The Evolution of America as an Empire

[Hawk1981]

When the country gained its independence the term "empire" was relatively value-free. In the final year of the American Revolution, George Washington described the newborn republic as a “rising empire.” A few years later in comments he made to his former comrade-in-arms, the Marquis de Lafayette, Washington tempered the remark by stating that America was but an “infant empire,” under the restraints imposed by the Articles of Confederation and the constraints imposed by the European powers. Nevertheless, Washington offered this prediction “However unimportant America may be considered at present, there will assuredly come a day, when this country will have some weight in the scale of Empires.”

While the precise definition of the word empire is elusive because of the problem of translation, it derived from the Latin imperium, which in English approximates the words rule and sovereignty. The Greeks used it to describe the relationship between the city-states that united to oppose the Persians (who also comprised an entity called an empire). But Athens exercised leadership over its fellow city-states; it did not really rule them.

The term empire gained greater currency during the Roman era when Augustus implemented a range of administrative reforms that centralized the imperial state. Cities, provinces, the army, government appointees, economic decision-making, even the granting of citizenship, along with other functions all came under the control of the emperor. Reaching beyond the limited concepts of sovereignty and rule, the Roman Empire incorporated administrative centralization and political integration.

In the later Roman era, "empire" came to envelope another dimension—size. This addition produced a combustible mix of centralized control, class and regional inequality, and an expansiveness that created the conditions for the Roman Empire’s fragmentation and collapse.

The Roman Empire’s experience, despite the negative outcome, explains the definition of empire inherited by the British and later embraced by classically educated Americans. As contributors to the growth of the British Empire, Americans embraced this definition at the time of their War of Independence. When Washington used the word empire, he meant a polity that exercised sovereignty over and was responsible for the security of a large expanse of territory that was composed of previously separate units now subordinate to the new constitutional authority. The empire included many diverse peoples and nationalities. Not all the people within the population could qualify as citizens due to the historic role of violence in the establishment of empires, not all were equal, not all could or would assimilate, and not all consented to the rule of the sovereign.

The British left a substantial legacy of empire building to the Americans. At regular intervals in the 17th and 18th centuries, the British violently added territory to their North American empire with the enthusiastic assistance of American colonists. Benjamin Franklin in demanding more living room for a rapidly increasing American population, admonished the British that a prince "that acquires new Territory, if he finds it vacant, or removes the Natives to give his own people Room" deserves to be remembered as the father of his nation.

The Founding Fathers conceived of the United States even in its infancy as expanding prodigiously—certainly across the North American continent, perhaps southward to Cuba and beyond. Under the Articles of Confederation Congress enacted the Northwest Ordinance in 1787 to prepare for this eventuality. Americans of that era did not consider war-making and the extension of rule over Indian tribes and their lands as conquest, in part because the indigenous peoples were so few in number as to be virtually swallowed.

Alexander Hamilton captured the complexity of what would become the American experience. In the lead Federalist Paper, Hamilton characterized the United States as "an empire in many ways the most interesting in the world.”

Through much of the nineteenth century Americans considered the word empire benign. Though the means by which the United States expanded across the continent may at times have appeared unsavory, the prevalent opinion was American goals and motives were consistently benevolent or defensive, and not imperialistic (a concept which did not even come into vogue until the later 19th century). The terms empire and state were still largely synonymous, and US behavior was acceptable for a state with its capabilities, and because U.S. expansion remained continental and restricted to contiguous territory within its "natural" boundaries. Since the Constitution required the incorporation of added territories as states, and the populations of these states were invariably eager to apply for membership, reinforced the consensus that Americans should be proud of their empire.

The rhetoric began to change after the American Civil War. Americans became increasingly defensive about their “status” as an empire after, combining force (primarily) and diplomacy (secondarily), they acquired uncontested political control across the North American continent from the Atlantic to the Pacific. William McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson recognized the baggage that accompanied the term empire. By their time Americans had divided between anti-imperialists and imperialists.

