Twelve Against Empire: The Anti-Imperialists, 1898-1900,

by Robert L. Beisner, 12 B/W Photos (Illustrator)

At a time when domestic opposition to U.S. policy in Asia has reached unprecedented levels, this prize-winning book examines the anti-imperialist protest of twelve prominent and strong-minded Americans against the empire seized from Spain in 1898.

Although they did not agree among themselves on all points, these men—whether philosopher (William James), Robber Baron (Andrew Carnegie), ex-President (Benjamin Harrison), perennial dissenter (Carl Schurtz), Speaker of the House (Thomas B. Reed), or closet critic (Charles Eliot Norton)—joined forces with the others in this study and thousands of their countrymen "to warn a nation of optimists that America could not escape the consequences of its own conduct." Their unheeded warning is eloquently renewed in this book.

Genres: Nonfiction, History, 19th Century, American History

310 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1968

About the author

A historian of American foreign relations, Robert Beisner taught at American University from 1965 until his retirement in 1998. He attended Hastings College for two years, before transferring to the University of Chicago, where he earned both his master’s degree (1960) and his doctorate (1965) in history. His dissertation won the Allan Nevins Prize for the best dissertation in American history in 1966, and he served as editor in chief of the two-volume bibliographic Guide to the Foreign Relations of the United States.

Reviews

[Mark · Rating 3 out of 5]

America’s war with Spain in 1898 is generally regarded as the point at which the United States emerged as an imperialist power. While Americans greeted their victory over Spain with enthusiasm, their response to the acquisition of the Philippines and Puerto Rico was much more ambivalent, as prominent Americans from across the political and ideological spectrum expressed their opposition to the acquisition of these territories.

Robert Beisner’s book is an examination of twelve prominent public figures who emerged as anti-imperialists during this period. While the men Beisner selects share much in common – all are older white Anglo-Saxon Protestants who were traditionally associated with the Republican Party – he divides them into two groups: “Mugwump” reformers who often prioritized issues over party, and more mainstream Republicans whose opposition to the acquisition of overseas territories represented a notable break from their traditional commitment to party orthodoxy. For each man he describes the arguments they made against the McKinley administration’s policies and analyzes them for what they reveal about the men’s convictions and the failure of their efforts.

What Beisner achieves with this is a fascinating exploration of the world-views of a distinct group of Americans in the Gilded Age. For many of the Mugwumps, their opposition was of a piece with their longstanding advocacy of reform and their fears for a nation in which their influence was in decline. Racial anxieties were a part of this as well, as many of them worried about the consequences of absorbing large populations of Hispanic and Asian Catholics into a country already beset by racial issues. Many regular Republicans shared these concerns as well, to which were added worries about greater entanglement in international affairs and the ramifications for this at home as well as abroad. Yet for all of their fears about the consequences of empire Beisner concludes by detailing the extent of their inability to shape public opinion or government policy, as the territories were annexed with fateful consequences for both them and for the United States generally.

Beisner’s book offers its readers a sharp examination of both an important subset of American political activism in the debates over imperialism and the reasons for its failure. Yet for all of its insights his analysis leaves the reader wanting more, as throughout the book he alludes to a broader anti-imperialist movement that he never addresses. While Beisner makes it clear that this movement was never organized or coherent, focusing it on greater detail would have strengthened his argument about the failure of the anti-imperialists to achieve their goals. As it is, his book is a valuable profile of one prominent part of the anti-imperialist movement in the United States at the dawn of America’s imperial age. But in it the end it only covers a part of it.

[Kathy · Rating 4 out of 5]

A mere two years - 1898-1900 - gives Beisner the opportunity to discuss an array of characters, in context, who spoke and acted against the US's attempts at creating an empire. Because I know little of this subject, I was especially appreciative and Beisner's clear prose and his penchant for making sure the reader will understand his discussions.

[Karl · Rating 3 out of 5]

Informative set of biographical sketches of major adherents of the anti-imperial philosophy of the late 19th and very early 20th Century. Most of the subjects, with the exception of Andrew Carnegie and perhaps Carl Schurz, are fairly obscure today, but they were major opinion leaders in their day. Most fell into the vague category of "Mugwump": flipping from party to party, longing for alternatives, drifting in the allusive center of American political life, while favoring principle over partisanship.

Each man had their own reasons to oppose some aspect of American expansion in the 1890s, but most shared a few key positions. 1) The feeling that a constitutional republic should not have permanent non-citizens or colonial subjects, and that the US political system would be corrupted by the imposed rule over foreign peoples. Many anti-imperialists came out of the Civil War era and Abolitionist politics. They cited the mistreatment of Native Americans and African Americans as signs that a colonial regime would not live up to idealized promises made by the empire boosters. 2) Imperial expansion would bring increased foreign entanglement, the danger George Washington warned of. Such entanglements would necessitate more military expenditures and a standing army. 3) A feeling that American ideals, principles, or "mission" would be invalidated by establishing a colonial empire. 4) Prevailing racist notions that the peoples conquered, regarded as "inferior races," could never be part of the American system. This would force either a permanence system of unjust colonial rule, or a "tainting" of the American nation and blood through integration and immigration. As most of the anti-imperialists discussed were mildly to strongly anti-immigration as well, these prejudices dovetailed.

Robert Beisner does a good job detailing the life histories of the various anti-imperialists and admirably avoids conflating or generalizing among them. Each comes across as an individual. Their positions and alternative proposals to empire are also well detailed. The level of detail might be a bit tedious to some readers, especially if you are not (as I am not) well-versed in the specific politics of the Gilded Age and the arcane issues of of the time. Nonetheless, however unsuccessful they were at avoiding the annexation of the Philippines, Puerto Rico, or Hawaii, the anti-imperialists were an important part of the nation's political scene and help to show that no society is ever uniform in its politics.

[rmn · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book takes a look at bunch of angry old white guys from the late 19th century who wanted to keep America quaint (so nothing ever changes). The book profiles Mugwumps (angry old racist white guys suffering from elitism, but otherwise not too bad) and Republicans (just regular angry old white guys) and how they railed against imperialism and what they saw as the death of their elite society due to the oncoming of American expansion. They were kind of the anti-Teddy Roosevelts and unfortunately for them, you can't stop entropy.

The sections on the Mugwumps were the most interesting as they were pretty much a reincarnated Whig party or answer to the of question what if today's liberal elite mixed with the Tea Party. While most of them come across as old alarmist fuddy duddies, Charles Francis Adams Jr. comes across as as fascinating as the rest of his family. The Adams remain the most undervalued family of the first 150 years of the US.

I'm not sure why anyone would want to read this book (though somehow I did, so not sure what that says about me), but it is not uninteresting and shows that the more things change, the more they stay the same. People are always going to be scared of progress, even though it is inevitable.