Imperialism, or taking over other nations, was the name of the game for hundreds of years as European countries tried to gain more and more land. But by the time the U.S. became strong enough to play with the big boys, the world's opinion on imperialism was changing.
Anti-imperialists at home were more than a little upset that America was going against its own history and taking over/exploiting smaller countries. But those new lands produced a lot of economic gain (Hawaii), or allowed for military control of an area (Guam, Cuba).
Tough choices for Congress to make. Maybe that's why the Platt Agreement is so oblique.
Questions About Imperialism
- Was the Platt Amendment an act of imperialism, even though the U.S. didn't formally own the island?
- How did the rest of the world react to the Platt Amendment, with the U.S. making rules for countries it didn't own?
- How did other American territories at the time like Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico, or the Philippines react to the Platt Amendment and America's control over Cuba?
- Would the U.S. (or any other country) be able to get away with something like the Platt Amendment in today's world, where imperialism is much less prevalent?
Chew on This
The Platt Amendment's rules for Cuba were so similar to actually taking over a country that the situation could be called imperialism.
The U.S. was careful to not go too far with the Platt Amendment, thus avoiding the label of imperialism.