The main reason why U.S. imperialism differed so much from European imperialism is in the way the countries were formed.  European countries had been around for close to a thousand years, and even newly formed nations like Germany believed that it was unifying a race established before Rome.  This was not the case with the U.S.  The U.S. had only been a nation for about 150 years, and, unlike any of the European nations, it was a colony before it became an independent nation.  The U.S. was made up in part by almost every country in Europe.  U.S. citizens rebelled and formed a nation, because they felt mistreated and oppressed.  These oppressions were put on them by Britain, their original mother country.   This view of colonization had been with the U.S. since its beginning.  The Monroe Doctrine is a perfect example of this. It states that the other nations in North and South America have the right to form their own nations.  The U.S. would declare war against other nations that attempted to colonize or stop these nations from becoming independent countries.[1] U.S. citizens also had this embedded idea because it had happened to all the states in the U.S. except the original thirteen. If the U.S. took a piece of land it would eventually become a state.  In Europe, Africans and other colonized people were viewed as inferior and needed to be colonized by European people.  U.S. citizens also ascribed to the Darwinian view, but were unwilling to make those types of people United States citizens.[2] Since that was how the U.S. had earned its freedom, what made the people the U.S. were colonizing any different?  So when the unstoppable force of Manifest Destiny tried to push America to expanding its borders beyond the main land the people only partially went along.[3] Unlike in Europe, when the state committed atrocities, the American people stopped their support of imperialism.  Imperialism in the U.S. was smaller and shorter-lived than imperialism in the European nations.[4]

U.S. imperialism differs from European imperialism in almost every way.   U.S. imperialism differed in size, time, economic importance, acceptance, and motivation.  It is important for historians to not lump countries or trends together.  While the turn of the century is known as the Age of Imperialism, and many countries in Europe were definitely imperialists, it is dangerous. and careless to throw the U.S. into this category. U.S. policy makers only flirted with the idea of imperialism, and it was short lived.  In this instance, historians should not fit the U.S. into the European model but should observe the stark differences between the imperialism of the U.S. and of Europe.

• Click to read part 1 of American Imperialism vs. European Imperialism

• Click to read part 2 of American Imperialism vs. European Imperialism

Bibliography

Primary Sources:

Kipling, Rudyard, ‘The White Man’s Burden’, McClure’s Magazine 12 Feb.(New York, 1899) P. 290.

Macartney, George, An Account of Ireland in 1773 by a Late Chief Secretary of that Kingdom (London, 1773) P. 55.

Monroe, James, The Monroe Doctrine, 2 December 1823,
< http://www.U.S.history.org/documents/monroe.htm> [3 November 2009].

 

Secondary Sources:

Campbell, A. E. (ed.), Expansion and Imperialism (New York City, 1970).

Chamberlain, Muriel Evelyn, The Scramble for Africa (Ann Arbor, 1974).

Gardner, Lloyd C., Imperial America: American Foreign Policy Since 1898 (New York, 1976).

Lowe, John, Rivalry and Accord: International Relations 1870-1914 (London, 1990).

Lowe, John, The Great Powers: Imperialism and the German Problem, 1865-1925 (London, 1994).

Neale, R. G., Great Britain and United States Expansion: 1898 – 1900 (East Lansing, 1966).

Pratt, Julius. W., American’s Colonial Experiment (New York, 1950).

RU.S.s, William A.  Jr., ‘The role of Sugar in Hawaiian Annexation’, The pacific Historical Review, Vol. 12, No. 4 (1943) Pp. 339-350.

Weinberg, Albert K., Manifest Destiny: A Study of Nationalist Expansionism in American History (Baltimore, 1935).

Weston, Rubin Francis, Racism in U.S. Imperialism (Columbia, 1972).