VIDEOTAPE LECTURE #13 OUTLINE
[00:00] Bars, Tone, and Countdown
[01:30] Intro
[03:30] Preamble on Henry Mall
[07:05] Three big points

1. Maintaining a consistent foreign policy in a democracy is very difficult
2. Moralistic rhetoric is used to justify war in America
3. U.S. foreign policy is usually a reflection of domestic policy

• American economic goods for all
• American political structure for all
• America's brand of morality and Christianity for all

Some questions to keep in mind:

1. How did the Spanish-American War change America's role in international affairs?
2. How did the Spanish-American War change America's attitudes about its own affairs?
3. Compare the world views of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Was TR's view as different from Wilson's as he claimed?
4. How well did Theodore Roosevelt stick to his motto, "Walk softly and carry a big stick?"

Recall from Lecture #12 the three general propositions on war:

1. War is the extension of a nation's diplomacy by other than peaceful means.
2. For whatever reasons a nation enters a war, that war itself changes the relationship of its citizens with each other and with the national government.
3. The rhetoric that justifies or opposes a war reveals a great deal about the way a nation thinks about itself.

In addition, there are three major points on foreign policy which we will discuss in greater detail in terms of Roosevelt and Wilson:

1. A consistent foreign policy is relatively impossible in a democracy
2. Americans tend to use moralistic rhetoric to justify war
3. U.S. foreign policy is usually a reflection of domestic policy

"A Splendid Little War"

The event that first brought the U.S. out on the stage of world power was the Spanish-American War of 1898, during the presidency of William McKinley. This rather brief incursion was called the "splendid little war" by its proponents. Kindled by a crisis in Spanish-American relations, the war began as an intervention by the U.S. on behalf of Cuba. By some accounts, nearly 100,000 Cuban civilians died under the brutal control of the Spanish military between 1896 and 1898. Accounts of Spanish mistreatment of Cuban natives stirred up American resentment of Spain, resentment which was only encouraged by the so-called "yellow press," especially in newspapers owned by William Randolph Hearst.

Taken together with America's growing imperialist tendencies and anti-Spanish sentiment, the event which provoked the war was the explosion of the battleship U.S.S. Maine in Havana Harbor in 1898, "the consequence, it now seems, of spontaneous combustion in one of its magazines, not because of a Spanish or Cuban mine" (Eric Foner and John A. Garraty, eds., The Reader's Companion to American History 1015). Nonetheless, America blamed Spain for the loss of its battleship and went to war.

The war itself lasted only four months, from mid-April to mid-August 1898. Some of its more memorable events include the charge of the Rough Riders in Cuba and the Battle of Manila Bay in the Philippines, when Admiral George Dewey allegedly gave the command: "You may fire when you are ready, Gridley."

Results of the Spanish-American War

The war was won easily and swiftly by the U.S. and the outcome was very significant, both for domestic and foreign policy.

1. U.S. became more like European countries
2. No longer a republic equal in all of its parts
3. Created a psychological effect on many people

U.S. became more like European countries

In the aftermath of the Spanish-American War, the U.S. became a world power, acquiring the territories of Cuba, Guam, the Philippines, Wake Island, and Puerto Rico. Suddenly the United States, a former British colony, had colonies of its own, which brought about a great deal of criticism from anti-imperialists. President McKinley had to find some way, some moral argument, to justify to the American public why the U.S. had taken foreign territories. McKinley is said to have thought long and hard about these new acquisitions and he recognized that the U.S. had four choices:

1. Return the islands to Spain
2. Sell the islands to a European power
3. Leave them to govern themselves
4. Keep them for ourselves

Having weighed these four possibilities, McKinley rejected #1-3 on moral grounds; he felt that any of these options would just lead to more upheaval and bloodshed in the newly-acquired territories. He justified option #4 on these grounds:

"There was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and to uplift and civilize and Christianize them, and by God's grace to do the very best we could by them as our fellow men for whom Christ also died."

Of course, the new territories had great strategic and economic value for the U.S.; they provided new outposts for the navy, new markets for American goods, and access to Asia for trade with China. President McKinley, however, played down these reasons in favor of the moral justifications.

