PRESIDENT MCKINLEY & EXPANSIONISM.   Term Paper ID:26871 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: Historiographical analysis of his role, intentions & motivations in expansionist practices & policies of U.S. Govt. in late 19th & early 20th Cent.... More...

14 Pages / 3150 Words 10 sources, 19 Citations, TURABIAN Format $56.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: Historiographical analysis of his role, intentions & motivations in expansionist practices & policies of U.S. Govt. in late 19th & early 20th Cent. Paper Introduction: 1 This essay will examine, from a historiographical perspective, the role, intentions, and motivations of President William McKinley in the expansionist practices and policies of the United States government at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century. The essay will consider specifically whether McKinley was an opportunist of a representative of the vanguard of American liberty. While McKinley's motivations and intentions may have been mixed, the Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. Grenville and Young dispute the claim that economic or politicalevents at home drove McKinley into adopting an expansionist policy abroadthat he did not seek or believe in. . . . Sept1999. Even if there werepowerful historical forces in the United States pressing for expansionism,the actual creation of history depends on human beings making choices fordiscernible reasons, from the perspective of historiography. In the current case, this involvesspecifically an analysis of why and how McKinley pressed the policy ofexpansionism. this policy came to an end. The most thorough and complete treatment of the war in its diplomatic, military, and social aspects. Adlai E. It is not whether we should instantly withdraw from the Philippine Islands; it is not whether the abandonment of our claim to hold them in subjection be worth accomplishing at the cost of national bankruptcy, or financial distress, at the cost of free trade and the ruin of our manufactures. It could be argued that thedepression of 1893-1897 required expansionism, or it could be converselyargued that the depression played perfectly into the hands of those whowould have sought expansionism in any case: "Business conditions," the new Chief Executive reported in his Inaugural Address, "are not the most promising." These conditions were not improved by a bloody Cuban revolution which consumed investments and trade and touched the tender hearts of American politicians. When he went to Paris, Agoncillo was not allowed to represent his government at the peace conference, and his warning that any resolutions agreed upon which did not recognize the independence of the Filipino people would not be valid, was ignored by the commissioners of the United States and Spain.[xii] Like most other sources, Foner sees American expansionism underMcKinley as the result of a confluence of events--the depression earlier inthe 189 s, the belief among the government and the people of the UnitedStates that intervention in Cuba, the Philippines, and elsewhere wouldbolster the American economy and further peace, the weakening of theSpanish empire, and the resultant opportunities for successfulintervention. The principal antiannexationist argument, that the Constitution and traditional American society would be ruined by expanding to noncontiguous areas was, in fact, quite irrelevant granted the common assumption of the need for commercial expansion.[iii] The Marxist analysis of capitalism holds that such a desire forforeign markets is the compelling historical and economic force that leadsto expansionism, and that analysis certainly appears to apply to McKinley'sexpansionism, and undermines the argument that McKinley was trying tospread "American liberty" to foreign lands and peoples. McKinley assumed power with the promise of restoring prosperity and the hope of ending the Cuban struggle. Oct. . . . The sources suggest that this was not the case in theexpansionism pursued by McKinley, although the President certainly usedsuch an argument in defending his policies. As Stevenson warned in 19 : "The lust of empire is the plague that has come upon us in the closing hours of the century, against it we are warned by the wrecks that lie along the entire pathway of history. Stevenson agrees with Hoar that McKinley's expansionism hadnothing to do with the spread of "American liberty," and everything to dowith the opportunistic expansion of markets for American capitalists andthe installation of militaristic and despotic rule for the purpose ofensuring the security of American corporate interests and their foreignmarkets: Events have followed upon each other so rapidly that we seem to have forgotten the avowed purpose of the late war with Spain. Foner, The Spanish-Cuban-American War and the Birth of American Imperialism. Stevenson focuses on McKinley's expansionist foreignpolicy, especially in the Philippines, arguing that that policy should beat the center of the 19 campaign for President.Trask, David F. . ." Nevertheless, "the urgeinto the Hawaiian venture was intimately bound up with the springs of ourenthusiasm for a free Cuba. and pleaded . . They did this, their political representatives declared, to secure new foreign markets for a U.S. 473-486. "President McKinley or President Bryan?" North AmericanReview. . . Hoar argues along with other sources that there is no doubtthat economics was at the heart of McKinley's expansionism. 