America, Britain, Slavery, and the End of the First British Empire

 

For the 400^th anniversary of the landing of the first slaves in what is now the United States the New York Times published its 1619 Project in August 2019.  This project while well received in some quarters was criticized in others for its historical inaccuracies.  One of the major claims that this project made was one of the leading causes of the American Revolution was to protect slavery.  This claim has been widely, and correctly, criticized by several members of the historical community.  For this blog posts I am going to discuss why these criticisms are correct in the 1619 Project’s promise that slavery was a major factor leading to the revolution is incorrect, rather it was the lack of slaves in Britain’s mainland colonies that allowed the political developments that led to revolt and independence, and therefore the destruction of Britain’s first empire. 

At the end of the French Indian War in 1763 Britain stood as the most powerful and the wealthiest nation in the world.  It is Empire encompassed what is now the United States and Canada multiple islands in the Caribbean, territories in India, Central and South America, and interests in Africa and even Southeast Asia.  However, problems have already begun to develop within the Empire.  The citizens of Great Britain were some of the most heavily taxed citizens in the world at the time, and the British government recognized they could not achieve any more tax revenue from Great Britain itself. 

[i]

The debts incurred in this conflict drove up Britain’s national debt to its highest level yet, causing it to double between 1756 and 1763 from £74.6 million to £132.6 million.  With the end of the war Britain’s political leaders wanted to reduce the national debt, as over half of United Kingdom’s budget was used to service the national debt.  The only way to do this was to increase taxation, however this proved to be difficult, as the regressive nature of taxation insured that the burden of providing funds for the government fell on the less wealthy members of British society.  In order to address the high indebtedness of the nation Parliament had passed the Cider Bill of 1763 which levied a tax on the production of cider in the United Kingdom.  This new tax resulted in riots in the West Country convincing British leadership they could no longer increase taxes within Great Britain.  So, in order to bring the debt down to more manageable levels the British government had to find alternative sources of revenue.  The only places to do this were Britain’s colonies.  This push to extract revenue from their colonies directly led to the American Revolution.  But to explain why the Americans were able to revolt you must first look at their position within the British Empire.

[ii]

Contrary to Americans' belief of their importance to the British Empire this was not the case by 1763.  Although the British Mainland Colonies were settled first and had a large population by the end of the French and Indian War, the Sugar Islands were more financially important to the British Government as these islands provided a large portion of the tax revenue that funded the government.  Further, many of the wealthiest sugar planters were members of the British government themselves as they had moved back to Britain and acquired enough land to vote and be elected to Parliament, or received noble titles and sat in the House of Lords, and by the 1780s it was estimated that as many as 74 MPs were absentee planters or had connections with various British West Indian colonies.[iii]  This importance caused the British government to be far more responsive to the issues and the concerns of these wealthy and important colonies, providing them with military support, and being sensitive to their political concerns.  This allowed the Sugar Islands, who like the mainland colonies were jealous of their rights and worked to prevent Parliament from undermining them to better defend their rights.  However, the balance of power between the Sugar Islands and the metropole was hardly even, as the years progressed the balance of power continued to shift further towards the central government, due to one factor and one factor alone, slaves.  These slaves, although brining imminence wealth to these islands and the owners of the plantations, the slaves also brought instability as the increasing number of slaves began to dwarf the white population of these islands.  Due to the unhealthy climate of the islands and the limited amount of land available the white population grew slowly.  To safeguard their interests and prevent, or put down, slave revolts the islands needed military support, which could only be supplied by the United Kingdom.  Further, the regular decimation of troops sent to the islands through disease, also increased the bargaining position of Parliament as the Sugar Islands were forced to regularly request more troops to be sent to the islands to replace those that died.  This gave Parliament a strong negotiating position, and they used this to demand concessions from these islands, such as demanding they pay for the upkeep of the troops stationed on the island, building hospitals, forts, or other military infrastructure, or even paying taxes like the Stamp Tax.  While the Sugar colonies resented these demands and complained about them, but they had very little choice but to comply as the white population on these islands were far to small to prevent or put down a slave revolt.  These colonies did attempt to protect their rights and privileges and had many of the same complaints as the mainland colonists but with the ever present the threat of slave rebellions the Sugar Colonies were unable to defend their rights and every time they gave into a demand of Parliament, such as agreeing to the Stamp Tax, set the precedent that Parliament was supreme and could legislate for these colonies.  Although the Caribbean Island colonies worked to protect and assert their rights, their actions were undermined by the large number of slaves. 

