In this chapter we will focus on the American West and what happened when the frontier “closed” and expansion became imperialism. You can listen to a podcast version of this chapter as you read or download it to review.
The nineteenth century saw the expansion of the United States across the North American continent. Westward expansion began with the Treaty of Paris which ended the Revolutionary War in 1783, in which Britain ceded the territory between the coastal colonies and the Mississippi River. These regions became the Northwest Territory; settlers arrived rapidly and the States of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois were admitted in 1803, 1816, and 1818. In 1803 Thomas Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase added another 828,000 square miles to the United States, doubled the size of the new nation. And in 1848 the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ended the Mexican-American War with the U.S. acquisition of the half of Mexico between the Louisiana Territory and the Pacific, including what is now California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and part of Colorado and Wyoming. American expansion across the continent was considered the nation’s “Manifest Destiny”, and relatively little thought was given to the native or Mexican people standing in the way or progress.
Native Americans had lived in the American West for between ten and fifteen thousand years. Linked culturally and geographically by trade, travel, and warfare, indigenous groups controlled most of the continent west of the Mississippi River deep into the nineteenth century, despite the maps and treaties between nations designating these lands as U.S. territory. Spanish, French, British, and American traders and a few settlers had integrated themselves into many regional economies, but no imperial power had really achieved political or military control over the great bulk of the continent. But after the Civil War a West decoupled from the question of slavery was quickly connected by railroads to a rapidly-industrializing east as an ever-expanding population pushed ever farther west. The United States removed Native groups to ever-shrinking reservations, incorporated the West first as territories and then as states, and, for the first time in its history, controlled the entire land between the two oceans.
In the decades after the Civil War, Americans poured across the Mississippi River in record numbers. The first westward rushes had followed the discoveries of gold in California in 1849 and in Colorado in 1859, and silver in Nevada in 1859. Adventurous American men (and a few women) had rushed to stake claims, although many more ended up working for wages than striking it rich. Some mined the claims that wealthy speculators like George Hearst acquired in boomtowns such as Virginia City, Nevada. Others worked in shops and saloons serving the boomtown residents. Some women went West with husbands and families; others worked in a service industry that included brothels for the large population of single miners. These ancillary operations profited from the mining boom: as failed prospectors found, the rush itself often generated more wealth than the mines. The $25.5 million in gold that left Colorado in the first seven years after the Pikes Peak gold strike, for example, was less than half of what speculators had invested in the fever. Although that investment didn’t make most of the speculators rich, it did build a local economy. The 100,000-plus migrants who settled in the Rocky Mountains were ultimately more valuable to the region’s development than the gold they came to find.
Other settlers came to the Great Plains to to farm or ranch. Many began by collecting the hides of the great bison herds. Great herds numbering millions of animals roamed the Plains, and had been hunted by native people’s for food and their hides. American industry used the tough leather for industrial belting in eastern factories and raw material for clothing and shoes. Specialized teams of buffalo hunters flocked to the West to skin the herds. Using new rifles, the hunters worked quickly, often taking hides and leaving carcasses to rot where they were slaughtered. The infamous American bison hunt peaked in the early 1870s, with the number of American bison plummeting from over ten million at midcentury to only a few hundred animals left alive by the early 1880s. The eradication of bison and expansion of the railroads allowed ranchers to replace the bison with cattle on the American grasslands.
Some settlers went west for religious freedom. Nearly seventy thousand members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (commonly called Mormons) migrated west between 1846 and 1868, fleeing from what they perceived as religious persecution. Many historians view Mormonism as a “uniquely American faith,” not just because it was founded by Joseph Smith in New York in the 1830s, but because of its optimistic and future-oriented tenets. Mormons incorporated into their faith the belief that Americans were exceptional—chosen by God to spread truth across the world and to build a New Jerusalem in North America. However, many Americans were suspicious of the Latter-Day Saint movement and its unusual rituals, especially the practice of polygamy, and most Mormons found it difficult to practice their faith in the eastern United States.
In 1844 Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum were killed by a mob in Carthage Illinois while awaiting trial on charges stemming from a conflict with former Mormons in the town of Nauvoo, which Smith controlled. At the time, Smith was a candidate for the US presidency, running on a ticket that included protections for Latter-Day Saints and other minorities. A succession crisis followed Smith’s unexpected killing, which split church membership between three prominent leaders. Two formed new rival churches; Brigham Young led the remaining Mormons to the Utah Territory. Young was appointed governor of the Utah Territory by the federal government in 1850. He encouraged Mormon residents of the territory to engage in agricultural pursuits and urged them to be cautious of the outsiders who arrived as the mining and railroad industries developed in the region. Mormon settlements in Utah served as important supply points for other emigrants heading on to California and Oregon.
It was free land, ultimately, that drew the most migrants to the West. Family farms were the backbone of the agricultural economy that expanded in the West after the Civil War. In 1862, along with the Pacific Railroad Act that authorized transcontinental railways, Congress passed the Homestead Act which allowed male citizens (or those who declared their intent to become citizens) to claim federally owned lands in the West. Settlers could choose a 160-acre surveyed section of land, file a claim, and begin “improving” the land by plowing fields, building houses and barns, or digging wells. After five years of living on the land and working it, homesteaders could apply for the official title deed to the land. 1.6 million Americans used the Homestead Act between 1862 and 1934 to acquire about 250,000 square miles of land. Treeless plains that had once been considered unfit for settlement became a new agricultural heartland for land-hungry Americans.
The Homestead Act excluded married women from filing claims because they were considered the legal dependents of their husbands. Some unmarried women filed claims on their own, but single farmers (male or female) found it nearly impossible to run a farm by themselves and they were a small minority. Most farm households adopted traditional divisions of labor: men and their sons worked in the fields and women and their daughters managed the home and kept the family fed. The work of all family members was essential. Migrants sometimes found in homesteading a chance for self-sufficiency unavailable at home. Second or third sons who did not inherit land in Scandinavia, for instance, founded farm communities in Minnesota, Dakota, and other Midwestern territories in the 1860s. Boosters advertising in Scandinavia encouraged emigration by advertising the semiarid Plains as “a flowery meadow of great fertility clothed in nutritious grasses, and watered by numerous streams.” Western populations exploded. In 1860, for example, Kansas had about 10,000 farms; by 1880 it had 239,000. Texas also saw enormous population growth. The federal census counted 200,000 people in Texas in 1850, 1,600,000 in 1880, and 3,000,000 in 1900, making it the sixth most populous state in the nation.
- Why is it significant that expansion westward had been a part of American history since its start?
- What was the typical experience of someone who traveled west to participate in a gold or silver rush?
- What were the most significant effects of the elimination of bison herds from the plains?
- How did the Homestead Act affect the west?
The “Indian wars,” mythologized in western folklore, were a series of sporadic engagements between U.S. military forces and various Native American groups. The more sustained and more impactful conflict, meanwhile, was economic and cultural. Native people’s traditional, cyclical movements across the Great Plains to hunt buffalo, raid enemies, and trade goods was incompatible with new patterns of American settlement and railroad construction. Thomas Jefferson’s hope that Indian groups might live isolated in the West was, in the face of white American expansion, no longer a viable reality. Although Indian removal had long been a part of federal Indian policy, following the Civil War the U.S. government redoubled its efforts to isolate Indians on reservations. If treaties and other forms of persistent coercion would not work, more drastic measures were deemed necessary. Against the threat of confinement and the extinction of traditional ways of life, Native Americans battled the American army and occasionally attacked encroaching American settlement.
