The Insular Cases

Now that you’ve learned about attitudes on imperialism and social Darwinism, it is probably easier to understand why the Supreme Court ruled in Downes v. Bidwell that Puerto Rico was not actually a territory in the same way that previous areas were seen as territories by the United States. This case, and a few other cases from the time period known as the Insular Cases, established the difference between “incorporated territories”—those destined to be states—and “unincorporated territories”, which were not on the path to statehood. With the establishment of the legality of unincorporated territories, the Court also found that in these said territories, the Constitution “did not apply in full.” This means the Constitution does not extend “ex proprio vigore” (meaning by its own force) to unincorporated territories. Instead, it could be extended at Congress’ discretion.

Think about other ways that this doctrine of Social Darwinism and racism sanctioned and gave strength to the rise of formal imperialism in the United States. These attitudes remained normal for decades, and only began to fall out of favor in the 1930s and 1940s. Yet by the time that had happened, the United States had intervened repeatedly in Latin America and in Asia, and Social Darwinism had significantly changed how the United States behaved on the global stage.

This means that in many ways the legacies of Social Darwinism are still with us, especially in how we think about people in other parts of the world. Let’s examine how Social Darwinism continues to affect the United States and the world, how similar ideas can express themselves, and how we can use this history to identify them and work against them. First, let’s look at some other examples of ways that Social Darwinism influenced thinkers during the turn of the century.

Different Perspectives on Imperialism

Not all Social Darwinists supported the expansion of empire. William Graham Sumner was one of the most famous Social Darwinists in the United States, and you can see an excerpt of his thinking here. Sumner’s worldview could be summarized as follows:

“Competition, therefore, is a law of nature. Nature is entirely neutral; she submits to him who most energetically and resolutely assails her. She grants her rewards to the fittest, therefore, without regard to other considerations of any kind. If, then, there be liberty, men get from her just in proportion to their works, and their having and enjoying are just in proportion to their being and their doing. Such is the system of nature. If we do not like it, and if we try to amend it, there is only one way in which we can do it. We can take from the better and give to the worse.”

You might be surprised to learn that despite Sumner’s support of Social Darwinism, Sumner opposed the idea of going to war with Spain and especially the idea of absorbing Spain’s colonies. Take a look at his justifications for that. He said:

“I intend to show that, by the line of action now proposed to us, which we call expansion and imperialism, we are throwing away some of the most important elements of the American symbol and are adopting some of the most important elements of the Spanish symbol. We have beaten Spain in a military conflict, but we are submitting to be conquered by her on the field of ideas and policies. Expansionism and imperialism are nothing but the old philosophies of national prosperity which have brought Spain to where she now is.”^[1]

Sumner looked at Spain as an inferior and declining power. He worried that by emulating the Spanish in their pursuit of an empire, the United States would ultimately be weakened much as the Spanish had been. Here, Social Darwinist concerns about an “American way of life” meant that some Americans wanted to stay apart from the rest of the world.

Anti-Imperialism

Social Darwinism was a philosophy and mentality that could easily adapt to anti-imperialism as well as to more conventional imperialism. Gompers’s concerns about the Philippines were about how exposure to a foreign population would affect White Americans and affect American political traditions at home. Gompers’s ideas fit in with some other members of the Anti-Imperialist League, who were worried about race-mixing between White Americans and Filipinos.

Consider how familiar some of Gompers’s rhetoric sounds today. In 2016, Donald Trump gave the following speech: “The truth is our immigration system is worse than anybody ever realized. But the facts aren’t known because the media won’t report on them. The politicians won’t talk about them and the special interests spend a lot of money trying to cover them up because they are making an absolute fortune. That’s the way it is…When politicians talk about immigration reform, they usually mean the following: amnesty, open borders, lower wages. Immigration reform should mean something else entirely. It should mean improvements to our laws and policies to make life better for American citizens…We also have to be honest about the fact that not everyone who seeks to join our country will be able to successfully assimilate. Sometimes it’s just not going to work out. It’s our right, as a sovereign nation, to choose immigrants that we think are the likeliest to thrive and flourish and love us.”^[2]