1.
To answer this question you will need to read Primary Source 17.1 and analyze American ProgressLinks to an external site. c( American progress – digital file from original print, recto | Library of Congress (loc.gov) )
Explain all the reasons why Americans started to move westward.
What symbols do you notice in the painting?
What do you think they represent?
How does this picture represent Manifest Destiny?
2.
Examine how Europe established its dominant position and explore examples of European “exports” – revolution, industrialization and nationalism – that influenced non-European countries throughout the world.
CHAPTER 17
Nations and Empires
1850–1914
Copyright © 2021, W. W. Norton & Company
1
Nation-state building and imperialism change the map of the world.
Industrialization, science, and technology enable states in North America and western Europe—and, to a lesser extent, Japan—to overpower other regions politically, militarily, and economically.
European, American, and Japanese imperialists encounter significant opposition in Africa and Asia.
Global Storyline
Which institutions enabled elites in western Europe, the Americas, and Japan to consolidate nation-states, and to what degree did they succeed during this period?
How did industrialization, science, and technology affect the expansion of powerful states into the rest of the world?
In what ways were the reactions to imperialism in Asia and Africa alike, and in what ways were the reactions different? How effective were these responses?
To what extent did colonies contribute to the wealth and political strength of the nation-states that controlled them?
Focus Questions
After the 1850s, the building of nation-states in Europe, the Americas, and Oceania benefited Europeans and those of European descent the most.
Rivalries among European states intensified as the new states of Italy and Germany emerged.
United States’ expansion met resistance.
Asia and Africa struggled to repel invaders.
Advance of nationalism and imperialism in second half of nineteenth century; expansion of industrialization
Developments in this century allowed western Europe and the United States to attain primacy in world affairs.
Nations and Empires, 1850–1914
In 1850, nation-building and imperial expansion changed the world map. In Europe, the Americas, and Oceania, new nations were consolidated while at the same time expanding their influence overseas. These processes benefited Europeans and people of European descent the most, at the expense of people elsewhere in the world.
While they were projecting their power overseas, rivalries between European states increased. Part of the reason for this was the disruption of the European balance of power caused by the formation of two new nation-states, Germany and Italy, which unified during this period.
Across the Atlantic, the United States abandoned its anticolonial origins and actively began to seek overseas colonies.
Imperial expansion did not proceed unchallenged. Peoples in Asia and Africa struggled to repel invaders and prevent their communities from being absorbed into European empires.
The latter half of the nineteenth century was defined by the intensification of three intertwined phenomena: nationalism, imperialism, and industrialization. The construction of new states, the projection of their power, and the strengthening of their economic base allowed Europe and the United States to attain primacy in world affairs.
4
Nationalism became closely linked to imperialism in the second half of the nineteenth century.
Enlightenment philosophers had emphasized “nations” as peoples who shared a common past, territory, culture, and traditions.
Building nationalism
Elites created nations, compelling diverse groups of people and regions to accept a unified network of laws, central administration, time zones, national markets, and a single regional dialect as a “national” language.
Education and military service were used to overcome regional identities.
Nation-states of the late nineteenth century took many forms.
Some had existed for years.
Others were new.
Still others existed in the imaginations of local elites within multiethnic empires.
Consolidating Nations and Constructing Empires
The link between nationalism and imperialism in the nineteenth century had roots in the Enlightenment. Faced with the political challenges of their day, Enlightenment thinkers had emphasized the power of “nations” as opposed to absolute rulers. For these thinkers, “nations” were peoples who shared a common past, territory, and culture. Once absolutist rulers had been deposed, it seemed natural that governments should base their power and legitimacy on the will of the people within their borders. Conceived in this way, the purpose of government was to promote the welfare of their people.
Nation building was often led by local elites. Powerful figures gave themselves the responsibility of unifying diverse groups of people who often identified more with their region than with any concept of a “nation.” To create a sense of unity, local elites compelled people to accept unified laws, central administration, time zones, and national markets. Whereas previously, numerous local dialects proliferated, elites often selected a single regional dialect to serve as a standard national language.
