Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-pfhbr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T15:48:18.893Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Political Demand Channels in the Processes of American and British Imperial Expansion, 1870–1913

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2011

Stephen Cooney
Stephen Cooney
Affiliation:
London School of Economics
Get access

Abstract

Before one can make conclusive statements about the causes of western imperialism, one must comprehend the network of political processes and administrative relations by which expansionist demands were fed into the political systems of imperial powers. The channels followed by demands which led to British and American imperial expansion are mapped through reference to historical studies based on a wide range of primary source materials. Expansionist demand channels are studied within the framework of Easton's concept of the political system, and of linkage theories concerning the relation of national political systems to the extra-societal environment. The British and American systems provide contrasting examples of simple and complex linkage. American expansion can be studied within the simple domestic-international linkage framework developed by contemporary authors; to comprehend the process of British expansion, one must consider the complicating factor of local imperial demands.

Type
Research Article
Information
World Politics , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , January 1975 , pp. 227 - 255
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Easton, David, A Systems Analysis of Political Life (New York 1965Google Scholar), chaps. 3 and 5–9, esp. pp. 117–23.

2 In particular, cf. Rosenau, James, “Political Science in a Shrinking World,” in Rosenau, , ed., Linkage Politics: Essays on the Convergence of National and International Systems (New York 1969), 1–17Google Scholar; also, “Pre-Theories and Theories of Foreign Policy,” in Farrell, R. Barry, ed., Approaches to Comparative and International Politics (Evanston, Ill. 1966), 52–71Google Scholar; and “Compatibility, Consensus, and an Emerging Political Science of Adaptation,” American Political Science Review, LXI (December 1967), 983Google Scholar–88.

3 Hanrieder, Wolfram F., “Actor Objectives and the International System,” Journal of Politics, XXVII (February 1965), 117Google Scholar–21; and “Compatibility and Consensus: A Proposal for the Conceptual Linkage of External and Internal Dimensions of Foreign Policy,” American Political Science Review, LXI (December 1967), 978Google Scholar–80.

4 “Boundary” is used here in the territorial sense. In Easton's terminology, one may refer to the systemic boundary between the national political system and its “extra-societal” environment, i.e. the environment beyond the territory which it serves. Easton maintains that there is also a boundary between the political system and the host society, which he defines as the “intra-societal” environment; cf. Easton (fn. 1), 21–22, 344–47 and Table 1. In the present study, the terms intra-societal and extra- societal environment are also employed.

5 Bailey, Thomas A., A Diplomatic History of the American People, 6th ed. (New York 1958), chaps. 11, 15–17Google Scholar, 22–23, 26–27 and 33; Bourne, Kenneth, Britain and the Balance of Power in North America, 1815–1908 (London 1967Google Scholar), passim.

6 Young, Marilyn Blatt, “American Expansionism, 1870–1900: The Far East,” in Bernstein, Barton, ed., Towards a New Past: Dissenting Essays in American History (New York 1968), 176–201Google Scholar; May, Ernest R., American Imperialism: A Speculative Essay (New York 1968), 83–94Google Scholar.

7 Grenville, J. A. S. and Young, George B., Politics, Strategy and American Diplomacy: Studies in Foreign Policy, 1873–1917 (New Haven 1966), 83–95Google Scholar, 100–101.

8 Van Alstyne, Robert W., in The Rising American Empire (Oxford 1960), chaps. 5–9Google Scholar, and Zevin, Robert, in “An Economic Interpretation of American Imperialism,” Journal of Economic History, LXII (March 1972), 316CrossRefGoogle Scholar–33, emphasize the continuity between continental and overseas expansionism. However, it appears to me that they fail to account for different kinds of extra-societal environments in which expansion took place, as well as for the changed domestic attitude toward the new phase of expansion.

9 Pratt, Julius W., Expansionists of i8g8: The Acquisition of Hawaii and the Spanish Islands (Baltimore 1936Google Scholar), chap. 2; Stevens, Sylvester K., American Expansion in Hawaii, 1842–1898 (Harrisburg 1945), 186–212Google Scholar.

10 The development of American interests in Hawaii, and their relationship to domestic American society, are discussed fully in ibid., chaps. 1–8; the annexation debate is described in ibid., 230–40, 245–61; Pratt (fn. 9), chaps. 4–5; May (fn. 6), chap. 8.

