IMPERIALISM

1. according to halestead slavery declined because the british wanted to have trade with the countries so they abolished slavery and this effectedd imperialism because the british claimed that imerpialism was just to help these countries so that they would become more deveoped like their fathering countries."Britain did not need imperialism. Britain
had a large navy and the "white dominions", it had industry and trade: These were the bases of
British power, not imperialism. Imperialism was just Britain's way or "method" of interacting
with "undeveloped" peoples and states. Imperialism was the method of a "technologically,
organizationally, and humanistically advanced society---a rationalized society" of dealing with
peoples who were not so."

2. the good government was not an influence because it was hard to maintain in all the different countries that were occupied. so they changed the forms of government for each type of country. "slavery was not commercially beneficial after the decline of mercantilism
and the rise of laissez-faire, free trade capitalism. In other words, British motives were entirely
self-serving in abolishing slavery. As the major proponent of free trade, Britain now saw the
benefits of abolishing slavery, which was counterproductive in the age of the Industrial
Revolution. But Halstead mischaracterizes British policy as a moral crusade."

3. "Seeley argued that British "imperialism" was the apotheosis of
all British history, the culmination of Britain's destiny, while Halstead argued that British
imperialism was nothing but an appendage of British foreign policy. Gallagher and Robinson
argued that the scramble for Africa was motivated by concerns over security and nothing else
while MacKenzie pointed out that Britain had created an elaborate image making apparatus, a
widespread propaganda, that extolled militarism, monarchism, and Social Darwinism." Halested's view of imerialism was different from the of cobden and many other philosophers... this was so because halested thought that imperialism reliedy mostly on free trade rather than on politics. "Thus, imperialism is not the highest stage of capitalism or the
apotheosis of British foreign policy as John Hobson in 1902 and V.I. Lenin in 1916 argued. For
Halstead, British imperialism was benevolent and fostered good government, philanthropy, and
free trade. Imperialism was just foreign policy by other means."

4."Concentrating on a single aspect leads to an incomplete
understanding. British imperialism during the period of the "new imperialism" was motivated by
several factors: national security, protecting free trade, protecting commercial routes,
competition for markets and spheres of influence, settlement, colonization, diplomacy, and
ideology. Imperialism is not one thing and cannot be reduced to a catch-phrase, but is a complex
historical phenomenon which we can examine only piecemeal, but eventually from which a
fuller picture emerges." these were his final thoughts on the start of imerialism,