To overcome regional ties, elites broadened public education and imposed universal military service. Two of the most important nations to emerge during the nineteenth century—Italy and Germany—were built through these processes.
The nation-states of the late nineteenth century were not all alike. Some had existed for years, like England, France, Spain, and Portugal. Others, like Italy and Germany, were relatively recent creations. Still others existed only in the minds of local elites living in the multiethnic empires of central and eastern Europe. The desire of such elites to secede from empires and carve out new territories for themselves posed serious challenges for rulers of multinational empires like Russia and Austria.
5
Nation building and imperialism, or the conquest of new territories, went hand in hand.
Germany, France, America, Russia, and Japan caught up to Britain by industrializing and seizing new territories.
Imperial rule facilitated the widespread movement of labor, capital, commodities, and information.
Colonial subjects were not considered members of the nation and were given little or no representation in home governments, creating tension between nation and empire.
Expanding the Empires
Nation building and imperialism were closely intertwined. For many rulers, national strength should not just be measured by the sense of unity among their people. Economic strength and overseas possessions were also major criteria in determining a strong nation. As new countries strengthened, new imperial powers threatened Britain, which until this time had been the preeminent global empire. Soon, Germany, France, America, Russia, and Japan caught up to Britain through a combination of industrialism and aggressive imperial expansion.
Imperial rule facilitated the widespread movement of labor, capital, commodities, and information. Scholars from imperialist countries studied previously unknown people, while colonial schools taught indigenous peoples the languages and cultures of the colonizers. Despite programs of cultural assimilation, indigenous peoples were not considered part of the nation and were given no say in government. Seen in this way, nationalism and imperialism were also in tension with one another.
6
New nations in the Americas wished to create widespread loyalty to their political institutions and expand territorial domains.
The Americas saw the most complete assimilation of new possessions, with nation-state builders turning outlying areas into provinces.
The United States
Military might, diplomacy, and power of numbers enabled the United States to claim territory spanning the North American continent.
Manifest Destiny: Americans believed it was God’s will to expand westward and obtained new territories via purchase, treaty, and military warfare.
Gold rush in California triggered global migrations
Expansion and Nation Building in the Americas
After the revolutions of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, elites in the Americas began to create new political communities of their own. By the 1850s, these elites shared a common desire to foster widespread loyalty to their political institutions and expand their territory. However, this desire meant expanding into hinterlands that belonged to indigenous populations.
Nation-states were forming in all parts of the globe during this period. But those forming in the Americas saw the most complete assimilation of their new possessions. This was the result of a key distinction between expansion in the Americas and European imperial expansion. Whereas European powers often saw their colonies as outposts, nations in the Americas turned them into new provinces, incorporating them into their administrative structures. There were several different processes of national consolidation, territorial expansion, and economic development.
In the United States, military might, diplomacy, and the sheer power of numbers allowed the new country to claim territory spanning the entire North American continent. When it gained independence, the United States was relatively weak and divided. Held back by indigenous resistance, rivalries with Britain and Spain, and internal disunity over questions of states’ rights and slavery, the future integrity of the United States was uncertain.
A key solution to these political problems was westward expansion. Driven by an ideology called Manifest Destiny—or the notion that it was God’s will for the United States to expand over the entire continent—American Whites pushed westward, incorporating new territories along the way. To gain these new possessions, the United States purchased land, signed treaties, and also resorted to war. In the late 1840s, the discovery of gold in California brought hundreds of thousands of migrants from the eastern United States and the rest of the world.
7
Territorial expansion and the question of free or enslaved labor in the new territories eventually caused the Civil War.
Civil War led to abolition of slavery, citizenship to freed males who had previously been enslaved
Reconstruction period not successful, as counterrevolutionary pressure led to
Denial of voting rights to African Americans
Restoration of planter rule in the southern states
Terrorism from former Confederates who sought to reverse African American gains and restore White planters to power
The defeat of the South led to a stronger national government.
Civil War and States’ Rights
But westward expansion brought its own troubles and almost proved to be the undoing of the American nation. As the country incorporated new territories to the west, political conflict arose over whether the new territories would allow the institution of slavery. This political conflict erupted into a bloody civil war that led to the abolition of slavery and the extension of citizenship to freed males who had previously been enslaved.