One of the earliest western engagements, in 1862, began while the Civil War still consumed the nation. Throughout the 1850s, the Dakota of the Minnesota River Valley grew increasingly frustrated by broken treaty promises and missed annuity payments by the U.S. government. The 1850 U.S. census had recorded about 6,000 settlers in Minnesota; eight years later when it became a state, the white population was more than 150,000. The new American farmers plowed the prairies to plant corn and wheat. Hunting became unsustainable and Dakota who had taken up farming found only poverty. In August, 1862, four young men of the Santee tribe killed five white settlers near the Redwood Agency, an American administrative office. Facing an inevitable American retaliation, and over the protests of many members, the tribe chose a war to try to drive the settlers out of the region. Dakota warriors attacked settlements near the Agency, killing thirty-one men, women, and children. They then ambushed a U.S. military detachment at Redwood Ferry, killing twenty-three. The governor of Minnesota called up militia and several thousand Americans waged war against the Sioux insurgents. After battles at New Ulm, Fort Ridgely, and Birch Coulee, the Americans broke the Indian resistance at the Battle of Wood Lake on September 23, ending the brief war also known as the Sioux Uprising.
More than two thousand Dakota people had been taken prisoner during the fighting. Many were tried at federal forts for murder, rape, and atrocities against white civilians that were sensationalized in newspaper accounts. For the first time, a military commission was formed to try the defeated Indians. 392 Dakota were rapidly prosecuted, with 303 convicted and sentenced to hang. At the last minute, President Lincoln commuted all but thirty-eight of the sentences. The Indians were executed in Mankato on December 26, 1862 in the largest mass execution in American history. Minnesota settlers and state government officials insisted not only that the Dakota lose their reservation lands and be removed farther west, but that those who had fled be hunted down and placed on reservations as well. The American military gave chase and, on September 3, 1863, after a year of attrition, American military units surrounded a large encampment of refugees who had fled into the Dakota territory, near what is now Bismarck, North Dakota. American troops killed an estimated three hundred men, women, and children. Dozens more were taken prisoner. Troops spent the next two days burning 300 tipis and 500,000 pounds of dried buffalo that had been stored as winter food to starve out native resistance, which would continue to smolder. Sixteen hundred women, children, and old men were held in an internment camp at Fort Snelling, where over three hundred died of disease. The Dakota people were declared outlaws in Minnesota and a $25 bounty was offered per scalp collected.
Farther south, tensions flared in Colorado. In 1851, the Treaty of Fort Laramie had secured right-of-way access for Americans passing through on their way to California and Oregon. But a gold rush in 1859 drew approximately 100,000 white gold seekers who demanded new treaties be made with local Indian groups to secure land rights in the Colorado Territory. Cheyenne bands splintered over the demand that they sign a new treaty that would confine them to a reservation. Settlers who already feared raids by Cheyennes, Arapahos, and Comanches, read sensational accounts in their local newspapers of the Dakota uprising in Minnesota. Militia leader John M. Chivington warned settlers in the summer of 1864 that the Cheyenne were dangerous savages, urged war, and promised a swift military victory. Chivington, a former Methodist pastor, had commanded troops during the Civil war. Despite the fact that the aged Cheyenne chief Black Kettle, believing that a peace treaty would be best for his people, traveled to Denver to arrange for peace talks, Chivington insisted , “I have come to kill Indians, and believe it is right and honorable to use any means under God’s heaven to kill Indians. Damn any man who sympathizes with Indians!” When Black Kettle and his followers traveled toward Fort Lyon in accordance with government instructions in November 1864, Chivington’s 700 militiamen cut them down. It was a slaughter. About two hundred Indian men, women, and children were killed.
The Sand Creek Massacre was a national scandal, and a joint committee of Congress determined that Chivington had “surprised and murdered, in cold blood, the unsuspecting men, women, and children on Sand Creek.” Many Americans pushed for a new peace policy and Congress authorized in 1868 the creation of an Indian Peace Commission and allied with prominent philanthropists to create the Board of Indian Commissioners. Much of the reservation system was handed over to Protestant churches, which were tasked with finding agents and missionaries to manage reservation life. In 1879, Captain Richard Henry Pratt founded what became known as the Carlisle Indian Industrial School in Pennsylvania. Inspired by the success of some Indian students at the Hampton Normal and Agricultural School, founded in 1868 by the American Missionary Association to teach freedmen in Virginia, Pratt believed along with many white Americans that rapid assimilation into Euro-American culture was the Indians’ best hope of survival. Carlisle became the model for boarding schools in fifteen states and territories.
Many missionary women played a central role in cultural reeducation programs that tried to not only instill Protestant religion but also to impose traditional American gender roles and family structures. Their goal was to replace Indians’ communal social structure with small, patriarchal households. Women’s labor became a contentious issue because few tribes divided labor according to the gender norms of middle- and upper-class Americans. Fieldwork, the traditional domain of white males, was primarily performed by Native women who controlled the products of their labor and the land that was worked, giving them status in society as laborers and food providers. Missionaries urged Native women to leave the fields and engage in more proper “women’s” work. American agents viewed reservation Indians as lazy and thought Native cultures were inferior to their own. The views of J. L. Broaddus, appointed to oversee tribes on the Hoopa Valley reservation in California, are typical: “The great majority of them are idle, listless, careless, and improvident. They seem to take no thought about provision for the future, and many of them would not work at all if they were not compelled to do so. They would rather live upon the roots and acorns gathered by their women than to work for flour and beef.”
If the Indians could not be forced through kindness to change their ways, most Americans agreed it was acceptable to use force. Native groups resisted. The Comanche in particular inspired terror from the Rocky Mountains to the Texas Gulf Coast. But after the Civil War, the U.S. military focused its attention on the remaining resistance. Confronted with renewed Comanche raiding, particularly by the famed war leader Quanah Parker, the U.S. military finally proclaimed that all Indians who were not settled on the reservation by the fall of 1874 would be considered “hostile.” The Red River War began when many Comanche bands refused to resettle and the American military launched expeditions into the Southern Plains to subdue them, culminating in the defeat of the remaining roaming bands in the canyonlands of the Texas Panhandle. Cold and hungry, with their way of life already decimated by soldiers, settlers, cattlemen, and railroads, the last free Comanche bands were moved to the reservation at Fort Sill, in what is now southwestern Oklahoma.
On the northern Plains, the Sioux people had yet to fully surrender. Following Red Cloud’s War, a rare victory for the Plains people, the U.S. government signed the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868 and created the Great Sioux Reservation. In 1874, an American expedition led by George Armstrong Custer to protect Northern Pacific Railway survey crews discovered gold in the Black Hills. White prospectors flooded the area around Deadwood gulch, deep in the western region of the Reservation. Aware that U.S. citizens were violating treaty provisions, but unwilling to prevent them from searching for gold, federal officials pressured the western tribes to sign a new treaty transferring control of the Black Hills to the United States while General Philip Sheridan quietly moved U.S. troops into the region. Initial clashes between U.S. troops and Lakota warriors resulted in several Indian victories that, combined with the visions of Sitting Bull, attracted Sioux bands who had already signed treaties but now joined to fight.
