How powerful could an imperialistic minded USA have gotten by the end of the 19th century?

If instead of its mostly isolationist leanings throughout much of the 19th century the US from around the time of its independence had the goal in mind to become a world power with influences beyond just North America?

How powerful a US could have been seen by the dawn of the 20th century or would that mentality have had the opposite effect?
 
The USA may not be imperialistic per se, but it was certainly never isolationist. They continually expanded throughout the 19th century.
 
The USA may not be imperialistic per se, but it was certainly never isolationist. They continually expanded throughout the 19th century.
Isolationalist is not the opposite of imperialistic. America was imperialistic without being involved in the greater cares of the world. Refusing to get involved in the Napoleonic Wars for instance. And imperialistic doesn't include things like the Louisiana Purchase. Buying the right to purchase land from, and negotiate treaties with, the natives of an area is not imperialistic. Going on and having wars against those natives is.

It really isn't until after the Civil War you get the US caring to butt it's nose into other nation's affairs that would not otherwise be in it's self-interest. Attempting to annex Dominican Republic is imperialistic, but the US is still isolationist. Roosevelt arbitrating the end of the Russo Japanese War is not imperialistic; but does show that he took the US out of isolationism (for the time being); while the Boxer Rebellion is an example of the US being imperialistic AND not being isolationist by cooperating with other Western powers.
 
The US went from being a nation confined to the east coast of its modern boundaries in 1800, to expanding across the North American continent, and into the Asia Pacific region and the Carribean. By 1900 it was the fourth largest empire in the world by land area. I don't know how people can conclude that it wasn't imperialistic.
 
Isolationalist is not the opposite of imperialistic. America was imperialistic without being involved in the greater cares of the world. Refusing to get involved in the Napoleonic Wars for instance. And imperialistic doesn't include things like the Louisiana Purchase. Buying the right to purchase land from, and negotiate treaties with, the natives of an area is not imperialistic. Going on and having wars against those natives is.

No, but the two are pretty tied together.

It really isn't until after the Civil War you get the US caring to butt it's nose into other nation's affairs that would not otherwise be in it's self-interest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine

Attempting to annex Dominican Republic is imperialistic, but the US is still isolationist. Roosevelt arbitrating the end of the Russo Japanese War is not imperialistic; but does show that he took the US out of isolationism (for the time being); while the Boxer Rebellion is an example of the US being imperialistic AND not being isolationist by cooperating with other Western powers.

Wanting to interfere in Latin America, as the U.S did from practically the beginning, does not speak of an isolationist country. And when your foreign policy involves taking over half of a continent from other neigbhors, both European and Native, that is not isolationist, because you absolutely need to interact with them.

As for the United States being isolationist from European affairs, it's worth remembering that the last four great European wars (World War Two, World War One, the Napoleonic Wars, and the Seven Years War) all had the United States being VERY involved. To pretend the United States was in some way isolated from world affairs at its inception or early years is dishonest. They are isolationist in the same way the Dutch would have been isolationist at this time; with their own spheres of influence to protect, a desire to expand, and with bigger European powers to worry about.
 
No, but the two are pretty tied together.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine



Wanting to interfere in Latin America, as the U.S did from practically the beginning, does not speak of an isolationist country. And when your foreign policy involves taking over half of a continent from other neigbhors, both European and Native, that is not isolationist, because you absolutely need to interact with them.

As for the United States being isolationist from European affairs, it's worth remembering that the last four great European wars (World War Two, World War One, the Napoleonic Wars, and the Seven Years War) all had the United States being VERY involved. To pretend the United States was in some way isolated from world affairs at its inception or early years is dishonest. They are isolationist in the same way the Dutch would have been isolationist at this time; with their own spheres of influence to protect, a desire to expand, and with bigger European powers to worry about.
Monroe Doctrine is isolationist... the US and the War of 1812 seriously is not a part of the Napoleonic Wars and the US was not an ally of France at that time. Latin America has nothing to do with isolationism. Being non-isolationist means you get involved in things NOT related to your self-interest. All of The Americas is by definition the self-interest of the US. I'm not going to debate this further.
 
Last edited:
Monroe Doctrine is isolationist

Isolationist, except for two continents. Got it.

the US and the War of 1812 seriously is not a part of the Napoleonic Wars and the US was not an ally of France at that time.

You do know that the causes of the War of 1812 have everything to do with the Napoleonic Wars, right? Please tell me you know that.

Latin America has nothing to do with isolationism.

It is patently ridiculous to suggest a nation that makes two continents worth of nations its business is isolationist.

Being non-isolationist means you get involved in things NOT related to your self-interest. All of The Americas is by definition the self-interest of the US

In that case, no country has ever been non-isolationist, because every nation has only ever gotten involved in things at least tangentially related to its own self-interest.

I'm not in the habit of pulling definitions out of thin air, so I'll just pull up some quick ones from others. Merriam-Webster: defines isolationism as a policy of national isolation by abstention from alliances and other international political and economic relations. Other definitions include "a policy of remaining apart from the affairs or interests of other groups, especially the political affairs of other countries." or "the policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities."