Although the transformations of the Civil War brought the promise of rebirth, experiments in biracial democracy soon failed. During the Reconstruction period, counterrevolutionary pressure led to the denial of voting rights for African Americans and the restoration of White, patriarchal planter rule in the South. To support the retrenchment of the old order, former Confederates used terrorism to restore White planters to power.
At the same time, the Civil War undeniably transformed American political institutions at the national level, establishing the preeminence of the national government.
8
Map 17.1 | U.S. and Canadian Westward Expansion, 1803–1912
Map 17.1 | U.S. and Canadian Westward Expansion, 1803–1912
Americans and Canadians expanded westward in the second half of the nineteenth century, aided greatly by railways.
• How do you account for the differences between the transcontinental railroads in the United States and Canada?
• When did Canada and the United States complete their respective territorial expansions? Why were these expansions not continuous, moving from east to west?
• How did territorial expansion strengthen Canadian and American nationalism?
9
The United States joined Britain and Germany as an economic giant.
The limited-liability joint-stock company became a powerful source of mobilizing capital from shareholders, and banks and brokerage firms as intermediaries made fortunes.
One percent of all Americans controlled 90 percent of wealth (1890)
Overproduction in 1890s leads to depression, labor agitation
Expansion of railroad lines symbolized American economic and territorial growth
1865: 35,000 miles of track
1900: 200,000 miles of track connecting Atlantic to Pacific
United States became major world power
Disagreement over what “equality” should involve
Economic and Industrial Development
Beyond the political transformations that followed the Civil War, the United States saw dramatic social and economic transformations during the latter half of the nineteenth century. Within ten years of the war’s end, industrial output increased by 75 percent, enabling the United States to join Britain and Germany as an industrial giant.
This growth was spurred on in part by changes in economic institutions. The limited-liability joint-stock company served as a potent instrument of capital accumulation. Firms like Standard Oil and U.S. Steel attracted investment from shareholders through the stock market. These investors technically owned the companies, but left the running of operations to paid managers. Banks and brokerage firms also made fortunes serving as intermediaries. This dramatic increase in wealth was accompanied by an increase in inequality. By 1890, 1 percent of Americans controlled 90 percent of the country’s wealth.
Such dynamic growth led to overproduction, causing a harsh depression that led to millions of lost jobs. Labor leaders began agitating for the the dismantling of the industrial capitalist state.
Expansion of the railroads symbolized American economic and territorial growth. In 1865, the United States had about 35,000 miles of track. But, by 1900, it boasted 200,000 miles of track that connected the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Speeded along by this new infrastructure, Americans continued to expand westward. Along with immigrants from Europe, who were coming in increasing numbers, these settlers took advantage of homestead acts that promised nearly free acreage to settlers.
By the end of the century, the United States had become a major world power. It boasted an expanding economy and a more integrated nation that emerged after the Civil War. Its constitution had been amended to theoretically expand equality to all males, including African Americans. But the meaning of equality was still contested. More groups, like women, continued to demand political rights. And the future direction of the nation was unclear now that its supposed “destiny” of westward expansion had been fulfilled.
10
Like the United States, Canada built a new nation, enjoyed economic success, and followed an expansionist course.
Canada’s separation from Britain was peaceful.
Building a nation
French speakers did not feel integrated into the emerging Canadian national community.
English speakers were not overeager to create an independent Canadian state.
An act of Parliament in 1867 gave Canada independence.
Canada
Like the United States, Canada also built a new nation during this period. During a period of economic success, it also expanded westward. As it incorporated its frontier prairie, new lands became the homes and farms of European immigrants who, as in the United States, were coming in increasing numbers.
However, Canada’s political history differed significantly. Unlike the United States, Canada did not fight a war of independence. Its separation from Great Britain was peaceful. From the 1830s to the 1860s, Britain gradually ceded more authority to the colony.
But creating a new nation was not easy. Canada faced sharp internal divisions that posed an obstacle to national cohesion. Its community of French speakers did not feel integrated into the emerging national community, nor did they want to join English-speaking settlers in westward migrations, fearing that their French identity would be diluted.
