More handpicked essays just for you.
Franklin roosevelt inauguration speech analysis
Rhetorical analysis franklin d. roosevelt
Franklin roosevelt inauguration speech analysis
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Big stick diplomacy, the dollar diplomacy and moral diplomacy by Theodore Roosevelt, William Taft and Woodrow Wilson respectively have had profound impacts on foreign policy, especially during the beginning of the 21st century.Big stick diplomacy describes the foreign policy implemented by Theodore Roosevelt during his presidency 1901-1909. Roosevelt advocated for a policy that reflected the idea that one should “speak softly and carry a big stick.” He described it as “the exercise of intelligent thought and of decisive action sufficiently far in advance of any likely crisis,” which clearly reflects the prevailing thought of Realpolitik as well as Machiavellian ideals. In practice, this foreign policy ideal is reflected in military terms. …show more content…
Various examples highlight this, for example the Square Deal, the Venezualan affair, Cuba and Canal Diplomacy. Dollar Diplomacy refers to the activist foreign policy of William Taft during his presidency of 1909 -1913. It was employed by Taft to address two key issues; protection against any attempts to gain control of the Panama Canal, and to “safeguard the territorial integrity of China and promote the Open Door Policy” in the Far East (u-s-history.com, 2005).In his 1912 State of the Union Address he stated that “The diplomacy of the present administration has sought to respond to modern ideas of commercial intercourse. This policy has been characterized as substituting dollars for bullets. It is one that appeals alike to idealistic humanitarian sentiments, to the dictates of sound policy and strategy, and to legitimate commercial aims.” (Taft, 1912 in u-s-history.com, 2005). Moral diplomacy was a foreign policy initiative undertaken by Woodrow Wilson during his presidency 1913-1921. Wilson came into office with only a small amount of experience in foreign relations, but he was adamant that foreign policy should be based on moral principles instead of the selfish materialism of previous administrations (milliercenter.org, 2012). His real motivations were to encourage the spread of democracy and promote peace. This can be seen in Congress’ decisions to grant the Philippines independence, and Puerto Rico territorial status. Wilson signed twenty two bilateral treaties as an attempt to avoid warfare. Soon after becoming President, Wilson declared that the US wished “to cultivate the friendship and deserve the confidence” of Latin American countries, but also had the firm belief that “just government” must rest “upon the consent of the governed” (millercenter.org, 2012). All of the above foreign policy variations can be seen as highly influential, both in contemporary foreign policy but also in the foreign policy process of the early part of the twentieth century.
Roosevelt’s big stick diplomacy was very important in interventionist foreign policy. His stance was firmly military, no doubt influenced by his past in the US military. Big stick diplomacy was utilized to “seize unprecedented power in handling international affairs” (Shoemaker, 2012). According to Shoemaker (2012), it was Teddy Roosevelt’s interventionist policy which “subverted the Constitution” and helped transform the United States into one of the most powerful nations in the world, in the sense that it allowed the spread of American values and ideals throughout the world. Big stick diplomacy also weakened constitutional government, since it allowed the executive branch to have more sway in foreign policy (Shoemaker, 2012). The manifest destiny is an important concept to note when examining Roosevelt’s presidency. The perception was that any state which did not embrace American ideals, especially regarding freedom and democracy, was potentially a threat to national security (Shoemaker, 2012). Under the idea of big stick democracy too, Roosevelt declared that the US and not Europe, was the only nation that had authority to intervene in Latin America, and that he was acting in the Western Hemisphere’s best interests. The Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe doctrine demonstrates this belief best and was later used to justify military interventions worldwide, “the Monroe Doctrine may force the United States, however reluctantly, to the exercise of an international police power” (Roosevelt, 1905 in Shoemaker, 2012). This is highlighted by the US’ intervention in the Dominican Republic and Cuba, where Congress never gave permission for Roosevelt to take over Dominica’s customs houses and enforce revenue collection, or to send military to restore order in Cuba when the
rebellion of 1906 occurred. The US’ involvement in the Panama Canal also provides a good example of big stick diplomacy. Roosevelt sent warships without the consent of Congress to support Panamanians in the revolt against ruling Colombia (Shoemaker, 2012). According to Shoemaker (2012), securing the Panama Canal was Roosevelt’s most significant achievement, despite criticism for the methods of which it was secured being unconstitutional. A similar story can be told with the Great White Fleet of 1907, where Roosevelt ordered ships to do a naval tour to show off the US’ prowess and strength, and most importantly to intimidate Japan. All these examples highlight how Roosevelt’s use of unprecedented executive power whilst being important moves towards making the US a world power, also showed contempt for Congress and the kind of constitutional government framers had envisioned. William Taft, was far less aggressive in terms of foreign policy. Taft’s main goals were to maintain an Open Door to Asia as well as keep stability in Latin America. Taft was an advocate of dollar diplomacy, where he preferred “substituting dollars for bullets.” By increasing American investment in foreign economies Taft attempted to maintain orderly societies. Dollar diplomacy has largely been called an utter failure as a foreign policy initiative, since the US often became involved in financial ventures abroad with little profit or none. For example, under Taft’s orders, the Secretary of State, Philander Knox persuaded American bankers to