William Jennings Bryan, Theodore Roosevelt, Alfred Thayer Mahan, Emilio Aguinaldo When Secretary of State John Hay stated that the Spanish American War was a “splendid little war”, he received mixed responses from people such as William Jennings Bryan, Theodore Roosevelt, Alfred Thayer Mahan, and Emilio Aguinaldo. Some people of the Philippines, especially the nationalist leader Emilio Aguinaldo, disagreed with Hay’s statement.
They were upset that they were first being denied independence from Spain, and now the United States of America.
However, even having fought in the Spanish-American War alongside the Americans, Aguinaldo led bands of guerilla fighters against the U. S. It took three years, and numerous causalities to end the revolt. Theodore Roosevelt, on the other hand, saw potential in the lands controlled by Spain. He ordered a fleet to the Philippines. The American Fleet destroyed the Spanish Fleet. Contrary to the beliefs of Theodore Roosevelt, William Jennings Bryan viciously attacked the idea of American imperialism.
He believed that imperialism was wrong, and the United States should stay out of fighting wars for conquest.
While many Americans too, questioned imperialism, they saw the new territory, including the Philippines, acquired during the war as an accomplishment. Last but not least, Alfred Thayer Mahan believed that a strong naval power would crucial if a country wanted to become the finest, economically and militarily. A strong military presence would open foreign markets which would lead the United States to become a world power.
William Jennings Bryan vigorously attacked the growth of American Imperialism. One positive consequence of the Spanish American war was its effect on the way both Americans and Europeans thought about the United States as a formidable military power Discuss whether or not US foreign policy from 1890-1914 was principally guided by economic motives. The period after the Civil War saw the development of a booming economy fueled by the industrialization of America, which created the path for a major change in U. S diplomacy policies with the rest of the world.
Rather than being an isolated country and keeping with the advice of George Washington to stay neutral concerning any European affairs, the United States became an imperialistic and world power with territories extending across the pacific and very active in European affairs. U. S foreign policy from 1890-1920 was principally guided by economic motives. One of the motives why the U. S foreign policy was principally guided by economic ambition was to protect American interests saved in other countries. Another motive why the U.
S foreign policy was principally guided by economic ambition was because the U. S needed new markets on which to sell their surplus of farm and produced goods. One of the motives why the U. S foreign policy was principally guided by economic ambition was because the U. S needed new markets on which to sell their surplus of farm and produced goods. The blessed American soil was mass-producing crops and industries were thriving in production of American goods the markets in the United States were over flowing with goods and the United States needed to extend their sale to other countries’ markets.
The four biggest imperialistic powers of the time were Great Britain, France, Germany, and soon to be the United States were all competing to get the advantages of the markets in China, and since China was dealing with their own struggles like corruption, and bad leadership, many countries were taking advantage of the economic gains in the Chinese markets unfairly. Secretary of state John Hay proposed an “Open Door policy in China” which would guarantee that all nations have a fair chance in the Chinese markets.
He proposed this because the United States was still trying to prove itself and if all the countries accepted this policy the United States would ensure having access to the profitable markets. As the U. S economy grew so did ambition and a sense of great nationalism in the United States and the public was calling for more. Compare and contrast the foreign policies of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson toward Latin America Both Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson had utilized their own foreign policies toward Latin America that differed from another.
Theodore Roosevelt proposed the aggressive, “Big-Stick” diplomacy in dealing with Latin America, whereas Wilson operated using moral diplomacy as his way of managing foreign affairs. The idea behind Roosevelt’s “Big-Stick” Policy was ‘speaking softly but carrying a big stick’, meaning that negotiations should conclude peacefully, but rivals should be threatened with the military. President Roosevelt had made several attempts to build the United States’ reputation as a world power. His policy, however, was unpopular amongst many for breaking the customary “non-involvement policy” in international politics. T.
R was enthusiastic to begin the construction of a canal through the Isthmus of Panama, so the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty of 1901 was passed. This allowed the United States to begin to dig the canal without British involvement. Woodrow Wilson on the other hand, respected other nation’s rights and supported the spread of democracy. Wilson had sent troops over and arranged an arms embargo with the Mexican government. When these troops were detained, he had them occupy Veracruz and war seemed imminent until the Countries of Argentina, Chile and Brazil mediated in the affair.