English-speakers, for their part, were not enthusiastic about the prospect of independence. Fearing that independence would leave them vulnerable to being absorbed by the American republic to their south, Canadians reinforced their loyalty to the British crown. In the end, however, an act of the Parliament in London granted Canada independence.
11
Lacking cultural and linguistic unity, Canada used westward territorial expansion to build an integrated state.
The government used financial incentives and property to lure European and American emigrants to settle and invest.
The Canadian government signed treaties with indigenous people.
Canadian government intervened in, regulated, and mediated social conflict between Anglo and French residents, and among those groups and Native American populations.
Canada emerged with a strong central government, but a weak sense of national identity.
Canadian Territorial Expansion
Facing tensions brought by internal divisions, Canada relied on westward expansion to build an integrated state. The U.S. purchase of Alaska from Russia in 1867, and the rapid movement of settlers on the American plains, convinced Canadian leaders that they had to move quickly to consolidate their hold on their own western territories. Otherwise, they feared, these lands would also be absorbed into the expanding United States. To lure farmers westward, the Canadian government used financial incentives like subsidized railway rates and the promise of future riches.
Westward expansion brought frictions with indigenous people. To avoid the kind of bloodshed that characterized American westward expansion, the Canadian government signed treaties with indigenous populations that ensured strict separation between their communities and Whites. However, the government was frequently dishonest in its dealings.
The Canadian government also acquired significant powers to mediate between French, Anglo, and indigenous populations. But while the national government was stronger than in the United States, the Canadian national identity remained relatively weak.
12
Latin American elites engaged in nation-state building and territorial expansion.
The expansion did not create homesteader frontiers to help spread democracy and create national identities.
Some countries in the region fractured with civil conflict.
The richest lands went to large estate holders.
Monopolized power
Consolidation versus fragmentation
Rebellions by enslaved people kept elites in a state of alarm.
The elites believed that strong states meant excluding many groups from power.
Latin America
Latin American elites built nations and expanded their borders during this period. Unlike their northern neighbors, Latin American territorial expansion did not create homesteader frontiers that were conducive to democracy and the strengthening of national identities. In fact, many countries were fractured by civil conflict, with notable exceptions in Brazil and Mexico.
In Latin America, where the best lands were dominated by large estate holders, elites monopolized power more than in North America.
But with these inequalities came constant fears of instability. New Latin American republics were beset by fears of Amerindian and peasant uprisings. To consolidate their power, elites passed laws that protected private property and limited the political rights of the poor. At the same time, elites were anxious over the prospect of rebellions by enslaved people.
Ultimately, Latin American elites promoted state building with the assumption that strong states required the exclusion of large groups of people.
13
Brazil illustrates how Latin American rulers built nation-states while excluding much of the population.
Slave-trade prohibition and resistance by enslaved people began to threaten planters’ system.
Drove up price of enslaved people
Brazilian elites retained former enslaved people as gang-workers or sharecroppers.
Imported new seasonal migrant workers or indentured tenant farmers
From Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Japan
As in the United States, elites imposed severe restrictions on suffrage and set rules to reduce political competition.
Given the demographics, this excluded a larger share of the potential electorate than in the United States.
Brazil’s “Exclusive” Nation-State
Brazil is a case study in the process by which Latin Americans built nation-states through excluding much of the population. Throughout the nineteenth century, Brazil’s rulers defused political conflict by allowing the planter elite to maintain their power.
Threats to the planters began with the prohibition of the importation of enslaved people in 1830, as well as resistance by enslaved people. This disturbed the agricultural economy by driving up the price of enslaved people. However, elites adapted to the new legal and economic realities. They retained formerly enslaved people as gang-workers and sharecroppers, and imported new workers from southern Europe as seasonal workers and tenant farmers. Migration from Europe, and to some extent from Japan, helped planters preserve their holdings in the post-slavery era.
As in the United States, Brazilian elite power depended on restricting suffrage and reducing political competition. But because the Black population was much larger in Brazil than it was in the United States, these restrictions effectively excluded a much larger percentage of the population.
