How was U.S. overseas imperialism in 1898 similar to and different from earlier American expansion across North America, or "Manifest Destiny?" Was this "new imperialism" a fundamental departure from America's tradition, or simple a further extension of "westward migration?"
In 1898 when the United States was expanding from Hawaii to the Philippines ideas of Manifest Destiny come to mind. This neo-imperialism was not a fundamental departure from America's tradition. Because Americans believed that moving westward was important for economic forces, political forces, and Darwin ideas it was not a simple extension of "westward" migration that also departed from America's tradition.
In America's first move to move westward, the United States questioned whether or not to take Hawaii. Since imperialism is the establishment of political and economic domination, imperialism was a main cause for the United States eventually annexing Hawaii. Americans gradually came to regard the Hawaiian Islands as a virtual extension of their own coast. In 1842, Secretary of State Daniel Webster sent a letter to Hawaiian agents in Washington affirming U.S. interests in Hawaii and opposing annexation by any other nation. He also proposed to Great Britain and France that no nation should seek special privileges or engage in further colonization of the islands. In 1849, the United States and Hawaii concluded a treaty of friendship that served as the basis of official relations between the parties. A key provisioning spot for American whaling ships, fertile ground for American protestant missionaries, and a new source of sugar cane production, Hawaii's economy became increasingly integrated with the United States. An 1875 trade reciprocity treaty further linked the two countries and U.S. sugar plantation owners from the United States came to dominate the economy and politics of the islands. When Queen Liliuokalani moved to establish a stronger monarchy, Americans under the leadership...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document