capitalism

238 Imperialism
the people who lived on it and to capture the wealth that the
trade created. This approach meant encouraging specialization
and a division of labor within the empire, but not on a
global basis. In particular, it implied that colonies should
supply raw materials and cash crops in exchange for finished
manufactured goods and high-value services, which
would be produced by the core imperial territory. Nor would
direct trade be permitted with people from outside the imperial
sphere. This prohibition was enforced by tariffs or outright
trading prohibitions. The effect was that, in practice,
imperialism led to grants of monopoly trading rights within
a given part of the world to specially privileged groups of
merchants and investors, such as those involved in the
Dutch and British East India companies.
Opposition to this kind of imperialism was a central feature
of classical liberal thought and agitation from the
beginning. Adam Smith made criticism of the “colonial
system” a central part of the Wealth of Nations, and his
arguments were extended and developed by subsequent
economists and liberal activists. They maintained that
imperialism and the associated economic policy of protectionism
and special privileges were harmful to both the subaltern
populations of the colonies and the overwhelming
majority of the inhabitants of the imperialist territory. In
fact, the only groups that were economically better off as a
result of these imperialist ventures were those who gained
from the special privileges that were part of the system.
This economic critique was only one element in the case
against imperialism made by classical liberal thinkers and
politicians. It also was attacked because it was viewed as
inherently associated with other things that they opposed,
such as slavery and warfare. In particular, imperialism’s
opponents made the argument that imperialism was necessarily
associated with extensive and oppressive government
and a whole series of cultural values that they strongly
condemned. Imperialism was inherently wrong, they
contended, because it violated the political principle of consent,
which, for most classical liberals, was the only legitimate
basis for political authority. One important argument
that combined political and social analysis with an economic
one was that imperialism was a policy that served the
interests not of the great bulk of society—the “industrious
classes”—but of the parasitic groups that gained wealth
through the exploitation of political power. Thus, this conclusion
combined a critique of imperialism with the classical
liberal theory of class conflict as articulated by thinkers such
as Frédéric Bastiat, Charles Comte, and Charles Dunoyer.
Between 1776 and the 1850s, the intellectual and political
tide moved in favor of the classical liberal critique and
against imperialism. Movements such as the Manchester
School of Richard Cobden and John Bright made opposition
to British imperialism one of their central doctrines.
Following the successful revolt of the American colonists
against the first British Empire, most of the Spanish and
Portuguese territories gained independence by the later
1820s, and after the Mackenzie rebellion in 1837, the
Durham Report led to the granting of self-government to
Canada, a model followed elsewhere in the British Empire.
By 1850, there seemed to be a growing consensus that
colonies and imperialism were morally disreputable and a
waste of money. However, British rule in India through the
East India Company became even more extensive and intrusive
over this period, and anti-imperialism began to lose
support in the 1860s. The last third of the 19th century witnessed
a revival of European imperialism both in practice
and theory with the extension of direct imperial rule to areas
that had previously escaped it, such as most of Africa and
parts of Asia and the Pacific. This renewed expansionism
was justified partly by a revival of mercantilist thinking, but,
more important, by the increasing popularity of the idea of
empire as a civilizing mission of tutelary powers engaged in
the uplifting of backward peoples, together with the newly
formulated arguments of pseudoscientific racism. Classical
liberals such as Herbert Spencer kept up a strong resistance
to the idea of a civilizing empire, and to the racism it often
entailed, but they were on the losing side.
The position of the United States in this argument was
problematic. As a polity born of a successful revolt against
imperial rule, the United States being an anti-imperial
power was always an important part of its national selfimage.
However, during the first half of the 19th century,
there was a vigorous internal debate between the advocates
of territorial expansion and groups such as the Old
Republicans and certain elements in the Democratic Party
who saw episodes such as the Mexican War as imperialist
and a threat to the republican and constitutional nature of
the American regime. After the Civil War, the expansion of
the United States to its natural boundaries—defined by the
two oceans, the Rio Grande, and the 49th parallel—was
seen by most Americans as inevitable and not an example
of imperialism. However, arguments in favor of the United
States adopting an imperialist policy in other parts of the
world became stronger after 1880 and finally proved successful
with the Spanish American War of 1898, which led
to the annexation of the Philippines and Puerto Rico. This
conquest was followed by a much more extensive interventionist
policy in Latin America and the Caribbean under
Theodore Roosevelt, leading to an informal empire in much
of that region of the world. Classical liberals such as E. L.
Godkin and William Graham Sumner strongly opposed this
turn in policy and argued that as well as being wrong, it
would be harmful to the cause of liberty and republican
government within the United States.
During the 20th century, imperialism reached its height
after World War I. However, the period since 1939 has seen
the collapse of all of the European empires, as well as the
demise of Russian, German, and Japanese imperialism and
the final disappearance of the Ottoman Empire. The United