On the other hand, not all Americans supported imperialism. Even President Cleveland was opposed to the annexation of Hawaii in 1894. In fact, imperialism was so controversial that it became the key issue in the 1900 presidential campaign between William McKinley and William Jennings Bryan. By then, an influential association opposed to expansionism had been organized, the Anti-Imperialist League. Its members included politicians, literary figures, economic leaders, and scholars. The Anti-Imperialist League which condemned American action in the Philippines and denounced “the slaughter of the Filipinos as a needless horror.” Imperialism was defined as the “pursuit of un-American ends.” Their opposition to imperialism ran the breadth from distress over the costs necessary to maintain an empire to the immorality of denying others self-determination to the racial notion that incorporating “lesser” cultures into a US empire would weaken American “purity.” Business, government, and labor leaders also opposed imperialism, most notably the occupation of the Philippines which erupted into a bloody war in 1899. Labor leaders like Samuel Gompers believed that cheap foreign labor might become a detriment to American workers. Carl Schurz, a founding member of the Republican Party, decried imperialism as contrary to the principles of Democracy and American freedom. Similarly, Mark Twain wrote, “I am opposed to the eagle putting its talons on any other land.”
The most influential anti-imperialist argument was their attack the imperial policy from the perspective of morality and the American tradition in diplomacy. The situation in the Philippines grew worse as the American army engaged rebels who wanted independence for Philippines. Consequently, the deteriorating situation brought more strength to the Anti-Imperialistic movement. Foundationally, the Anti-imperialists argued that Imperialism is incompatible with the ideals that are so eloquently expressed in the Declaration of Independence. This was powerful because the very doctrine our nation was founded on historically swayed the opinion of the public, the average American. Moreover, the anti-imperialists argued whether or not it is right for this country to kill the natives of a foreign land because they wish to govern themselves – to enjoy the freedom our fathers declared the inalienable right of every human being. In fact, many anti-imperialists believed that imperialist policy was against the spirit of the Constitution, a document that stood the test of time and often served as a source of guidance for citizens of America. They believed that a self-governing republic based on representative rule and protection of liberties cannot govern another country without contradicting its own ideals. Many argued that a nation based on self-government couldn’t subjugate other people. There are others who argued that both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution prohibited the establishment of the colonies. Some argued that there cannot be one law for a citizen and another law for a colonial inhabitant. The phrase – “Constitution follows the flag” – sums up the argument put forth by many anti-imperialists. There was also a moral dimension to the Anti-Imperialist arguments. They believed that it was simply wrong for the United States to control the destiny of other people and other countries, a philosophy the average American could sympathize with even relate to considering the increasing number of immigrants. Anti-imperialists primarily cared about the United States which convinced many that they would act in the best interest of its people. They were worried about its traditions, destiny, security, domestic and foreign policies. They were not preoccupied with Philippines, Hawaii, Cuba or Puerto Rico. Though they defended the liberties and rights of the colonial people, their primary concern was the United States. They simply believed that Imperialism was not in the best interests of the United States.
The most influential argument for imperialism can be seen in the economic motivations for expansion. Despite the enormous productive capabilities of U.S. capitalism, the nation in the late nineteenth century was experiencing a period of economic stagnation and social and political instability, not unlike what was occurring in other capitalist nations. In order to combat these problems, the United States, like other capitalist nations, needed to adopt a dual plan. Domestically, the government attempted to reform capitalism by addressing the problems that led to discontent. The Progressive Era was a period of intense interest in reform. Internationally, the government adopted an expansionist- imperialist- foreign policy. Nevertheless, the decision to adopt this foreign policy option was based on policy-makers’ perceptions of what an imperialist policy could achieve in short and long term. Specifically, the U.S. and other world leaders believed an imperialist policy would have several effects. An imperialist policy would bring the economy out of immediate financial crisis- a severe depression struck the US in 1893. It would help create conditions that would allow for future investments. It would reduce domestic conflict- for example, between the working class and the capitalist class as industrialization and rapid capital accumulation brought on serious confrontations between labor and capital that had been around since the Civil War. This could be achieved by reducing the extent of unemployment because of the favorable conditions imperialism would bring, such as increased demand from overseas colonies, passing on some of the economic benefits derived from imperialism to the working class, and appealing to the patriotism of the working class to mute class tensions.
Instead of seeking empire for God, glory or gold, some would argue that American imperialism sought markets for industrial overproduction. Under consumption or overproduction convinces governments to adopt an imperialist policy: the colony becomes a source of demand for the commodities that go unsold in the imperialist nation. Furthermore, access to foreign markets rather than actual political control of markets was the goal. In earlier mercantilist philosophies, nations sought colonies as outlets for their finished goods and as sources of raw materials for their extractive economies. American imperialists, though, wanted colonies that would serve to keep foreign markets accessible and open, not colonies that would be the markets themselves. The Philippines were important not only for a population of 7 million, but because the island provided room for a naval base from which the US could protect its business interests in Japan and China. In this way, through a subtle dominance based on economics rather than direct politics, the US was able to create the same economic relationship that European powers had with their colonies. Under this view, the colony grabbing of 1898 (Guam, Hawaii, Philippines, Puerto Rico) was only the most obvious episode of American imperialism; it was the short period before the US discovered more subtle methods of economic domination, known as "neo-imperialism". What really made the difference was a sudden shift in opinion among a "Foreign Policy Elite" consisting largely of businessmen, intellectuals, politicians, bureaucrats, and newspapermen. Partially, this shift might have occurred because of economic motivation, especially the search for new markets and the need to protect those markets with coaling stations, as advocated by Mahan. Alternatively, imperialism could have been a continuation of "Manifest Destiny", the ideology that fueled westward expansion. With the West mostly won, people now looked elsewhere to expand. The "Foreign Policy Elite" also may have justified imperial expansion using the theory of Social Darwinism, which suggested that only the strongest nations would survive, and that fierce competition was natural and necessary. Finally, the Foreign Policy Elite might have looked to Europe and followed the example set by European imperialists, in particular Great Britain. Most likely is that some mixture of these various factors all worked together to change the mind of the Foreign Policy Elite regarding the acquisition of an American empire.