Imperialism blog post

 From the 1890s to the early 19th century the question of U.S. colonial expansion was buzzing around the heads of people in America. This question was answered by two separate groups that had opposing viewpoints about the U.S. having colonies. Imperialists were those in America that wanted to expand into the new island territories. In this group, there were those who wanted to expand for economic reasons, such as Charles Conant. He believed that by acquiring these colonies, specifically those in Asia, the U.S. would be able to expand its economy by reaching eastern markets. In his essay “The Economic Basis of Imperialism” he states that “The United States cannot afford to adhere to a policy of isolation while other nations are reaching out for the command of these new markets.... New markets and new opportunities for investment must be found if surplus capital is to be profitably employed....” (Conant 2). By acquiring these islands, Conant believes that the market would expand exponentially. U.S. manufacturing would, in theory, produce goods for the Asian market by using the newly acquired Philippines as a gateway to the Asian continent. This justification for acquiring these colonies gave the U.S. an economic reason to gain these colonies, however, it was not the only one. There were those who wanted the U.S. to acquire these colonies so that they might “civilize” the native populace. Albert J. Beveridge is one such advocate for this policy. In a speech discussing the Filipinos ability to govern he states that “They are not capable of self-government. How could they be? They are not of a self-governing race. They are Orientals, Malays, instructed by Spaniards in the latter’s worst estate.” (Beveridge 7). This thinking shows the belief held then that natives of these territories were incapable of functioning as a modern society without the help of Americans. In opposition to these views were the Anti-Imperialists. They opposed the expansion into Asia and the Caribbean as they saw it as hypocritical of the U.S. to control a people that had no wish to be governed by a foreign power. One such individual is Emilio Aguinaldo. He was a Filipino rebel that fought against the Spanish during the Spanish-American war and resisted the American occupation of the Philippines. In his article “Case against United States” he states that “You repeat constantly the dictum that we cannot govern ourselves... little over a hundred years ago, it was extremely questionable, when you, also, were rebels against the English Government, if you could govern yourselves” (Aguinaldo 3). This hypocrisy was one of the driving forces for Anti-Imperialist as people believed that it was unfair for the U.S. to control a people wanting national sovereignty. These two sides of the argument each had a lasting effect on the world at large. Guam, Puerto Rico, and Hawaii are still controlled by the United States wile Cuba and the Philippines have gained their independence. In what way have both sides accomplished their goals pertaining to these island territories?