By these definitions, the U.S has never been isolationist, and particularly not early on. The abstention from alliances part they paid some lip service to, if one discounts all the alliances of convenience they did enter into (such as with the French early on, or the vagueness of their promise to protect the Americas from European Aggression). They did not in any way eschew international political and economic relations, trading and reaching political agreements with other nations all the time. They certainly didn't remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities; the various wars fought with Native Americans and eventually one with Mexico showed a focus towards expansion over internal affairs. The various treaties with European governments, along with the commitment to encouraging and protecting trade and eventually immigration from other nations married the United States to the interests of other groups, rather than keeping them apart.

I'm not arguing any more over these definitions people on AH.com don't seem to understand. You have a non-political science defintion, then good for you. I'm not arguing or debating this further if you dont want to trust me.

So because I don't agree with you, you're not willing to even discuss this? What kind of a discussion is that?
 
Isolationalist is not the opposite of imperialistic. America was imperialistic without being involved in the greater cares of the world. Refusing to get involved in the Napoleonic Wars for instance.
Agreed, agreed, agreed!
And imperialistic doesn't include things like the Louisiana Purchase. Buying the right to purchase land from, and negotiate treaties with, the natives of an area is not imperialistic. Going on and having wars against those natives is.
Strongly disagreed!
We USAians are strongly, from our origins, fundamentally imperialist. The Louisiana Purchase was brilliantly imperialist--that we could get that vast acquisition without firing a shot (shots were fired later, in the War of 1812, to confirm our claim to it) was a fantastic coup. But it was an imperialist transaction, I cannot see how there can be any doubt of it. What after all was Napoleon's claim to this territory? What right did he have to sell it? Arguing that it wasn't an imperialist acquisition is like arguing that a man is not a slaver if he didn't capture all his slaves from their homes himself, but "only" purchased slaves from a dealer offering to sell them.

English speaking America exists entirely as an exercise in imperialism on the grandest scale.

Your point about the question of entangling alliances with other imperialist powers being irrelevant to the determination of one power being imperialist or not is very well taken, and undermines the distinction you wish to make.

Now then, if the USA had ever expanded because an established nation not stemming from an invasion of US emigrants dominating other peoples who had lived there before or came in as alternates not mixed in with the USAians, developed a strong majority sentiment for joining our Union, and negotiated such incorporation on their own behalf, I would agree that would not be an instance of imperialism. Let us say the people of Chile all decided, or anyway an overwhelming democratic majority of them, like 70 percent or so, that they wanted to be in the USA, and we agreed we wanted them to, and by treaty it was incorporated and a number of states of the Union with representatives and Senators elected by the Chileans went to Washington, and native born Chileans became as eligible as anyone born in the older USA to be elected President and so forth, then that in itself would not be imperialist. (It would be ASB as all hell of course!) Imperialism could be involved--say this happened in the late 19th century, and one reason Chlle wanted into the Union was to be able to have deep backing for a venture to conquer all the niter mines in the region to the north, and one reason the Anglo-Americans agreed to take in a bunch of Spanish-speaking South Americans was anticipation of that niter monopoly (not to be had without war with Britain of course...) that part would be nakedly imperialist. But not the incorporation, if it were desired by a legitimate majority of Chileans, for whatever reason.

Ah, then, what about Texas and California? Well, you might as well mention Hawaii in the same breath. In all of these cases, governments were formed, by emigrant US citizens, that petitioned for admission to the Union. The difference versus my ASB Chilean scenario is--these states were formed by a wave of invading Americans, who overrode the interests and rights of people who had been living there before. In Texas and California the numerical majority of these were other imperialists, Mexicans settling there mainly to secure Mexico's claim, the Californian project going back to pre-revolutionary days under the aegis of New Spain. To a degree, non-Anglo Tejanos and Californios did ally with the invading Anglos to support independence from Mexico, but in retrospect they were obviously and blatantly betrayed. Meanwhile a whole lot of Native Americans were having their very humanity, let alone political and civil rights, pretty much ignored and trampled upon. (That some of these were not themselves very nice people and might even be called imperialistic themselves does nothing to negate the fact they were taken advantage of). Hawaii of course most people would agree right away was a plain instance of imperialism--yet the terms on which Hawaii came to be incorporated were essentially similar to the process in the earlier continental cases.

Alaska was acquired the same way Louisiana was, in a friendly deal with a fellow imperial power with both partners to the deal treating the Natives like so much commodity cordwood, the Russians having accomplished dominion over the natives by a combination of trade, missionaries--and brute force from time to time. Clearly imperialist. Clearly imperialist to purchase it without bothering to talk to the people who lived there and ascertain their desires. The Southwest and Florida were nominally purchased, from Mexico and Spain. I've never seen an evaluation of how much the money paid for the conquests would appear to have been a fair compensation, but even if it were such, the deal was still forced, with guns to the heads of both "freely" selling party. Clearly imperialist.

In fact there are no parts of the USA that were not conquered at some point or other, by the people we claim cultural descent from.