invest in railroad projects in China, Manchuria, Russia and Japan because these countries had all united to block America’s influence, though this investment was not profitable, particularly when the government in China collapsed in 1911. In Latin America too, dollar diplomacy was implemented with negative results, primarily creating enemies in Central and Caribbean Latin America where local rebellions already resented American influence and involvement. Under President Woodrow Wilson, a more moral approach to foreign policy was attempted. Wilson’s moral diplomacy saw America’s stance shift to an anti-imperialist one, a completely new approach at the time.The case of Mexico provides an example of the radical change in orientation between the Taft and Wilson administrations. Mexico posed a problem for the use of moral diplomacy, and made it necessary to implement an aggressive version of it. After the assassination of Mexican president Madero in 1913, the man who had him killed Victoriano Huerta assumed power. This provided the United States with a dilemma, America was not sure how to respond since it had already invested over one billion dollars in Mexico. Huerta promised to protect foreign investments, so American investors urged Wilson to recognize the leader. However, he refused, calling Huerta “a butcher” who had usurped power without the consent of the people, thus beginning the end of Taft’s dollar diplomacy, and shifting to a process of applying moral and legal standards to decisions regarding foreign policy. Wilson subsequently interfered in Mexican politics by supporting Huerta’s opposition, Venustiano Carranza. Wilson blocked munitions from reaching Huerta and his forces. In April of 1914, Wilson sent the navy to occupy the city of Veracruz, where over one hundred Mexicans died during resistance. Because he was starved of customs revenue and munitions, eventually Huerta gave up power to Carranza, leading to Wilson withdrawing the navy. He was drawn into their affairs once more when Francisco Villa started to terrorize Americans in Mexico, and raiding border towns. Wilson’s response was to send General John J Pershing with over 5000 American troops in pursuit of Villa. Despite Carranza’s order for them to leave, the troops remained until 1917. Overall, Wilson’s moral diplomacy was much more isolationist than interventionist; he focused much more on domestic issues, and tried to reverse Taft’s foreign investment policies. He has been criticised heavily for his failure to get involved in foreign affairs militarily, many seeing this stance as weak (millercenter.org 2012). Additionally, his moral diplomacy in Mexico largely failed, causing many lives to be lost on both sides and deterioration of financial interests. Ultimately, his interference in Mexican affairs negatively affected relations between the US and Mexico for many years.
Theodore Roosevelt stepped into head of office on September 19, 1901 when President William McKinley was assassinated. He was the youngest man to become president. His motto was “speak softly but carry a big stick.” President Roosevelt would come into power offering America the square deal. He would take the power away from the industrialists as he controlled big business from the White House. He would soon become known as a TrustBuster. Roosevelt used American power for American interests and was quoted as saying, “I am an American first and last. “ Although some historians argue that Roosevelt acted like a six-year-old throughout his presidency and that he didn’t think things through, ie “he thought with his hips”, one can admire the tremendous leadership qualities that Teddy Roosevelt had. First, he was a very bold man who graduated magna cum laude from Harvard. The average citizen was aware of what a “positive, warm and tough, authoritative and funny” president that they had leading them. His leadership qualities stemmed from his time as a New York state Assembly man, a deputy sheriff, a ...
Throughout the 20th century, successive presidents pursued foreign policy in different ways but with one objective and that is to make America the most powerful nation on earth. Despite the challenges of each administration during this century, presidents found a way to put American at the frontline as the undisputed super power. President Taft pursued an aggressive foreign policy by introducing dollar diplomacy which was meant to encourage U.S. investments in the Latin America and the Caribbean. He used government officials to promote this policy in hope that it will create markets for American products in the region. President Wilson made a promise to the American people that he will focus on domestic policy agenda and rarely will his administration
Between 1895 and 1920, the years in which William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, William Taft, and Woodrow Wilson reigned in the presidents, the United States struggled for not only justice at home but abroad as well. During this period policies such as Roosevelt’s Big Stick diplomacy, William Taft’s Dollar diplomacy, and Woodrow Wilson’s Moral diplomacy were all used in foreign affairs in hopes of benefit for all involved. However, it would be appropriate to say that self-interest was the most important driving factor for American policy and can be exemplified through economic, social, and political relations.
The issue both Presidents faced was whether or not to enter any of the world wars. Both president Woodrow Wilson and Roosevelt felt remaining neutral and not involving themselves in European affairs was the best solution. Wilson himself stated that “the United States must be neutral in fact as well as in name …” for entering the war was not something he or the American
Roosevelt shaped the legacy of expansionism that he inherited from McKinley into a new imperialism. Roosevelt's reinterpretation was dedicated to the idea of order in world affairs, rather than occupation or colonization, eventual independence for undeveloped or developing nations once they had conformed to the American model of government, and a world in which international disputes would be settled by negotiation instead of war. The new world order that Roosevelt envisioned was broad in that it would open foreign markets to American values and products.
