Lecture
American Expansion, Empire, and the Turn to Anti-Imperialism
When we talk about U.S. intervention in the Americas to stabilize states politically or economically, we are often implicitly drawing on older doctrines, even if they are not named explicitly in public discourse. For example, one could plausibly argue that the Trump administration’s actions in Venezuela resemble an extension of the Roosevelt Corollary, itself an expansion of the Monroe Doctrine. Whether such actions comply with contemporary international law is, of course, a separate and important question.
These doctrines emerged in the nineteenth century, a period before the existence of institutions such as the United Nations, the International Criminal Court, or even fully developed international humanitarian law. The Hague Conventions, for example, only began in 1899. This historical context matters when assessing how states justified intervention at the time.
The United States Enters the World of Great Powers
Throughout the late nineteenth century, the United States accumulated small but symbolically important victories over European powers. Britain gradually reduced its opposition to American ambitions, eventually cooperating with the United States in the completion of the Panama Canal.
The most decisive moment, however, came with the defeat of Spain in the Spanish-American War. Spain was no longer a major power; it was plagued by political and economic instability, and its remaining prestige rested largely on the remnants of its once vast empire. What Spain retained, however, was imperial hubris.
The United States had long viewed Cuba as strategically and geographically significant. Revolts against Spanish rule broke out in Cuba, and American newspapers aggressively promoted intervention. Interestingly, the U.S. government itself was initially reluctant to intervene. It was public pressure—petitions from state legislatures, trade unions, chambers of commerce, and civic organizations—that ultimately pushed Congress toward action.
At the same time, many business interests opposed war, fearing economic disruption. Newspapers attacked President Grover Cleveland for his restraint, illustrating how press, public opinion, and interest groups were beginning to exert decisive influence over foreign policy—an early glimpse of modern mass politics.
This dynamic shifted decisively when William McKinley became president in 1897. With sustained press coverage of Spanish repression in Cuba, the United States adopted a more aggressive posture. The explosion of the USS Maine in Havana Harbor—later understood to be an internal accident—was seized upon as a pretext for intervention. Spain’s refusal to back down reinforced American claims of humanitarian necessity.
McKinley justified intervention by alleging that Spain was “exterminating” the Cuban population. The war expanded quickly beyond the Caribbean. American forces sailed to Manila, then a Spanish colony, and destroyed the Spanish fleet stationed there. The conflict concluded with the Treaty of Paris in 1898.
As a result, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines were ceded to the United States. Guam, famously, surrendered after mistaking American gunfire for a ceremonial salute. This effectively ended the Spanish Empire.
A lesser-known but crucial point is that the Philippine conflict did not end in 1898. The United States fought a brutal war there for nearly two decades—one of the longest sustained conflicts in American history, surpassed only much later by Afghanistan. For a broader discussion of American imperial reach, Daniel Immerwahr’s How to Hide an Empire is highly recommended.
Empire, Public Opinion, and Resistance at Home
The outcome of the Spanish-American War firmly established the United States as an imperial power in the eyes of Europe. One of the traditional ways to enter the ranks of great powers was to defeat another empire. When Japan defeated Russia in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–05, it achieved similar recognition.
Public opinion played a crucial role in pushing the United States toward war, but it also revealed growing dissent. One of the most notable opposition movements was the American Anti-Imperialist League, which condemned the annexation of the Philippines as incompatible with republican ideals and government by consent.
Although the movement failed to alter policy, it was far from insignificant. Its members included Andrew Carnegie, former President Grover Cleveland, Mark Twain, and—most relevant for today—Jane Addams.
Jane Addams: Life and Context
Jane Addams was born in Illinois on September 6, 1860. Her father was a state senator, and she was an exceptional student, graduating as valedictorian from Rockford Female Seminary. After brief studies in Europe, she returned to the United States, where her lifelong concern for social reform took shape.
In 1889, she co-founded Hull House in Chicago, a settlement house designed to improve urban industrial life. Hull House offered cultural, educational, and social services—museums, libraries, kitchens, classrooms—functioning as a comprehensive support center for marginalized populations.
By the early twentieth century, Addams was active in municipal politics and had begun writing extensively. In 1907, she published Newer Ideals of Peace, the central text for our discussion.
Addams’s Reimagining of Peace
Jane Addams was both a committed anti-imperialist and a pacifist. Her work is significant because it challenges how peace is traditionally understood in international relations.
Most classical thinkers define peace negatively—as simply the absence of war. Addams insists on a positive definition of peace. For her, peace includes social progress, justice, and the reduction of inequality. Progress fosters cooperation, reduces conflict, and strengthens relationships both within and between societies.
Peace, in Addams’s view, requires undoing class divisions and addressing injustice. By reducing inequality, societies can eliminate the conditions that breed violence, xenophobia, racism, and gender oppression. Peace is not passive; it is an active social process.
Her thinking is grounded in the city—especially the American industrial city—which she saw as both a site of exploitation and a site of moral possibility. Although critics label her idealist, Addams does not ignore hardship. She observes that amid urban brutality and competition, ordinary people still exhibit compassion and a deep desire for justice.
She rejects the idea that peace is merely emotional or weak. Instead, she calls for a paradigm shift: redefining what counts as strength and heroism.
Moral Substitutes for War
Addams engages thinkers such as William James, who famously argued for the need to find a “moral equivalent of war.” She agrees that societies require heroic ideals but insists that heroism need not be tied to violence.
She argues that modern heroism is found in the struggle to eliminate poverty, disease, and injustice—an effort that is increasingly international in scope. The admiration once reserved for warfare, she suggests, is gradually being redirected toward labor that sustains and nourishes human life.
If societies can redefine heroism, especially masculinity, away from militarism and toward social contribution, the appeal of war diminishes.
Feminism, Pacifism, and Internationalism
Addams became a central figure in the peace movement and participated in transnational peace conferences in Europe. She is often regarded as a foundational thinker in feminist international relations.
She helped found the Women’s Peace Party, which linked pacifism with expanded roles for women in public life. Although women were often associated with childcare and social welfare—an idea rooted in contemporary norms—Addams emphasized that both men and women shared responsibility for peace.
She advocated linguistic and conceptual shifts, such as replacing “balance of power” with “concert of nations,” emphasizing cooperation over militarized rivalry.
Her local work—assisting immigrants, improving housing conditions, addressing poverty—was meant to scale outward. The same principles that foster harmony in cities, she believed, could guide international relations.
Sympathetic Knowledge and Diplomacy
One of Addams’s most important concepts is sympathetic knowledge: understanding others deeply enough to grasp their experiences, struggles, and perspectives.
Such understanding enables mediation, reduces conflict, and strengthens diplomacy. While this idea may sound idealistic, similar logic underpins modern international institutions and information-sharing frameworks. Understanding others does not require agreement; it requires listening.
Maintaining communication—even during conflict—is essential. Cutting off dialogue makes understanding impossible and increases the likelihood of escalation.
Addams in Historical Perspective
Jane Addams represents several broader transformations:
A positive redefinition of peace
The rise of women in political and social movements
The growing influence of transnational activism
The challenge to imperialism and militarism
She received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1931 and died in 1935.
Her ideas emerged during a broader liberal moment marked by increasing attention to individual rights, international cooperation, and humanitarian law. This period also witnessed the growth of social movements—women’s rights, labor rights, democratic reform—that shaped the twentieth century.
At the same time, imperialism remained central to great-power status. Nearly all major powers at the turn of the century were empires. Addams’s pacifism thus stood in tension with dominant global norms—but it also anticipated future shifts toward international institutions and collective security.
Why Addams Still Matters
Addams forces us to rethink pacifism not as passivity, but as active social engagement. She challenges militarized definitions of strength and offers an alternative rooted in justice, empathy, and cooperation.
Her work reminds us that peace is not merely the absence of war—it is a condition that must be built, sustained, and defended through social progress.