by McKinley in the case of the Philippines, for example:
The Mckinley administration could accept this argument [that "the federal government could not annex a whole area as a colony, 'except such small amount as may be necessary for coaling station'"] and then ask how the coaling station of Manila, for example, could be useful without Luzon, and how Luzon could be defended or maintained without the remainder of the Philippines. The principal antiannexationist argument, that the Constitution and traditional American society would be ruined by expanding to noncontiguous areas was, in fact, quite irrelevant granted the common assumption of the need for commercial expansion.
The Marxist analysis of capitalism holds that such a desire for foreign markets is the compelling historical and economic force that leads to expansionism, and that analysis certainly appears to apply to McKinley's expansionism, and undermines the argument that McKinley was trying to spread "American liberty" to foreign lands and peoples. The same analysis seems to also apply to the que
...