It's time again for "When did the USA cease being a Republic and instead an Empire?"

Was it 1963?

Was it 1968?

Was it 1980?

Was it 1991?

Was it 2000?

Or was it 1886? (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad)

Was it always an empire?

5 replies, 2489 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

5 replies	Author	Time	Post
It's time again for "When did the USA cease being a Republic and instead an Empire?" (Original post)	Taverner	Jun 2013	OP
Always been an empire.	Democracyinkind	Jun 2013	#1
I had a weird urge a few years ago	Hydra	Jun 2013	#2
After WWII	LeftInTX	Jun 2013	#3
When the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the United State Constitution	FarCenter	Jun 2013	#4
It may have been planned that way from the beginning.	Uncle Joe	Jun 2013	#5

Response to Taverner (Original post)

Tue Jun 25, 2013, 04:02 PM

Democracyinkind (4,015 posts)

1. Always been an empire.

"Empire of Liberty" is the title of the most-respected historic overview of Early America.

There's lots of shades empire. Not all of them are equally bad for all people. The early empire was quite nice if you were born under the right circumstances.

It depends on what definition of "Empire" you use. If you stick to a narrow definition around "world dominance", I'd say 1917. If you use a legalistic approach, I'd argue that the correct date is 1948.

Lots of room for differing interpretations here.

Reply to this post

Response to Taverner (Original post)

Tue Jun 25, 2013, 05:13 PM

Hydra (14,459 posts)

2. I had a weird urge a few years ago

To see where we went wrong. I was VERY surprised to find out that it was all the way at the beginning.

Shay's Rebellion had shades of what we had in 2006- foreclosures supported by the gov't, deference to monied interests, ignored petitions for relief and in the end, a central gov't army to protect the interests that had caused the problems.

Gov't by and for the people? Nope. Gov't by and for the Aristocrats? Yup.

Reply to this post

Response to Taverner (Original post)

Tue Jun 25, 2013, 05:26 PM

LeftInTX (21,865 posts)

3. After WWII

WWII was the catalyst.

Reply to this post

Response to Taverner (Original post)

Tue Jun 25, 2013, 05:36 PM

FarCenter (19,429 posts)

4. When the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the United State Constitution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_territorial_acquisitions

This is a simplified list of United States territorial acquisitions, beginning with American independence. Note that this list primarily concerns land acquired from other nation-states; the numerous territorial acquisitions from American Indians are not listed here.

Reply to this post

Response to Taverner (Original post)

Tue Jun 25, 2013, 05:47 PM

Uncle Joe (55,603 posts)

5. It may have been planned that way from the beginning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire

Characterizing some aspects of American foreign policy and international behavior "American Empire" is controversial but not uncommon. Stuart Creighton Miller posits that the public's sense of innocence about Realpolitik (cf. American Exceptionalism) impairs popular recognition of US imperial conduct. Since it governed other countries via surrogates — domestically-weak, right-wing governments that collapse without US support.[15] G.W. Bush's Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said: "We don't seek empires. We're not imperialistic; we never have been"[16] — directly contradicts Thomas Jefferson, in the 1780s, awaiting the fall of the Spanish empire: "...till our population can be sufficiently advanced to gain it from them piece by piece".[17][18][19] In turn, historian Sidney Lens argues that from its inception the US has used every means to dominate other nations.[20]

Thanks for the thread, Taverner.

Reply to this post

General Discussion (Forum)