Isthmian Canal Analysis

1477 Words6 Pages
For over a century, this was the position of the men in charge, not only Washington and Madison but also Adams, Jefferson and other. War was to be undertaken to defense the nation against attack only. It could be named in many ways – neutrality or American first, nonintervention or isolationism. Emphasizing non-intervention in the upheavals in Europe and Asia and resistance to the intrusion of those powers into the Western hemisphere, Charles A. Beard called it American Continentalism. He also mentioned the interests concentrated on the continental basis and only on building a civilization that only existed in America (Beard, 1940). Raico, however, noted an important aspect of the principle. While honoring the freedom of people, the U.S would…show more content…
Not many presidents were prepared better than him for that task. Roosevelt always conducted American’s foreign polices with caution and wisdom despite his glorification of warfare. He was also the first president to see the major position of America in maintaining the world order to protect its interests. To him, America should lead the civilized powers instead of merely being with them (Powaski, American Presidential Statecraft From Isolationism to Internationalism, 2017). During his presidential term, the construction of an Isthmian Canal was one of the important national interest set by Roosevelt. He was determined not only in doing that but also in fortifying the canal so the Americans could use it for themselves and against their enemies. Like other Americans, Roosevelt at first preferred to build a canal in Nicaragua. He, however, changed his mind for several reasons. One of them was that Roosevelt was afraid Europeans would take over the unfinished canal project in Panama and affect the U.S influence in the Caribbean. Besides, he was convinced that for technical reason, Panama was a superior…show more content…
Before becoming a politician, Wilson did not have experience in being one. His background in politics was almost a zero. His presidential election was due to the split in the Republican vote rather than to the reputation he built. Though determined to secure others’ democratic and orderly state, the President made himself a greatest military interventionist among U.S leader (LaFeber, 1994). The intervention of troops in half a dozen Latin-Americas and Russia was not inconsistent with Wilsonian idealism to a certain extents, but in some aspects, it reflected its failure. He wanted real changes along with elections and non-intervention but could never find out a way, LaFeber added (1994). While sharing Roosevelt’s belief in the major role of America on the world stage, Wilson’s philosophy was not similar. He deplored violence, emphasized American ideals of liberty and believe in the active role the U.S should play in his international community based on collective security instead of the balance of power (Powaski, 1991). The reason why the U.S remained neutral at first when the World War I broke out was that Wilson saw no crucial national interest at stake. He also hoped that the U.S could mediate from a neutral position instead of merely staying out of
Open Document