476.Adlai E. To secure public support, McKinley had declared that the war was fought to free Cuba from Spanish rule. 19 . Once he had the backing of Congress,he used that support unmercifully in ignoring the liberty of the people hesought to dominate with military might in the name of American business: Although Senator Gray favored "accepting sovereignty unconditionally thus avoiding future complications while pacifying Cuba," McKinley rejected it. 2 5, 2 7. These men did not envision "colonizing" either Latin America or Asia. While McKinley'smotivations and intentions may have been mixed, the consensus of thesources consulted for this essay is that McKinley was an opportunist takingadvantage of the popular view that the United States had the right, if notthe duty, to exercise its power in other nations to impose its will foreconomic and strategic purposes rather than save foreign peoples in thename of liberty and/or democracy. . Our solemn declaration, before "breaking the peace of the world" in behalf of Cuba, was: "The United States hereby disclaims any disposition to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction or control over said island except for the pacification thereof, and asserts its determination when that is accomplished to leave the government and control of the island to its people." . . . But thefact remains that his interventionist, expansionist policy, onceundertaken, speaks for itself. The Spanish-Cuban-American War and the Birth of American Imperialism. It gave a fourth, Cuba, nominal independence, since previous political necessities offered Washington little choice. George F. The Philippines presented a special advantage, since its strategic location made it seem a natural stepping stone to the vast markets of China.[vi] If there was any doubt that McKinley was driven by the forces ofcapitalism and its need for expanding its markets abroad, and not driven byany need to grace Spain's former colonies with "American liberty," one needonly consider thatthe Filipino people themselves were in the latter stages of securing theirown "Filipino liberty": Armed Philippine nationalists . The same economic and strategicexpansionism at work in McKinley's administration was at work in Vietnam,for example, with Cold War ideology thrown in, and that war was anotherstep in the exposure of the fraudulent, destructive, and self-destructivenature of American expansionism. Grenville and George Berkeley Young. . . If the Republicans are prepared to censure all who have used language calculated to make the Filipinos hate foreign domination, let them condemn the speech of Patrick Henry. The treaty with Spain has been ratified. Foner also argues that McKinley was a sinister, ineffective President who betrayed the Cuban cause.Grenville, John A.S., and George Berkeley Young. The new policy of Imperialism finds its inspiration in 'corporate greed.'"[xix] EndnotesWalter LaFeber, The New Empire (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1988), 91.Ibid., 414.Ibid., 414-415.Ibid., 327.Ibid., 416-417.Daniel Schrimer, "How the Philippine-U.S. . .[ix] Hoar says that the question is whether Bryan, if elected, would beable to do much to change the situation, and his conclusion is hardlyhopeful. industrial and financial leaders had used the McKinley Administration and the armed forces at its disposal to set the United States firmly on a path of corporate imperialism, followed now for one hundred years. . . . Hoar, "President McKinley or President Bryan?" North American Review. In this important and influential study of the coming of the war with Spain, May is highly critical of McKinley's diplomacy. command negotiated with Spanish military officials in Manila, accepted their surrender, and occupied Manila. Vol. The President would find that the two issues were not disconnected.[iv] LaFeber leaves no doubt that he believes economics were at the rootof American expansionism under McKinley: "By 1899 the United States hadforged a new empire. They wanted both to exploit these areas economically and give them (especially Asia) the benefits of western, Christian civilization. cannot be helped now. . "We must carry out the spirit and letter of the resolution of Congress," he instructed. BibliographyBryan, William Jennings. He writes ofthis expansionism as a given, and asks what the next President will do toright the situation insofar as such righting is any longer possible,considering the degree of involvement of the United States in 19 : Now, some things have happened in the past which . With the Philippine war, U.S. Historiographyalso considers whether expansionism was a necessary element of Americanhistory, a result of a perceived need to expand for the sake of thenation's survival. Confusing theanalysis is the fact that McKinley played his cards close to the vest,making it difficult to know if he was in fact pretending, at the beginningof his Cuban policy, to be less interventionist than he actually was.However, he was not a weak President, as some argue, nor was he as easilyinfluenced by others as he sometimes appeared to be: "McKinley kept his owncounsel and . He came out for Hawaiian annexation. at a fearful cost of treasure and of blood . But our government is still at war, not with our avowed foe, but against our former allies . The treaty gave the United States three of Spain's colonies: the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Guam. Theessay will consider specifically whether McKinley was an opportunist of arepresentative of the vanguard of American liberty. . In Cuba, the American embargo of Castro has hurt the very people McKinley (and Presidents since the 196 s) claimed to want to help. . Millis argues that a clue to the expansionist policy of McKinley isto be found in the relatively minor issue of the annexation of Hawaii(relative to the cases of Cuba and the Philippines, that is. In fact, the American people andCongress, in the case of Cuba, were calling for a strong and aggressivepolicy, and there is evidence that McKinley did seek to find a non-interventionist solution before committing to intervention. Our whole history has been an encouragement, not only to the Filipinos but to all who are denied a voice in their own government. However, none of these factors would have led to the kind ofarrogant, imperialist policy of the United States had there not been arabidly pro-expansionist such as McKinley encouraging and steering suchpolicy from the White House. For the people as for the government, war with monarchical, Catholic,Latin Spain had no purpose except to relieve emotion."