In foreign affairs, the "white man's burden" helped to justify Roosevelt's "New Imperialism" in foreign policy. Uncivilized nations would gain eventual independence once they had conformed to the American model of government and democracy. Roosevelt's corollary to the Monroe Doctrine set up the U.S. as policeman in the western hemisphere. Under TR, the U.S. empire extended to include the Philippines, Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico. He also oversaw the building of the Panama Canal, a tremendous feat that enhanced U.S. commerce immeasurably.
...ples rather than the selfish materialism that they believed had animated their predecessors’ programs”(millercenter.org, n.d.). While Roosevelt believed more in the philosophy of “Speak softly and carry a big stick”, Wilson hoped “to cultivate the friendship and deserve the confidence of the Latin American states” (millercenter.org, n.d.).
Further more, Interventionism was continued where it was most convenient; in regard to colonial interests, trade opportunities, ensuring peace overseas and the repayment of foreign debt. Although President Harding claimed we see no part in directing the destinies of the world', it seems that a foreign policy of interventionism was needed in directing the destiny of the United States that was a different matter. Colonial interests were claimed in Alaska, the Philipines, Central America and Hawaii. In 1921 it signed the Four Power Treaty with Britain, France and Japan and then the Nine Power Treaty agreeing to respect China's independence but allowing them equal trading rights and so the ability to abuse China's economy.
It is the intention of this essay to explain the United States foreign policy behind specific doctrines. In order to realize current objectives, this paper will proceed as follows: Part 1 will define the Monroe Doctrine, Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 will concurrently explicate the Roosevelt Corollary, Good Neighbor Policy, and the Nixon Doctrine, discuss how each policy resulted in U.S. involvement in Latin American countries, describe how it was justified by the U.S. government, respectively, and finally, will bring this paper to a summation and conclusion.
Roosevelt aspired to bring the United States out of isolationism and to make it a major world power. In fact, his mantra regarding foreign policy was “speak softly and carry a big stick,” which meant that the United States should be non provocative but assured in their diplomatic affairs. Roosevelt believed a president should be capable of backing his statements with military force if need be, which is a principle that guided his presidency. For instance, he used his executive power in Latin America to help Panama secede from Colombia, which later catalyzed the building of the Panama Canal. Roosevelt also issued a corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, which established that the United States would “would bar foreign intervention in Latin America and act to police the hemisphere, ensuring that countries paid their international debts.” Additionally, Roosevelt greatly expanded the US Navy, making the United States military force a major international power. Finally, Roosevelt used his ideas to help regulate foreign diplomatic issues as well, such as leading negotiations that ended the Russo-Japanese War, which won him a Nobel Peace Prize. Ultimately, Roosevelt was a strong central figure who involved the United States in the global political sphere and strengthened the nation’s influence
The purpose of this policy was to exert American Influence and power, and to expand American market. Roosevelt, phased the “speak softly and carry a big stick” which pretty much summed up his foreign affair policy. During the presidency of President McKinley, there were already tension between American economic and foreign markets. The assassination of McKinley in 1091, Roosevelt was ready to step in and file the void. He came prepared.
The big stick diplomacy pertained to the construction and control of the Panama Canal. Nevertheless, President Roosevelt used the Big Stick diplomacy during his presidency. However, the big stick diplomacy underwent critics and deployed. The Big Stick policy, also known as Roosevelt Corollary was a policy that policed the small nations that had unstable governments. Moreover, Roosevelt secured the Panama Canal through the Big stick policy. On the other hand, the big stick diplomacy expanded American markets. Nevertheless, Roosevelt’s determination led to the beginning of trade interests within other nations. Also, it negotiated the unspoken threat of a military. Roosevelt deployed military personnels to restore order to an organized government
Within Henry Kissinger’s Diplomacy, Kissinger elaborates on various topics such as the inherent tensions of American diplomacy, what makes it unique and how the uniqueness of American diplomacy led to the views of expansionism and isolationism towards foreign policy. Using topics like Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson’s presidencies as well as the Vietnam War, the Cold War, the various dealings in the Middle East and other such foreign affairs, Kissinger effectively provides insight on how these concepts show America’s uniqueness and how it led to America being a successful nation.
Nye, Jr., Joseph S. “Hard and Soft Power in American Foreign Policy.” In Paradox of American Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. 4-17. Print.
The “Big Stick” diplomacy refers to President Roosevelt’s corollary to the Monroe Doctrine: “speak softly, and carry a big stick.” In other terms, this means to negotiate peacefully while displaying might and power. This diplomacy was a major part of Roosevelt’s international relations policy. An instance in time where this corollary was used was in the 1900’s taking place in Latin America. However, instead of the United States guaranteeing protection from neighbors and independence, the corollary asserted the United States’s unrestricted right to regulate Caribbean affairs.