*perfect

I'm a little torn about this question, and, unfortunately, I can only take one side on it (as directed). Take a look at this:

Was imperialism a proper and legitimate policy for the U.S. to follow at the turn of the 19th century?

I can say that, in my opinion, imperialism was an inevitable policy for the U.S. to follow. Though, as for "proper and legitimate?" -- I'm not so sure.

Proper means suitable, appropriate, respectable, etc., and legitimate means lawful, acceptable, rightful, and so on. In quite a few cases (i.e., the Philippines), the U.S. decided to expand and take lands in which the inhabitants were unwilling. This, to me, seems not to be "proper and legitimate." In fact, under the Declaration of Independence, they have no right to govern a people other than their own, most especially if it is against their will.

Though, if you take a look at the other side of the argument, how could they have not expanded as they did? It was a way for the U.S. to grow stronger and to lessen the threat of being conquered themselves. If you could say that it was necessary for one's survival, then I suppose it could be legitimate, could it?

Feel free to address all possible points--you don't need to take an isolated stand on either side unless you honestly are able to. I think there may be more points to address on the "for imperialism" side than the "against," merely because the against side is mostly about morals.

*Lauren

I think imperilisim from any country is wrong. I don't hate any country for it (but my father HAAAAATES the Dutch, its quite amusing) but its wrong. Of course, this is putting modern day thinking on it, which should be avoided.

I don't think America ever really went seriously into it (in the early 20th century) From memory, it was only the Phillipines wasn't it? Of course it could be argued that they've tried in since the second world war, but that's personal opinion.

*perfect

There was also the annexation of Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Guam--not to mention Hawaii, but they weren't exactly opposed of it. Also, they purchased the Danish West Indies (now the Virgin Islands) and had a lot of imperialist actions in Asia, the Caribbean, Mexico, and Central and South America.

I'm morally against it, though, I feel it is inevitable. Nations will never stop expanding because it's certainly far from a perfect world where every nation would vow to not conquer an unwilling people. It's possible that most of the U.S. didn't exactly want to take over other countries, but they felt that they had to in order to survive in many ways. It's kind of like the idea of people who try to be nice and generous who get trampled and taken advantage of by others who are greedy and insensitive.

Is there anything against imperialism other than it being unlawful an immoral?