During the late 19th century, there were very different opinions on how the US should function as a global power. Some believed that the US should be a nation with ideals similar to “Conquer and Civilize” when dealing with smaller surrounding countries seeking independence. Other people, sometimes involved in some of the progressive reform movements, felt that the US should not become an Imperialist nation, stating that we broke away from one so why become another. Either way that Imperialism was viewed, its discourse greatly shaped the US leading into the 20th century.

During the 1890s America began to expand its economies and thus needed new markets. Because of the treaties we created with other nations and the wars we participated in- the Spanish American War- we had an isolationist attitude; not exactly the best attitude for dealing with foreign affairs. After the war when we “claimed” the territories that we had fought in, Americans had mixed feelings. Of those who agreed, there were a few reasons on it would be good to participate in the war and what …show more content…
“Many of their people are utterly unfit for self-government, and no signs of becoming fit.” (Source 5) This source was intended for imperialists, the sense of Social Darwinism was used by Theodore Roosevelt by saying the Philippines will never be fit for self Government, and will need the United States to govern them. They would not be able to govern themselves because they are not the white, superior race, they need to be to govern themselves. Roosevelt also states that if the US does not take action, then the Phillipines will be taken over by anarchy, and the hard work that went into liberating the Philippines, went to waste if the US did not take action. Roosevelt claims that we have a civil duty to aid these countries in need and teach them our