Setting the record straight

The fabled and fallacious American Empire

By Ben Chapman
From the September 2005 Print Edition

You are sitting in your American History class and your professor is ranting again about U.S. “imperialism.” You think to yourself, “America isn’t terribly imperialist, is it?” You try to raise the issue in your discussion section, only to find a horrified look on your GSI’s face, your Socialist Worker friend going off on a tirade, and the girl sitting next to you throwing a hissy-fit. The rest of the class doesn’t seem to care very much. But you know America isn’t imperialist, don’t you? You aren’t crazy, right?

To begin exploring your sanity, let’s first define imperialism. Imperialism is generally accepted as the military, political, economic, and cultural dominance of one country over another. It’s a pretty simple definition.

So now, let’s get historical. Many intellectuals like to emphasize the concept of Manifest Destiny throughout 19th-century U.S. history, and use that as evidence of Yankee aggression. The Mexican-American War is often considered the milestone event of Manifest Destiny, as America is blamed for instigating a battle with our southern neighbors. Yet it is unclear who fired the first shot across the Rio Grande in 1846, and pointing an accusing finger at President Polk makes less sense than pointing it at Santa Anna, a brutal dictator.

Although it is true that Polk sought California, he sent Nicholas Trist to negotiate the peace with Mexico on fair grounds. Trist disobeyed orders (and wrote a 65-page letter to Polk explaining his disobedience) and negotiated Mexico’s cession of the Midwestern territories. It was not an act of presidential policy. The United States did not control the Mexican government. The United States did not “dominate” by any means, except on the battlefield in a legitimate war over Texas. The United States even paid Mexico for the lost territories. Winners of wars usually don’t do that, which makes it hard for the “imperialism” label to stick.

Moving along, we see the Ostend Manifesto during Franklin Pierce’s presidency, a lesser-known foreign-policy blunder. A letter received by foreign ambassadors in 1854 stated that the United States sought to take Cuba from Spain forcefully. Admittedly, it is true that many in the United States wanted to take Cuba in the name of Manifest Destiny. Spain was an autocratic ruler, oppressing the Cuban people.

Well, the United States didn’t take Cuba. The reason? Too many Whigs in Congress were afraid of adding too many states below the Missouri Compromise line, thus spreading slavery. Do these sound like the actions of an aggressive world power? Again, the United States fails to meet the definition of imperialism.

The Philippines are another example often used when accusing the United States of being an imperialist power. At the turn of the 20th century, a guerilla war did ensue during the first couple of years after hostilities with Spain had ended. But the insurgency died down once Howard Taft, who genuinely cared for the well-being of Filipinos, was sent to be the temporary governor of the region. And a few decades later, the United States, under no duress, declared that the Philippines would be freed. The United States followed through on that promise, after installing a democratic regime in the county. To this day, the Philippines remain a staunch ally of the United States, even sending troops to Iraq under President George W. Bush’s coalition of the willing. A former colony doesn’t often go willingly to war alongside the mother country. The United States is some empire indeed!

And today, we hear liberals cry “imperialism!” whenever someone mentions the Iraq War. The United States, unlike its European counterparts, has no history of imperialism as it’s generally defined. Rather, the United States has a long history of advocating freedom and democracy, and of following through on that promise as best it can. If the United States is dominating Iraq militarily, how does that explain the fact that the United States is training hundreds of Iraqi troops, and that Iraqi troops are increasingly being used to quell the insurgency? There is no political dominance either; the Iraqis elected their own government that has the power to tell the United States to leave when the elected officials of Iraq deem the job done. And economically, the United States has not stolen a single barrel of oil; the Iraqis sell it to the profit of the people, rather than the pocket of a dictator.

The United States, time and again, has passed over opportunities to truly expand its rule and culture over foreign peoples. As an alleged “empire,” we are a failure. There is something about democratic values that just destroys the ambitions of those who may seek to dominate. The United States has no Napoleons or Bismarcks in its history. Even the French beat us at imperialism!

These facts are too often glossed over or forgotten in most academic discussions about U.S. foreign policy. The next time you hear a Berkeley liberal cry “imperialism,” just smile and nod. You are one of the few sane thinkers in the entire city. Feel proud.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot