What do you think?
Uncle Sam's War of 1898 and the Origins of Globalization
The roots of American globalization can be found in the War of 1898. Then, as today, the United States actively engaged in globalizing its economic order, itspolitical institutions, and its values. Thomas Schoonover argues that this drive to expand political and cultural reach―the quest for wealth, missionary fulfillment, security, power, and prestige―was inherited by the United States from Europe, especially Spain and Great Britain. Uncle Sam's War of 1898 and the Origins of Globalization is a pathbreaking work of history that examines U.S. growth from its early nationhood to its first major military conflict on the world stage, also known as the Spanish-American War. As the new nation's military, industrial, and economic strength developed, the United States created policies designed to protect itself from challenges beyond its borders. According to Schoonover, a surge in U.S. activity in the Gulf-Caribbean and in Central America in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was catalyzed by the same avarice and competitiveness that motivated the European adventurers to seek a route to Asia centuries earlier. Addressing the basic chronology and themes of the first century of the nation's expansion, Schoonover locates the origins of the U.S. goal of globalization. U.S. involvement in the War of 1898 reflects many of the fundamental patterns in our national history―exploration and discovery, labor exploitation, violence, racism, class conflict, and concern for security―that many believe shaped America's course in the twentieth and twenty-first century.
- GenresHistoryMilitary History
200 pages, Paperback
First published November 28, 2003
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
June 17, 2026
I decided to read this one because it was cited as a multi-lingual source in an article I read. It is always to be appreciated when an historian can speak several languages and examine sources in each one, it gives us a wider perspective.
That is the strength of this book, I would argue. The most useful aspect is how the author includes German geopolitical and war plans, colonial aspirations, and so on, and how these influenced and intersected with American interests.
The author also uses sources in French and Spanish. There is a bit here about the French in Central America, about Spanish colonialism, and even about Spanish ideas of Hispanismo at the Madrid Conference in 1901.
There are also all kinds of little useful tidbits in the narrative. For example we learn that even the anti-imperialists were often in favor of proposals like annexing Hawaii. This may provide some insight into why the anti-imperialist movement failed; it was divided against itself as not all of its members were categorically opposed to *any* expansion.
We learn a lot about the concept of social imperialism and American ideas of the Open Door in Asia. These are fruitful and interesting discussions.
I especially appreciate the attention paid to things like underwater cables, to the importance of missionaries and whalers in early European contact and exploration, and generally aspects beyond the mercantile. It was nice to learn about a long-forgotten American exploration expedition in 1838.
I did have some problems with this book, however. It has to be considered an entry into the Wisconsin School of history, which argues for economic motivations for American imperialism and the Spanish-American War.
I am convinced that the war was an accident and that the United States did not intend to acquire the Philippines. The focus was in the Caribbean, and the Philippines were a sort of afterthought. In my view the evidence suggests that the US was not interested in using the Philippines as a base for trade with China, and was instead motivated by fears that France or Germany would take the islands if the US did not. Or perhaps Japan.
It is telling that Theodore Roosevelt later advocated for abandoning the Philippines because he argued they were indefensible and a liability. On the map it looks very neat to show how the US acquired Puerto Rico, Guantanamo, Hawaii, Wake, Guam, the Philippines, then built the Panama Canal, which all looks like a predetermined 'string of pearls' to use a more modern adage.
But I don't think the record substantiates it. That's not to say that the US was anti-imperialist, or that there were not men, like Mahan, who envisioned this sort of thing. It's just to say that McKinley was not some architect with a grand plan from the beginning, cynically using the Maine as an excuse to create an American empire.
Many historians have argued against the Large Policy and against the personal influence of Roosevelt and Cabot Lodge. Schoonover seems to consider it axiomatic that the US was imperialist and desiring to expand in Asia.
I'm somewhat confused by the description and foreword, since Schoonover talks about Columbus and geopolitics. The Caribbean was no doubt a critical geopolitical crossroads for the US and the European powers, but he doesn't really develop this theme very far.