In late June 1876, a division of the 7th Cavalry Regiment led by Lieutenant Colonel Custer was sent up a trail into the Black Hills as an advance guard for a larger force. The 7th Cavalry, formed just after the Civil War, had previously fought Black Kettle’s Cheyenne in an engagement the government’s Indian Bureau had labeled a “massacre of innocent Indians.” Custer’s men approached a camp along a river known to the Indians as Greasy Grass but marked on Custer’s map as Little Bighorn, and they found the population of the village far beyond Custer’s estimation. Custer’s 7th Cavalry was vastly outnumbered, and he and 268 of his men were killed. Custer’s fall shocked the nation and military expeditions were sent out to crush Native resistance. Sitting Bull escaped to Canada and the Lakota bands splintered off into the wilderness and began a campaign of intermittent resistance. Heavily outnumbered and suffering after a long, hungry winter, Crazy Horse led a band of Oglala to surrender in May 1877. He was killed in custody a few months later. Other bands gradually followed until finally, in July 1881, Sitting Bull and his followers laid down their weapons and came to the reservation. Sitting Bull was killed in 1890 by authorities who feared he had returned to Standing Rock to lead the Ghost Dance movement. Indigenous powers had been defeated. The Plains, it seemed, had been pacified.
- What were the general causes of the 1862 Dakota war against Minnesota settlers?
- Why were Indians the victims of so many massacres during the nineteenth century?
- Was the attempt to re-educate natives to assimilate to Euro-American culture successful?
- Why are characters like George Armstrong Custer generally considered as heroes in the American West?
Beyond the Plains
Plains peoples were not the only ones who suffered as a result of American expansion. Groups like the Utes and Paiutes were pushed out of the Rocky Mountains by U.S. expansion into Colorado and away from the northern Great Basin by the expanding Mormon population in Utah Territory in the 1850s and 1860s. The destruction of Indian nations in California and the Pacific Northwest received significantly less attention than the dramatic conquest of the Plains, but Natives in these regions also experienced violence, population decline, and territorial loss. Over one hundred distinct Native groups had lived in California before the Spanish and American conquests, but by 1880, the Native population of California had collapsed from about 150,000 on the eve of the gold rush to fewer than 20,000. And in 1872, the California/Oregon border erupted in violence when the Modoc people left the reservation of their historic enemies, the Klamath Indians, and returned to an area known as Lost River. White Americans had settled the region after Modoc removal and they complained bitterly of the Natives’ return. The U.S. military arrived when fifty-two Modoc warriors, led by a man called Captain Jack, refused to return to the reservation and holed up in defensive positions along the state border. They fought a guerrilla war for eleven months in which at least two hundred U.S. troops were killed before they were finally forced to surrender. Four years later, in the Pacific Northwest, a branch of the Nez Percé (who, generations earlier, had aided Lewis and Clark in their famous journey to the Pacific Ocean) refused to be moved to a reservation and, under the leadership of Chief Joseph, attempted to flee to Canada. Pursued by the U.S. Cavalry, the outnumbered Nez Percé battled across a thousand miles and were attacked nearly two dozen times before they succumbed to hunger and exhaustion, surrendered, and were forced to return. The transcript of Chief Joseph’s surrender, recorded by a U.S. Army officer, became a landmark of American rhetoric. “Hear me, my chiefs,” Joseph said, “I am tired. My heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever.”
As Americans moved into the West, the situation for Native groups deteriorated even further. Treaties negotiated between the United States and Native groups had typically promised that if tribes agreed to move to reservation lands, they could hold those lands collectively. But as American westward migration mounted and open lands closed, white settlers began to argue that Indians had more than their fair share of land, that the reservations were too big, that Indians were using the land “inefficiently,” and that they still preferred nomadic hunting instead of intensive farming and ranching. By the 1880s, many Americans championed legislation to allow the transfer of Indian lands to farmers and ranchers. They argued that allotting Indian lands to individual Native Americans, rather than to tribes, would encourage American-style agriculture and finally put Indians who had previously resisted the efforts of missionaries and federal officials on the path to “civilization.” Often, this argument masked the hope that individual Indians could be convinced or threatened into selling their parcels where tribal communities could not.
The Dawes General Allotment Act, passed by Congress on February 8, 1887, splintered Native reservations into individual family homesteads. Each head of an Indian household was allotted 160 acres, the size of a claim that any settler could make on federal lands under the provisions of the Homestead Act. Single individuals over age eighteen would receive an eighty-acre allotment and orphaned children got forty acres. A four-year timeline was established for Indian peoples to make their allotment selections. If no selection had been made in four years, the secretary of the interior would appoint an agent to make selections for the remaining tribal members. To protect Indians from being swindled by unscrupulous land speculators, the Act stated that all allotments would be held in trust and could not be sold by allottees for twenty-five years. Lands that remained unclaimed by tribal members after allotment would revert to federal control and be sold to American settlers.
Conquest throughout the nineteenth century displaced generations of Native Americans. Many took comfort from the words of Indian prophets and holy men. In Nevada, at the beginning of 1889, Northern Paiute prophet Wovoka experienced a great revelation. He told his people. “You must not hurt anybody or do harm to anyone. You must not fight. Do right always.” And they must, he said, participate in a religious ceremony that came to be known as the Ghost Dance. If the people lived justly and danced the Ghost Dance, Wovoka said, their ancestors would rise from the dead, droughts would dissipate, the whites in the West would vanish, and the buffalo would once again roam the Plains.
Wovoka’s prophecy spread quickly beyond the Paiutes. From across the West, members of the Arapaho, Bannock, Cheyenne, and Shoshone nations adopted the Ghost Dance. Perhaps the most avid Ghost Dancers were the Lakota. South Dakota, formed out of land that had once belonged to the Lakotas and had later been part of the Great Sioux Reservation, became a state in 1889. White homesteaders had poured in, reservation lands diminished, starvation set in, corrupt federal agents cut food rations, and drought hit the Plains. Many Lakota feared a future as the landless subjects of a growing American empire when a delegation of eleven men returned from a visit west to spread the revival in the Dakotas.
The message and energy of the revivals frightened U.S. Indian agents, who began arresting Indian leaders. Chief Sitting Bull was killed in December 1890, convincing many bands to flee the reservations to join the fugitive bands farther west, where Lakota adherents of the Ghost Dance began claiming Ghost Dancers would be immune to bullets. Two weeks after Sitting Bull’s killing, a reconstituted 7th Cavalry intercepted a band of 350 Lakotas, including over 100 women and children. They were escorted to Wounded Knee Creek, where they camped for the night. The following morning, December 29, American troops entered the camp to disarm the Indians. Tensions flared, a shot was fired, and a massacre ensued. The 7th Cavalry fired heavy weaponry including Hotchkiss light cannons indiscriminately into the camp. Two dozen cavalrymen were killed by the Lakotas’ concealed weapons or by friendly fire, but when the guns were finally silent, between 150 and 300 Native men, women, and children were dead.
Wounded Knee marked the end of sustained, armed Native American resistance in the West. Individuals continued to resist the pressures of assimilation and preserve traditional cultural practices, but sustained military defeats, loss of sovereignty over land and resources, and the onset of crippling poverty, disease, and starvation on the reservations marked the final decades of the nineteenth century as a particularly dark era for America’s western tribes. But for white Americans, it became mythical.
- Why was it important for the US to capture Chief Joseph as he was trying to lead his people to escape into Canada?
- What was the most important effect of the Dawes Act?
- Were white authorities right to be afraid of Ghost Dancers?
- Why has “Wounded Knee” become such a potent image of injustice to native peoples?
