How the United States pursued imperialism in the Pacific and Latin America during Period 6.

Title: Why Period 6 was all about competition, not just territory

If you’re eyeing the map of the late 19th century and wondering what kept American leaders up at night, you’re in for a simple truth: money and markets mattered as much as borders. Period 6 of US history—roughly 1865 to 1898—was a time when industry boomed, ideas about national destiny shifted, and the United States started to think of itself as a global player. The driving force? Economic competition. The arena? The Pacific and Latin America. The move? Imperialism.

Let me explain how that shift happened and why it mattered.

The mood of the era: a country riding industrial horsepower

By the 1870s and 1880s, American factories hummed. Railroads stitched the countryside together; steel rails and new tech made production faster and cheaper. With more goods to sell than ever, merchants and factory owners looked beyond the Mississippi—toward continents and seas where new customers lived and new resources waited. The United States wasn’t pretending to be content on one continent. It wanted to see its products, its capital, and its ideas spread across oceans.

Think of imperialism here as a strategy to keep the American economy growing. If Europe already had colonies, ports, and guaranteed access to markets in far-off places, why shouldn’t the United States push its own interests beyond the coast? The goal wasn’t just prestige; it was plain, practical economics: secure markets for American goods, gain access to raw materials, and plant economic footholds that would help American industry stay competitive as global powers jostled for position.

What imperialism looked like in practice

During Period 6, the United States began to extend its reach in two big theaters: the Pacific and Latin America. Here are the concrete moves that defined that push:

• Hawaii as a gateway: The islands weren’t just a romantic pause for sailors; they offered a strategic harbor, a stopping point on transpacific routes, and a chance to project economic and naval power into Asia. The result was a steady drift toward formal annexation, culminating in Hawaii’s annexation toward the end of the century.

• Puerto Rico and Guam: After the Spanish-American War in 1898, the United States acquired Puerto Rico and Guam. These territories weren’t just symbols on a map; they opened up new bases, new duties, and new markets in the Caribbean and the Pacific.

• The Philippines: The war against Spain also dragged the United States into a direct relationship with the Philippines. Control here meant access to Asian markets and a Pacific foothold that could shape trade routes for years to come.

• Open Doors and economic influence: The Open Door Policy in the late 1890s aimed to preserve equal trading rights for all nations in China. It wasn’t about taking over a territory so much as ensuring American merchants could compete freely in a crucial market.

How these moves fit together

What connects these steps isn’t just geography. It’s a throughline about power and profit. The United States was growing into a major industrial economy, and it needed consistent access to markets that could absorb surplus goods and demand the kinds of investments American capital could fuel. Territory acquisitions weren’t only about sheer ambition; they were about constructing a network—ports, bases, and protected trade lanes—that would support commerce and influence for decades.

There’s a useful way to frame this: imperialism as a deliberate strategy to keep economic momentum. If you’ve ever tried to grow a business in a crowded market, you know the impulse to expand into new territories where competition is less fierce. The United States was doing something similar, only on a national scale with ships, treaties, and governments.

Why not the other options? A quick detour through the alternatives

If you’re studying for an exam or simply trying to make sense of the period, it helps to distinguish what the U.S. was doing from other possible interpretations.

• Capitalism in Europe: Yes, capitalism was alive and well in Europe, but Period 6 isn’t about Europe’s internal economy. The question here is about what the United States did to extend its own economic reach. Europe’s capitalism wasn’t the U.S.’s chosen arena of competition in this era.

• Isolationism in the Americas: That’s the opposite of what happened. The era isn’t about retreat or self-containment; it’s about engaging neighbors and rivals to secure markets and influence.

• Mercantilism in Africa: Mercantilism as a formaled doctrine had older roots, and Africa wasn’t the focal stage for this U.S. strategy in Period 6. The emphasis was on the Pacific and Latin America, where the United States could actively compete and shape trade routes.

The why behind the moves: the big ideas

A few threads weave through these actions:

• Markets as lifeblood: Industrial growth wasn’t a dream; it needed customers. Expanding beyond domestic borders opened up millions of potential buyers and reduced reliance on any single market.

• Resources and access: Raw materials—from sugar and coffee in Latin America to naval stores and strategic commodities in the Pacific—helped fuel American factories and railroads at home.

• Strategic geography: The Pacific coast, Caribbean littorals, and the Philippines offered chokepoints and hubs for shipping, defense, and investment. Geography isn’t destiny, but it’s a powerful enabler.

• A national creed with a new edge: Manifest Destiny isn’t confined to continental expansion. In this period, some leaders extended the idea to a belief that the United States should actively shape the world economy to fit American interests.

A few stories that bring the era to life

• The Hawaii moment: Picture a treaty landscape, a changing balance of power, and a local political scene that favored annexation. Hawaii wasn’t just a waypoint; it was a strategic prize that would influence Pacific commerce and security. The shift didn’t happen overnight, and the path included diplomatic maneuvering, business interests, and evolving public sentiment.

• The Caribbean and the lesson from Cuba: The Spanish-American War wasn’t sparked out of the blue. It grew from a mix of sensational headlines, humanitarian concerns, and a conviction that American power could stabilize or shape outcomes in nearby waters. Puerto Rico and Guam emerged not as mere trophies, but as platforms for trade, security, and political influence in a region that mattered economically and strategically.

• The Philippines and the open seas: In the Philippines, the United States found itself balancing democratic ideals with imperial realities. The colonial project tested American self-understanding, setting up a debate about how to apply the nation’s professed values to distant lands and populations.

What all this means for understanding Period 6

If you step back, the period isn’t just about grabbing a few patches on the map. It’s about a shift in how the United States saw itself in the world. The era marks a transition from continental expansion to a more ambitious, economy-driven foreign policy. The U.S. was no longer content to be a rising power on the fringes; it aimed to become a counterpart to established empires in Europe, capable of shaping markets and alliances across the globe.

And yes, the debate around imperialism was noisy then—and it’s still a topic worth wrestling with now. Critics warned about overreach, the costs of war, and the moral questions of rule beyond one’s borders. Supporters pointed to strategic necessity, economic vitality, and the chance to lift rivals out of economic stagnation by offering new opportunities. The tension between ideals and interests is precisely the kind of tension that makes history feel real, not dusty.

A little bridge to broader themes

As you map Period 6 in your head, you might notice threads that echo later chapters: how domestic politics, business interests, and public opinion push foreign policy in particular directions; how technology and infrastructure adjust the scale of international engagement; and how debates about freedom, sovereignty, and empire shape national identity. The imperial era didn’t erase older loyalties or methods; it repurposed them for a rapidly changing world.

A practical takeaway for your study

Next time you see a map or read a short passage about the late 1800s, ask yourself: what problem was the United States trying to solve with these moves? The answer isn’t simply “to become powerful.” It’s about creating pathways—through ports, treaties, and protectorates—that would help American business, workers, and communities access new opportunities abroad while reshaping the global marketplace at home.

To recap, Period 6 saw the United States engage in economic competition through imperialist moves in the Pacific and Latin America. The strategies included acquiring territories, securing bases, and using diplomacy to gain access to markets. The result was a more outward-looking United States, one that recognized the world as a network of opportunities—and risks—and chose to participate in that network with ambition and a clear sense of national interest.

If you’re piecing together the grand narrative of this era, keep this thread in mind: economic vitality and global reach went hand in hand. The choices made during this period weren’t about a single conquest or treaty; they were about laying the groundwork for how America would interact with a world that was getting smaller by the year, one shipment, one port, and one new market at a time. And that, more than anything, helps explain why Period 6 still feels surprisingly relevant when we talk about foreign policy, trade, and power today.