War, saying annexation of Cuba was not an option.

The second example seems to be the decision to track the Philippines for independence, that was probably the anticipation even before WWI.

The third example was Woodrow Wilson's preaching about the 14 Points, League of Nations, self-determination, which all treated annexations as "a bad thing", and recharacterized U.S. foreign policy from the 19th century, "America does what's good for America, which we think is great for the world by the way" to a self-perception of "America does what's good for the world, which we think is good for America" This schtick has continued from Wilson through Dubya Bush and beyond, with the current President being the one most deviant from that rhetoric.

How much longer could frank advocacy of direct territorial expansion of the Republic as a good in itself have gone on?

Is it plausible to end up with people besides Teller, Wilson and some like-minded folks to run US foreign policy in the 20th century, and have those people be pro-expansion, with no permanent limit to US borders [even if as a practical matter, they do not seek to gobble the whole world]?

Parallel to this, starting with the Open Door notes, the U.S. started to become uncomfortable with exclusive territorial spheres of influence (except for itself in the Americas). The TR administration still had tolerance for defined spheres, but it went further out of style during the Taft and Wilson administrations.

Wilson propagandized in favor of self-determination and against spheres of influence and secret treaties.

Could those themes have been avoided with an alternate American leadership during WWI?
Top