The “Wild West”
As Native peoples were pushed off the land, white American settlers poured in. In addition to agriculture and the extraction of natural resources like timber and precious metals, two major industries combined to prosper in the new western economy: ranching and railroads. The national rail network created by the building of the transcontinental tracks of the 1860s produced fabled cattle drives across the central Plains in the 1870s. Railroads allowed live cattle to be shipped to eastern cities, creating the market to western ranches, but had yet to reach Texas. Ranchers began driving cattle north, out of the Lone Star state, to major railroad terminuses in Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska. Ranchers first used well-worn trails, such as the Chisholm Trail, for drives, but conflicts arose with Native Americans in the Indian Territory and farmers in Kansas who disliked the intrusion of destructive herds onto their own hunting, ranching, and farming lands. Other trails, such as the Western Trail, the Goodnight-Loving Trail, and the Shawnee Trail, were therefore blazed.
Cattle drives were difficult work for the crews of men who managed the herds. Historians estimate the number of men who worked as cowboys in the late-nineteenth century at between twelve thousand and forty thousand. Perhaps a fourth were African American, and more were likely Mexican or Mexican American. Many of the customs and techniques of American cowboys were borrowed from Mexican vaqueros. Cowboys adopted Mexican practices, gear, and Spanish terms such as rodeo, bronco, and lasso. While most cattle drivers were men, there are at least sixteen verifiable accounts of women participating in the drives. Some, like Molly Dyer Goodnight, accompanied their husbands. Others, like Lizzie Johnson Williams, helped drive their own herds. Williams (1840-1924), a business-woman, author, and teacher, was known as the Cattle Queen of Texas. She made at least three known trips with her herds up the Chisholm Trail.
Like the prospectors who flocked to each new gold or silver rush, many cowboys hoped one day to become ranch owners themselves; but employment was insecure and wages were low. Beginners could expect to earn around $20–$25 per month, and those with years of experience might earn $40–$45. Trail bosses might earn $50 per month. But it was tough work. On a cattle drive, cowboys worked long hours and faced extremes of heat and cold and intense blowing dust. They subsisted on limited diets with irregular supplies.
But if workers on cattle drives earned low wages, ranch owners and investors could achieve rich returns. At the end of the Civil War, a steer worth $4 in Texas could fetch $40 at the railhead in Kansas. And yet, by the 1880s, the great cattle drives were largely done. Railroads had created them, and railroads ended them: branch lines pushed into Texas and made the great drives obsolete. But ranching still brought profits and the Plains were better suited for grazing than for agriculture, so western ranchers continued supplying beef for national markets.
“The American West” conjures visions of tipis, cabins, cowboys, Indians, farm wives in sunbonnets, and outlaws with six-shooters. These images that pervade American culture are actually as old as the West itself. As soon as settlers, prospectors, and cowboys began arriving on the scene, novels, rodeos, and Wild West shows sprang up to mythologize the American West throughout the post–Civil War era.
Americans devoured dime novels that embellished the stories of real-life individuals such as Calamity Jane and Billy the Kid. Owen Wister’s novels, especially The Virginian, established the character of the cowboy in popular culture as a gritty stoic with a rough exterior but the courage and skills needed to rescue less heroic people from train robbers, Indians, and cattle rustlers. Such images were reinforced when the rodeo added to popular conceptions of the American West as a place of action and conflict. Rodeos began as small roping and riding contests among cowboys in towns near ranches or at camps at the end of the cattle trails. Casual contests evolved into planned celebrations, often scheduled around national holidays such as Independence Day. They gained popularity and soon dedicated rodeo circuits developed. Although about 90 percent of rodeo contestants were men, women helped popularize the rodeo. Popular female bronc riders, like Bertha Kaepernick, entered men’s events until around 1916 when women’s competitive participation was curtailed. Americans also experienced the mythical “Wild West” imagined in so many dime novels at traveling shows that toured the eastern United States and even across Europe from the 1880s to the 1910s. Former Army scout and bison hunter William Frederick “Buffalo Bill” Cody was the first to recognize the broad national appeal of the stock characters of the American West—cowboys, Indians, sharpshooters, cavalrymen, and rangers—and put them all together into a massive traveling extravaganza. Cody himself shunned the word show, fearing that it implied an exaggeration or misrepresentation of the West. He instead called his production, launched in 1883, “Buffalo Bill’s Wild West.” He employed real cowboys and Indians such as “Wild Bill” Hickock and Sitting Bull in his productions. But it was still entertainment, little different in its broad outlines from contemporary theater. Storylines depicted westward migration, life on the Plains, and Indian attacks, all punctuated by “cowboy fun” like bucking broncos, roping cattle, and sharpshooting contests.
In an attempt to appeal to women, Cody recruited Annie Oakley, a female sharpshooter who thrilled onlookers by shooting apples off her poodle’s head and the ash from her husband’s cigar, clenched trustingly between his teeth. May Manning Lillie, the wife of competing empresario Gordon Lillie, also became a skilled shot and performed as “World’s Greatest Lady Horseback Shot.” Female sharpshooters were Wild West show staples. As many as eighty toured the country at the shows’ peak. While such acts challenged expected Victorian gender roles, female performers carefully maintained their feminine identity by riding sidesaddle and wearing full skirts and corsets during their acts.
The western “cowboys and Indians” mystique, perpetuated in novels, rodeos, and Wild West shows, was rooted in romantic nostalgia for a frontier era many saw as ending. In 1893, Wisconsin historian Frederick Jackson Turner presented his “frontier thesis,” one of the most influential theories of American history, in a speech at the World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago. Turner looked back at the historical changes in the West and saw, instead of a tsunami of war and plunder and industry, waves of “civilization” washing across the continent. He described a frontier line “between savagery and civilization” that had moved west from the earliest English settlements across the Appalachians to the Mississippi and finally across the Plains to California and Oregon. Turner invited his audience to “stand at Cumberland Gap [a famous pass through the Appalachian Mountains], and watch the procession of civilization, marching single file—the buffalo following the trail to the salt springs, the Indian, the fur trader and hunter, the cattle-raiser, the pioneer farmer—and the frontier has passed by.”
The frontier stripped away the veneer of old European civilization, Turner said, forcing Americans, to build a new civilization out of the frontier and to learn new rules. This new American character of freedom and self-reliance gave the United States its exceptional hustle and its democratic spirit and distinguishing North America from the stale monarchies of Europe. But Turner worried about the future. The Census Bureau had declared the frontier closed in 1890. With no line dividing civilization from savagery, what would become of the nation without the safety valve of the frontier? It was a common sentiment. Theodore Roosevelt wrote to Turner that his essay “put into shape a good deal of thought that has been floating around rather loosely.” At the time Roosevelt was a wealthy New Yorker interested in politics, but he shared Turner’s concern over the loss of the frontier. Roosevelt was also worried about the late nineteenth century’s new, “soft” industrial world of factory and office work. The mythical cowboy’s “aggressive masculinity” was the seemingly perfect antidote for middle- and upper-class, city-dwelling Americans who feared they “had become over-civilized” and longed for what Roosevelt called the “strenuous life.” The romance of the West would continue to pull at generations of Americans and would influence their ideas about the U.S. in world affairs.
- How was the life of an actual cowboy similar to that of a “forty-niner” during the gold rush?
- Why were Wild West shows so popular?
- Why was Frederick Jackson Turner concerned that the frontier had been declared “closed”?
- What effect did frontier life have shaping Americans, in Turner’s opinion?
The word empire typically conjures images of ancient Rome, Genghis Khan, or the British Empire: powers that depended on military conquest, colonization, occupation, or direct resource exploitation. But empires can take many forms and imperial processes occur in many contexts. One hundred years after the United States won its independence from the British Empire, some began to believe America was becoming (and perhaps should become) an empire of its own.