Schoonover mentions that Columbus dreamed of reaching Asia from the Atlantic, which is true enough. And it is also true that the Panama Canal finally achieved this dream, but then nothing much else is said about it.
The dream of Columbus was for trade, possibly for conversion. I don't think Columbus desired to establish political control over Asia, or believed it was even possible. The United States differed from Columbus here in that it intended to establish dominion over the Pacific, at least once it had decided to remain in Manila.
I'm not sure what the point or thesis of the book is supposed to be, and the Spanish-American War seems to get tangled up in other contemporary events. For example Schoonover makes the very interesting assertion that Spanish-American War and the Boxer Rebellion are linked. But were they?
What propelled the dissolution and decline of China was defeat in the war against Japan in 1894-1895. Schoonover discusses how the Europeans joined to limit Japan's victory, and then turned vulture themselves as they sought to stake out China's territory and infrastructure.
It was this that led to the violent Chinese reaction in the Boxer Rebellion. It could be fairly argued that the US would not have been involved in this had not the Americans taken the Philippines and joined in the meddling in China. But it's hard to see how one could argue that the Spanish-American War *caused* the Boxer Rebellion.
The Chinese were likely not overly concerned about the defeat of Spain or the acquisition of Pacific islands that they had never claimed nor governed. The Americans arriving and thumping on about the Open Door was a new element for them to deal with but it was not what they were angry with.
It is an interesting suggestion, however, and one could find it profitable to dwell further on how these and other contemporary events were related. I had an idea about the expansion of Japan alarming the US and propelling the latter into war with Spain to acquire the Philippines before Japan did, but this line of reasoning is untenable from the historical record.
I feel like the connection between the Boxers and the Spanish-American War is of a similar nature, and is based more on coincidences and ex post facto reasoning than on evidence from primary sources. Much can be said about the whole 'Large Policy' and the Wisconsin School's perspective on American imperialism.
One thing I wanted to add is that Schoonover makes generous use of the satirical cartoon Mr. Dooley. Stephen Kinzer in True Flag also quoted this extensively, and I find it grating. The way it is written is supposed to convey how a person would sound in thick Irish brogue, but reading it is a chore. I wish authors would use it less, or would write it out normally.
Still, this work is full of useful information, and its points are well-argued, well-sourced, and it's just enjoyable to read. Even though the chapter extensively examining the Boxer Rebellion seems kind of out of place. Anyone wishing to delve into the origins of American imperialism and the various intersection of European ambitions in China and the Caribbean can do well to start here.
That is the strength of this book, I would argue. The most useful aspect is how the author includes German geopolitical and war plans, colonial aspirations, and so on, and how these influenced and intersected with American interests.
The author also uses sources in French and Spanish. There is a bit here about the French in Central America, about Spanish colonialism, and even about Spanish ideas of Hispanismo at the Madrid Conference in 1901.
There are also all kinds of little useful tidbits in the narrative. For example we learn that even the anti-imperialists were often in favor of proposals like annexing Hawaii. This may provide some insight into why the anti-imperialist movement failed; it was divided against itself as not all of its members were categorically opposed to *any* expansion.
We learn a lot about the concept of social imperialism and American ideas of the Open Door in Asia. These are fruitful and interesting discussions.
I especially appreciate the attention paid to things like underwater cables, to the importance of missionaries and whalers in early European contact and exploration, and generally aspects beyond the mercantile. It was nice to learn about a long-forgotten American exploration expedition in 1838.
I did have some problems with this book, however. It has to be considered an entry into the Wisconsin School of history, which argues for economic motivations for American imperialism and the Spanish-American War.
I am convinced that the war was an accident and that the United States did not intend to acquire the Philippines. The focus was in the Caribbean, and the Philippines were a sort of afterthought. In my view the evidence suggests that the US was not interested in using the Philippines as a base for trade with China, and was instead motivated by fears that France or Germany would take the islands if the US did not. Or perhaps Japan.
