Posted on 06/25/2008 4:19:13 PM PDT by forkinsocket
America’s longing for an empire has a long history
NEARLY 50 years ago, when William Appleman Williams, one of the 20th century’s most important historians of diplomacy, drew attention to America’s persistent search for an empire, he was denounced for being pro-communist.
To challenge deeply held beliefs about American innocence was shocking enough. To contradict cold-war propaganda was worse. Recently, however, such ideological conformism has been disappearing. It has become acceptable to speak of empire, both among those who defend American foreign policy and those who condemn it. “If people want to say we’re an imperial power—fine,” says William Kristol, a right-wing commentator. Two years ago, in “Dangerous Nation”, Mr Kristol’s fellow neoconservative, Robert Kagan, also acknowledged the aggressive side of American behaviour.
Now Walter Nugent, of Notre Dame University, has produced a comprehensive history of how the thrust of empire shaped American history. He stops short of recent years, scarcely mentioning the Iraq war. But he makes it plain that the policies of the present administration have a pedigree that goes back even to the Founding Fathers: Thomas Jefferson himself hoped for “an empire for liberty”.
Mr Nugent points out that although there have been many accounts of specific events and ideas—among them the expulsion of the southern Indians down the Trail of Tears, Manifest Destiny or the Spanish-American war and the conquest of the Philippines—“telling the whole story reveals patterns that individual episodes do not.”
Expansion came in three phases. First, the drive from the Atlantic colonies to the Pacific, in which settler pressure, boosted by extraordinary demographic growth, demanded the acquisition of territory. In the second, America acquired colonies and protectorates around the Pacific and the Caribbean. With the second world war and the cold war, “a third phase of American empire-building, still with us, came into being.” Thus, Mr Nugent concludes, “we have always been an imperial nation, and remain so, but the shape of the American empire has shifted over time.”
Perhaps the most original section of the book is Mr Nugent’s account of how America, in negotiation with Britain, France and Spain at the end of the war of independence, acquired the territory between the Appalachian mountains and the Mississippi. He points out that in 1782 hardly any Americans were pressing to follow acquisition with settlement. So Benjamin Franklin, John Jay and John Adams were able to exploit the rivalry of the European powers to acquire this huge territory without either conquest or migration.
Successive chapters recount the Louisiana Purchase (Mr Nugent maintains that Napoleon almost certainly sold territory to which he did not have clear title); the exploitation of Napoleon’s invasion of Spain to acquire the Floridas; the Mexican war and the addition of the present states of California, Arizona, New Mexico and more at the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. He also shows how Britain, by brandishing naval power, was able to prevent America from taking over British Columbia. He goes on with William Seward’s purchase of Alaska and the colonial or pseudo-colonial adventures of the Spanish-American war and the early 20th century: Hawaii, Cuba, the Philippines, Guam, Panama, Haiti and Nicaragua.
Mr Nugent interprets the whole of the American story in terms of the contrast between the ideals of the republic and the “unadmitted reality” of empire, explaining this as a consequence of the American claim to “exceptionalism”. His countrymen “should understand that their claim to exceptionalism is valid only in terms of their unparalleled growth and the remarkable natural resources their vast country has provided them. They are not exceptional, however, in any sense of moral innocence or purity.”
In this he undervalues, quite unfairly, the genuine originality of the American political achievement. If Americans have always had the habit of empire, they have also endowed the world with the ideal of popular sovereignty. Yet Mr Nugent is right to emphasise the persistence of the expansionist strand in American history. Because they believed in the unique nature of their liberty, Americans felt justified in expanding it. Usefully, and originally, Mr Nugent has explained the connection between the two “habits”, of coveting territory and of justifying expansion in the name of freedom.
FOAD, euroscum.
We know very well what we are, and what we aren't.
Typical euroscum, then - even in 1800.
Uhh, which territories have been annexed to the American Empire since 1945? This criticism is kind of funny, coming from Brits.
I don’t think that there was anything such as “clear title” to the huge areas of the New World claimed by European powers. There was no title-granting authority, and if the UN had been around then, it would have been as useless as it is today.
Well?
Was he?
America’s refusal to succumb to the cesspools of tyranny that dominate the world has forced the apologists for such tyranny to label us an empire.
Let’s be clear. Humanity cannot get here fast enough. There is no need to conquer— just free access would bring to an end all rival sovereigns.
Despite that transparent reality for the past 100 years, we have to pretend that the masses of humanity that beg for military relief by way of the world’s greatest army have been ‘conquered’ by America. When in reality, the revolting array of despotic fiefdoms from Pol Pot, Hitler, Hussein, the Taliban, Al Qaeda Stalin, Mugabe, Ahmadinejad, Mao, and too many more creates human annihilations from which no escape is possible but for the heroic action of American military intervention.
But for the coy Communists in the academy it must all be rhetorically re-fashioned into a faux imperialism that can still leave them with the absurd self impression that the people’s noble revolution is just around the corner.
Great comment about the Eurotwits @ the Economist:
‘But for the coy Communists in the academy it must all be rhetorically re-fashioned into a faux imperialism that can still leave them with the absurd self impression that the people’s noble revolution is just around the corner.’
Euroscum indeed. I’m sure the British twits would not be in favor of the United States’s restoring my people and nation to its ‘rightful’ place, even though my ancestors were conquered and had their property confiscated by the same imperial US forces. My people being the Southern Confederacy, of course.
This guy is what you get when Bill Clinton blows his nose — intellectual snot. Pardon the crudity, but this guy is just engaging in an a waste of words. He’s probably a communist, too.
America an imperialist country. Yes, I guess that’s why we’ve annexed the Bahamas, Canada, Mexico, and the rest of Latin America. Once again The Economist proves that they’re run by a bunch of leftist idiots.
I don’t thibk the United States has ever longed for an empire.
It was forced into it by tyrants like Hitler Saddam Hussein and possibly Franklin Roosevelt. I’m-a-dinner-jug seems to be doing it again, so we might have to expand some more.
Tsk! Danged typos! Think, not thibk.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.