To what extent was American foreign policy more imperialist then isolationist from 1896 to 1918?

Traditionally, American foreign policy aimed to be isolationist. This is the policy by which the USA dethatches itself from the affairs of other countries. There were many reasons for the USA wanting to be isolationist. One of the reasons was due to the fact that the majority of the population of USA were the descendants, or were themselves migrants. One of the reasons the migrated to the USA was to escape European conflicts. Thus they didn’t want the USA to become involved in such things as that was what they were trying to escape from. Another reason was that they didn’t want to be involved in foreign wars. Wars would be expensive and damage the US economy. USA also profited out of foreign wars as they profited from being able to sell to both conflicting nations. Thus by isolating themselves from foreign affairs they wouldn’t be accused of taking sides and were able to profit.

However, from 1896 to 1918 the policy of isolationism became difficult to maintain, and it was argued that USA became more imperialist then isolationist.

One of the arguments that USA was becoming imperialist was an argument by historian Paul Johnson (1966). He argued that USA’s sugar interests in Cuba and Hawaii in 1896 were the roots of future conflicts. He argues that by the USA developing interests there they inevitably put themselves in a position of risking imperialism; this is because if business interests were threatened then USA would be forced into intervention and extend their influence through military force. This is significant because it shows by developing foreign interests, USA was risking isolationism with intervention.

Another argument giving evidence of USA’s growing imperialism was given by Paul Keith Conkin in 1982. He argued that USA was in the need for a growth of an empire. One of the reasons there was a need for an empire was because the industrial sector had surplus goods to export. This is significant because if USA had influence abroad it could export its goods and make a bigger profit, as they could manipulate taxes. Alfred Mahan argued that USA needed a powerful navy to protect trade. This is significant because it meant that USA had to acquire naval bases abroad; this shows how the nature of American big business meant that USA couldn’t be isolationist in order to make profits, thus extending influence was needed. However Howard Webber would argue that USA was protecting its isolationist policy by monitoring trade, because otherwise it would be forced into bigger intervention if business interests that weren’t protected were attacked.

Historian William Langer (1999) argues that the annexation of Hawaii was a great blow to the policy of isolationism.  First was the acquisition of pearl harbour as a naval base. This is significant because it meant USA had a naval base outside of mainland USA in the Pacific Ocean. It could be seen as an imperialist move because the base could be used as a base for warships then trade ships. The queen of Hawaii was ousted by native sugar growers; however they were assisted by US marines. This is significant because it meant USA had intervened in a foreign conflict, and by doing so they had extended their influence there. This is because the sugar growers asked for Hawaii to be annexed to the USA and in 1898 they were annexed. This is significant as it shows how the USA used its military might with their marines to extend their influence in another country.

Another instance in which American policy was more imperialist then isolationist was in the Spanish American war. USA though Spain ruled Cuba too harshly, and USA was worried their sugar interests there would be threatened. Thus USA felt it needed more influence there. This significantly can be seen as an imperialist policy because it meant USA was getting involved in foreign conflicts, rather then detaching itself from conflicts of other countries. USA went on to win the war, however as a result of the war they were left with the dilemma of the situation of the Philippines. USA purchased the Philippines on the basis of preclusive imperialism. This is the taking of colonies to prevent other countries from doing so. This is significantly imperialist because it meant USA stretched its power and influence to a foreign country. Thus foreign policy was more imperialist then isolationist.

World war one was another demonstration of the imperialist policy of the USA. Because of various reasons such as unrestricted German submarine warfare and the limitations of trade, USA entered the war. This is the biggest indication that isolationism was not on the agenda of the USA, as it fully committed itself to involvement in the war, extending its influence to Europe and other areas.

In conclusion, although the USA traditionally favoured isolationism, it was because of the growth of big business and foreign trade that meant imperialism became inevitable. Historian Peter Taffe argues that the forces of big business and desire for profits meant the USA would have adopted imperialist strategy, especially in entry to world war one. However historian Howard Webber argued the USA only engaged in foreign policy when it was vital, and he points to the fact that USA was neutral for so long in world war one, and only entered when it felt seriously threatened.