Why did the US decide to join the imperialist nations in Europe in their race for colonies?

Answer 1

Paperback knows what he's talking about, but his paradigm is bolixed up. I think he wrote about Africa, the Spanish-American War, and China. I'll add Manifest Destiny and Japan. [Edit: Also add the Hawaiian Islands. End Edit.]

1. The U.S. did not participate in the Scramble for Africa.

2. Spain was weak. Yellow journalism provoked the Spanish-American War. We took the Philippines while promising independence. Then we reneged on our promises because the Filipinos weren't yet ready for self-rule. We brutally crushed the insurgency in a very dirty war. Manila gave us entry into the China market -- an American base in the Far East.

McKinley prayed for guidance regarding the Philippines ... and then "reluctantly" took up the "white man's burden."

Cuba became independent of Spain, but by virtue of the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, America controlled Cuba until Castro's revolution in 1959.

Puerto Rico and Guam ... no problems there.

3. Europeans, Russians, and Japanese carved up China into "spheres of influence," but the Americans, who didn't like colonialism, also didn't want to be left out in the cold. So they took Manila as an advance station, and proclaimed an "open door policy" which meant that America could get into Chinese treaty ports on the same basis as anybody else.

4. Commodore Perry opened up Japan in 1854. That was a violation of sovereignty.

5. The Mexican War of 1845 and the whole Manifest Destiny thing was blatantly imperialistic. [Edit: Same with the 1898 annexation of the Hawaiian Islands. End Edit]

Now, your question is, why did the U.S. do it? Partly to acquire territory, partly to open up new markets, partly to acquire coaling stations for military and trade purposes, and partly because everybody else was doing it.

America was imperialistic back then, and it's imperialistic now. Today we export democracy to countries begging for the American Way.

Answer 2

I think your question is spurious based on the US's behavior.

1) The United States did not participate in the scramble for Africa.
2) The United States occupied Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines during the Spanish American War. Cuba was granted full indepedence within 3 years. Puerto Rico was given a chance to vote in a referendum to be indpendent or remain a commonwealth--a vote that is held every 10 years. Philippines remained an American territory, but was granted independence in 1946 without any internal pressure. This hardly conforms to imperialist behavior.
3) The United States was a major deterrent to the wholesale division of China in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Yes, it participated in putting down the Boxer Rebellion, chiefly because American citizens were imperilled, but at the same time acted as a force for restraint.

So I don't believe your original thesis holds. The United States showed a unique tendency among the great powers...The lack of desire to hold onto any territories won through conquest.

Answer 3

The U.S. was concerned that, with new naval technologies like the coal-powered, screw-propeller warships, other nations would overtake the U.S. on the sea. Alfred Thayer Mahan's book on the subject argued that the U.S. needed islands for refueling, else be at the whim of other colonial powers. This was during the late 1800's. By that time, all the U.S. could do was take colonies from other colonial powers, which we did during the SP-AM war.

Answer 4

What colonies? Other than the Phillippines and a few assorted islands?

It was mostly Europe that was involved.

Answer 5

that's where the money was