In contrast to empire, imperialism, was a much more value-laden term, weighed down negatively. Imperialism was tied to militarism, the selfishness and greed of special interests and monopoly capitalism. Advocates of American expansion in the late nineteenth century were not “merely” empire-builders, but also imperialists. American expansion with the acquisition of such far-flung non-contiguous territories as Hawaii, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Panama, none of which at the time was considered by virtually any American as qualified for statehood, fit the definition of imperial behavior.

In the 20th century, it was open to debate about whether the United States continued to rank as an empire. The orthodox definition of empire-building would seem to require the conquest and colonization of alien territory. America, in contrast, fought two wars in the 20th century to defeat empires bent on conquest. Whether represented by Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points, Franklin Roosevelt’s Atlantic Charter, or the body of Cold War rhetoric, the United States had stood for anti-colonialism.

 

[Hawk1981]

National behavior through the 20th century seems to demand a more expansive definition of empire. The acquisition of informal control through trade arrangements, political and economic mechanisms is no less “imperialistic” (even if indigenous collaborators facilitate the acquisition). The United States might not have physically conquered Western Europe after the Second World War, but that didn’t stop the French from complaining of “coca-colonization.” Critics there felt swamped by American commerce. Today, with the world’s business denominated in US dollars, and McDonald’s and other American firms in more than 100 countries, the situation is essentially imperialism and empire by other means.

Then there are the military interventions. The years since the Second World War have brought the United States military to countries around the world. The big wars are well-known: Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. But there has also been a constant stream of smaller engagements. Since 1945, US armed forces have been deployed abroad for conflicts or potential conflicts 211 times in 67 countries. There’s a thin line between peacekeeping and imperialism. Clearly this is not a country that has kept its hands to itself.

 

[harmonica]

...--Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan wars were not fought for ''empirism''.....we didn't even want to go into Iraq----that was saddam's doing ......we did not go into those wars because they were peaceful and we wanted to ''rape'' the resources
ie:
--Iraq started not one but TWO wars
--Iraq started the wars--not the US
--Iraq attacked a small country--liked hitler did
--Iraq gassed their own people--like hitler did
--Iraq violated the cease fire--like hitler did

...we went into Afghanistan for DEFENSIVE purposes--WE were attacked

....now, we did not need to go into Vietnam and Korea
.....we were wrong to go into Vietnam .......but we did not go in there to RAPE the resources ....we should have stayed out of there

 

[Pogo]

When the country gained its independence the term "empire" was relatively value-free. In the final year of the American Revolution, George Washington described the newborn republic as a “rising empire.” A few years later in comments he made to his former comrade-in-arms, the Marquis de Lafayette, Washington tempered the remark by stating that America was but an “infant empire,” under the restraints imposed by the Articles of Confederation and the constraints imposed by the European powers. Nevertheless, Washington offered this prediction “However unimportant America may be considered at present, there will assuredly come a day, when this country will have some weight in the scale of Empires.”

While the precise definition of the word empire is elusive because of the problem of translation, it derived from the Latin imperium, which in English approximates the words rule and sovereignty. The Greeks used it to describe the relationship between the city-states that united to oppose the Persians (who also comprised an entity called an empire). But Athens exercised leadership over its fellow city-states; it did not really rule them.

The term empire gained greater currency during the Roman era when Augustus implemented a range of administrative reforms that centralized the imperial state. Cities, provinces, the army, government appointees, economic decision-making, even the granting of citizenship, along with other functions all came under the control of the emperor. Reaching beyond the limited concepts of sovereignty and rule, the Roman Empire incorporated administrative centralization and political integration.

In the later Roman era, "empire" came to envelope another dimension—size. This addition produced a combustible mix of centralized control, class and regional inequality, and an expansiveness that created the conditions for the Roman Empire’s fragmentation and collapse.

The Roman Empire’s experience, despite the negative outcome, explains the definition of empire inherited by the British and later embraced by classically educated Americans. As contributors to the growth of the British Empire, Americans embraced this definition at the time of their War of Independence. When Washington used the word empire, he meant a polity that exercised sovereignty over and was responsible for the security of a large expanse of territory that was composed of previously separate units now subordinate to the new constitutional authority. The empire included many diverse peoples and nationalities. Not all the people within the population could qualify as citizens due to the historic role of violence in the establishment of empires, not all were equal, not all could or would assimilate, and not all consented to the rule of the sovereign.