No longer a republic equal in all of its parts

The acquisition of these territories brought about a dramatic change in the very concept of equality for people living under the U.S. flag. A new question was now raised: what constitutional rights do the indigenous peoples of the new territories have? Anti-imperialists protested the acquisition of new territories, but not only out of concern for the rights of the islanders; in many cases, anti-imperialists were staunchly anti-immigrant as well. The anti-imperialists filed suit against the U.S. government, and a series of cases made their way to the Supreme Court, where they were decided together as the "Insular Cases" in 1901. (The word 'insular,' along with 'insulation' and 'insulin,' comes from the Latin 'insula,' island.) The Supreme Court decided that the Constitution need not apply equally to the populations of the territories. The U.S. could withhold certain rights from the Filipinos, the Hawaiians, or the Puerto Ricans.

Created a psychological effect on many people

Two modes of thought about America's future were at the core of public rhetoric of the day: optimism and fatalism. These terms are not necessarily mutually exclusive; people can give themselves up to fate (fatalism) and still hope that things will change for the better (optimism).

The fatalist view can be seen in the evolution of the term "manifest destiny." In the 1840s and 1850s, "manifest destiny" meant that no outside influence, no foreign country could resist the expansion of the United States across the American continent. In the aftermath of the Spanish-American War, manifest destiny meant that not even Americans themselves could stand in the way of America's growing power and influence throughout the world. It was not only America's destiny, but its duty to expand its power and moral authority.

Fatalism was articulated not only by political leaders, but by writers of the time, such as Jack London, Theodore Dreiser, and Frank Norris. In his novel The Octopus (1901), which examines wheat farming in California and the exploitation of farmers by corporations, Norris writes about individuals who were at the mercy of larger forces:

"Men were mere nothings. Force only existed. Force that brought men into the world, force that crowded them out of it to make way for future generations."

On the flip side of the coin was optimism. Popular newspapers as well as ministers in their sermons preached that progress was possible, that the strength of the U.S. would continue to grow. America's easy victory in the Spanish-American War was further proof that Providence still smiled on the nation.

The fusion of fatalism and optimism is best illustrated in a book entitled The Americanization of the World or The Trend of the Twentieth Century (1901) by William T. Stead. Stead was a British journalist who had spent a lot of time in America. In his book, Stead predicted the gradual Americanization of the world, particularly the spread and influence of American thought and culture. Stead felt that this trend was inevitable and that it would be futile for the European powers to resist it. He wrote:

"The advent of the United States of America as the greatest of the world's powers is the greatest political, social, and commercial phenomenon of our times."

Now let's look more specifically at the presidential administrations of the time. Theodore Roosevelt was President of the United States from 1901 to 1909. He was a moralist at heart, but at the same time, he was a realist and a masterful politician, who knew what the American people would accept and what they wouldn't accept.

Two generalizations can be made about the basis of Roosevelt's foreign policy:

1. Sought in international affairs the same goals he sought in domestic American affairs
2. Constantly stressed two related principles:
   
   • A quest for order and efficiency
   • A faith in power

Roosevelt was fond of quoting a West African proverb: "Walk softly and carry a big stick, and you will go far." This sums up his quest for order and efficiency and his faith in power to back up this order and efficiency. Roosevelt's practices led to the term "Big Stick Diplomacy"--international negotiations backed by the threat of force.

Order and Efficiency

In domestic social problems, Roosevelt sought orderly, well-defined relationships among various segments of society. This included:

1. The maximum degree of personal freedom for the individual
2. Competitive opportunities for businessmen and industrialists
3. Federal government setting the tone and direction of national life

Roosevelt viewed the presidency as a "bully pulpit" from which he could preach these three points. He also saw a clearly-defined hierarchy in the government and an almost organic unity in society. Society was a body made up of arms, legs, and other parts. The brain was the President of the United States. In a 1903 speech he talked about this national unity, about the interdependence of the various parts of the American "body:"

"The welfare of each of us is dependent fundamentally upon the welfare of all of us. It is essential that we recognize this community of interest."

Roosevelt's quest for order and efficiency in domestic affairs extended to his foreign policy. He viewed the nations of the world divided into three groups:

1. A few great and wealthy powers (U.S., Great Britain, Germany, Japan)
2. Smaller civilized states of Europe (Scandinavian countries, Italy)
3. Lesser nations and states (Asia, Africa, Latin America)

According to TR, there was a constant struggle within this hierarchy and what set the successful nations apart from the unsuccessful ones was force. The great powers were the upholders of order. While it may be regrettable that the great powers must flex their muscles over the smaller powers, it is necessary to uphold the world order through their "international police duty."

Faith in Power

Roosevelt claimed that world order could only be maintained through a balance of power among the great nations. He was determined that the U.S. would remain one of the few great nations of the world. To this end, he preached "preparedness" and "righteousness."