Wilson had also proposed the Johns Act of 1916 which granted U. S. itizenship to all the inhabitants in Puerto Rico while providing limited self-government. In addition to this, Wilson kept a supply of marines in Nicaragua and ordered U. S. troops into Haiti in 1915 and the Dominican Republic in 1916. He argued that such intervention was necessary to maintain stability in the region and protect the Panama Canal. Assess the importance of TWO of the following in the US decision to declare war against Spain in 1898: yellow journalism, sinking of the Maine, US business interests, Cuban revolution America’s short war with Spain in 1898 was the nation’s first step on the pathway to becoming a world power.
The U. S. victory brought with it the unintended possession of the Philippines and a vested interest in the politics of the Pacific region that would ultimately lead to conflict with Japan. As an immediate outcome of the war, America found itself embroiled in an insurgency in the Philippines that closely mimicked the conflict in Vietnam over 60 years later. Cuba, a Spanish colony, had been in rebellion since 1895. The brutal Spanish response turned American sympathies to the Cuban insurgents.
The US Battleship Maine arrived in Havana Harbor in January 1898 with a dual mission to protect American interests and present the Spanish with a show of force. At 9:40 PM on the evening of February 15, an explosion ripped the forward hull quickly sending the ship to the bottom of the harbor, killing two hundred sixty-six of the 345 crew members. Investigations started immediately. A US Naval Board of Inquiry attributed the sinking to an external explosion – a conclusion interpreted by many as referring to a mine placed beneath the ship. The finger of blame pointed to Spanish treachery.
An anti-Spanish press particularly the “Yellow Journalism” of the Hearst and Pulitzer newspapers – enflamed American public opinion and raised it to a war-fever pitch. Congress clamored for action. President McKinley reluctantly succumbed to pressure and asked Congress to declare war on April 21. Congress obliged on April 25, 1898. The war lasted only 3 months and cost the U. S. about 400 killed or wounded. The United States gained the Philippines, Puerto Rico and Guam and emerged as a power to be reckoned with on the world stage. Cuba gained independence from Spain.
For Spain it was a humiliating defeat. Both her Atlantic and Pacific fleets were sent to the bottom of the sea and with them went Spain’s prestige as a world power. In what ways did the United States’ relationship with Japan become more competitive after 1900? In the first two decades of the twentieth century, the relationship between the United States and Japan was marked by increasing tension and corresponding attempts to use diplomacy to reduce the threat of conflict. Each side had territory and interests in Asia that they were concerned the other might threaten.
U. S. reatment of Japanese immigrants, and competition for economic and commercial opportunities in China also heightened tensions. At the same time, each country’s territorial claims in the Pacific formed the basis for several agreements between the two nations, as each government sought to protect its own strategic and economic interests. Tensions rose over Japanese actions in northeast China and immigration to the United States. In 1905, the Japanese started to establish more formal control over South Manchuria by forcing China to give Japan ownership rights to the South Manchurian Railway.
The Japanese used this opening to make further inroads into northeast China, causing the Roosevelt Administration concern that this violated the ideals of free enterprise and the preservation of China’s territorial integrity. Simultaneously, leading Japanese officials expressed frustration with the treatment of Japanese immigrants in the United States. A U. S. -Japanese treaty signed in 1894 had guaranteed the Japanese the right to immigrate to the United States, and to enjoy the same rights in the country as U. S. citizens.
In 1906, however, the San Francisco Board of Education enacted a measure to send Japanese and Chinese children to segregated schools. The Government of Japan was outraged by this policy, claiming that it violated the 1894 treaty. In a series of notes exchanged between late 1907 and early 1908, known collectively as the Gentlemen’s Agreement, the U. S. Government agreed to pressure the San Francisco authorities to withdraw the measure, and the Japanese Government promised to restrict the immigration of laborers to the United States.
Cite this The Analysis of Response of the Secretary of State John Hay
The Analysis of Response of the Secretary of State John Hay. (2016, Sep 16). Retrieved from https://graduateway.com/apush-essays/