With Imperialism, a country would go out and claim new territories. This brought more responsibility to the country, as well as more territory that needed defending and developing. Imperialism brought the focus off of the mother country, making it more susceptible to conflicts at home and abroad.
1: it cost too much to expand
2: maintaining the necessary armed forces required more taxation, debt, and possibly even compulsory, or required, military service
3: competition in America jobs
The primary argument that justified imperialism was called "White Man's Burden". People believed that it was the obligation of modern European countries to modernize the less developed countries of Africa and Southeast Asia. Of course, this was not the main motive behind imperialism however.
==================
The above contributor's answer is preserved in as much many people believe that imperialism was justified by that slogan or phrase. To fully appreciate the question, one needs to see that the term itself, that of "imperialism" , is simply another word for one nation to extend its sphere of influence or indeed control or colonize another nation or people.
Imperialism has existed since ancient times and examples of ancient nations either conquering other nations or setting up client states in other nations has been widespread throughout history.
In the past, governments that in fact either conquered others or colonized less developed nations never really needed an excuse. The reason being was:
A. As a foreign policy the USSR set up client communist states in order to further the cause of communism or doing so, "freed the people from capitalism". Of course, the Natural Resources of a new client of the USSR would be at the disposal of Soviet leaders & their new communist leader allies;
B. So-called European colonialism was a vehicle to obtain the natural resources of less developed nations and control them politically in order to keep up their strength against rival "imperialist" nations. The length of time that France, England, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Japan, Russia and others, held on to their foreign possessions is an indication that no real excuse was needed;
C. To a lesser extent, the United States practiced imperialism, but it paled against the empires built by the French and the British; and
D. The slogan of "white man's burden" came into being in 1899. It was the title of a poem by Rudyard Kipling, the British poet, who urged the USA to follow the empire schemes of the European powers. In particular the the USA's adventures after the defeat of Spain in the Spanish American war, in which the Philippine Islands were seceded over from Spain to the USA.
The primary economic argument raised by Anti-Imperialists is that the monetary costs of maintaining a large empire (manpower, ships, military vehicles, infrastructure developments etc.) outweigh any economic benefit that could be derived from the occupation.
He was against imperialism. He lead a revolution for the Latin Americans. He fought against it.
Religious. They said it was a sin against humanity.
against: -to annex colonies would violate the "consent of the governed" philosophy in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. -Despotism abroad might well beget despotism at home. -Imperialism was costly and was unlikely to turn into a profit. -annexation would propel the U.S. into the political and military cauldron of East Asia. For: -played possible trade profits. -"civilizing mission"
There are no real, good arguments against planning. Having a plan is important in many cases.
She was against it.
try doing some reseach on arguments against it then reverse it
You need to answer this question because we don't do homework. You have the item you read and we don't.
Beveridge was for Imperialism while Twain was against imperialism
ummm so like ask that question more clearly and it shall be answered word of the wise
Beveridge was for Imperialism, while Twain was against imperialism.
It is possible that you may die.
The league argued that Imperialism went against American principles
He was against imperialism. He lead a revolution for the Latin Americans. He fought against it.
There are none.
the league argued that Imperialism went against American principles.
Admiral Mahan's arguments were that our growing production needs this, we need ways to respond quickly, and that we need to be closer. :)
The league argued that Imperialism went against American principles