you can argue that the Monroe Doctrine was also a bit of expansionist policy, essentially warning all European colonial powers that the Americas was the U.S.A's sphere of influence.
the goal of the Monroe Doctrine was to keep the endless European wars, which at that time were not wars of nationalism but of monarchy, out of the Western Hemisphere. In North America, the French and Indian War and the American Revolution itself were aspects of larger monarchical wars taking place in Europe.
it was a sensible doctrine in 1823, and we see 40 years later in 1864 the French under Napoleon III still attempted to install a Hapsburg as Emperor in Mexico.
yeah I'm aware of the stated purposed of the Monroe doctrine, nonetheless as noble as it was it also functioned as saying the Americas belong to us, other colonial powers, and we will protect it.
The definition of a sphere of influence is "a country or area in which another country has power to affect developments although it has no formal authority."
At the time of the Mexican-American War, in 1846, there was no Spanish colonial presence in Mexico. In fact, the country had become an independent monarchy, soon followed by a republic, more than two decades before.
Spain lost the vast majority of its empire in the 1820s. Just a few possessions, like Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines, remained in Spanish hands until the end of the nineteenth century.
What do you mean by this? The Philippine War started in 1898 in Cuba, and began US world expansion. If you're dating expansion over the continent as overlapping with that (which you should) you're agreeing that there was unbroken expansionism.
edit: and what does Spain's (or France's) empire have to do with anything? If I burgle the house of a burglar, it doesn't make me not a burglar. The question was whether the US was expansionist, not a moral judgement about the people who controlled the places it expanded to. You can't say that we weren't expansionist and also that they deserved it.
Yes thanks, that was my point, that it's not like the Mexican government had a clear moral argument to that land over the US. Both were break-away colonies expanding over native cultures.
> The Philippine War started in 1898 in Cuba, and began US world expansion.
That is not entirely true. The United States government and/or its citizens acting autonomously had global reach much earlier than 1898.
Throughout the nineteenth century, American expansionism was seen in various Central American countries, Ecuador, Liberia and Japan, for instance. In some cases, like in Japan and in Brazil, America’s aggressive policies were thwarted. But it does not mean that there was not expansionism.
Yes Spain was already out, but kicked out by the Spaniards and their dependents that controlled Mexico. My point was that both the US and Mexico at that point were colonies that broke free and were fighting over land that had originally belonged to neither of them, so it's a bit strange to act like the Mexican government had some clear moral, historical claim to the land vs the US. Both countries expanded when the could and decimated the native cultures.
The dominant native cultures did the same thing to get that land before the Europeans arrived. The Aztecs colonized and subjugated plenty of groups.