In contrast to the Sugar Islands the mainland colonies had fallen in importance by the end of the French and Indian War.  That is not to say these colonies were unimportant, but they no longer supplied a large amount of revenue to the British government, thought they did provide important goods such as timber and other naval supplies.  Further, these colonies having a larger population than the Sugar Islands provided a large market for manufactured goods produced in Britain.  However, besides the larger population the mainland colonies differed from the Sugar Islands in one other way: they were self-sufficient in military defense.  The mainland colonies with their larger population were able to conduct independent military operations, such as the Siege of Louisburg (1745) where colonial forces were able to capture the French fortress[iv].  Further, slavery, although present, was much less present in these colonies then in the Sugar Islands, by 1790 18% of the entire population of the US were slaves, while in some of the sugar colonies the number of enslaved was well over 50%.  This low number of slaves ensured that any revolts could be suppressed by the white population of the colonies.  The low slave population in the mainland colonies reflected that fact these colonies had much less wealth than their Caribbean counterparts.  This wealth disparity was due to the crops grown on the mainland.  Unlike the Caribbean Islands there were few areas on the mainland that were suitable for growing sugar, and cotton had yet become a major cash crop.  The main product of the southern mainland colonies was tobacco, whose price had declined due to overproduction and soil depletion.[v]  In the northern colonies, which did not have the climate to support a cash crop economy had fewer slaves then the southern colonies.  This fact, that the mainland colonies were not only largely military self-sufficient, combined with the low number of slaves, partially in New England allowed the colonists to assert their rights in the face of Parliament’s attempts to assert their authority over the mainland colonies.  Without the threat of slave revolts, thus lessoning the need of British military support Parliament lacked the leverage over the mainland that they had with the Sugar Islands.  This lack of leverage allowed the mainland colonists to continue assert their rights in the face of Parliamentary attempts to control them.  As Parliament continued in its attempts to tax the mainland colonies Parliament antagonized the Colonial Americans ultimately leading to the outbreak of the American Revolution and the American War for Independence. 

---

[i] The Philippines Were returned to Spain at the end of the French and Indian War.

[ii] British West Indies, 1900. British Honduras and British Guiana did not exist at the time of the American Revolution, with them becoming British colonies in 1862 and 1814 respectively.

[iii] At any given time between 20 and 70 MPs who were part of the West Indies Lobby.

[iv] In this siege was supported by the Royal Navy but carried out largely by New England troops

[v] That is not to say that tobacco wasn’t valuable, it was, but it was much less valuable than sugar. 

Review of "The Boxer Rebellion and the Great Game in China"

 

The Boxer Rebellion and the Great Game in China, David J. Silbey

 

            The Boxer Rebellion, published by Hill and Wang in 2012 examines the influence of imperialism and how it contributed to the emergence of the Boxers, the role of Christian missionaries in China, and how the Eight-Nation Alliance was able to defeat the Chinese. 