[xviii] Whatever the original impulse for McKinley's wars, interventions andannexations, the results included a widening American global roleeconomically, politically, strategically and militarily. Trask, The War with Spain in 1898, (New York: Macmillan, 1981), 454.Ibid., 456.Walter Millis, The Martial Spirit (Cambridge: Riverside Press, 1931), 122- 123.Ernest R. McKinley had little or no regard for thesovereignty and liberty of the foreign peoples he subjugated, as evidencedby the results of his policy, which were the refusal to even consider thatsovereignty of those people. . McKinley, asthe man at the helm of the country in this era, was a powerful characterwhose decisions clearly initiated another chapter in American expansionism,a foreign branch of Manifest Destiny. When he uttered that passionate appeal, "Give me liberty or give me death," he expressed a sentiment which still echoes in the hearts of men. had risen against Spain in the late 189 s. . . Vol. "The Paralyzing Influence of Imperialism." Official Proceedings of the Democratic National Convention Held in Kansas City, Mo., July 4, 5 and 6, 19 . In the Philippines, the support for dictator Marcos ensured not "American liberty" for Filipinos, but years of tyranny by a despot. But, in December of that year, Washington signed a treaty with its defeated rival that revealed a reason for the war that was of more substantial derivation. Politics, Strategy and American Diplomacy: Studies in Foreign Policy, 1813-1917. The War With Spain in 1898. . 1 This essay will examine, from a historiographical perspective, therole, intentions, and motivations of President William McKinley in theexpansionist practices and policies of the United States government at theend of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century. The New Empire: An Interpretation of AmericanExpansionism, 186 -1898. One does not know what McKinley was truly thinking when he pressedSpain to settle the issue before the United States intervened, if he wassincere in wanting to avoid intervention, or if he truly believed he wasdoing what was "best" for the Cubans, the Filipinos and others. They had also all but defeated the Spanish military on the main island of Luzon, having driven it into Manila, the Philippines' capital city. . eventually he decided to take the whole archipelago, Guam, and Puerto Rico. The "pacification" of Cuba . . Instead of another Japan, taking its high rank among the powers of the earth; instead of Cuba, sending its youth to our shores, grateful to us as their liberators from centuries of oppression, to sit docile learners at our feet, we have a sullen, angry and shattered people. He seemed to become an imperialist.[xvii] May also makes clear that McKinley's policy was short-sighted atbest: "Neither the President nor the public had any aim beyond war itself.. They perpetuated a destructiveforeign policy that survives in more subtle forms one hundred years later,a policy that contravenes any claim that McKinley and previous andsubsequent Presidents pursued benign goals in foreign, sovereign nations. economy that had been mired in depression since 1893. . but, in the end there was no alternative."[xiv]McKinley claimed that to annex any part of the Philippines inevitably ledto annexing all of the Islands, for economic and strategic reasons, andfurther argued that it was essentially the "duty" of the United States totake the Philippines, in line with the philosophy of the White Man'sBurden: The President reaches this conclusion [to annex the Philippines] after the most thorough consideration of the whole subject, and is deeply sensitive of the grave responsibilities it will impose, believing that this course will entail less trouble than any other, and besides will best serve the interests of the people involved, for whose welfare we cannot escape responsibility.[xv] Apparently, those "interests" and that "responsibility" did notinclude permitting the Filipino people representation at the peaceconference in Paris that decided their fate. . Although McKinley'sintervention in that troubled island could be argued to have been based onthe need to quell a disturbance that could affect the United Statesdirectly, the economic-strategic rationale for expansionism proved to be amore accurate and comprehensive explanation. This book had a wide influencewhen it appeared and helped to shape historical attitudes toward the warwith Spain.LaFeber, Walter. