How did some American politicians justify U.S. imperialism at the end of the 19th century?

At the end of the 19th century, some American politicians justified U.S. imperialism using several arguments:

Manifest Destiny: They saw expansionism as a continuation of the earlier ideology of Manifest Destiny, the belief that it was America's destiny and duty to expand westward and spread its influence.

Economic Interests: Politicians argued that imperialism would open new markets for American goods and provide access to raw materials, thereby fueling economic growth and benefiting American industries.

National Security: Some saw overseas territories as strategic locations for military bases, asserting that acquiring these territories would enhance national security and protect American interests abroad.

Cultural Superiority: Some advocated for imperialism as a means to spread American values, culture, and ideals, believing that it was their duty to "civilize" and "modernize" other nations.

Social Darwinism: Influenced by Social Darwinism, some argued that the United States was inherently superior and believed in the concept of "survival of the fittest," justifying expansion and dominance over other nations.

Global Power and Prestige: Imperialism was seen as a way for the United States to become a global power, enhancing its prestige and influence on the world stage.

These justifications were used to promote and rationalize U.S. involvement in overseas territories such as Hawaii, the Philippines, Cuba, and Puerto Rico, leading to an era of increased American expansionism and imperialism during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.