11 On the influence of American interests in Cuba and the Spanish-American War, see Pratt (fn. 9), 248–51; May, Ernest R., Imperial Democracy: The Emergence of America as a Great Power (New York 1961), 112Google Scholar–20; Grenville and Young (fn. 7), chap. 7. On the United Fruit Company, see Munro, Dana G., Intervention and Dollar Diplomacy in the Caribbean, 1900–1921 (Princeton 1964), 16–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On American missionaries in China, see Varg, Paul A., The Maying of a Myth: The United States and China, 1897–1912 (East Lansing, Mich. 1968Google Scholar), chap. 1; Young, Marilyn Blatt, The Rhetoric of Empire: American China Policy, 1895–1901 (Cambridge, Mass. 1968), 76–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 187–97; McCormick, Thomas J., China Market: America's Quest for Informal Empire, 1893–1901 (Chicago 1967Google Scholar), chaps. 2 and 7.

There is also evidence that the direct impact of such influences on American imperial policy may be overrated. Cf., for example, Munro, 16–20, 24–37, and 225–35; M. B. Young, Rhetoric of Empire, 187–97; Hill, Howard C., Roosevelt and the Caribbean (Chicago 1927), 77–105Google Scholar; Minger, Ralph Eldin, “William Howard Taft and die United States Intervention in Cuba, 1906,” Hispanic American Historical Review, XLI (February 1961), 75–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Brief surveys of the development of the American colonial administrative apparatus during this period are to be found in Pratt, Julius W., America's Colonial Experiment (New York 1950Google Scholar), chap. 5; Pomeroy, Earl S., “The American Colonial Office,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review, xxx (March 1944), 521CrossRefGoogle Scholar–26; and Leopold, Richard W., The Growth of American Foreign Policy: A History (New York 1962), 197Google Scholar–59.

13 Challener, Richard D., Admirals, Generals and Foreign Policy, 1898–1914 (Princeton 1973), 81–110Google Scholar, 178–98, 323–32; Grenville, J. A. S., “Diplomacy and War Plans in the United States, 1870–1917,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Ser. 5, xi (1961), 7–17Google Scholar; Grenville and Young (fn. 7), 307–19; Braisted, William Reynolds, The United States Navy in the Pacific, 1897–1909 (Austin, Texas 1958Google Scholar), passim; Livermore, Seward W., “American Naval Base Policy in the Far East, 1850–1914,” Pacific Historical Review, XIII (June 1944), 113CrossRefGoogle Scholar–35.

14 Challener (fn. 13), 119–78, 198–218, 288–323; LaFeber, Walter, “United States Depression Diplomacy and the Brazilian Revolution, 1893–1894,” Hispanic American Historical Review, XL (February 1960), 107CrossRefGoogle Scholar–18; Rippy, J. Fred, “Initiation of the Customs Receivership in the Dominican Republic,” Hispanic American Historical Review, XVII (August 1937), 419CrossRefGoogle Scholar–57; Braisted (fn. 13), chaps. 2–3; Munro (fn. 11), 204–35.

15 McCormick (fn. n), chap. 4; Cummins, Lejeune, “The Formulation of the 'Platt' Amendment,” The Americas, xxiii (1966–67), 370Google Scholar–89; Challener (fn. 13), 198–218, 344–63.

16 A general survey of relations under these Presidents is to be found in Leopold (fn. 12), 106–10. An article by Volwiler, A. T., “Harrison, Blaine, and American Foreign Policy,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, LXXIX (November 1938), 637Google Scholar–48, did much to alter earlier assumptions that the relatively obscure Harrison was strongly influenced in an aggressive direction by his prominent and energetic Secretary of State, “Jingo Jim” Blaine; cf. also Grenville and Young (fn. 7), chap. 3. On Cleveland's relations with his Secretaries, Walter Gresham and Richard Olney, cf. Dulebohn, George, Principles of Foreign Policy under the Cleveland Administrations (Philadelphia 1941Google Scholar), esp. 16–30; Grenville and Young (fn. 7), chaps. 4, 6, and 7, esp. pp. 158–66; LaFeber, Walter, The New Empire: An Interpretation of American Expansion, 1860–1898 (Ithaca, N.Y. 1963Google Scholar), chaps. 5–6. On McKinley's Secretaries of State before Hay took office in 1898, cf. Grenville and Young (fn. 7), 239–47, and Beisner, Robert L., Twelve Against Empire: The Anti-Imperialists, 1898–1900 (New York 1968), 197–203Google Scholar.