The British left a substantial legacy of empire building to the Americans. At regular intervals in the 17th and 18th centuries, the British violently added territory to their North American empire with the enthusiastic assistance of American colonists. Benjamin Franklin in demanding more living room for a rapidly increasing American population, admonished the British that a prince "that acquires new Territory, if he finds it vacant, or removes the Natives to give his own people Room" deserves to be remembered as the father of his nation.

The Founding Fathers conceived of the United States even in its infancy as expanding prodigiously—certainly across the North American continent, perhaps southward to Cuba and beyond. Under the Articles of Confederation Congress enacted the Northwest Ordinance in 1787 to prepare for this eventuality. Americans of that era did not consider war-making and the extension of rule over Indian tribes and their lands as conquest, in part because the indigenous peoples were so few in number as to be virtually swallowed.

View attachment 333622

Alexander Hamilton captured the complexity of what would become the American experience. In the lead Federalist Paper, Hamilton characterized the United States as "an empire in many ways the most interesting in the world.”

Through much of the nineteenth century Americans considered the word empire benign. Though the means by which the United States expanded across the continent may at times have appeared unsavory, the prevalent opinion was American goals and motives were consistently benevolent or defensive, and not imperialistic (a concept which did not even come into vogue until the later 19th century). The terms empire and state were still largely synonymous, and US behavior was acceptable for a state with its capabilities, and because U.S. expansion remained continental and restricted to contiguous territory within its "natural" boundaries. Since the Constitution required the incorporation of added territories as states, and the populations of these states were invariably eager to apply for membership, reinforced the consensus that Americans should be proud of their empire.

The rhetoric began to change after the American Civil War. Americans became increasingly defensive about their “status” as an empire after, combining force (primarily) and diplomacy (secondarily), they acquired uncontested political control across the North American continent from the Atlantic to the Pacific. William McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson recognized the baggage that accompanied the term empire. By their time Americans had divided between anti-imperialists and imperialists.

In contrast to empire, imperialism, was a much more value-laden term, weighed down negatively. Imperialism was tied to militarism, the selfishness and greed of special interests and monopoly capitalism. Advocates of American expansion in the late nineteenth century were not “merely” empire-builders, but also imperialists. American expansion with the acquisition of such far-flung non-contiguous territories as Hawaii, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Panama, none of which at the time was considered by virtually any American as qualified for statehood, fit the definition of imperial behavior.

In the 20th century, it was open to debate about whether the United States continued to rank as an empire. The orthodox definition of empire-building would seem to require the conquest and colonization of alien territory. America, in contrast, fought two wars in the 20th century to defeat empires bent on conquest. Whether represented by Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points, Franklin Roosevelt’s Atlantic Charter, or the body of Cold War rhetoric, the United States had stood for anti-colonialism.

Let's not delude ourselves, the US of the two World Wars did NOT stand for anti-colonialism. It stood for being pro- or anti- certain colonial powers., whichever stance would benefit it the most at the time. Vietnam is a perfect illustration --- for all Wilson's empty talk of self-sufficient nations FREE of colonialism, he rebuffed Ho Chi Minh when the latter asked for his support on just that, and then when France gave up on its colonial interests the US jumped in to prevent that country from establishing itself. Right back to the already-mentioned colonial endeavors of the Philippines, Hawaìi, and the endless interventions all over the world including covert operations (Guatemala, Iran, Brazil, Indonesia, Congo, etc etc etc) the focus has been on preventing, not fomenting, anti-colonialism.

I break US history into two halves beginning at this point, the McKinley Presidency. This is the point where the US started seriously meddling in, and sometimes taking over, other countries' business even including Russia (Wilson, up to 1920). And countless interventions since. That's an entirely different dynamic from incorporating a continent that had no established nations.