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/ bryan.htm. However, thegenuineness of McKinley's apparent hesitation to pursue expansionist policyremains in question. . (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1972), 4 8.Ibid., 4 9-41 .John A.S. 1999. has been achieved. McKinley brushed aside the suggestion, and the Filipino had to settle for a memorandum urging that the existing government of the Philippines have a say in the disposition of the country. The document was received by McKinley, but never acknowledged. . Imperial Democracy: The Emergence of America As A Great Power. One might fairly argue that theUnited States, before, during and after McKinley, was "destined" tointervene around the world, to spread its influence and power for bothnoble (if romanticized and paternalistic) reasons, as well as for reasonsbased on imperialism, politics, and global strategy. He resolved to keep some foothold in the Philippines. The same analysisseems to also apply to the question of Cuba. . This was a very influential book in the decade that it appeared because it addressed the issue of McKinley's presidential leadership and his decision-making regarding the acquisition of the Philippines in 1898. May, Imperial Democracy: The Emergence of America as a Great Power, (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1961), 263.Ibid., 268.Stevenson, 438. However, May leaves no doubt that as his term in officeprogressed, he clearly became the imperialist which he said he did not seekto become: The war [in the Philippines] appeared to change McKinley. 19 . The Filipinos do not need any encouragement from Americans now living. . "[xvi] May examines the background of McKinley and the development of hisforeign policy, granting that there is evidence that he tried to find meansother than military intervention in Cuba and the Philippines. Those who would have this nation enter upon a career of empire must consider not only the effect of imperialism on the Filipinos but they must also calculate its effects upon our own nation. William Jennings Bryan, a political and ideological foe ofMcKinley's, and an opponent of his expansionist policies, argues that theexpansionist policies of McKinley are not only not an expression of thedesire to spread "American liberty," those policies are, in fact, abetrayal of the best of American history which holds up true liberty as thehighest of values: If it is right for the United States to hold the Philippine Islands permanently and imitate European empires in the government of colonies, the Republican Party ought to state its position and defend it, but it must expect the subject races to protest against such a policy and to resist to the extent of their ability. But early in August 1898 . The expansionist policies of McKinley, from the historical perspective, served as a cornerstone for further intervention of every sort throughout the twentieth century and especially in the Third World where America's might dwarfed the powers of weaker and poorer nations. 435-436.Philip S. . The Martial Spirit. . 4. . New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1961. By the summer of 1898, they had established a Philippine government, republican in form. Hawaii wassimply one more brick in McKinley's policy, "minor" because it did notrequire war and yet dubious because "the humane argument, so useful wheresuffering Cuba was concerned, was absent. .[xi] With respect to the Philippines, Foner writes that Mckinley was justas arrogantly ruthless in ignoring that nation's sovereignty as he was inignoring Cuba's sovereignty: [Filipino Minister] Agoncillo saw McKinley . . Schirmer analyzes the origins of the war, therationale for its prosecution by the United States, its disastrous effectsfor both the United States and the Philippines, and attempts to forecastfuture events.Stevenson, Adlai E. New York: Macmillan, 1981. At first, the United States had appeared to support the Philippine nationalists, seeming to welcome their fight against the Spanish rival. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1972. Perhaps thisexpansionist policy was an inevitable factor of the founding anddevelopment of America from the beginning, the inexorable spread of theUnited States west to the Pacific Ocean. . "How the Philippine-U.S. He was notensuring "American liberty" abroad, but rather ensuring the security andprosperity of American corporate and strategic interests, with little or noregard for the peoples he said he was intervening to liberate or "pacify." Philip S. retained control of the conduct of foreign relations. American policy makers and businessmen had created itamid much debate and with conscious purpose."[v] Daniel Schirmer writes in Monthly Review that On May 1, 1898, Admiral Dewey sank the Spanish fleet in Manila Bay, in a war the Republican Administration of William McKinley was waging against the decrepit Spanish Empire. To do this, these expansionists needed strategic bases from which shipping lanes and interior interests could be protected.[i] Mahan's influence on McKinley was great, and McKinley's expansionistpolicies, whatever their underlying motivations, aimed precisely at theeconomic-strategic impulse inherent in Mahan's rationale for expansionism.With respect to the Asian markets, for example, McKinley and his policymakers believed that "commercial expansion" would not succeed "withoutdefensible strategic bases" to protect those new markets.[ii] Thisargument was used by McKinley in the case of the Philippines, for example: The Mckinley administration could accept this argument [that "the federal government could not annex a whole area as a colony, 'except such small amount as may be necessary for coaling station'"] and then ask how the coaling station of Manila, for example, could be useful without Luzon, and how Luzon could be defended or maintained without the remainder of the Philippines. May criticizes the failures of McKinley's diplomaticefforts to avoid war, and the reader is tempted to consider that perhapssuch efforts were half-hearted in the first place, although they providedthe argument for McKinley that he was not an expansionist when he tookoffice and was merely forced into such a policy by events beyond hiscontrol. . War Began." Monthly Review. We have had eighteen months of war in the Philippine Islands. . . Historiography is concerned with the perspectives taken by historiansas they observe and analyze history. . May's work draws heavily on research in a number of foreign archives.Millis, Walter. . He rarely consulted his colleagues on questions of importance."