            Silbey argues the Boxer Rebellion was about more than just modernism, but it was a factor that led to the Boxer Rebellion.  To demonstrate this point he discussing the introduction of railroads to China.[1]  Although railroads provided enormous benefits to the Chinese economy, Silbey highlights the railroad also had enormous detriments.  Railroads eliminated the jobs of millions of people destroying their livelihoods, leading to political and social unrest.  Additionally, the privileged position the Chinese Christians, and the power the Christian missionaries held in Chinese society also contributed to the rebellion.  The Christian missionaries in China were “essentially exempt from Chinese law.  As part of a number of treaties, foreign nationals came only under the law of their home country.  They were essentially immune to the power of Chinese authorities.[2]”  Silbey states that: “whether the missionaries wanted it or not, an alternate power structure in Chinese communities as, Chinese Christians were protected by the missionaries from Chinese law.[3]  As the missionaries were exempt from Chinese authority, the Chinese people had to treat the missionaries with respect, out of fear the western powers would intervene with potential military force.  In turn, this caused the local officials to intervene in disputes on the behalf of the Chinese Christians which led the Chinese to believe it was impossible to resist the power of the churches except through violence.[4] 

He further demonstrates argues the war was extremely difficult for the Eight-Nation Alliance to win.  He highlights the first expedition to relieve the legations in Peking was nearly destroyed, and it was only saved when the expedition through luck found a Chinese armory.[5]  Further, the breakdown of the Allied command threatened the allies, as they were unable to coordinate their actions during the later stages of the campaign.[6]  Silbey argues if the Chinese troops were more effective, it is possible the second expedition could have been defeated.[7]  The failure to create a unified command by the Eight-Nation Alliance mirrored the international rivalries between these powers.[8]  Each nation did not want to put their troops under the command of another nation and relinquish power.[9]  They believed this would provide an advantage to the commanding nation,

The Boxer Rebellion and the Great Game in China is a well-written narrative, and it provides a thorough overview of the Boxer Rebellion.  Although focusing on military matters, the book provides sufficient information for the reader to understand the background of the Rebellion as well as the international and local social and political situation. 

---

[1] Silbey., 31-33.

[2] Ibid., 35.

[3] Ibid. 36.

[4] Ibid., 36.

[5] Ibid., 87-90.

[6] Ibid., 135-137.

[7] Ibid., 180-181.

[8] Ibid., 134.

[9] Ibid.

Review of "Modernizing a Slave Economy"

 

Modernizing a Slave Economy: The Economic Vision of the Confederate Nation, John Majewski (Kindle Edition)

 

        Modernizing a Slave Economy, published in 2009 by the University of North Carolina Press, examines the economic vision for an independent Confederate nation.  Majewski demonstrates that southern extremists envisioned industrial expansion, economic independence, and government activism as essential features of the future independent Confederate state.[1]  

 

        He explains that southern boosters “had long cast an envious eye at the wealth and power of northern commercial centers.” (pg. 5) This goal was hampered by the South’s poor soils that did not allow intensive agriculture development due to its acidity and lack of nutrients.[2] This ecological reality, which not fully understood during the 1800s, forced southern planters and farmers to hold large amounts of land in reserve, and practice shifting cultivation.  Shifting cultivation, while the logical response to the ecological conditions of the South, was widely viewed as wasteful and a mark of inferiority and prevented the growth of industry and urban areas.  These three factors led to the development of the southern economic thought.  To combat the perceived backwardness of the South, southern extremists pushed for increased government intervention in the economy and a powerful central state.  This powerful central state was necessary, according to southern extremists, to close the gap between the Northern industrial and urban centers and those in the South.  Majewski demonstrates how southern boosters attempted to implement these policies in the South in the pre-bellum era, but met with mixed and limited success, and these failures led them to advocate, ever more forcefully for secession from the Union.  It was only through disunion and independence, they argued, the South could reach its true economic potential.  He demonstrates how these ideas and approaches carried over into the Civil War with the South’s state-owned industries and extreme economic control during that conflict.  