17 Beale, Howard K., Theodore Roosevelt and America's Rise to World Power (Baltimore 1956), 192Google Scholar–99; Esthus, Raymond A., “The Changing Concept of the Open Door, 1899–1910,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XLVI (December 1959), 437Google Scholar–51; Munro (fn. u), 112–16.

18 Leopold (fn. 12), 243; Munro (fn. 11), 160–64; Vevier, Charles, The United States and China, 1906–1913: A Study in Finance and Diplomacy (New York, 1968Google Scholar reprint of 1955 ed), 88–92.

19 Munro (fn. n), 20–23, contains a good general description of the State Department in this period, from which several of the subsequent points are drawn.

20 Grenville and Young (fn. 7), 125–26.

21 On Stevens, Powell, and Allen, cf., among others, Pratt (fn. 9), 49–109; Munro (fn. 11), 78–94; Beale (fn. 17), 312–25; Rippy (fn. 14), 422–38.

22 Griswold, A. Whitney, The Far Eastern Policy of the United States (New Haven 1938), 62–76Google Scholar; Kennan, George F., American Diplomacy, 1900–1950 (Chicago 1951Google Scholar), chap. 2; M. B. Young (fn. 11), chap. 6; McCormick (fn. 11), chap. 5.

23 The best general study of the administrative relations between the executive and legislative branches from the Civil War to 1901 is White, Leonard D., The Republican Era: A Study in Administrative History, 1869–1901 (New York 1958Google Scholar), chaps. 1–5. A summary of the constitutional traditions concerning control of foreign policy and their development in this era is in Leopold (fn. 12), 66–102, 112–18, 246–52.

24 On these issues, cf. Hill (fn. 11), 157–69; Munro (fn. n ), 94–106, 116–25; Perkins, Dexter, The Monroe Doctrine, Vol. III, 1867–1907 (Gloucester, Mass., 1966Google Scholar reprint of 1937 ed.), 436–44; Garraty, John A., Henry Cabot Lodge: A Biography (New York 1953), 235Google Scholar–41; Campbell, Charles S., The Anglo-American Understanding, 1898–1903 (Baltimore 1957), 255Google Scholar–69; Harold, and Sprout, Margaret, The Rise of American Naval Power, 1783–1918 (Princeton 1939), 261Google Scholar–85.

25 Good examples of this are in Garraty (fn. 24), 235–41; C. S. Campbell (fn. 24), 255–69; LaFeber (fn. 16), 370–79; Stevens (fn. 9), 281–97.

26 Cf. Bailey (fn. 5), chaps. 26–27.

27 The only presidential election in which imperial expansion was declared a major issue was that of 1900, but it does not appear to have played a decisive role on the outcome. See Bailey, Thomas A., “Was the Presidential Election of 1900 a Mandate on Imperialism?” Mississippi Valley Historical Review, xxiv (June 1937), 43–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tweton, D. Jerome, “Imperialism versus Prosperity in the Election of 1900,” North Dakota Quarterly, xxx (Spring 1962), 50–55Google Scholar; Tompkins, E. Berkeley, Anti-Imperialism in the United States: The Great Debate, 1890–1920 (Philadelphia 1970CrossRefGoogle Scholar), chap. 14; Baron, Harold, “Anti-Imperialism and the Democrats,” Science & Society, xxi (1957), 227Google Scholar–36; Harrington, Fred H., “The Anti-Imperialist Movement in the United States, 1898–1900,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review, xxii (September 1935), 220Google Scholar–30; Welch, Richard E. Jr., “Senator George Frisbie Hoar and the Defeat of Anti-Imperialism, 1898–1900,” Historian, xxvi (May 1964), 370Google Scholar–80.

The Republicans, under Lodge's influence, adopted an aggressively expansionist platform plank in 1896, in contrast to the anti-expansionism of President Cleveland, but the McKinley-Bryan election of that year was dominated by the issue of “free silver”; Pratt (fn. 9), 206–15.

28 Langer, William L., European Alliances and Alignments, 1871–1890, 2d ed. (New York 1950), 12–14Google Scholar; Stembridge, Stanley R., “Disraeli and the Millstones,” Journal of British Studies, v (November 1965), 133Google Scholar–39; Blake, Robert, The Conservative Party from Peel to Churchill (London 1970), 123Google Scholar–30; Rose, J. H. and others, eds., Cambridge History of the British Empire, Vol. Ill: The Empire-Commonwealth, 1870–1919 (Cambridge 1959Google Scholar) [hereafter abbreviated as CHBE], 102–7; Tyler, J. E., The Struggle for Imperial Unity, 1868–1895 (London 1938), 23–26Google Scholar; Medlicott, W. N., “Bismarck and Beaconsfield,” in Sarkissian, A. O., ed., Studies in Diplomatic Historiography in Honour of G. P. Gooch (London 1961), 226Google Scholar–28; Thornton, A. P., The Imperial Idea and Its Enemies (London 1959), 25–33Google Scholar.

