The pivotal event was the treaty with Spain that ended the war. That treaty gave the U.S. "ownership" and control of Cuba, the Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico. But it is noteworthy that a Republican president and a Republican-dominated Senate negotiated, signed, and ratified that treaty. Moreover, the debate whether or not to ratify that treaty was very typical, and ironically not much different than it would be today!
Democrats argued that "This treaty will make us a vulgar, commonplace empire, controlling subject races and vassal states, in which one class must rule and other classes must obey." In fact, Democrats were steadfastly against expansionism and imperialism, and against the so-called "manifest destiny." But, like their modern counterparts, Republicans argued that "Providence has given the United States the duty of extending Christian civilization. We come as ministering angels, not despots."
How typical those argument are to the arguments that have taken place ever since, because Republicans haven’t changed much since then. In fact, they were just as bad and just as hypocritical during the 1920s, 1930s and 1950s, and perhaps even worse since 1980.
But, back in 1898, even though Democratic anti-imperialists maintained that this expansionism would violate the most basic tenets of the American Constitution, the Republicans ruled and prevailed. In spite of all Democratic objections, the treaty was ratified in January 1899.
Then, not surprisingly, after they had gained control of their new "possessions," the Republicans insisted that the U.S. Constitution applied only to American citizens. (Sound familiar?) They did not consider non-white "heathen" or foreigners as equal, so they felt this was a natural and logical decision. So, once they had possession, the pro-empire Republicans decided that the Cuban and Filipino people were simply "not suited for self-rule," and "for their own good" had to be governed and ruled by Americans.
That betrayed the Cuban and Filipino people, and rather than being liberated as they had expected, they simply became American subjects against their will. That led to tragic consequences, one of the worst of which was that the U.S. wound up killing thousands of Filipinos in order to gain and maintain control of the Philippines. In fact, in that war 4,234 American soldiers, 16,000 Filipino freedom fighters, and as many as 200,000 Filipino civilians were killed. Then for 34 years the U.S. had to use forceful rule to maintain control.
In the 1020s part of U.S. imperialistic strategies in the world were known as "gunboat diplomacy," which was showing a display of military power, demonstrating an implied threat in order to maintain dominance, and using deadly military force only "when necessary." And that, along with other strategies, made the U.S. an imperial power just like the British and other European empires.
Finally, in 1935, the U.S. government realized it had to at least allow the appearance of Philippine independence. That was partly because of the influenced of democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt, but it was also because between 1898 and 1935 American leadership had learned some hard lessons about being a traditional militaristic imperial colonial power. Additionally, many conscientious, democratic Americans had objected strenuously against it. That’s why American values regarding fairness and equal rights finally caused the U.S. to try to create at least the appearance of independence in the Philippines and Cuba.
Unfortunately, the reality was that "puppet" governments were set up and supported there and in other countries to serve American strategic and economic interests. Batista in Cuba (1933-1958), Marcos in the Philippines (1965-1986), and Noriega in Panama (1983-1989) were a few of the most well known and infamous puppet leaders (actually dictators), but under all of the puppet leaders their countries were just like other Third World countries that were or would be controlled and exploited by a foreign military power.
The U.S. Government had realized that "colonialism by proxy" was almost as financially rewarding, far less blatant and obvious, and therefore far less harmful for appearances’ sake. In other words, it was more "politically correct," both nationally and internationally. It was a far better way to establish and/or maintain control in a foreign country and still accomplish the same goals, and the U.S. did it with abandon in many places in the world.
Of course over time this was called "American foreign aid," and its ostensible purpose was beneficent and humanitarian. That’s what most Americans wanted to believe then, and it’s what most Americans still want to believe. And, admittedly, it was partially true in certain cases, and it still is partially true in certain cases. After all, the American people as a whole are truly beneficent and humanitarian, and occasionally their government actually reflects the will of the people.
However, the main purpose of American foreign "aid" was, for all practical purposes, not much different than what had driven every other imperial and colonial power in the world. It was to serve the strategic interests of the American military, and to serve the financial interests of American industry and business, to procure natural resources and anything else that Americans wanted to utilize, consume, and take advantage of. In fact, that was the chief motivation for such foreign policy, while in certain instances strategic military considerations were of utmost importance and led to gaining and maintaining a military foothold in politically sensitive or strategically valuable places in the world. That’s why U.S. military bases in the Phillippines, Hawaii, Guam, Panama and many other places have been so important to U.S. Military-Industrial interests.
Now, as I mentioned on the page titled The Third Cold War, by the middle of the twentieth century following World War II, and at the start of the First Cold War with Russia, many Americans began to realize that any invasion and occupation of any land for any reason was wrong. They were helped along in this realization because historians had by that time begun to paint a slightly more accurate historical picture of imperialism and colonialism, and the picture isn’t pretty. That’s when Neo-Imperialism really took hold, because it wasn’t so blatantly aggressive and hypocritical, nor was it so obviously harmful. In fact, it was designed to appear benign, beneficent, beneficial, and helpful.
Indeed, during the First Cold War with the Russian Soviet Union, the U.S. rationale became to "help developing countries fight off the evil forces of communism." That worked even better and was a great excuse. The U.S. Government learned to maintain control in certain foreign countries that way, by simply installing and supporting more puppet leaders who would serve America’s interests. They supplied these puppet leaders with money and modern weapons so they could "fight communism and maintain law and order."
Of course, fighting and preventing despotic, dictatorial, totalitarian rule is a good thing. However, that really was not what the U.S. did. In fact, the U.S. Government supported and installed foreign dictators if they went along with the U.S. and were against communism. President Ronald Reagan’s administration did that a lot during the Second Cold War with Russia, and they were involved in many hot wars in many different countries. Their stated goal was to remove or ward off communist regimes, but, in fact, they didn’t mind supporting corrupt and cruel dictators as long as they were puppets serving American interests. Reagan’s covert support of military or paramilitary "death squads" in El Salvador was probably the most infamous example of that, but there were many others.
If financial and indirect support wasn’t enough, the U.S. rationale justified resorting to covert military operations and even direct military intervention if and when necessary. This kind of Neo-Imperialism proved to be a more clever and far less obvious way of doing business in Third World countries, and it allowed the U.S. to appear more beneficent and less domineering. It created and maintained situations whereby certain American interests could be served and certain American individuals and corporations could get very rich. And, while the U.S. preferred to do all this without appearing as a bully, it was not above sending in the troops when all else failed. That, in reality, has been the bottom line in U.S. foreign policy for a very long time.