 

        Overall, Modernizing a Slave Economy provides a good examination of the economic vision of southern extremists, who, contrary to popular opinion, viewed slavery and modernity as compatible and desirable.  Majewski further demonstrates that southern extremists with extreme hubristic arrogance assumed they were the key to the world economy and felt assured of European intervention in support of their independence.  This false sense of security led them to insouciantly begin a war with a much stronger opponent.  This book, while very interesting and informative, can be challenging to follow at times, and one could wish for a more significant discussion of how slavery was used in southern industries during the pre-war era.  The book can be challenging to read, particularly the first chapter, but it provides a good insight into southern economic thought and why they embarked on an, ultimately futile, war with a more powerful enemy.  

---

[1] Majewski uses the term “southern extremists” to describe the proslavery Southerners who aggressively defended slavery in the Antebellum era. (pg. 13)

[2] The South generally had ultisols, with a few exceptions, white the north was predominantly alfisols. 

Update

 

I am posting this to up date you all on my plans for this blog, I am intending to start a book review series.  My book reviews will be short, between 350-450 words, to keep things to the point and to practice keeping my writing tight and practice keeping myself within a set number of words.  If this proves to be a little too short, I will slightly lengthen the reviews.  I will work to get one review up per month in addition to the longer posts about empire.  These reviews will cover, what the book is about, its strengths and weaknesses, and my general reactions.  These reviews will primarily cover history books, but I may do fictional literature as well.  If there are any books you would like me to cover, please let me know, and I will be happy to look at them as my schedule allows. 

Research Trip Report!

 A few weeks ago I took a research trip to the Western US to conduct research for my PhD, and visited four states, Nebraska, Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah, as most of the troops that fought in the beginning of the Philippine War were state volunteer units raised in the Western states for the Spanish American War. The trip went quite well, and I have was able to view a number of excellent collections that will provide useful for my dissertation. Of particular interest for me are seven collections that contain numerous letters that cover these men's deployments in the Philippines. Such letters help provide and insight to the conflict and help me discuss the personal aspects of Americans' imperial war (one of the collections had a twenty page letter defending the US control of the Philippines to an anti-imperialist friend in the US).  

While in the above Western states I did have some time for other activities while in Colorado, and I will share some of those pictures below.  Needless to say this is going to be a lighter post, but never the less enjoyable I hope!

The first pictures are from Golden Canyon State Park in Colorado: 

meadow in the Rocky Mountains

The mountain meadows trail

Above is a view of the Continental divide

Another view of the Continental Divide

Panoramic view of Frazier's Meadow

View from the meadows trail

I can not express the beauty of this park and the views there, this photographs do not do any justice to the real thing. I recommend visiting this park if you are ever in Colorado. 

Some photos from around Denver:

Denver Union Station

I love these old signs!

Hiking trail along Cherry Creek, old railroad bridge

Buffalo statue, which I really like, at Colorado History

The "Unsinkable" Molly Brown House:

I like the polar bear

This ceiling is pressed paper

Her husband's study and desk

Starwell glass window in the star well

The Forney Transportation Museum in Denver:

My father has some of these models

And I have some of these!

The interior of the museum, Big Boy locomotive in the back, one of the largest steam locomotives ever built

Another view of the interior

Traction Engine, I love traction engine they are just neat, I love most steam powered vehicles as they are just fascinating

Some pictures of flying into Lincoln, Nebraska. This photos show the legacy of the Land Ordinance of 1785, which set up a standardized system to survey public land and created a system whereby settlers could puchers the title of said land in the west. That is why the west is so often filled with giant squares! It is also a legacy of the United State's settler colonialism, and at some point in the near future I will discuss what exactly settler colonialism and how it is different, and yet similar to more traditional imperialism.

The large squares are a legacy of American public land survey which was used until the closing of Western settlement. At some point I will have a blog post that discusses how imerpal powers used such methods to not only understand the territory they conquered but also to impose their control and enforce Western ideas of land ownership and methods.  

 I hope that you found this interesting and a light but enjoyable read!

