To what extent was late nineteenth-century and early twentieth-century United States expansionism a continuation of past United States expansionism and to what extent was it a departure?
Throughout the history of the United States, America had a desire to expand its boundaries. The United States acquired most of it's land during the nineteenth and early twentieth century with a brief break during the Civil War and Reconstruction. However, the way America went about graining new lands drastically changed from non-aggressive means in the beginning to extremely aggressive means towards the end. This essay will depict the extent to how late nineteenth-century and early twentieth-century United States expansionism was a continuation of past United States expansionism, and, to an extent, a departure.
The two main ways of land gain for the United States were through expansionism and imperialism. These two means have several similarities between them. For instance, both of these policies led to conflicts. During expansionism, the main logic behind new statehood was to have the “upper edge” for free or slave states. Of course, this desire to gain as many free or slave states as possible led to conflicts such as Bleeding Kansas, where free and slave advocates flocked to Kansas in order to decide whether Kansas would allow or ban slavery. While the U.S. was imperializing, conflicts also took place rather frequently. In the Philippines, Emilio Aguinaldo led a two-year revolt against American forces in order to become free from American reign. Racism was also a key similarity between expansionism and imperialism.
When Americans began to establish states as they moved westward, they had no consideration for Native Americans and believed them to insignificant. The exact same idea occurred about one hundred years later, with “criminal aggression”, which took place in the Philippines. The American Anti-Imperialist League argued that the blood of the Filipinos was on