Acknowledgments
In the course of editing this book, we have incurred the usual debts and then some. We would first like to thank the Rothermere American Institute at Oxford University, which hosted the 2011 conference that launched this project. Without the support of Nigel Bowles, Jane Rawson, and Laura Harvey, the conference, and hence this book, would not have been possible. Further thanks are due to the Oxford Fell Fund and the Oxford History Faculty, both of which generously provided funding. Logistical support came from Queens College and Corpus Christi College. Thanks must also go to the benefactors of the Harold Vyvyan Harmsworth Chair in American History at Oxford, a position that Ian Tyrrell occupied for the academic year 201011.
This book is much more than a revised set of conference papers. Several individuals were unable for a variety of reasons to proceed to the final volume; and we have included chapters by new contributors Jeffrey Ostler and Laura Belmonte, both of whom have been outstanding in their timely collaboration with us. We have, ourselves, also written a final chapter dealing synoptically with post-1945 American anti-imperialism. All the contributors to this volume have been tireless in their efforts to improve the final product and in the collective endeavor to rewrite and extend the original papers. We also extend our thanks to Elizabeth Borgwardt, Amy Kaplan, Francis Shor, and Frank Ninkovich, all of whom made important contributions to this project. The project was enriched by the comments of Gareth Davies, John Thompson, Nicholas Guyatt, and Dan Scroop. Steve Tuffnell provided tireless assistance for the conference and book, for which we are grateful. Thanks also goes to Skye Montgomery for producing the index. The editors of the series The United States in the World and the anonymous readers for Cornell University Press have made this volume possible with their insightful critiques and encouragement, as has Cornell University Presss Michael McGandy.
Our partners Diane Collins and Julie Wood played personal roles without which any of our work would be impossible or unthinkable.
Introduction
IAN TYRRELL AND JAY SEXTON
The year was 1900, and the American acquisition of the Philippines, Guam, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and Samoa was less than two years old. A bloody war of resistance against U.S. rule was already under way in the Philippines, and at home a presidential election loomed. The Great Commoner William Jennings Bryan ran as the Democratic Party candidate for president. At the brand-spanking-new Convention Hall of Kansas City, the silver-tongued orator spoke in stirring tones at the partys national convention, drawing on a historical tradition of anti-imperialism that still has resonance.
If the Republicans are prepared to censure all who have used language calculated to make the Filipinos hate foreign domination, let them condemn the speech of Patrick Henry. When he uttered that passionate appeal, Give me liberty or give me death, he expressed a sentiment which still echoes in the hearts of men. Let them censure Jefferson; of all the statesmen of history none have used words so offensive to those who would hold their fellows in political bondage. Let them censure Washington, who declared that the colonists must choose between liberty and slavery. Or, if the statute of limitations has run against the sins of Henry and Jefferson and Washington, let them censure Lincoln, whose Gettysburg speech will
Bryans speech was as much a history lesson as a political ploy. It evoked a long tradition, one that told of the nations anti-imperial roots in the faith of the founding fathers, roots that Bryan believed were continually reaffirmed in the course of the Republics first century. In his view, these principles were in dire danger.
Bryans position was replete with the complexities and contradictions of American anti-imperialism. He had not opposed the Spanish-American War to free Cuba, and the platform of the Democratic Party did not oppose expansiona euphemism also used by Republicansbut only overseas island possessions taken against the will of the inhabitants. Not a word did the platform mention about the questionable annexation of Hawaii, and Democrats announced: We are not opposed to territorial expansion when it takes in desirable territory which can be erected into States in the Union, and whose people are willing and fit to become American citizens. The party also favored trade expansion by every peaceful and legitimate means. Democrats opposed only seizing or purchasing distant islands to be governed outside the Constitution, and whose people can never become citizens. Anti-imperialism was clearly selective, geographically, racially, and constitutionally. Bryan was against formal empire, and against grabbing lands where nonwhite people remained in a majority, but he was implicitly willing to accept the vast nineteenth-century annexation of land from Indians and Mexicans as perfectly legitimate.
Another tension stemmed from the statement in the Democratic platform on the universality of anti-imperialism. This was not just an American tradition. If it were possible to obliterate every word written or spoken in defense of the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence, a war of conquest would still leave its legacy of perpetual hatred, for it was God Himself who placed in every human heart the love of liberty. He never made a race of people so low in the scale of civilization or intelligence that it would welcome a foreign master. Self-government was a matter of human rights, not just American rights. These human rights could be a reason for nonintervention in the affairs of others, including nonwhites, but they could also be construed by imperialists to require U.S. intrusion to help along the processes of universal freedom. That, ironically, could lead to an imperialist form of anti-imperialism.
In historiography, however, the tide had already turned, in part because of the very actions that Rumsfeld sought to justify. Gone was the dominance of the great aberration thesis. In its place came an avalanche of scholarship that made clear the centrality of imperialism in American history. From the Left, too, the empire word is now so regularly applied that the epithet is no longer shocking or even very controversial.
As the historiographical stocks of empire have risen, those of anti-imperialism have fallen. Whereas over the course of American history until the 1990s it was empire that was so often erased from memory, now it is the tradition of anti-imperialism that scholars are more likely to overlook. This is not to say that there are no studies of American anti-imperialism. It is not surprising that scholarly interest in the topic has tended to coincide with periods of dissent over foreign policy. The 1920s and 30s witnessed the first modern wave of anti-imperial scholarship, which included works ranging from the political history of Fred Harvey Harrington to the radical critiques of American empire in a series published by Vanguard Press.