 

[Pogo]

And on the topic of imperialism in general, that's exactly what the World Wars were about. At the time the British Empire was being threatened by the new upstarts Germany and Italy, which did not exist before the middle 19th century. In the period they did not exist Britain, France, Spain, Portugal and to a lesser extent Holland had been cultivating empires from the Americas to Africa to south Asia. Which means Germany and Italy were getting into the empire business as latecomers. Japan of course is a completely different war even though we lump it into "WW2" but again, an empire was the goal. Empires invariably lead either to war or revolution (or both combined) where the colonialized kick the colonials out. That's where we came from.

 

[Pogo]

I'm not aware of anywhere "the Constitution required the incorporation of added territories as states" btw.

We've got territories right now, which are spoils of our own invasions, which have never been states.

 

[whitehall]

Don't get hung up on the traditional definition of a word. New York State's motto is the "Empire State".

 

[JimBowie1958]

The orthodox definition of empire-building would seem to require the conquest and colonization of alien territory.

It also requires an EMPORER, dude.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Don't get hung up on the traditional definition of a word. New York State's motto is the "Empire State".

Words have meaning for a reason; so we can communicate.

We are not now nor ever shall be an empire.

We are hegemons, protecting our interests with military power, diplomacy and alliances, which in our case is trading rights.

 

[Hawk1981]

According to Richard Immerman, in his 2012 book Empire for Liberty: A History of American Imperialism, Thomas Jefferson's label for America as the “Empire of Liberty" signaled a commitment to a more aggressive, proactive extension of liberty and a greater American empire. Empire and liberty being both inextricably tied, and the one constant in the evolution of the United States.

 

[JimBowie1958]

According to Richard Immerman, in his 2012 book Empire for Liberty: A History of American Imperialism, Thomas Jefferson's label for America as the “Empire of Liberty" signaled a commitment to a more aggressive, proactive extension of liberty and a greater American empire. Empire and liberty being both inextricably tied, and the one constant in the evolution of the United States.

What definition of 'empire' were these people like Jefferson using, if not as a mere euphemism for something that was factually not the case?

We have never had an emperor, so how do you have a literal empire without an emperor?

 

[Olde Europe]

That's an entirely different dynamic from incorporating a continent that had no established nations.

I think you should reconsider that in light of "no established nations" as an in and of itself imperialist notion facilitating imperial conquest and expansion. If you do, you will quite easily see that the imperial project, inherited from the Britons, was at the core of the newly founded empire right from the start. Of course, the views and objections by the native American nations would count as little as the views and objections of the imported slaves.

 

[Correll]

National behavior through the 20th century seems to demand a more expansive definition of empire. The acquisition of informal control through trade arrangements, political and economic mechanisms is no less “imperialistic” (even if indigenous collaborators facilitate the acquisition). The United States might not have physically conquered Western Europe after the Second World War, but that didn’t stop the French from complaining of “coca-colonization.” Critics there felt swamped by American commerce. Today, with the world’s business denominated in US dollars, and McDonald’s and other American firms in more than 100 countries, the situation is essentially imperialism and empire by other means.

Then there are the military interventions. The years since the Second World War have brought the United States military to countries around the world. The big wars are well-known: Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. But there has also been a constant stream of smaller engagements. Since 1945, US armed forces have been deployed abroad for conflicts or potential conflicts 211 times in 67 countries. There’s a thin line between peacekeeping and imperialism. Clearly this is not a country that has kept its hands to itself.

I think that if you traveled back in time, and talked to the Chinese who were killed by the British in the Opium Wars, and told them that today, the situation is very similar, because McDonalds, has some restaurants in the country selling delicious sandwiches,

they will not be very impressed with your reasoning.

 

[Pogo]

That's an entirely different dynamic from incorporating a continent that had no established nations.

I think you should reconsider that in light of "no established nations" as an in and of itself imperialist notion facilitating imperial conquest and expansion. If you do, you will quite easily see that the imperial project, inherited from the Britons, was at the core of the newly founded empire right from the start. Of course, the views and objections by the native American nations would count as little as the views and objections of the imported slaves.