As Americans had explored and settled the West before the Civil War, a sense of “Manifest Destiny” had become a key component of popular culture. The idea that it was obvious the United States should expand across the continent helped generate popular support for projects like the Mexican-American War and the ongoing Indian wars of the nineteenth century. In the decades after the American Civil War, the frontier was conquered to the point the Census could declare it “closed” and the U.S. began to exert itself in the service of American interests around the world. In the Pacific, Latin America, and the Middle East, the United States expanded on a long history of what proponents called exploration, trade, and cultural exchange but critics called annexation, invasion, and occupation. From either perspective, America began to look remarkably like an empire. And as the United States asserted itself abroad, it acquired increasingly higher numbers of foreign peoples at home. Imperialism and immigration raised similar questions about American identity: Who was an “American,” and who wasn’t? What were the nation’s obligations to foreign powers and foreign peoples? How accessible and how fluid should American identity be for newcomers? All such questions confronted late-nineteenth-century Americans with unprecedented urgency.
American interventions in the Pacific, China, and the Middle East reflected the nation’s new eagerness to intervene in foreign governments to protect American economic interests abroad. And America was not only ready to preserve foreign markets, it was willing to take territory. The United States acquired its first Pacific territories via the Guano Islands Act of 1856. Guano (dried sea-bird excrement) was an important fertilizer for industrial farming. The act authorized and created incentives for Americans to claim islands with guano deposits for the United States. Territory taken under the Guano Islands Act included parts of the Hawaiian chain, Midway atoll, and parts of American Samoa. These acquisitions were the first insular, unincorporated territories of the United States. They were not part of a state or a territory and they were not on the path to ever attain such a status. The act, though little known, offered a precedent for future American acquisitions.
The United States had long been involved in Pacific commerce. American merchant ships had been traveling to China since 1784. As a percentage of total American foreign trade, Asian trade remained comparatively small, and yet the idea that Asian markets were vital to American commerce affected American policy and, when those markets were threatened, prompted interventions. In 1900, American troops joined a multinational force that intervened to prevent the closing of trade threatened by the Boxer Rebellion, a movement opposed to foreign businesses and missionaries operating in China. President McKinley sent the Army without consulting Congress, setting a precedent for U.S. presidents to order American troops to action around the world under their executive powers.
In 1867, Mark Twain traveled to the Middle East as part of a large tour group of Americans. In his satirical travelogue, The Innocents Abroad, he wrote, “The people stared at us everywhere, and we stared at them. We generally made them feel rather small, too, before we got done with them, because we bore down on them with America’s greatness until we crushed them.” When Americans intervened in the Middle East, they would do so convinced of their own superiority. The majority of American involvement in the Middle East prior to World War I came not in the form of trade but in education, science, and humanitarian aid. American missionaries led the way. The first Protestant missions had arrived in 1819. Soon the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions and the missions of the Reformed Church of America became dominant in missionary enterprises. Missions were established in almost every country of the Middle East, and even though their efforts resulted in relatively few converts, missionaries helped establish hospitals and schools, and their work laid the foundation for the establishment of Western-style universities, such as Robert College in Istanbul, Turkey (1863), the American University of Beirut (1866), and the American University of Cairo (1919).
Although the United States had a long history of international economic, military, and cultural engagement the Spanish-American and Philippine-American Wars (1898–1902) marked a crucial turning point in American interventions abroad. In pursuing war with Spain, and then engaging in counterrevolutionary conflict in the Philippines, the United States expanded the scope and strength of its global reach. Over the next two decades, the United States would become increasingly involved in international politics, particularly in Latin America. These new conflicts and ensuing territorial problems forced Americans to confront the ideological elements of imperialism. Should the United States act as an empire? Or were foreign interventions and the taking of territory antithetical to its founding democratic ideals? What exactly would be the relationship between the United States and its territories? And could colonial subjects be successfully and safely incorporated into the body politic as American citizens? The Spanish-American and Philippine-American Wars brought these questions, which had always lurked behind discussions of American expansion, out into the open.
In 1898, Americans turned their attention southward to problems plaguing their neighbor Cuba. The island’s latest uprising against the Spanish Empire had begun in 1895. By the winter of 1898, in an attempt to crush the uprising, the Spanish had begun a policy of re-concentration, forcing Cubans living in certain cities to relocate en masse to military camps. Prominent newspaper publishers sensationalized Spanish atrocities. While the U.S. government proclaimed a wish to avoid armed conflict with Spain, President McKinley ordered the battleship Maine to Cuba in January 1898. After about two weeks in Havana harbor, a titanic explosion tore open the ship and sent it to the bottom of the ocean. Three quarters of the ship’s 354 occupants died. A naval board of inquiry immediately began an investigation, but the loudest Americans had already decided that Spanish treachery was to blame. Capitalizing on the outrage, “yellow journals” such as William Randolph Hearst’s New York Journal called for war with Spain. Congress officially declared war on April 25.
Although America’s war effort began haphazardly, the Spanish Empire was on its last legs. Spain’s decaying military crumbled. In the Pacific, on May 1, the U.S. Navy engaged the Spanish fleet outside Manila, destroyed it, and proceeded to blockade the capital of the Philippines. Two months later, American troops took Cuba’s San Juan Heights in what would become the most famous battle of the war, winning special accolades for Theodore Roosevelt and his Rough Riders. Roosevelt had been the assistant secretary of the navy but had resigned his position in order to see action in the war. His well-publicized adventures in Cuba made him a national celebrity. Yellow fever made three quarters of the American troops unfit to fight, but the Spanish were still unable to hold Santiago de Cuba on July 17, effectively ending the war. The two nations signed the Treaty of Paris in December. The terms of the treaty stipulated, among other things, that in addition to Cuban independence the United States would acquire Spain’s former holdings of Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines.
The Philippines were an afterthought of the Spanish-American War, but when the smoke cleared, the United States found itself in possession of a key foothold in the Pacific. At the behest of American businessmen who had overthrown the Hawaiian monarchy, the United States had annexed the Hawaiian Islands and their rich plantations in 1898. After Dewey’s victory over the Spanish fleet in the Battle of Manila Bay, conversations about how to proceed occupied the attentions of President McKinley, political leaders from both parties, and the popular press. American and Philippine forces under the leadership of Emilio Aguinaldo were in communication, and the American leaders in the field had promised to support the Filipino fight for independence, which like Cuba’s had begun long before the U.S. got involved. As debates about American imperialism continued against the backdrop of an upcoming presidential election, tensions in the Philippines escalated. Emilio Aguinaldo was inaugurated as president of the First Philippine Republic in late January 1899; fighting between American and Philippine forces began in early February; and in April 1899, Congress ratified the 1898 Treaty of Paris, which gave Spain $20 million in exchange for the Philippine Islands.
Seeing the Philippines as a gateway to Asia, President William McKinley issues a “Benevolent Assimilation Proclamation” in January 1899. Claiming altruistic intentions, the United States occupied the islands and from 1899 to 1902 waged a bloody series of conflicts against Filipino insurrectionists that cost far more lives than the war with Spain. Under the leadership of Emilio Aguinaldo, Filipinos who had fought for freedom against the Spanish now fought against the very nation that had claimed to have liberated them from Spanish tyranny.The Philippines are an archipelago of over 7,000 islands, and Aguinaldo waged a guerrilla war against the American invaders. Aguinaldo was captured in March 1901 and a civilian administration, with William H. Taft as the first governor-general (1901–1903), was established with military support. Although President Theodore Roosevelt declared the war to be over on July 4, 1902, resistance continued into the second decade of the twentieth century.
