The US become the world's largest economy somewhere around the 1880s or 1890s. By that time, it was a world-leading innovator in several (but by no means all) technologies, perhaps railroads most of all (e.g., the US switched to automatic couplers in the 1890s; the EU is
piloting switching to them now, 130 years later).
However, despite its immense economic prowess, the US did not play a major part in international affairs, often explicitly choosing to stay out of European debacles. (This is often called isolationism, but that's not a wholly accurate description of foreign policy). For its part, Europe also generally ignored the US: a posting to the US would have been seen as a punishment rather than an honor, taking the person involved outside of the social circles of Europe.
When WWI strikes, the US stays out of the war in the initial phases before changing its mind and getting involved. As the only party involved which didn't eviscerate its population by war, it gained a lot of leverage over the peace treaty... which it promptly squandered by going isolationist again and staying out of the European squabbles. During WWII, Roosevelt again takes a leading role in dictating the terms of the peace treaties and post-war diplomatic order, with the US actually staying in the role afterwards, unlike WWI.
The term "superpower" is usually only used to analyze the roles of countries in the post-WW2 order, with the US and the USSR (and, briefly, the UK) afforded the role of superpower since they dominate the world political sphere. Before WWI, the analysis is in terms of great powers, and is mostly looking at their influence within the idea of the "Concert of Europe." Here, despite the US's economic strength, its noninterest in Europe renders it outside of most discussions of great power politics. And between the wars, pretty much the only analysis people care to do is in how the stage is set for WWII.
This is a long-winded way of saying that the answer to your question is "no."