When it comes to the role of America in the world, there are many different schools of thought. Some believe America should act as a neutral party when it comes to issues that do not effect our national security or foreign policy. Others think America is a world policing power and who has the role of being at the forefront of a number of problems—even those that do not necessarily effect her. These positions have been around since the beginning of American political thought and still show their head today. Various thinkers differ on what they believe how America should act and behave throughout the world.
Perhaps it is best to start with an American political thinker who held the office of first president. A large section of George Washington’s Farewell Address centered on the topic of America’s role in dealing with the rest of the world. Washington spoke on the possible dangers alliances with foreign nations might bring. Most notably, the French and British relations that sparked the French Revolutionary Wars were very concerning to Washington. In addition to the possible good faith relationships, Washington includes the need to refrain from rivalries with other countries. Such poor relationships could lead to possible warfare that can start out small but grow to a much grander scale. Alliances are dangerous because they can also create a sense of jealousy between the allies of the U.S. and lesser-friendly countries.
Washington’s dream of America keeping from any bounds of military companionship with other countries remained a reality until the appearance of the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949. After that, America became entrenched in creating military alliances and committing to protect countries in times of conflict if they would do the same for her. Washington wrote, “The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. As far as we have already formed, engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith.
Aside from the beliefs of Washington, there stood Senator Albert Beveridge of Indiana. He focused on largely Progressive legislation concerning labor and big business in his speech called “The March of the Flag.” A starch supporter of U.S. imperialism, Beveridge likened the march of the American flag to spread throughout the world, extending the idea of American goodness. He writes, “Those who deny the power of free institutions to expand urged every argument, and more, that we hear, to-day … but the people's judgment approved the command of their blood, and the march of the flag went on!” (14).
Further, Beveridge defended the acquiring of the Philippines. He wrote, “The ocean does not separate us from lands of our duty and desire - the oceans join us … Steam joins us; electricity joins us - the very elements are in league with our destiny. Cuba not contiguous!? Porto Rico not contiguous!? Hawaii and the Philippines not contiguous!? Our navy will make them continuous …” (Beveridge 19). Beveridge largely opposed the ideas of Washington as he believed the need for imperialism was justified as a sort of destiny for the U.S. At the end of the day, his remaining question was shouldn’t other countries be inhibited and governed by the likeness of our great country?
As far as thinkers such as William Graham Sumner, anti-imperialism support was strong. Sumner opposed the Spanish-American War as well as the U.S. effort to halt the insurgency in the Philippines.
Sumner was vice-president of the Anti-Imperialism League that would be at the forefront of annexation of territories. He felt that imperialism betrayed the traditions and interests of Americans and that it would create a whole new grouping of businesspersons who depended completely on the issue of government contracts. The American Anti-Imperialist League was, as the name implies, the premiere battler of the American imperialistic front. They did not impose the expansion of governmental, religious or commercial expansions but they did think the need for annexation in tropical areas would abandon the ideals of self-government and complete isolation. In a sense, they composed the most anti-imperialistic view of the time, but were only around for a short time after experiencing what seemed to be some disunity in beliefs.
While times certainly change, often patterns do not. Groups will always be in existence to both challenge and support the idea of imperialism. America must find a position in the world in which to do the best thing possible at the best possible time. Should we exert power when unnecessary? Should America gleam at the fact that the current generation has been entrenched in war for nearly all their life? Those are simply things to think about when considering the role of America and whether its current position can truly be justified.
Works Cited
Beveridge, Albert. ""March of the Flag" ." Fordham.edu. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Oct. 2011. .
"Washington Farewell Address." Gov Access. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Oct. 2011. .
Corey Morris - Hello There! I'm a senior at Longwood University in Farmville, Virginia and an avid reporter for the campus newspaper, The Rotunda. A ...
Join the Conversation