It is telling that Theodore Roosevelt later advocated for abandoning the Philippines because he argued they were indefensible and a liability. On the map it looks very neat to show how the US acquired Puerto Rico, Guantanamo, Hawaii, Wake, Guam, the Philippines, then built the Panama Canal, which all looks like a predetermined 'string of pearls' to use a more modern adage.
But I don't think the record substantiates it. That's not to say that the US was anti-imperialist, or that there were not men, like Mahan, who envisioned this sort of thing. It's just to say that McKinley was not some architect with a grand plan from the beginning, cynically using the Maine as an excuse to create an American empire.
Many historians have argued against the Large Policy and against the personal influence of Roosevelt and Cabot Lodge. Schoonover seems to consider it axiomatic that the US was imperialist and desiring to expand in Asia.
I'm somewhat confused by the description and foreword, since Schoonover talks about Columbus and geopolitics. The Caribbean was no doubt a critical geopolitical crossroads for the US and the European powers, but he doesn't really develop this theme very far.
Schoonover mentions that Columbus dreamed of reaching Asia from the Atlantic, which is true enough. And it is also true that the Panama Canal finally achieved this dream, but then nothing much else is said about it.
The dream of Columbus was for trade, possibly for conversion. I don't think Columbus desired to establish political control over Asia, or believed it was even possible. The United States differed from Columbus here in that it intended to establish dominion over the Pacific, at least once it had decided to remain in Manila.
I'm not sure what the point or thesis of the book is supposed to be, and the Spanish-American War seems to get tangled up in other contemporary events. For example Schoonover makes the very interesting assertion that Spanish-American War and the Boxer Rebellion are linked. But were they?
What propelled the dissolution and decline of China was defeat in the war against Japan in 1894-1895. Schoonover discusses how the Europeans joined to limit Japan's victory, and then turned vulture themselves as they sought to stake out China's territory and infrastructure.
It was this that led to the violent Chinese reaction in the Boxer Rebellion. It could be fairly argued that the US would not have been involved in this had not the Americans taken the Philippines and joined in the meddling in China. But it's hard to see how one could argue that the Spanish-American War *caused* the Boxer Rebellion.
The Chinese were likely not overly concerned about the defeat of Spain or the acquisition of Pacific islands that they had never claimed nor governed. The Americans arriving and thumping on about the Open Door was a new element for them to deal with but it was not what they were angry with.
It is an interesting suggestion, however, and one could find it profitable to dwell further on how these and other contemporary events were related. I had an idea about the expansion of Japan alarming the US and propelling the latter into war with Spain to acquire the Philippines before Japan did, but this line of reasoning is untenable from the historical record.
I feel like the connection between the Boxers and the Spanish-American War is of a similar nature, and is based more on coincidences and ex post facto reasoning than on evidence from primary sources. Much can be said about the whole 'Large Policy' and the Wisconsin School's perspective on American imperialism.
One thing I wanted to add is that Schoonover makes generous use of the satirical cartoon Mr. Dooley. Stephen Kinzer in True Flag also quoted this extensively, and I find it grating. The way it is written is supposed to convey how a person would sound in thick Irish brogue, but reading it is a chore. I wish authors would use it less, or would write it out normally.
Still, this work is full of useful information, and its points are well-argued, well-sourced, and it's just enjoyable to read. Even though the chapter extensively examining the Boxer Rebellion seems kind of out of place. Anyone wishing to delve into the origins of American imperialism and the various intersection of European ambitions in China and the Caribbean can do well to start here.
February 26, 2018
This is a solid work that looks at the puts a global spin on the Spanish-American War, bringing German and China into the picture and giving more attention to the Pacific. Instead of looking at the Philippines as an after thought, Schoonover argues that the United States had long been building itself up as a Pacific power and annexation of the islands was the logical conclusion of a century of policy.
May 28, 2010
Fascinating history and really strong analytical framework. This book reminds you of a whole period you learned about in high school and forgot about, and gives you new insights into what it all meant.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews