Study Notes on American Foreign Policy (1898-1918)
The Crucial Inflection Point in American Foreign Policy
Year 1898: Inflection point in American Foreign Policy.
Woodrow Wilson's perspective: U.S. steps into the ‘open arena of the world’ (Dailey, 2018, p. 41).
Contrasted view: Beginning of American imperialism (Anderson, 2017; Sjursen, 2021).
Factors Driving American Foreign Policy in 1898
Internal Factors:
Commercial interests striving for new markets.
Cultural motivations to spread democracy and American values.
Overarching belief of manifest destiny seeking new outlets post-territorial expansion.
Notable scholars: Perry Anderson and Daniel Sjursen agreeing on this perspective (Anderson, 2017; Sjursen, 2021).
External Factors:
Late 19th to early 20th centuries witnessed European colonialism peak.
America’s foreign policy as a mechanism for economic and territorial control.
Target: Empower American capitalism through influence over foreign markets (Anderson, 2017).
Pre-World War I Stance:
Shift towards isolationism after 1898, focusing on Western hemisphere interventions while remaining neutral in Europe due to perceived economic benefits (Anderson, 2017; Dailey, 2018).
Impacts of World War I:
United States emerged as a leading political and economic power due to its geographical isolation and role in the war, culminating with its victory (Anderson, 2017; Dailey, 2018).
Primary Events of American Foreign Policy from 1898 to 1918
1. Spanish-American War
Background: War rooted in Cuban War for Independence from Spain.
Motivations for American Intervention:
Corporate capitalists aimed for new markets.
Missionaries aspiring to civilize foreign peoples.
Expansionist politicians urging U.S. presence overseas.
Muckraking journalists capitalizing on the war (Sjursen, 2021, p. 285).
Public Sentiment: The war was deemed extremely popular, labeled as “the most popular war in American history” (Sjursen, 2021, p. 283).
Pretext for War: Explosion of USS Maine in Havana (1898), resulting in 258 fatalities.
Initially presented as a Spanish war crime, later confirmed as accidental (Sjursen, 2021).
Event Outcome:
War lasted approximately four months.
Treaty of Paris resulted in Spain ceding the Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico to the U.S.
Cuba gained independence under the Platt Amendment, allowing U.S. intervention (Capo-Rodriguez, 1923).
Significance:
Marked a foundational shift towards interventionist foreign policy based upon American exceptionalism and values (Sjursen, 2021).
Controversy around the Philippine-American War post-annexation.
Dual perspectives: Expansionists vs. anti-expansionists, questioning the morals of imperialism (Dailey, 2018).
2. Gunboat Diplomacy and Dollar Diplomacy
Post-War Policy Focus:
Security in Latin America and freedom of commerce prioritized.
Theodore Roosevelt’s Approach:
Advocacy for naval superiority.
Defining quote: “speak softly and carry a big stick” (Dailey, 2018, p. 56).
Roosevelt Corollary to Monroe Doctrine: U.S. to respect sovereignty if nations conducted affairs decently (Dailey, 2018, p. 56).
Impacts of Roosevelt’s Policies:
U.S. emerged as a policing entity and debt collector in Latin America.
Continued influence into the late 20th century (Dailey, 2018).
William Taft's Stewardship:
Emphasis on ‘dollar diplomacy’ to enhance U.S. influence while countering German power.
Similarity to the Washington Consensus.
Economic restructuring of Latin American debts and tariffs (Dailey, 2018).
Opposition:
Rejection of treaties by Latin American governments led to U.S. intervention (i.e., Honduras, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, and Haiti).
Establishment of contracts characterized as colonialism by contract (Dailey, 2018).
Long-term mistrust towards U.S. foreign policy initiatives, fostering nationalist opposition (Dailey, 2018).
3. World War I
Impact of the War: The U.S. remained relatively unscathed compared to Europe, reaped significant economic benefits.
Historical context: U.S. had non-interference stance in European affairs prior to 1914.
Initial Neutrality Factors:
Domestically focused public post-progressive era cautious of war.
Non-interference echoed in public support for neutrality (Sjursen, 2021).
Concerns over community division due to European ancestry (Dailey, 2018).
Shifts in Public Sentiment:
Key events (Unrestricted U-boat warfare by Germany and sinking of Lusitania) shifted opinion against Central Powers.
Economic trade relations dramatically favored Allied powers by 1916 (American trade with Central Powers fell to $1.1 million vs. $3.2 billion with Entente) (Dailey, 2018).
Catalyst for War Declaration: The Zimmerman telegram prompted anti-German sentiments, leading President Wilson to seek a declaration of war (Dailey, 2018).
Economic Motivations:
Power brokers in the U.S. sought profit from war-related demand.
Between 1914–1917, Allies borrowed extensively from U.S. banks, fueling financial dependency (Dailey, 2018).
Statistics highlight disparity: Allies borrowed over $2 billion while Central Powers only borrowed $27 million (Dailey, 2018).
New Millionaires: The war created 42,000 new millionaires, primarily in finance (Dailey, 2018).
Strategic Positioning Post-War:
Engagement allowed U.S. a seat at post-war negotiations, turning debts into leverage (Dailey, 2018).
Wilson's assertion that participation would grant necessary political capital reflects an early understanding of U.S. influence on global diplomacy (Dailey, 2018).
Conclusion
Historic Importance: The period from 1898-1918 shapes modern views on American foreign policy.
Transition marks the beginning of U.S. superpower emergence, accelerated by World War I.
Philosophical Questions:
America's role in promoting democracy while adhering to its values of liberty questioned during this period.
Continued relevance of ethics of intervention and imperialism remains evident today, echoing ongoing public discourse.