Problem
After spending the greater part of the 19th century focused on internal expansion and the seemingly all-consuming domestic issue of slavery and slave expansion the United States began to expand its horizons in the last two decades of the century. The imperialistic fever that drove the major powers of Europe to seek footholds in Africa and Asia encouraged a growing American sentiment for expansion beyond our borders.
Voices began to urge a more imperialistic stance for the U.S. Key figures including Theodore Roosevelt, Alfred Thayer Mahan, and Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, using arguments bolstered by academics, industrialists, and popular journalists trumpeted the many benefits of expansion. The Social Darwinian ethic of the day so popular in the industrial setting now was used to suggest that the U.S. was a superior race destined to dominate weaker races.
Many called for a more aggressive position, particularly in this hemisphere. There was some pushback by others such as the Anti-Imperialist League but the greater momentum was on the side of imperialism, with the Spanish American War standing as the most prominent example.
As noted in your text and in the attached brief essay by Josiah Strong imperialistic fervor was clearly in the ascendancy in the U.S at the end of the 19th century.
Our Discussion board assignment this week centers on this imperialistic urge, in particular the rationale that the U.S was virtually destined to spread its influence and control due to its superior Anglo-Saxon heritage.
After reading the attached essay and then observing the two cartoons included, respond to the following questions.
What are the key points made by Strong in his essay on Our Country?
Why were the arguments suggesting that the U.S. was so firmly positioned to make an aggressive push for greater imperial control?
Drawing on the Strong essay take a look at the two cartoons from the era and describe the images presented and, in particular, discuss how they express the prevailing attitude in the U.S. toward the countries and the people we were determined to absorb or at least control. Can they be taken at face value or is there a more substantial, deeper, darker statement to be found in these two cartoons?