Possibilities to Improve the American Federal Government

    As anyone who follows politics or the news knows, the United States has had political instability over the past several years; further, the American federal government has had issues operating and debates over the fairness of the American political system. In this post, the first dealing with politics, I will suggest several changes to the federal government and our electoral systems. These changes might help restore faith in the American system and improve the political stability of the United States and allow the United States federal government to be more effective and govern the nation. The first portion of the federal government I shall make proposals for is the legislative branch. Followed by the judiciary, then the executive, elections in general, and other sundry issues.

 

Suggestions for the legislature

The Senate with unequal representation is un-amendable according to the Constitution. I suggest the fact that California has 40 million residents while Wyoming has only 500,000 is the entire reason the Founding Fathers created unequal representation in the Senate. The only suggestion I have relating to the Senate deals with the filibuster. My suggestion is to restore it to a speaking action, as it used to be[i].  This would ensure that the minority in the Senate could stop something they fundamentally disagreed with and ensure that those laws that are not fundamentally opposed will be able to be moved forward through the Senate for an up or down vote. The filibuster should strictly be reserved for proposals that the political minority deemed extremely necessary to undertake such a drastic and difficult action[ii].  

Now to tackle the House of Representatives. I only have one significant suggestion for the House, expanding its size. Presently the House of Representatives is capped at 435 members has been this way since 1929. While the Founders' original plan of one representative per 10,000 citizens would create a legislature of well over 1000 members, which would make it impossible for the House to function.  Due to this there should be a cap on the size of the House of Representatives to ensure it can continue to function[iii]. Presently with 435 members, the House has fallen behind our other peer democracies in size; for example, the German legislature's lower House has 709 members, in the British House of Commons has 650. I would suggest that we should increase the House to 855 members as this would do two things. It would give more power to those states with a larger population, as the Founders intended, in both the House of Representatives and the Electoral College. It would also lower the number of constituents per representative, which would help these members serve the United States citizens better. An increased House will also allow for a more diverse set of individuals to be part of the legislative process, which would improve the laws our nation enacts and provide for a more comprehensive number of voices in the lawmaking process. 

 

Suggestions for the American judiciary

The number of circuit court judges should be increased as has been repeatedly suggested and requested by legal scholars and judges, and other members of the American judiciary. This is a simple process that should take place over a certain number of years to ensure that the judicial branch can expand organically and continue to function without growing pains.  While this might not make everyone happy, it is far better to intelligently and organically expand the lower-level Federal courts than simply increase their size all at once. A moderately paced increase would allow Congress to react to issues that arise and redirect the size of courts as needed. 

The geographic size of Federal Circuit Courts should also be reviewed. As has been suggested about the 9th Circuit Court, it might be necessary to split up circuit courts to decrease the caseload. The nation should not be afraid to increase or decrease circuit courts as needed. 

In my opinion, the size of the Supreme Court is perfectly fine at nine justices. However, I have no issue with increasing the size of the court. If this were to be done, it should be made a Constitutional amendment that permanently fixes the court's size. If we are to expand the size of and Supreme Court, it should be no larger than fifteen members, as I think that is the largest practical size that the Supreme Court can function with. If we do decide to increase the size of the Supreme Court, I would suggest that every presidential term, a president can nominate two justices to fill the additional seats in addition to any vacancies on seats that have already exist. This will ensure that the legitimacy of the courts' expansion and that expansion is not viewed as flagrantly political.   Constitutional amendment would prevent court-packing in the future and maintain the court's integrity. I do not believe in term limits for the courts because they are quite frankly unconstitutional. It is useful for justices to be completely independent of the political system proper even though courts are political to an extent[iv]. 

