Written by Devin A.C. Dadah | May. 5th, 2024

The Spanish-American War (1898) marked a turning point for U.S. actions abroad. It paved the way for the impetus to secure U.S. hegemony that is seen today. American Empire at the Turn of the Twentieth Century: A Brief History with Documents by Kristin Hoganson illustrates the materialistic, ideological, and spiritual justifications for the expansion of American empire. Her research demonstrated that the Westward Expansion did not end with California, but instead that the Pacific and Caribbean became America's new frontier.

Following the Spanish-American War, the U.S. obtained jurisdiction over the former-Spanish colonies of Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. The U.S. also annexed Hawai’i in an effort to secure the sovereignty of White settlements and establish U.S. naval bases on the islands (Hoganson, 17). These colonies were aptly named “territories'' in an effort to distinguish U.S. imperialism from its colonialist roots. In many cases, the U.S. occupation of the “territories” were brutally enforced through segregationist policies, assaults from occupational forces, and massacres against civilians. Hoganson notes that “the Philippine war against the United States resulted in more Filipino deaths than three centuries of Spanish rule” (21). This discrepancy in the brutality of colonial rule did not occur in a vacuum. The U.S. exported to the islands many of its racist and paternalistic beliefs that were utilized in conquering North America. 

In 1899, an illustration by Victor Gilliam titled The White Man’s Burden (Hoganson, 38) reveals the dehumanizing perspective that was prevalent in American society. In the image, Uncle Sam and John Bull carry upon their backs a basket filled with personified stereotypically racist caricatures of “non-Western” societies. They carry these caricatures up a mountain across boulders which say things such as “ignorance,” “barbarism,” “superstition,” “cannibalism,” and “vice.” On top of this mountain is a neoclassical statue which emanates the words civilization. Uncle Sam carries the caricatures of Cuba, Hawai’i, Puerto Rico, Samoa, and the Philippines in an obvious representation of the “civilizing mission.” The subjugation of non-White peoples becomes an effort to Anglicize their character. In this portrayal, Uncle Sam becomes a perfect depiction of the “White savior.” He liberates non-White peoples from themselves by working to assimilate them into a White dominant society. This is the inherent structure of not just a White supremacist framework, but also one steeped in patriarchy and paternalism. Uncle Sam, at the expense of his own well being, must subjugate foreign peoples to save them from their own ignorance. 

This infantilization is reinforced by cultural notions of fatherhood. The paternalistic view of the father is one of sacrificing oneself for a greater purpose. These attitudes stem from core Protestant beliefs surrounding Jesus and his sacrifice on the cross. The Father, as in Christ or Jesus, sacrificed himself for the sins of God’s children. This is the Trinitarian perspective common in Protestant belief. Senator Albert J. Beveridge writes “He [God] has marked us as His chosen people, henceforth to lead in the regeneration of the world (Hoganson, 96).” The notions espoused by Beveridge illustrate that the White man (as the father), must enforce his religious perspectives onto those regarded as heathen born. This infantilizing process fulfills a cyclical response to the expansion of hegemony, by disallowing the self-determination of colonized peoples. They are not equal to the White man and therefore do not deserve agency. The White man is God’s “chosen people” and must carry the flame of civilization to those untouched by its virtue. “Vice” and “barbarism” will be wiped from humanity if the White man takes upon this burden and makes the necessary sacrifices similar to that of his forefathers.

These White supremacist, paternalistic, and evangelizing justifications for American empire were however deeply melded into a materialist need to maintain industrialization. Beveridge writes in relation to rejecting Filipino self-determination “our largest trade henceforth must be with Asia. The Pacific is our ocean… China is our natural customer (Hoganson, 96).” For centuries the Philippines marked a gateway for Spanish commerce into China. Ships from the Americas would transport gold up the American coast line and across the Pacific to do trade in Manila’s harbors. When the United States took the Philippines from the Spanish they understood this dynamic. For the United States, trade with China could have proven beneficial to the American mainland by solving economic depression and market saturation. Additionally, the United States would have had access to a cheap labor supply from its newly colonized enterprises. The excitement from these new prospects is not lost on Beveridge, stating “the wood of the Philippines can supply the furniture of the world for a century to come (Hoganson, 97).” Theology and notions of superiority were justifications for material necessities. The competitive nature of capitalism also fueled these sensibilities. For companies in America, the cheap access to materials and labor meant more profits. Religion then became a convenient excuse for maximizing profits. Beveridge reveals such notions in writing that colonization “is the divine mission of America, and it holds for us all the profit, all the glory (Hoganson, 98).” In many ways, the U.S. adopted the Spanish justifications for the conquest of the Americas. Early conquistadors believed in the doctrine of God, gold, and glory. This was almost identical to American justifications for colonizing the Pacific and Caribbean.

These perspectives which justified American imperialism led to backlash from elements of American society and its colonies. Anti-imperialist, and anti-racist ideas began to take root in opposition to the expansion of American empire. Louis S. Meikle, a Jamaican-born medical corps inspector during construction of the Panama Canal, emphatically writes “they [the Americans] foster hatred rather than love, to their discredit as juvenile colonizers (Hoganson, 136).” Meikle goes on to write that the people of Panama, Cuba, and Puerto Rico would rather return to Spanish rule “than tolerate for another day the dictates which come with American rule (Hoganson, 137).” U.S. occupation of former-Spanish colonies did not go over well for the colonized peoples, for obvious reasons. The peoples of said societies were not given agency in their everyday lives. They were ruled under foreign occupation which often led to unsanctioned brutality. Americans deployed insidious torture methods on insurgents, massacred civilians, ran concentration camps, exploited cheap labor, and annexed land holdings.

By 1890, the American Frontier was declared closed and with it a key part of American identity. However, Americans sought to forge a new Frontier in which their presence would extend to Asia. The American settler-colonial practices were co-opted in places like Hawai’i. Their knack for rapid industrialization would be put to use in the Philippines; and the Protestant way of life would be weaponized as a means of assimilation. For U.S. imperial expansion the tricks of the old Frontier were utilized in the Pacific and Caribbean. A new Frontier was found and with it the American need to dominate, expand, and consume.

Work Cited

Hoganson, Kristin L., editor. American Empire at the Turn of the Twentieth Century: A Brief History with Documents. Bedford/St. Martin's, 2017.