14
Like Canada and the United States, Brazil also extended its territories.
Largest land grab in Amazon River basin
Brazilian state gave concessions to local capitalists to extract rubber latex
Key raw material for tire manufacturing in European and North American bicycle and automobile industries
Rubber production in the region brought great wealth to merchants, landowners, and workers.
The rubber boom went bust because of environmental degradation, overproduction, increased cost, and international competition.
Brazilian Expansion and Economic Development
Brazil’s expansion led the incorporation of new territories as provinces. The largest of the land grabs that characterized this process occurred in the Amazon River basin.
In the Amazon, the Brazilian state gave concessions to local capitalists to extract latex rubber. Rubber was a key material for tire manufacturing in the rising bicycle and automobile industries. Rubber production in the Amazon brought rapid wealth to the area. But this wealth was concentrated in the hands of merchants and landowners. Centered on the city of Manaus, this new elite designed their city to reflect their new fortunes. Despite the inequalities, workers (mostly Amerindian or of mixed descent) benefited somewhat from the boom.
Overproduction and environmental degradation soon led to the decline of the rubber boom. Such a diverse biomass as the Amazon could not handle large-scale production of a single plant, and attempts to produce sustainable rubber plantations failed. The Brazilian rubber industry also soon faced competition from the British, who had transplanted the rubber tree to Ceylon. The elites of Manaus saw their fortunes and the city fall into disrepair; workers returned to their subsistence economies.
In the nineteenth century, elites throughout the Americas tried to balance their own interests with increasing popular demands for inclusion. Although the ideal of an all-inclusive nation-state was pervasive, independence from colonial powers did not bring rights or prosperity to everyone. The expansion of national territories was counterbalanced by the exclusion of large sections of the population.
15
In Europe, nation-states were built out of older monarchies and empires, with borders determined by diplomats or battles.
Ruling elites had to share power with a wider group of citizens, who increasingly defined themselves as part of a broader nation.
Defining “the nation”
“The nation” used to mean kings, clergymen, nobles, and occasionally rich merchants or lawyers.
Enlightenment thinkers changed the notion of “nation.”
Expanded literacy, expansion of periodical press, and standardized laws, taxes, roads, and railroads promoted political integration.
But who were the people? And what made a nation-state?
Shared language? People in a certain territory with common religious heritage?
These definitions were problematic in multiethnic central and southeastern Europe, as well as some countries that spoke the same language.
Consolidation of Nation-States in Europe
In Europe, there were no frontiers onto which nation-states could expand. Instead, emerging nation-states transformed existing monarchies and empires. Borders were determined by battles with other states or by diplomatic relations.
The French Revolution brought the idea that the nation should be based on “the people.” But disagreements abounded over who belonged to ”the people.” Despite their reluctance, ruling elites eventually had to share power with a wider group of citizens. These citizens, moreover, increasingly defined themselves in terms of national identity—that is, as French or German—rather than as residents of a region or as subjects of a king.
For a long time, the “nation” in Europe referred to kings, clergy, nobles and occasionally rich merchants or lawyers. The formation of the modern nation-state did not occur until the late eighteenth century. Enlightenment thinkers contributed key ideas that changed the idea of the “nation.” Adam Smith, for example, argued that the wealth of a nation amounted to combined output of its producers, rather than the amount of gold in the king’s coffers. Abbé Sieyés argued that the nation was composed of those who worked to enrich it, excluding nobles and clergy, whom he labeled as “parasites.” Napoleon also unintentionally helped promote national consciousness through his unpopular occupation of European territories.
An important element in the process was the expansion of literacy. The periodical press enabled people to read books and newspapers in their own languages. The emerging industrial economy brought pressures to standardize laws, taxation policies, weights and measures. Infrastructure also contributed to increasing political integration.
But the question of “who were the people” remained. In some countries, “the people” were those who spoke the same language. Elsewhere, “the people” were those who shared a common religion. Defining the nation was especially challenging for multiethnic, multilingual countries in central and southeastern Europe. Ultimately, there was no single factor that universally determined who belonged to the nation. Even cou