No doubt. The expansion into the "wild" (nonWesternized) West was every bit the colonial dynamic as was the Brits colonizing North America, Australia, India etc. I try to draw a distinction between that (colonisation) and the taking over of already-established "nations" of the modern model. Thus, Spain commandeering Cuba would be colonialism while the US commandeering Cuba later would fall under Imperialism, as it's an already-established nation-state which unlike a colony doesn't need to be built into that model from the ground up.

 

[Pogo]

According to Richard Immerman, in his 2012 book Empire for Liberty: A History of American Imperialism, Thomas Jefferson's label for America as the “Empire of Liberty" signaled a commitment to a more aggressive, proactive extension of liberty and a greater American empire. Empire and liberty being both inextricably tied, and the one constant in the evolution of the United States.

What definition of 'empire' were these people like Jefferson using, if not as a mere euphemism for something that was factually not the case?

We have never had an emperor, so how do you have a literal empire without an emperor?

You just call it something else. Euphemisms.

When some nation we don't "like" impresses itself upon some other territory we call it an invasion of innocent country X. When WE do the same thing we call it "bringing democracy to the world" or "keeping the commie dominoes from falling" or whatever. It's all the same thing expressed in different terms.

Britain, France, Spain and Portugal never had emperors either except Napoleon very briefly, but they certainly had empires, didn't'they.

 

[Pogo]

Don't get hung up on the traditional definition of a word. New York State's motto is the "Empire State".

Words have meaning for a reason; so we can communicate.

We are not now nor ever shall be an empire.

We are hegemons, protecting our interests with military power, diplomacy and alliances, which in our case is trading rights.

If we are not an empire, where did Puerto Rico and Guam and Hawaìi come from? What are the various and sundry puppet governments we set up in places where we didn't like what their people elected like Guatemala and Iran and Brazil and Iraq and etc etc etc etc etc ad infinitum? Where did Panama come from?

 

[Olde Europe]

That's an entirely different dynamic from incorporating a continent that had no established nations.

I think you should reconsider that in light of "no established nations" as an in and of itself imperialist notion facilitating imperial conquest and expansion. If you do, you will quite easily see that the imperial project, inherited from the Britons, was at the core of the newly founded empire right from the start. Of course, the views and objections by the native American nations would count as little as the views and objections of the imported slaves.

No doubt. The expansion into the "wild" (nonWesternized) West was every bit the colonial dynamic as was the Brits colonizing North America, Australia, India etc. I try to draw a distinction between that (colonisation) and the taking over of already-established "nations" of the modern model. Thus, Spain commandeering Cuba would be colonialism while the US commandeering Cuba later would fall under Imperialism, as it's an already-established nation-state which unlike a colony doesn't need to be built into that model from the ground up.

I understand your distinction - I just doubt it denotes a salient difference. I reject the very notion that, in order to be regarded as a nation, that entity has to follow the Western pattern of what constitutes one. Also, it doesn't add to our understanding of what the old or modern versions of imperialism look like, how they worked and work. Early U.S. imperialism (pretty much the continuation of British colonial project) turned the western parts of the continent into parts of the homeland. You seem to call that colonialism, but it isn't. Colonial powers acquired colonies, which did not constitute part of the imperial homeland.

The early U.S. imperialism - partly conquest of Native American lands, partly conquest of parts of ("established") Mexico - changed into something, let's say, more benign, involving less slaughter in some instances, getting control over other countries, or other countries' territories, some bought (Alaska), some leased (Gitmo), some liberated and nominally remaining sovereign while in important respects "vassal states" (NATO), putting parts of their military under U.S. command. Scare quotes very much required, as the old term doesn't quite catch what's really going on in modern times. It's an empire disguised as an "alliance", with one commandeering power ultimately calling the shots. Add Japan to the mix, and north of 800 U.S. bases - all, of course, with the consent of the nominally sovereign host nations - around the world: That is the U.S. empire. It is something more symbiotic than the empires of old, which saves the empire the expense of keeping the "vassals" under control by military might, or the threat thereof.

 

[Pogo]

That's an entirely different dynamic from incorporating a continent that had no established nations.