29 Gosses, F., The Management of British Foreign Policy Before the First World War (Leiden 1948Google Scholar), chap. 4; Lowe, C. J., The Reluctant Imperialists, Vol. I: British Foreign Policy, 1878–1902 (London 1967), 13–18Google Scholar; Steiner, Zara, The Foreign Office and Foreign Policy, 1898–1914 (Cambridge 1969), 192–200Google Scholar.

30 Thornton (fn. 28), 83–88; Gosses (fn. 29), chap. 4; Lowe (fn. 29), 11–13.

31 Blake (fn. 28), 137–59; Hanham, H. J., Elections and Party Management: Politics in the Time of Disraeli and Gladstone (London 1959), chaps. 16–17Google Scholar; Fraser, Peter, Joseph Chamberlain: Radicalism and Empire, 1868–1914 (London 1966), chaps. 10–11Google Scholar; McDowell, R. B., British Conservatism, 1832–1914 (London 1959), 170Google Scholar–76.

32 Ibid., 102–6; CHBE (fn. 28), 156–62.

33 Hamer, D. A., Liberal Politics in the Age of Gladstone and Rosebery: A Study in Leadership and Policy (Oxford 1972Google Scholar), passim.

34 Lowe (fn. 29), 166–68; James, Robert Rhodes, Rosebery (London 1963), chaps. 8–12Google Scholar; Hamer (fn. 33), chap. 12; Monger, George, The End of Isolation: British Foreign Policy, 1900–1907 (London 1963), 257Google Scholar–61.

35 Ibid., 93–99; CHBE (fn. 28), 230–54, 563–77; Marder, Arthur J., The Anatomy of British Sea Power: A History of British Naval Policy in the Pre-Dreadnought Era, 1880–1905 (London 1964 reprint), 77–78Google Scholar, 244–45.

36 Jones, Ray, The Nineteenth Century Foreign Office: An Administrative History (London 1971Google Scholar), passim; Monger (fn. 34), 94–103; Steiner (fn. 29), 1–121.

37 Ibid., 44–45; Louis, William Roger, “Sir Percy Anderson's Grand African Strategy, 1883–1896,” English Historical Review, LXXXI (April 1966), 292–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lowe (fn. 29), 182–83.

38 James (fn. 34), 264–65.

39 Seton-Watson, R. W., Disraeli, Gladstone and the Eastern Question: A Study in Diplomacy and Party Politics (London 1938Google Scholar), chaps. 7–8.

40 Ibid.; Robinson, Ronald and Gallagher, John, Africa and the Victorians: The Official Mind of Imperialism (London 1961Google Scholar), chaps. 3–6; CHBE (fn. 28), 127–56.

41 James (fn. 34), 347–52; Lowe (fn. 29), 183–86, 196–241; Grenville, J. A. S., Lord Salisbury and Foreign Policy: The Close of the Nineteenth Century (London 1962Google Scholar), passim; Sanderson, G. N., England, Europe and the Upper Nile: A Study in the Partition of Africa (Edinburgh 1965), 363Google Scholar–69, 392–403; Hargreaves, John D., “Lord Salisbury, British Isolation and the Yangtze Valley, June-September, 1900,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, xxx (May 1957), 62–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42 Robinson, Ronald and Gallagher, John, “The Imperialism of Free Trade,” Economic History Review, Ser. 2, vi (August 1953), 1–15Google Scholar. Even Gladstone admitted, “Let the government adopt, with mathematical rigour if you like, an opposition to annexation, and what does it affect? It does nothing to check that tendency-that, perhaps, inevitable tendency-of British enterprise to carry our commerce and the range and area of our Settlements beyond the limits of our Sovereignty in those countries where civilisa-tion does not exist.” Quoted in Knaplund, Paul, Gladstone and Britain's Imperial Policy (London 1937Google Scholar), chap. 5.

43 On South Africa, cf. Lockhart, J. G. and Wodehouse, C. M., Rhodes (London 1963Google Scholar), chaps. 5–6; CHBE (in. 28), 137–41; de Kiewet, C. W., The Imperial Factor in South Africa (Cambridge 1937), 22–24Google Scholar, 60–65; a n d Robinson and Gallagher (fn. 40), 202–9.