The final suggestion I have for the judiciary ties in with the legislature. At all levels, including Supreme Court Justices, judges should be required to notify the president eighteen months in advance of their retirement or resignation. This would allow the president to nominate a replacement and will enable the legislature plenty of time to vet the nominee and will enable the nominee, if confirmed, to quickly fill the empty seat and allow the judiciary to continue to function at maximum efficiency. The president should be required to forward a nominee to the Senate within six months of receiving the notice of retirement or resignation. The Senate committee that reviews such nominations would have four months to conduct a complete investigation of the nominee and an additional month to conduct live hearings and hold a vote. This would allow more than adequate time for a nominee to be vetted by the Senate committee. If the committee forwards the nomination to the full Senate, the Senate will be required to act upon the nomination within eight weeks. This would allow for more than adequate time for the Senate to ensure it can adequately vet any nominee and bring forward a vote promptly to ensure that vacancies within the judiciary are limited. There can be some specific rules that state when the Senate does not have to act upon presidential nominees, such as within a specific time frame close to presidential elections, say 4 to 6 months. A timeline such as the above will allow the speedy and efficient filling of vacancies in the judicial branch and create a framework for everyone to work.

Other suggestions

One of the contentious issues right now is stated for the District of Columbia. It should be clear that constitutionally this would be an issue as the Constitution strongly implies that the Federal Capital should not become a state. Furthermore, the 23rd Amendment, which gives electoral votes to DC, would have to be repealed if the District of Columbia became a state. To fix this issue and avoid the constitutional problem District of Columbia should be counted as part of Maryland's representational purposes in Congress. They get to elect their voting representative to the House and vote for Maryland Senators. This would require no constitutional changes and would allow the citizens living in District Columbia to have a say in the federal government and ensure DC remains a separate enclave that allows its unique roles and responsibilities to be continued without interruption.

Puerto Rico should get statehood. We have owned Puerto Rico for hundreds and twenty-two years; it is high time that we grant them the statehood they so richly deserve and are now asked for. We should also grant statehood to any other territory that desires it.

I would eliminate primaries and return more power to the political party's leadership. While this will make it harder for disruptors to get elected, this is not entirely a bad thing. While it is often believed that more democracy is better democracy, this is not always the case. Grassroots funding, for example, has created more democracy but is not created better democracy as being an extreme brings in more money than being a moderate. Furthermore, I think grassroots funding will offset the power that political parties will have in selecting who runs by allowing disruptors to get enough money to compete in general elections against party-sponsored opponents. Instead of the winner taking all the electoral college, we would suggest awards electoral votes via congressional district with the popular vote winner for the state getting the two senatorial electors. This would be much closer to what the Founding Fathers intended for the electoral college, to begin with, and would also federalize the present selection even more. If congressional districts rewarded electoral votes, it would give Republicans a reason to campaign in blue states and Democrats to campaign in red states. This would allow voters in every state to influence the presidential election more than they do now and preserve the federal character of a presidential election.

Further, elections should be Federally mandated paid holidays (within the usual exemptions: police, doctors, etc.) to encourage and allow people to vote, and all elections should be held on the same day. This is not the case presently: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-democrats-suppress-the-vote/. Having everything on the same day (within reason) will ensure that everyone who desires to vote does so. We should make voting as easy as possible for those who choose to exercise that civic duty.

The final suggestion I have would require amending the Constitution, extending terms. Presently, with Representatives being elected every two years, it creates pressure upon them to constantly raise money and spend time away from Washington and requires them to continuously seek more attention to raise money to remain in office. While we should expect our representatives to come back to the districts to interact with their constituents increasing the length of congressional terms will help remove some of this pressure and focus on legislating and seeking solutions for problems. I would suggest it might be good to raise house terms from two years to four, presidential terms from four years to six, and senatorial terms six years to eight. This, I do not think, is necessarily required; I think it might be a good idea, but I do not believe this is necessary. Increasing the House's size and set out a framework for nominating justices will resolve many of the issues our government now faces and restore legitimacy and faith in our system.

Conclusion

I hope you found my suggestions interesting. I think most of these are reasonably good ideas (they are mine, after all!) that will help our system function better. Please, if you have any suggestions, questions, or comments, please put them below. I am more than happy to discuss these ideas. I do not claim that they are perfect or entirely correct, but I think they generally would work, and everyone of good faith in this nation could support them. I would have a short post to your coming up about how I will do book reviews on this blog as I intend to try to start doing some of them doing some of those soon. Until next time I hope you had a good time reading this.