- What is “Manifest Destiny”?
- How did the Guano Act set a precedent for later U.S. overseas actions?
- How were Americans convinced to support the Spanish-American War?
- What was the “White Man’s Burden”?
Under the leadership of President Theodore Roosevelt, the United States entered the twentieth century ambitious for global power through military might, territorial expansion, and economic influence. Though the Spanish-American War had begun during the administration of William McKinley, Roosevelt, who became president when McKinley was assassinated in September 1901, was the most influential proponent of American imperialism at the turn of the century. Roosevelt’s emphasis on developing the American navy and on Latin America as a key strategic area of U.S. foreign policy would have long-term consequences.
In return for Roosevelt’s support in the 1896 presidential election, McKinley had appointed Roosevelt as assistant secretary of the navy. During his short tenure he oversaw the construction of new battleships and new shipyards, all with the goal of projecting America’s power across the oceans. Roosevelt wanted to expand American influence. He advocated for the annexation of Hawaii because it was within the American sphere of influence, it would deny Japanese expansion and limit potential threats to the West Coast, it had an excellent port for battleships at Pearl Harbor, and it would act as a fueling station on the way to pivotal markets in Asia. In an era of coal-powered steamships, naval power depended on access to coal depots placed strategically throughout the world.
Roosevelt resigned his naval assignment in order to fight in Cuba. After winning headlines in the war, Roosevelt was chosen to replace McKinley’s first vice president, Garret Hobart, who had died in office, in the 1900 election. Sworn into the presidency in September 1901, Roosevelt acted with vigor to expand the military, bolstering naval power especially, to protect and promote American interests abroad. This included the construction of eleven battleships between 1904 and 1907. Alfred Thayer Mahan’s naval theories, described in his The Influence of Sea Power upon History, convinced Roosevelt that control of the sea required battleships and a “blue water” navy that could win decisive battles with rival fleets. As president, Roosevelt continued the policies he had established as assistant secretary of the navy and expanded the U.S. fleet. The mission of the Great White Fleet, sixteen all-white battleships that sailed around the world between 1907 and 1909, exemplified America’s new power.
Roosevelt’s motto, “Speak softly and carry a big stick, and you will go far”, suggested that the persuasive power of the U.S. military could ensure U.S. hegemony over strategically important regions in the Western Hemisphere. Throughout his time in office, Roosevelt exerted U.S. control over Cuba (even after it gained formal independence in 1902) and Puerto Rico, and he deployed naval forces to ensure Panama’s independence from Colombia in 1901 in order to acquire a U.S. Canal Zone. A project to dig a canal connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans had gone bankrupt, but Roosevelt’s government bought the assets of the canal company and engineered a revolution in Panama that delivered the necessary land. Later, Roosevelt issued the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine in 1904, proclaiming U.S. police power in the Caribbean. The doctrine as originally articulated by President James Monroe said the United States would treat any military intervention in Latin America by a European power as a threat to American security. Roosevelt expanded it by declaring that the United States had the right to preemptive action through intervention in any Latin American nation in order to correct administrative and fiscal deficiencies.
Roosevelt’s policy justified numerous and repeated police actions in “dysfunctional” Caribbean and Latin American countries by U.S. Marines and naval forces and enabled the founding of the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Many of these actions were not based on threats posed by other nations, but on requests for intervention from American businesses like the United Fruit Company, which dominated the banana trade. The term “banana republic” was coined by American author O. Henry in 1904 to describe small Latin American nations like Guatemala and Honduras that found themselves completely at the mercy of American businesses that could call on the U.S. military to control workers and replace governments that challenged their supremacy. In an approach sometimes known as gunboat diplomacy, naval forces and Marines would land in a national capital to protect American and Western personnel, temporarily seize control of the government, and dictate policies friendly to American business, such as the repayment of foreign loans or an end to efforts to redistribute land to poor farmers. For example, in 1905 Roosevelt sent the Marines to occupy the Dominican Republic and established financial supervision over the Dominican government. Imperialists often framed such actions as almost humanitarian. They celebrated white Anglo-Saxon societies as advanced civilizations, helping to uplift debtor nations in Latin America that lacked the qualities of discipline and self-control. Roosevelt, for instance, preached that it was the “manly duty” of the United States to exercise international police power in the Caribbean and spread the benefits of Anglo-Saxon civilization to inferior peoples. The president’s language contrasted debtor nations’ “impotence” with the United States’ civilizing influence, associating self-restraint and social stability with Anglo-Saxon manliness. The fact that Roosevelt’s rhetoric ignored reality was not noticed by many who were inspired by the vigor and bravado of his “bully pulpit”.
“Dollar diplomacy” offered a less costly method of empire and avoided the troubles of military occupation. Washington worked with bankers to provide loans to Latin American nations in exchange for some level of control over their national fiscal affairs. Presidents Taft and Wilson continued the practice in various forms during their own administrations. All confronted instability in Latin America as foreign companies dominated the economies of small nations, preventing sustainable growth. Rising debts to European and American bankers allowed small elite groups to live modern lifestyles but destabilized much of the region. Lenders took advantage of the region’s need for cash and exacted punishing interest rates on massive loans, which were then sold off in pieces on the secondary bond market. American economic interests became closely aligned with the region but were threatened by the chronic instability of a region often plagued by mismanagement, civil wars, and military coups. Turnover in regimes interfered with the repayment of loans, as new governments often repudiated national debts they believed had been taken on by dictators selected by foreign companies who had lined their own pockets rather than working for the people.
Though aggressive and bellicose, Roosevelt did not advocate continued expansion by military force. The president insisted that in dealings with the Latin American nations, he did not seek national glory or expansion of territory and believed that war or intervention should be a last resort when resolving conflicts with problematic governments. But Latin nations recognized that Roosevelt was speaking softly because he had already shown his big stick. According to Roosevelt, actions might be necessary to maintain “order and civilization.” Roosevelt had demonstrated his belief in using military power to protect national interests and spheres of influence. He also clearly believed that the American sphere included not only Hawaii and the Caribbean but also much of the Pacific. When Japanese victories over Russia threatened the regional balance of power, Roosevelt sponsored peace talks between Russian and Japanese leaders, earning him a Nobel Peace Prize in 1906.
- What policies did Theodore Roosevelt justify with his ideas of the “strenuous life” and the “big stick”?
- What is a banana republic?
- Why was a shift to a “blue water” navy significant for American history?
Women and Imperialism
Debates over American imperialism revolved around more than just politics and economics and national self-interest. They also included notions of humanitarianism, morality, religion, and ideas of “civilization.” And they included significant participation by American women.
When commentators like Theodore Roosevelt spoke about America’s overseas ventures, they generally gave the impression that this was a strictly masculine enterprise. In Roosevelt’s mind, this was the ideal “strenuous life” for soldiers, sailors, government officials, explorers, businessmen, and scientists. But U.S. imperialism, which focused as much on economic and cultural influence as on military or political power, offered a range of opportunities for white, middle-class, women. In addition to working as representatives of American business, women could serve as missionaries, teachers, and medical professionals; and as artists and writers they were inspired by and helped transmit ideas about imperialism. Moreover, the rhetoric of “civilization” that supported imperialism was itself a highly gendered concept. According to the racial theory of the day, humans progressed through hierarchical stages of civilization in an orderly, linear fashion. Only Northern Europeans and Anglo-Saxon Americans had attained the highest level of civilization, which was marked by whiteness had built an industrial economy and a gender division in which men and women had different but complementary roles. Social and technological progress had freed women of the burdens of physical labor (because raising children and managing a household weren’t considered work) and had elevated them to a position of moral and spiritual authority. White women had important roles to play in U.S. imperialism, both as symbols of the benefits of American civilization and as vehicles for the transmission of American values.