I think you should reconsider that in light of "no established nations" as an in and of itself imperialist notion facilitating imperial conquest and expansion. If you do, you will quite easily see that the imperial project, inherited from the Britons, was at the core of the newly founded empire right from the start. Of course, the views and objections by the native American nations would count as little as the views and objections of the imported slaves.

No doubt. The expansion into the "wild" (nonWesternized) West was every bit the colonial dynamic as was the Brits colonizing North America, Australia, India etc. I try to draw a distinction between that (colonisation) and the taking over of already-established "nations" of the modern model. Thus, Spain commandeering Cuba would be colonialism while the US commandeering Cuba later would fall under Imperialism, as it's an already-established nation-state which unlike a colony doesn't need to be built into that model from the ground up.

I understand your distinction - I just doubt it denotes a salient difference. I reject the very notion that, in order to be regarded as a nation, that entity has to follow the Western pattern of what constitutes one.

Agree. It would be fatally ethnocentric to dismiss indigenous systems as "unworthy" based on our own myopia.
The distinction is explained below.

Also, it doesn't add to our understanding of what the old or modern versions of imperialism look like, how they worked and work. Early U.S. imperialism (pretty much the continuation of British colonial project) turned the western parts of the continent into parts of the homeland. You seem to call that colonialism, but it isn't. Colonial powers acquired colonies, which did not constitute part of the imperial homeland.

The early U.S. imperialism - partly conquest of Native American lands, partly conquest of parts of ("established") Mexico - changed into something, let's say, more benign, involving less slaughter in some instances, getting control over other countries, or other countries' territories, some bought (Alaska), some leased (Gitmo), some liberated and nominally remaining sovereign while in important respects "vassal states" (NATO), putting parts of their military under U.S. command. Scare quotes very much required, as the old term doesn't quite catch what's really going on in modern times. It's an empire disguised as an "alliance", with one commandeering power ultimately calling the shots. Add Japan to the mix, and north of 800 U.S. bases - all, of course, with the consent of the nominally sovereign host nations - around the world: That is the U.S. empire. It is something more symbiotic than the empires of old, which saves the empire the expense of keeping the "vassals" under control by military might, or the threat thereof.

It's a distinction of convenience for the purpose of verbal analysis, and I guess a distinction without a difference. We don't disagree on the dynamics, I'd simply separate the conquest of nation-states not built on the "Western" (European) model, from nation states that are. There is after all something of a dividing line between when we "conquered" the continent out to the Pacific Ocean, were beaten back from Canada and settled the border with Mexico, and on the other hand the point where we started reaching out beyond the continent to take, or control, other people's lands beyond it.

Early U.S. imperialism (pretty much the continuation of British colonial project) turned the western parts of the continent into parts of the homeland. You seem to call that colonialism, but it isn't. Colonial powers acquired colonies, which did not constitute part of the imperial homeland.

I would submit that the various "territories" (Florida Territory, Iowa Territory etc) that later became states, were the colonies. Indeed the original states were previously named Provinces or Colonies.

 

[Picaro]

Nearly all of the mis-labeled 'imperialism' after WW I and WW II were in direct opposition to Soviet and REd Chinese imperialism. This of course has to be spun as 'bad' by both left and right wing cranks and propagandists. Pay no attention to them. As for western expansion, it was a necessary security need; no sane people will want a frontier with murderous savages who trqped and tortured other people for entertainment, and it was obvious neither Spain nor Mexico had the interests or the means to occupy and make use of such a vast expanse empty expanse.

And, we can add to that the fact that 'native Americans' would have slaughtered each other to extinction sooner or later; many of the smaller tribes were being exterminated by the Sioux empire on the Plains, for instnace, and many were long ago exterminated by the Iriqois vermin and 'so-called 'civilized tribes'. All the sniveling about 'American Imperialism' is just Pravda nonsense absorbed by dumb ass hippie Burb Brats stuck in the 1960's. Why that crap is suddenly popular with right wing loons is a mystery to me; some day I will track it to it's source, most likely some whining Nazi somewhere crying in his panties about his 'MAster Race' being reduced to hiding in rubble of his 'Homeland' in a mere 3 years after declaring war on the worthless defective mutts who made up the U.S.