[xiii]Despite whatever misgivings he might have had about intervention, at leastin the case of Cuba, once he committed the United States, he vigorously andruthlessly pursued expansionism. Hoar presents a somewhat pessimistic analysisof McKinley's expansionist foreign policy, the hypocrisy and deception ofthat policy, and the possibility of Bryan's altering that policy ifelected.May, Ernest R. Bryan presents a well-reasoned and compelling denunciationof McKinley's aggressive imperialist policy toward weaker nations forpurposes of economic gain and exploitation, a betrayal of the ideals offreedom upon which the nation was founded.Foner, Philip S. 2 vols. . "The Issue of the Campaign." North American Review.Oct. Oct. Was he acting out of a genuine desire of the American peopleto do good in foreign lands? 51, No.4. Historiography does not see this era orany other as a series of events that "just happened.? . It is telling that the United States still maintains a considerable influence in the two major hot-spots of McKinley's administration. 2 5-227. Sept. We cannot repudiate the principle of self-government in the Philippines without weakening that principle here.[viii] Bryan's words have proven prophetic. . If so, was he pursuing expansionism to dosuch good, or was he seeking to advance the economic and strategic needs ofthe United States and its corporate and political self-interests?In other words, there are many different ways to determine how history wascreated in the era under study. and the end is not yet.[x] The fact that McKinley made no effort to withdraw from those lands inwhich he intervened is evidence of his true intentions, whatever the high-minded rationale he uses to justify those interventions. 19 . Foner points out that McKinley could not have establishedhis expansionist policy, whatever the sweet-sounding rationale behind it,without the cooperation of Congress. From the treaty's terms, it appears the corporate elite that dominated the McKinley Administration fought the war to grab what they could of Spain's colonies. . Contends that the Cubans had defeated the Spanish in 1898 and therefore did not need United States intervention. Oct. The problem with expansionism, then, is that it begins a processof destruction for both the oppressed and the oppressor which willinevitably be harder to stop than it was to begin. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bryan.htmGeorge F. . This has brought its people, as the early anti-imperialists warned, endless wars of intervention in what is today called the third world, and an ever-increasing burden of armaments.[vii] In other words, not only did McKinley's expansionist policies, infact, not spread "American liberty" abroad, they undermined liberty, or theopportunity for liberty, in those lands. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1963.An important and influential interpretation of American imperialism thatculminates in a review of McKinley's policy toward Spain in 1897-98.LaFeber's conclusions and the evidence he uses to support them have beenthe subject of a running scholarly controversy.Schirmer, Daniel. 51, No. Stevenson, "The Issue of the Campaign." North American Review. War Began." MonthlyReview. 2 vols. It remains a significant study of the period.Hoar, George F. for representation on the American peace commission. . This policy much less resembled traditional colonialism than it did the new financial and industrial expansion of the 185 -1914 period. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966. Then, behind the backs of the nationalists, the U.S. In Walter LaFeber's The New Empire, the reader is left with no doubtthat both the process of the development of American history and theactions of powerful men seizing opportunity at a crucial stage of thatprocess were the compelling forces behind McKinley's expansionism.Examining the rationale of Alfred Mahan for expansionism and his influenceon McKinley, LaFeber finds that: To Mahan, William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, and Henry Cabot Lodge, colonial possessions, as these men defined such possessions, served as stepping-stones to the two great prizes: the Latin-American and Asian markets. Trask's study is very well-documented and is the place to begin any serious examination of the war and its consequences.---------------------------------------------- 18 Cambridge: Riverside Press, 1931.Millis was highly critical of McKinley and argued that the war could havebeen avoided through greater statesmanship. 45-55. 433-439. Politics, Strategy, and American Diplomacy: Studies in Foreign Policy, 1813-1917, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966), 244.David F. 19 . McKinley may not have been an "enthusiast"for intervention and expansionism, but those are the essential elements ofwhat became his foreign policy, as described in Trask: "I didn't want thePhilippine Islands, . . It was believed by the American people to be a war waged solely in the interest of humanity, and in no sense for commercial or territorial gain. . .. 45.Ibid., 46, 55.Williams Jennings Bryan, "The Paralyzing Influence of Imperialism." Official Proceedings of the Democratic National Convention Held in Kansas City, Mo., July 4, 5, and 6, 19 . Historiography considers the role ofsuch powerful men as a crucial element of its analysis. If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.