44 May (fn. 6), chap. 8. Theodore Roosevelt, incidentally, was a special admirer of the proconsular British administrator and would have liked, above all, to have held such a position himself. H e remained intensely interested in the problems of foreign colonial administrations and aspired to have the United States share in what he considered an uplifting and ennobling endeavor. Burton, David H., “Theodore Roosevelt: Confident Imperialist,” Review of Politics, xxiii (July 1961), 356CrossRefGoogle Scholar–77.

45 Thornton (fn. 28), 96–99.

46 Hargreaves, John D., Prelude to the Partition of West Africa (London 1963), 38–41Google Scholar.

47 Ibid., passim; Newbury, C. W., “Victorians, Republicans and the Partition of West Africa,” Journal of African History, in (1962), 471Google Scholar–77; Galbraith, John S., “The ‘Tur bulent Frontier’ as a Factor in British Expansion,” Contemporary Studies in Society and History, ii (January 1960), 156Google Scholar–63.

48 Cf., for example, de Kiewet (fn. 43), 125–32.

49 Sir Coupland, Reginald, The Exploitation of East Africa, 1856–1890 (London 1939), chaps. 17–18Google Scholar, esp. p. 433.

50 Pelcovits, Nathan, Old China Hands and the Foreign Office (New York 1948), 19–27Google Scholar, 84–97; Kiernan, E. V. G., British Diplomacy in China, 1880 to 1885 (Cambridge 1939Google Scholar), passim. However, “super-diplomats,” Foreign Office representatives who had built great reputations in sensitive overseas quasi-administrative positions, always found at least a special hearing for their views and shared the proconsular mystique; cf. Steiner (fn. 29), 233–38.

51 Mclntyre, W. D., “British Policy in West Africa: The Ashanti Expedition of 1873–4,” Historical Journal, v (1962), 19–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hargreaves (fn. 46), 78–90.

52 The unsympathetic Disraeli, using his pet name for the Colonial Secretary, complained about the costs of “Twitters' blunders.” De Kiewet (fn. 43), passim; CHBE (fn. 28), 55–60; Lovell, Reginald, The Struggle for South Africa, 1875–1899 (New York 1934), 19–25Google Scholar.

53 On the role of the Colonial Office, cf. the study by R. B. Pugh in CHBE (fn. 28), chap. 19, esp. pp. 729–37. Cf. also CHBE, pp. 18–32, 181–91; Thornton (fn. 28), 99–101, 112–13; Robinson and Gallagher (fn. 40), 395–402.

54 Cf. the role played by Lord George Hamilton as Indian Secretary in the Muscat crisis, as discussed in Busch, Briton Cooper, Britain and the Persian Gulf, 1894–1914 (Berkeley 1967), 68–93Google Scholar.

55 Robinson and Gallagher (fn. 40), 1–17, 462–69; Gillard, D. R., “Salisbury and the Indian Defence Problem, 1885–1902,” in Bourne, K. and Watt, D. C., eds., Studies in International History (London 1967), 236Google Scholar–48.

56 On the influence of Curzon and Indian interests on British policy at the turn of the century, cf. Busch (fn. 54), chaps. 2–8; Kazemzadeh, Firuz, Russia and Britain in Persia, 1864–1914 (New Haven 1968), 241–352Google Scholar, 386–475; Greaves, Rose Louise, “British Policy in Persia, 1892–1903,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, xxvni (1965), 34–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 284–88; Grenville (fn. 41), 291–303; Steiner (fn. 29), 233–38; Monger (fn. 34), 1–14, 50–62, 84–92, 136–46, 164–75. C"n Morley, see Busch (fn. 54), 352–69; and Monger (fn. 34), 283–95.

57 Langer, William L., The Diplomacy of Imperialism, 1890–1902, 2d ed. (New York 1951Google Scholar), esp. chap. 3.

58 Taylor, A. J. P., The Struggle for Mastery in Europe, 1848–1918 (Oxford 1954), 245Google Scholar–50, 268–69, 357–66, 372–79. 4O4-I7-

59 Rosecrance, Richard N., Action and Reaction in World Politics: International Systems in Perspective (Boston 1963Google Scholar), chap. 12.

60 Cf. review by Oliver, Ronald in Journal of African History, I (1960), 155–56Google Scholar; also Hargreaves (fn. 46), 338–49.