---

[i] In other words, if you really want to stop a bill in the Senate you will have to go through the physical pain and annoyance of literally talking for hours on end, and the careful coordinated action required to sustain a filibuster.

[ii] If you have to go through the pain and logistical issues above you are more likely to compromise and less likely to opposing things for purely political ends.

[iii] Yes I know that China’s legislature has almost 3,000 members, but we all know its just a rubber stamp for who ever is the head of state in China.

[iv] And they always will be, as they do deal with political questions, that is point of life tenure: to help insulate judges from the whims of the people, who can (and have) supported really bad ideas.

Race and Empire

     While in Scotland, I was asked, "because of racism in the United States, did that lead to empire?" In this blog post, I will seek to answer that question, but I will also answer the larger question embedded in that, which is "does racism lead to empire?" This is essentially a chicken or the egg question; in other words, you need both to have an empire. Without racism, empire is much more difficult, and without empire, racism makes much less sense. Of course, you can have an empire without racism and racism without an empire, but this was much less common during the latter parts of the nineteenth century.

    Before I discuss if racism in the US lead to empire, it is essential to look at the justifications of empire throughout history.  To develop and hold empires, nations need to have a justification for the conquest of distant peoples. As the world moved into the modern era, nations that created empires, formal and informal ones, need to justify why they had such empires beyond might make right. There was no need for justification for ancient empires beyond the fact that they had the military capacity to dominate their rivals. For example, Rome never had to develop particularly complex reasons to explain why they should rule places like modern-day France, Spain, and England. For Rome, their justification for empire was their ability to have an empire. Although it is somewhat more complicated than this, this is essentially the justification Rome had for its empire. However, with the spread of Christianity and eventually the spread of enlightenment ideas, nations needed to develop more complicated justifications for why it was permissible for them to conquer distant lands and impose their will upon these peoples. Although God's will was initially sufficient to explain such actions, particularly in the early parts of European colonialism, as the Enlightenment gained hold, new ideas had to be developed. The first justifications beyond God's will that developed, particularly for the Americans, was that the native peoples were not using their land correctly, which justified Europeans taking lands of the native peoples. This idea slowly morphed into the racialist arguments for imperialism. The colonized peoples were inherently inferior in various ways to the colonizing power due to elements of their racial ancestry. 

    Without these arguments, it would make it much more difficult for empires to justify their existence to the people of the metropole and other nations. So, without racism to explain why European powers had an empire, it would make it difficult for countries such as Britain, France, or Germany to justify to other nations their aggressive expansion around the world and justify to their people the costs associated with empire. Furthermore, without racial explanations on why they were justified in developing an empire, it would have been hard for the colonizing powers to legitimatize their rule to the native peoples that had conquered. While the indigenous peoples may have rejected these racialist arguments, the colonizing powers put forward, the imperial powers still needed an argument to justify their rule to the conquered people. So, as it can be seen, without racism, empire would have been difficult to justify, but without empire, racism itself would have had a difficult time developing. It should be noted that racism and empire can exist without each other, but our modern concepts of what race is developed with the rise of modern European colonial empires—these concepts fed off each other, allowing each to grow and thrive. 

    As demonstrated above race and empire are deeply linked, and this is no different with the United States and its empire. However, race was a double-edged sword in America's imperial ventures. This was mainly due to the unique character of the United States' imperialist ventures before the Spanish-American War, when a surge in nationalism created an opportunity for imperialists to seize a topical empire. From the founding of the independent United States, America's imperial ventures had been confined to the regions adjacent to the United States that would be assimilated into the United States. The dominant thinking of the time era was, the United States Constitution did not allow for colonial territories that would not eventually become states within the American union. This unique history contributed to the heightened importance of race and America's imperial ventures when compared to contemporary European powers. While racism created the justifications needed for Empire, it also provided a convenient anti-imperialist tool to attack the United States' imperial ventures. 