Civilization, while often cloaked in the language of morality and Christianity, was very much an economic concept. The stages of civilization assumed by racial theorists and social Darwinists were described by their economic character, progressing from hunter-gatherer to agricultural and then industrial societies. The consumption of industrially produced commodities was seen as a key moment in the progress of primitive societies toward civilized life. Over the course of the nineteenth century, women had become closely associated with consumption, particularly of those commodities used in the domestic sphere. By adopting the use of consumer products in their homes, foreigners could live the lifestyle and potentially absorb the virtues of American civilization.
In some ways, women’s work in support of imperialism can be seen as an extension of the kind of activities many of them were already engaged in as reformers among working-class, immigrant, and Native American communities in the United States. Many white women felt that they had a duty to spread the benefits of Christian civilization to those less fortunate than themselves. American overseas ventures expanded the scope of these activities—literally, in that the geographical range of possibilities encompassed practically the entire globe, and figuratively, in that imperialism significantly raised the stakes of women’s work. No longer only responsible for shaping the next generation of American citizens, white women now had a crucial role to play in the maintenance of civilization itself. They would help determine whether civilization would continue to progress.
Of course, not all women were active supporters of U.S. imperialism. Many actively opposed it. Although many prominent public voices against imperialism were male, women made up a large proportion of the membership of organizations like the Anti-Imperialist League. For white women like Jane Addams and Josephine Shaw Lowell, anti-imperialist activism was an outgrowth of their work opposing violence and supporting democracy. Black female activists, meanwhile, generally viewed imperialism as another form of racial violence and drew parallels between the treatments of African Americans at home and, for example, Filipinos abroad. Indeed, Ida B. Wells, a journalist and co-founder of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (N.A.A.C.P.), viewed her anti-lynching campaign as anti-imperialist activism.
- How were middle-class, white women symbols of American culture?
- Why did female activists like Jane Addams and Ida B. Wells oppose imperialism?
For Americans at the turn of the century, imperialism and immigration were two sides of the same coin. It is no coincidence that many of the women and men involved in both imperialist and anti-imperialist organizations were also concerned with the plight of new arrivals to the United States. Industrialization, imperialism, and immigration were all linked. Imperialism had at its core a desire for markets for American goods, and those goods were increasingly manufactured by immigrant labor. This sense of growing dependence on “others” as producers and consumers, along with doubts about their capability of assimilation into the mainstream of white, Protestant American society, caused a great deal of anxiety among native-born Americans.
Between 1870 and 1920, over twenty-five million immigrants arrived in the United States. This migration continued a process begun before the Civil War, though by the turn of the twentieth century, new groups such as Italians, Poles, and Eastern European Jews made up a larger percentage of the arrivals while Irish and German immigrant numbers began to dwindle. Although the growing U.S. economy needed large numbers of immigrant workers for its factories and mills, many Americans resented the arrival of so many immigrants. Nativists felt that the new arrivals were unfit for American democracy, and that Irish or Italian immigrants used violence or bribery to corrupt municipal governments. Others (often earlier immigrants themselves) worried that the arrival of even more immigrants would result in fewer jobs and lower wages. Such fears had resulted in anti-Chinese agitation on the West Coast leading to the Exclusion Act of 1882. Still others worried that immigrants brought with them radical ideas such as socialism and communism. These fears multiplied after the Chicago Haymarket affair in 1886, in which immigrant anarchists were accused of killing and injuring police officers in a bomb blast.
Since the colonial period, East Coast states had regulated immigration through passenger laws that prohibited the landing of destitute foreigners unless shipmasters prepaid certain amounts of money in the support of those passengers. State-level control of pauper immigration developed into federal policy in the early 1880s. In August 1882, Congress passed the Immigration Act, denying admission to people who were not able to support themselves, to people with mental illnesses, and to convicted criminals who might threaten the security of the nation. The category of excludable people expanded continuously after 1882. In 1885, in response to American workers’ complaints about cheap immigrant labor, Congress added foreign workers migrating under labor contracts with American employers to the list of excludable people. Six years later, the federal government included people who seemed likely to become wards of the state, people with contagious diseases, and polygamists, and made all the groups of excludable people deportable. In 1903, those who would pose ideological threats to American republican democracy, such as anarchists and socialists, also became the subject of new immigration restrictions.
Most opponents of immigration were responding to the shifting demographics of American immigration. The regions sending the most people to America had shifted from northern and western Europe to southern and eastern Europe and Asia. The “new immigrants” were poorer, spoke languages other than English, and were likely Catholic or Jewish. White Protestant Americans regarded them as inferior and American immigration policy began to reflect more explicit prejudice than ever before. The increased immigration of people from southern and eastern Europe, such as Italians, Jews, Slavs, and Greeks, led directly to calls for tighter restrictions. In 1907, entry of Japanese laborers was suspended when the American and Japanese governments reached the so-called Gentlemen’s Agreement, under which Japan would stop issuing passports to working-class emigrants. In 1911, the U.S. Immigration Commission highlighted the impossibility of incorporating these “new immigrants” into American society. The report highlighted their supposed innate inferiority, asserting that they were the causes of rising social problems in America, such as poverty, crime, prostitution, and political radicalism.
The experience of Catholic immigrants shows the challenges immigrant groups faced in the United States. By 1900, Catholicism in the United States had grown from 1 percent of the population a century earlier to the largest religious denomination in America (though still outnumbered by Protestants as a whole). But the Church and its members remained an “outsider” religion in a nation that continued to see itself as culturally and religiously Protestant. Torrents of anti-Catholic literature and scandalous rumors maligned Catholics. Many Protestants doubted whether Catholics could ever make loyal Americans, since they supposedly owed primary allegiance to the pope.
Catholics in America also faced the question every immigrant group has to answer: to what extent should they assimilate and become more like native-born Americans? This question was particularly acute, as Catholics encompassed a variety of languages and customs. Beginning in the 1830s, Catholic immigration to the United States had exploded with the arrival of Irish and German immigrants in the 1840s. Later Catholic arrivals from Italy, Poland, and Eastern Europe chafed at Irish dominance over the Church hierarchy. Mexican American Catholics expressed similar frustrations. Could all these different Catholics remain part of the same Church? Catholic clergy approached this situation from a variety of perspectives. Some bishops advocated rapid assimilation into the English-speaking mainstream. They anticipated that the Catholic Church could thrive in a nation that espoused religious freedom, if only they assimilated. More conservative clergy cautioned against assimilation. While they conceded that the United States had no official religion, they saw ethnic parishes as an effective strategy protecting immigrant communities and worried that Protestants would use public schools to attack the Catholic faith. The American encounter with Catholicism shows the tense relationship between native-born and foreign-born Americans, and highlights ideas Americans used to situate themselves in a larger world, a world of empire and immigrants.
- Why were southern and eastern Europeans and Asians less desirable immigrants in the eyes of many Americans?
- What were the main objections to Catholic immigration?
A branch of the Nez Percé tribe, from the Pacific Northwest, refused to be moved to a reservation and attempted to flee to Canada but were pursued by the U.S. Cavalry, attacked, and forced to return. The following is a transcript of Chief Joseph’s surrender, as recorded by Lieutenant Wood, Twenty-first Infantry, acting aide-de-camp and acting adjutant-general to General Oliver O. Howard, in 1877.
