Big Stick Diplomacy Case Study

During the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century United States main goal was to imperialize other territories. After the Spanish- American War, the United States became an imperialist power by annexing the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Hawaii and Samoa. Americans also developed overseas trade with China and Japan. The United States proposition was to expand their region because they wanted to influence other nations for new trading locations, more resources and the increase of military protection. In spite of the fact that they had the same proposition, their political and economical motives were departed.

The United States is trying to make it work, however, he is warning others that the United States inevitably cannot ignore the international affairs and the issues going on in the rest of the

The Spanish-American War was heavily supported by pro-imperialists looking to expand America’s power. Anti-imperialists believed in their cause because they thought it was a violation of self-determination, too expensive, and would get America too involved foreign affairs. Support for the Spanish-American War was not seen from many anti-imperialists. These opposing viewpoints on imperialism are seen in Editha through the characterization of Editha and George. Editha supports the Spanish-American War and represents the pro-imperialist view.

Mill basically inherited the anti-imperialist views from his predecessor liberal thinkers like Bentham, James Mill and Adam Smith (Sullivan, 1983). Bentham, James Mill and Smith have argued against imperialism and have negated the idea that it serves any economic profit to England. Instead they believed that colonisation led to disproportionate capital flow to colonies. They also negated the argument of colonies being an outlet for capital surplus. They maintained that colonisation can only be a remedy for capital surplus if greater amount of England’s capital is not invested in governance of colonies which they regarded is the case with most of the England’s colonies.

The diplomacy was based upon the American belief that American ideals were the way of the future for the world; what was good for the US must as well be good for the countries of Latin America. The Hispanic newspaper Regeneración of April 13, 1912, quoted Robert M. La Follette's criticism of the diplomacy. He regarded the diplomacy as an outpost, intervening the nations in Central and South America by imposing the US's method and supervision. The diplomacy often resorted to military power as a solution to the internal conflicts within the region.

In the past the United States is known for its notorious habit to take other people’s land. A particular case is Cuba. Cuba was apart of Spain but the United states wanted to capture Cuba and help them gain independence. The action that took place with Panama after a long war and a struggling government the United states also lended a hand to Panama and tried to build the canal. Lending a hand isn’t a problem but when you are trying to take over the country it then becomes a problem.

For example, The Declaratory act was in favor of the British since there was no opposing force upon its upbringing, due to the colonist basically ignoring its presence. Continuing to celebrate the repeal of a previous policy gave the British government space to work with in order to conjure up more policies, hurting the colonists. Unlike the reaction of the Declaratory act, the Tea Act, respectively, withdrew an exaggerated response from the colonials. The Boston Tea Party is the iconic ideal of outraged responses, puting the British in deeper debt than before. While this was a huge inconvenience to the British it was harder on the colonials when backlash occurred, resulting in a full drive towards independence from Britain, winning the American Revolutionary War, and squandering all British control.

Britain viewed themselves superior to the United States and the American citizens were forced to accept and obey the British colonial rule. It was of great significance for Henry to persuade the colonists with his speech in order for them to take action against Britain and the British rule and that nothing they have done has worked so far. Henry’s speech contains logos by providing logical reasoning as to why we should fight Britain and take back our freedom. He uses logos when he says “What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer.

Polk spread the rumor that it was their “manifest destiny” to extend America’s territory to the Pacific Ocean. Historians today ask the question: Was the United States justified in going to war with Mexico? The United States was not justified, because the United States were greedy for land, “manifest destiny” is weak excuse, and because of the human cost. The United States had its eye on expand its territory and started with the Louisiana Purchase in 1803.

It was their claim that the expansionists were destroying the “America institutions”, the constitution. On these grounds they tried to prevent the further war and bloodshed in the Philippines and other countries that might bear the same fate in the future if America continued to expand. (Docs A, D) The departure from expansionism was relatively small during this time period while its continuation and progression flourished.

This made it clear that Britain’s prime source of income at the moment was indeed trade with her colonies. With later boycotts of British goods by the proud Americans, this proved to become a rather trying encounter for the British. More so, British militant involvement in the colonies proved to be costly, so Britain was simply paying itself back by selling things to its

12) Jays Treaty was named after a man named John Jay. The British were seizing US ships and Washington sent Jay over to make the British stop. However, Jay returned with a “not so perfect” treaty. The treaty accepted Britain’s right to stop neutral ships, required the US to make “full and complete compensation” to the prerevolutionary war debts, allowed Americans to submit claims for illegal seizers, and required the British to remove their troops and Indian agents from the Northwest Territory. The stopping of the neutral war ships were the most unsatisfactory because it meant that they now had a trading alliance with Britain.

A Democratic- Republican congressman made a speech where he foresaw the threat of war. In his speech he asked a question of whether to abandon or defend America’s commercial and maritime rights (Document 2). He also said that ours rights were being violated and if British continues to do this America will have to resist. America should definitely defend their commercial and maritime rights, because trading is a big part of its economy. How can a country take vessels and cargo of another country.

Paine justifies the need for separation by explaining that the colonies have little to gain from British rule. If the states become independent, they have more opportunities for commerce with the rest of Europe. He also stresses that, if they were to remain attached, the same problems they have had in the past will reappear. The conflict of British need for profit and the American desire for autonomy could only be ended by declaring independence.

The Stamp Act was viewed as an attempt to raise money in the colonies without the approval of the colonies. If this new tax was passed without resistance, the colonists agreed that the door would be open for far more troublesome taxation. (“Stamp Act”,