    To understand why this was the case, I will explain the predominant racial theories of the late nineteenth century. It was commonly believed that different races held different capacities for governance, work, morals, and civilizational development. These levels of civilizational development depended upon the race of the individuals of that region. These levels were part of a hierarchy that determined which groups were more civilized and more developed and which groups were more barbaric and backward. Scientific ideas argued that white Anglo-Saxons were the peak of racial development globally and that Anglo-Saxons were the most capable of civilized development, self-governance, and moral ability. Below whites were various other races of people with differing levels of proficiency for civilization as well self-governance. At the bottom of development were those deemed of "negro” ancestry. In addition, it was believed that each race was suited to specific regions and climates. White Anglo-Saxons were suited for the temperate zones around the world but not the tropics, while those of darker skin were suited for the tropical zones but not template. It was believed that while whites could live in tropical zones, it was thought whites would eventually degenerate and become like the native dark-skinned inhabitants of these regions.[i] However, it was impossible for nonwhites were brought to the temperate zones to be improved by their time there. This belief dictated to Americans how their nation was to expand; it was to expand into the temperate zones and not the tropics. These racialist beliefs directed American expansion. Thus, race was both a catalyzing and limiting factor for American growth. Many Americans widely believed that the United States should expand into the temperate zones but not the tropics. Due to this belief, the United States expanded westward across the North American continent (and sought to acquire Canada), conquering and subjugating native peoples in its way in the temperate zones and did not expand beyond these regions until the late nineteenth century. 

    The United States expanded westward not only because of Manifest Destiny but also due to racial considerations held that whites could only thrive in the temperate zones. As the United States expanded West, it refused possible territorial acquisitions in regions that were deemed tropical. The first example of this is Mexico. Most Americans are familiar with the Texas Revolution and the subsequent American annexation of Texas, and the war with Mexico. However, few know that the Mexican states that border Texas were also in revolt against Mexico.[ii] Had the United States so decided, it is likely these regions would have welcomed annexation, however as these regions were in the tropics and whites were not suited for the tropics, the United States did not seek more territory at the end of the Mexican War. Further, in the post-Civil War era, the United States had the opportunity to annex what is now the US Virgin Islands from Denmark; however, the United States again refused because these islands were in the tropics. Thus, race inhibited American territorial growth. Had race not been an issue, the United States would likely be somewhat larger than today, possibly including the Mexican regions that border the United States and Cuba.[iii]  

    Thus, race is extraordinarily important American expansion, probably more so than most other empires. So, the answer to the question that was asked of me, "did racism lead to US expansion" the answer is both yes and no. Race determined those regions that the United States would seek to annex and settle while at the same time inhibiting American growth in those regions deemed inhospitable to the white race.[iv]  

---

[i] This belief was part of the reason to justify the semi-colonial status imposed on Southern whites during Reconstruction. Northern whites, particularly Republicans, argued that it was necessary to completely rebuild southern society in the aftermath of the Civil War because white Southerners lived in a semi-tropical environment that had caused them to degenerate requiring Federal intervention to fix the South. It should be noted that many Southerners, particularly the wealthy slave owners, agreed with these assessments, at least about the poor Southern whites.

[ii] These states are specifically Nuevo León, Coahuila, and Tamaulipas.  

[iii] Indeed, these beliefs proved to be so strong that it was only due to the war with Spain that finally led to the annexation of Hawaii. Further, only a joint congressional resolution allowed the United States to annex Hawaii as the pro annexationist were short by three votes to approve the annexation treaty.

[iv] These views quickly reasserted themselves in the immediate aftermath of the Philippine War as opportunities at annex Panama and Haiti were passed up. This was, in part, likely due to the exposure of questionable American actions during the war, which included torture, that seemed to prove the belief that the topics caused whites (men in particular) to degenerate.