William T. Hornady, Superintendent of the National Zoological Park, wrote a detailed account of the near-extinction of the American bison in the late-nineteenth century.
Ida B. Wells-Barnett, born a slave in Mississippi, was a pioneering activist and journalist. She did much to expose the epidemic of lynching in the United States and her writing and research exploded many of the justifications—particularly the rape of white women by black men—commonly offered to justify the practice.
The following is extracted from President Chester A. Arthur’s First Annual Message to Congress, delivered December 6, 1881.
Perhaps the most influential essay by an American historian, Frederick Jackson Turner’s address to the American Historical Association on “The Significance of the Frontier in American History” defined for many Americans the relationship between the frontier and American culture and contemplated what might follow “the closing of the frontier.”
After the surrender of the Spanish in the Spanish-American War, the United States assumed control of the Philippines and struggled to contain an anti-American insurgency.
As the United States waged war against Filipino insurgents, the British writer and poet Rudyard Kipling urged the Americans to take up “the white man’s burden.”
James D. Phelan, the mayor of San Francisco, penned the following article to drum up support for the extension of laws prohibiting Chinese immigration.
Many Americans opposed imperialist actions. Here, the philosopher William James explains his opposition in the light of history.
The American writer Mark Twain wrote the following satire in the glow of America’s imperial interventions.
An audio podcast version of this chapter is available here to listen along while reading or download.
This chapter was written by Dan Allosso, based on two chapters from The American Yawp. Those chapters were edited by Lauren Brand (Chapter 17) and Ellen Adams and Amy Kohout (Chapter 19), with content contributions by Lauren Brand, Carole Butcher, Josh Garrett-Davis, Tracey Hanshew, Nick Roland, David Schley, Emma Teitelman, Alyce Webb, Ellen Adams, Alvita Akiboh, Simon Balto, Jacob Betz, Tizoc Chavez, Morgan Deane, Dan Du, Hidetaka Hirota, Amy Kohout, Jose Juan Perez Melendez, Erik Moore, and Gregory Moore.
Recommended Reading on the West:
- Aarim, Najia. Chinese Immigrants, African Americans, and Racial Anxiety in the United States, 1848–1882. Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 2006.
- Andrews, Thomas. Killing for Coal: America’s Deadliest Labor War. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009.
- Brown, Dee. Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee: An Indian History of the American West. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970.
- Cahill, Cathleen. Federal Fathers and Mothers: A Social History of the United States Indian Service, 1869–1933. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2011.
- Cronon, William. Nature’s Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West. New York: Norton, 1991.
- Gordan, Linda. The Great Arizona Orphan Abduction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999.
- Hämäläinen, Pekka. The Comanche Empire. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008.
- Hine, Robert V. The American West: A New Interpretive History. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000.
- Huhndorf, Shari M. Going Native: Indians in the American Cultural Imagination. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2001.
- Isenberg, Andrew C. The Destruction of the Bison: An Environmental History, 1750–1920. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
- Jacobs, Margaret D. White Mother to a Dark Race: Settler Colonialism, Maternalism, and the Removal of Indigenous Children in the American West and Australia, 1880–1940. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2009.
- Johnson, Benjamin Heber. Revolution in Texas: How a Forgotten Rebellion and Its Bloody Suppression Turned Mexicans into Americans. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003.
- Kelman, Ari. A Misplaced Massacre: Struggling over the Memory of Sand Creek. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013.
- Krech, Shepard. The Ecological Indian: Myth and History. New York: Norton, 1999.
- Limerick, Patricia Nelson. The Legacy of Conquest: The Unbroken Past of the American West. New York: Norton, 1987.
- Marks, Paula Mitchell. In a Barren Land: American Indian Dispossession and Survival. New York: Morrow, 1998.
- Montejano, David. Anglos and Mexicans in the Making of Texas, 1836–1986. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1987.
- Pascoe, Peggy. Relations of Rescue: The Search for Female Moral Authority in the American West, 1874–1939. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.
- Prucha, Francis Paul. The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indians. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1984.
- Schulten, Susan. The Geographical Imagination in America, 1880–1950. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001.
- Shah, Nayan. Stranger Intimacy: Contesting Race, Sexuality, and the Law in the North American West. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011.
- Smith, Henry Nash. Virgin Land: The American West as Symbol and Myth. New York: Vintage Books, 1957.
- Taylor, Quintard. In Search of the Racial Frontier: African Americans in the American West, 1528–1990. New York: Norton, 1999.
- Warren, Louis S. Buffalo Bill’s America: William Cody and the Wild West Show. New York: Knopf, 2005.
- White, Richard. “It’s Your Misfortune and None of My Own”: A New History of the American West. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991.
Recommended Reading on Empire:
- Bederman, Gail. Manliness and Civilization: A Cultural History of Gender and Race in the United States, 1880–1917. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995.
- Brooks, Charlotte. Alien Neighbors, Foreign Friends: Asian Americans, Housing, and the Transformation of Urban California. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009.
- Gabaccia, Donna. Foreign Relations: American Immigration in Global Perspective. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2012.
- Greene, Julie. The Canal Builders: Making America’s Empire at the Panama Canal. New York: Penguin, 2009.
- Guglielmo, Thomas A. White on Arrival: Italians, Race, Color, and Power in Chicago, 1890–1945. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
- Harris, Susan K. God’s Arbiters: Americans and the Philippines, 1898–1902. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.
- Higham, John. Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism, 1860–1925. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1988.
- Hirota, Hidetaka. Expelling the Poor: Atlantic Seaboard States and the Nineteenth-Century Origins of American Immigration Policy. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016.
- Hoganson, Kristin. Consumers’ Imperium: The Global Production of American Domesticity, 1865–1920. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2007.
- Hoganson, Kristin L. Fighting for American Manhood: How Gender Politics Provoked the Spanish-American and Philippine-American Wars. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1998.
- Jacobson, Matthew Frye. Barbarian Virtues: The United States Encounters Foreign People at Home and Abroad, 1876–1917. New York: Hill and Wang, 2001.
- Jacobson, Matthew Frye. Whiteness of a Different Color: European Immigrants and the Alchemy of Race. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999.
- Kaplan, Amy. The Anarchy of Empire in the Making of U.S. Culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002.
- Kramer, Paul A. The Blood of Government: Race, Empire, the United States, and the Philippines. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2006.
- Lafeber, Walter. The New Empire: An Interpretation of American Expansion, 1860–1898. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1963.
- Lears, T. J. Jackson. Rebirth of a Nation: The Making of Modern America, 1877–1920. New York: HarperCollins, 2009.
- Linn, Brian McAllister. The Philippine War, 1899–1902. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2000.
- Love, Eric T. L. Race over Empire: Racism and U.S. Imperialism, 1865–1900. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2004.
- Pascoe, Peggy. What Comes Naturally: Miscegenation Law and the Making of Race in America. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.
- Perez, Louis A., Jr. The War of 1898: The United States and Cuba in History and Historiography. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000.
- Renda, Mary. Taking Haiti: Military Occupation and the Culture of US Imperialism, 1915–40. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2001.
- Rosenberg, Emily S. Spreading the American Dream: American Economic and Cultural Expansion, 1890–1945. New York: Hill and Wang, 1982.
- Silbey, David. A War of Frontier and Empire: The Philippine-American War, 1899–1902. New York: Hill and Wang, 2007.
- Wexler, Laura. Tender Violence: Domestic Visions in an Age of US Imperialism. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2000.
- Williams, William Appleman. The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, 50th Anniversary Edition. New York: Norton, 2009 .