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.