We are all about empire.
It really isn't until after the Civil War you get the US caring to butt it's nose into other nation's affairs that would not otherwise be in it's self-interest. Attempting to annex Dominican Republic is imperialistic, but the US is still isolationist. Roosevelt arbitrating the end of the Russo Japanese War is not imperialistic; but does show that he took the US out of isolationism (for the time being); while the Boxer Rebellion is an example of the US being imperialistic AND not being isolationist by cooperating with other Western powers.
All sensible.

Perhaps you can offer a rigorous definition of imperialism in the relevant context of the 19th century that does let the USA off the hook? I suspect if you can do it though it would let off lots of other powers normally accepted to have been imperialistic, like say Russia for instance. Or completely rob the term of all useful meaning.
 

missouribob

Banned
The actual answer: It was. Look at OTL.
A wank that's borderline ASB: The United States somehow wins the War of 1812 and takes Canada. Pretty unlikely...The U.S.-Mexican War results in more of Northern Mexico being taken. Somehow the United States comes to a political compromise in which slavery is banned by 1900 but slave owners are compensated at the time, avoiding the Civil War. Alaska is still bought. This U.S. that hasn't spent four years destroying itself is now ready by the 1870s to begin needless wars of expansion to the South and West in Asia. Bonuses if you make the United States more economically stable by, for example, keeping the Bank of the United States.
 
Last edited:
The US had enough on its plate until it finished digesting the OTL 48 states, which was done with the end of native resistance by 1890. By 1898 the United States was a player in global imperialism. Butterfly the Civil War and quicken the pace of railroad technology and that date might be advanced to say 1870. By 1900 US is as strong as UK or Germany. That said the US will still confine its power to the Americas (the Indies, Central America and northern SA) and the Pacific Rim and not get involved in the scramble for Africa and certainly not into the European alliances. For domestic consumption US is still 'isolationist' in the context of Washington's warning on entangling alliances, but it will certainly through its weight around in its chosen spheres.
 
Basically if we had wanted to get involved in what might be more conventionally called "imperialism," that is the scramble for far-flung world empire in scattered places around the globe, we'd be going head to head with Britain constantly. So did the other imperial powers of course, but in the early 19th century they had the weight to throw around; we did not yet. Enormous potential, hardly any realization yet.

Some people did want to do this--Alexander Hamilton for instance.

But even if the nation as a whole had his enthusiasm for getting into lots of regional Great Games for mercantile stakes, and invested a lot in both a Navy proportional or more so to our national wealth, and Army in European proportion to our population, for generations after independence we'd remain a bit player; we'd have to partner up with one or another European Great Power patron and take whatever spoils of victory they may have allocated us, while running large risks along with paying heavy ongoing costs.

Whereas if we were to pull our horns in regarding prizes like the China trade, spices, guano, etc except for what opportunity allowed us to take for cheap (I believe for instance the USA did claim a small guano island off South America mid-19th century) and focus instead on our own borders, the challengers would be few and the prizes a low priority for Great Power players. With one of those few neighbors being the British Empire, keeping relations with them largely civil transformed a potentially crushing threat into something of a protector, freeing us up for aggression against any small local power that British interest did not protect. Thus Spain and Mexico did suffer predation at our hands--with Spain I am referring to the matter of Florida, not Cuba. Though Cuba was a perennial object of avarice all through the century, again I believe Hamilton was often drooling over it.

In the sense that when we speak of "imperialism" in the 19th century, as a matter of merchants and navies and marines of various European powers grabbing a grab-bag of opportunistic conquests in far away places to form big or small empires on which the sun did not set, yes the USA was reticent to play that game until the century was nearly over. But on the other hand, neither did Europeans enter the century believing such empire was the automatic criterion of a nation's status. Even the British were mainly holding on to scattered trading posts and nebulous if vast paper claims of various Terras Incognitas. Even these were not generally arrogated out of regions known to be inhabited by near-peer powers; even Africa was not yet placed on the carving table, only territories like Canada or Australia where it was clear no powerful native civilizations to subdue existed. China was drawn as its own power in the early part of the century, India was falling into British hands--but mainly as a patchwork of regional alliances, not with HMG but with a private company the Crown just happened to have a lot of money invested in. If we reserve the word "imperialism" for the sort empire the USA did not have in say 1850, we exclude most other nations from any involvement in it either, and the scope of even the most practiced global imperialists was amazingly limited compared to 1900. By the time Europe as a whole was tipping over to the idea that control of tropical and otherwise exotic non-European nations was essential to national glory, prestige, economy and security, plenty of Great Powers there were even less in the game than the USA was--the Austro-Hungarians hardly ever had been entangled so, and their abortive attempts lay centuries in the past. Germany's possessions were not much more impressive overall than US holdings. The game of Empire was mainly British versus French, with older powers managing to hang on to some remnants of past glory.

If we expand the concept to include the whole process whereby peoples from outside the European traditions found themselves increasingly helpless, mere objects for Europeans to squabble and bargain over without anyone consulting their views as to what might happen to them, then clearly the USA was among the first ranks in this general process. We just didn't adopt the particular method of sailing far overseas for footholds here and there, because we had a huge juicy chunk of the non-European world to assimilate right on our doorsteps, and we were quick to get in maximum amounts of it onto our plate long before we were ready to actually assimilate them all.
 
Top