Anti-imperialists argued expansion clashed with American liberty and self-determination.

Title: Liberty or Empire? The Anti-Imperialists and the Question That Shaped a Nation

Let’s rewind to the last decades of the 19th century, when the United States found itself at a crossroads. The Spanish-American War had just ended, and with it came new territories, new questions, and a loud debate about what kind of power America should be in the world. On one side stood the expansionists, who saw American strength as something to be projected overseas. On the other side were the anti-imperialists, who challenged the very idea of ruling lands and peoples without their consent. The central question they wrestled with wasn’t just about land or markets; it was about who Americans believed themselves to be.

What the anti-imperialists argued, in a nutshell, is option B: imperialism contradicted American values of liberty and self-determination. It’s a clean, powerful claim, and it sits at the heart of Period 6 discussions. But why did they see it this way? And how did they try to persuade others that empire would clash with the nation’s core beliefs?

Let’s unpack the argument in a way that sticks, not just as a date on a study guide.

A moral compass rooted in the founding ideals

The anti-imperialists didn’t treat liberty as a slogan. They treated it as a standard by which policies should be judged. They reminded the public that America’s own birth story was a fight against rule from afar. The Declaration of Independence speaks of rights that belong to individuals, not to governments that can be imposed by conquest. The Constitution builds a framework around consent, representation, and limits on power. If America circa 1776 is supposed to be a beacon for self-government, then ruling distant peoples without their consent would look suspiciously like what pioneers fought to escape.

This isn’t fancy theory. It’s a straightforward moral claim: the same freedoms Americans claimed for themselves should also extend to others who came under American rule. Expansion, in this view, risked turning self-government into a casual phrase rather than a lived practice. If you’re asking people halfway around the world to accept a new flag and a distant government, you’re asking them to trade their own liberty for a promise. The anti-imperialists argued that this trade would hollow out the very idea that America stood for.

A practical critique married to a principled argument

Yes, they spoke the language of rights, but they also pointed to real costs. Imperialism wasn’t a neat, tidy charter; it would mean new armies, new frontiers of administration, and new kinds of conflicts. The Philippines, for example, didn’t roll over after a quick vote. It sparked resistance, insurgency, and a rule under which American policy had to operate—hardly a small burden for a young nation already managing its own growing democracy.

Some opponents pressed a more down-to-earth line: if the United States is built on popular sovereignty and the consent of the governed, how could it justify governing others without consent? They warned that a nation that claimed to defend liberty at home could become, abroad, a violator of the freedoms it professed to defend. It’s a familiar tension—how to reconcile power with principle. The anti-imperialists pressed this tension into the center of the debate.

Voice and vision: who spoke for the anti-imperialist stance?

This wasn’t a single voice. It was a chorus of reformers, labor organizers, writers, and activists who tapped into a broader distrust of foreign entanglements. Think Jane Addams and other social reformers who cared about communities both at home and beyond borders. Think Andrew Carnegie and Mark Twain, who used newspapers, speeches, and public meetings to argue that empire would corrode the republic’s soul. Samuel Gompers and other labor leaders warned that overseas ventures could drag workers into new kinds of wars or lay a claim on national resources that should belong to citizens.

The anti-imperialists framed their case with a mix of moral persuasion and constitutional concern. They asked people to consider whether a republic built on popular sovereignty could ever consistently deny that same right to people living in territories far from American shores. It was a pragmatic question wrapped in a larger ethical debate: could liberty survive if America claimed the right to govern others who hadn’t given their consent?

What about the counterarguments?

It’s helpful to acknowledge the other side, not to validate it uncritically, but to see the full texture of the debate. Pro-imperial arguments often stressed economic benefits, strategic security, and a duty to spread modernization. They suggested that establishing American rule could stabilize regions, open markets, and protect American interests abroad. Some feared that withdrawal or hesitation would reveal weakness or invite rivals to fill the gap.

Anti-imperialists, in turn, didn’t deny these concerns outright. They conceded that power and influence carry weight. What they refused to concede was the idea that liberty can be a selective brand sold only to one group of people. They warned that the future of American democracy would be clearer if the nation could prove that its power didn’t compress the liberty it claimed to defend.

A lasting imprint on American identity

This debate did more than shape a moment in history. It pressed America to ask how it would balance ideals with power, how it would define its role in a world that didn’t share the same borders or beliefs. The conversations around the Spanish-American War and the fate of the Philippines left a mark on how Americans viewed themselves as both a republic at home and a potential player on the world stage. The anti-imperialist perspective didn’t disappear after a vote or a treaty; it lingered in the ongoing tension between national security, moral responsibility, and the ambition to be a nation that champions liberty.

A few quick takeaways for you, as you connect the dots in APUSH-era studies

• The core claim is a values claim. When you see arguments about empire, look for the language of liberty, consent, and self-government. The anti-imperialists grounded their critique in these ideas, not just in economics or power.

• Remember the Founding parallel. The anti-imperialists drew a straight line from the Revolution to modern foreign policy. They asked: if the U.S. grew strong enough to govern itself, should it use that power to govern others without their consent?

• Consider the practical stakes. They weren’tSóly moralists; they talked about costs—military involvement, costs borne by taxpayers, and the risk of deepening conflicts abroad. The practical side strengthens the moral argument in their favor.

• Look for the human voices. Names like Addams, Carnegie, Twain, and Gompers aren’t just names—each represents a way of translating abstract ideals into real-world action and rhetoric.

• Use this lens to read primary sources. When you encounter a speech, a pamphlet, or a newspaper editorial from this period, test it against the idea that liberty and self-determination should travel with American power. See where the author aligns with or challenges the founding principles.

A closing thought to carry into your next reading

The anti-imperialist argument isn’t just a historical footnote. It’s a reminder of a moral compass that can still feel relevant today: What does it mean to be free if you’re free only for you? If a nation claims the title of a champion of democracy, how does it square that claim with actions that govern others without their consent? These questions aren’t fun party trivia; they’re the kind of questions that keep a nation honest.

If you’re exploring Period 6, you’ll see this thread repeat in different guises: debates about sovereignty, about the cost of power, about how to balance ideals with interest. The main anti-imperialist argument—the clash between empire and liberty—offers a clean lens through which to read a lot of sources. It’s not just about what happened in 1898; it’s about what it means to be American, to value self-determination, and to decide how far power should extend beyond a nation’s borders.

So, when you encounter a question like the one that asks for the anti-imperialists’ core point, you’ll have a more textured answer in your pocket. It’s not merely a choice among four options; it’s a doorway into a larger conversation about who we are when we claim to defend freedom. And that conversation, in the end, is what history is really all about.