"Preparedness"--The United States must have a foundation of physical strength: a large population, strong industries, and preserved and protected natural resources. Roosevelt also called for the strengthening of the people's moral fiber; Americans had to be willing to sacrifice and to fight for their country. Third, the U.S. must be militarily prepared, with a powerful army and navy. To prove this point, Roosevelt, as Commander in Chief, showed off the U.S. Navy on a cruise around the world in 1907, despite protests from Congress.

"Righteousness"--Roosevelt judged other nations on the same criteria he used to judge individuals: righteousness and morality. He tended to equate righteousness with order, believing that the great powers of the world, and especially the U.S., should act with self-restraint while pursuing their own goals, never using force for anything other than righteous causes. In a 1914 speech on the topic of "Warlike Power: The Prerequisite for the Preservation of Social Values" Roosevelt said:

"War, like peace, is properly a means to an end: righteousness. Neither war nor peace in itself is righteous. Righteousness, when triumphant, brings peace."

Roosevelt repeatedly found it necessary to use force in the nations of Latin America in order to restore efficiency and order in those countries and to keep European nations out of the region. His foreign interventions included Venezuela (1902), Santo Domingo (1904-1907), Panama (1903) and Cuba (1906). Roosevelt also acted as mediator in the Russo-Japanese War in 1904.

"It is certain that the only way successfully to oppose the Might which is the servant of Wrong is by means of the Might that is the servant of Right."--Theodore Roosevelt

We have already discussed the growing relationship between industry and foreign policy in Lecture 12. This is well illustrated in Roosevelt's campaign in Panama (1903) to secure the building of the Panama Canal.
For a long time, the United States had been interested in a canal that would make transportation between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans more efficient. This was crucial not only for trade, but for the growing U.S. Navy. In 1881 a French company had begun construction on a canal in Panama, which was then a northern province of Columbia, but it had gone bankrupt after a few years. Roosevelt was prepared to pay the New Panama Canal Company (which had taken over the French rights in Panama) $40 million for rights to the canal and $10 million to Columbia for the land, but Columbia refused, hoping for a higher price. At the same time, there was a growing independence movement in Panama. A group of revolutionaries agreed to stage an uprising in exchange for the $10 million which Roosevelt had offered Columbia. Not coincidentally, the uprising, which took place on November 3, 1903, was engineered by a Frenchman who was a representative of the New Panama Canal Company. The U.S. promptly recognized the new Republic of Panama. With the help of the United States, Panama got its independence and a cool $10 million, the canal company got $40 million, Columbia got nothing, and the United States, after a decade of construction and the death of nearly 6,000 canal builders, got its sea passage.

What Roosevelt began, Woodrow Wilson (president 1913-1921) expanded. Woodrow Wilson was elected President of the United States in 1912 after serving as president of Princeton University and as governor of New Jersey. Wilson was a highly complex character who was very insecure about his own self-identity and was driven by ambition. By his own admission, Wilson couldn't "let alone those things I see going downhill." Just as moralistic and righteous as Roosevelt, Wilson was less of a realist when it came to domestic and foreign policy.

Wilson strongly believed that the American system would save the world, meaning:

1. American economic goods
2. America's democratic political structure
3. America's blend of morality and Christianity

Wilson stated:

"When properly directed, there is no people in the world not fitted for self-government."

Note the caveat, "when properly directed." Wilson saw the U.S. as the rightful and natural director. He was determined to provide that direction in a framework where morality, democracy and economics were closely related.

Wilson believed that other nations of the world had to look to the U.S. as an example, at the same time America was dependent on the rest of the world, mostly for economic markets. The world market must act as the new frontier for the American system. Wilson was determined to direct the affairs of other nations so that they could eventually achieve self-government, as long as this government was based on the American model, and he was even more willing to intervene in other countries than Roosevelt. For instance, he sent U.S. troops to Mexico to intervene in their civil war (1913-1917). When World War I broke out in Europe in 1914, Wilson tried to keep the U.S. neutral, but Germany repeatedly violated America's neutral status. When America finally entered the war in 1917 it was because, as Wilson stated,

"The world must be made safe for democracy."

As these events were unfolding in foreign policy, there were dramatic changes going on domestically. As American ideals of equality were being exported to the rest of the world, there was a growing discussion about the role of women in American society, about the equality of the sexes and women's suffrage. This is an extraordinarily important part of our story. So important, in fact, that we'll take it up in Lecture 14: "Women, Feminism and Sex in Progressive America."

Home || Course || Guide || Bios || Photos || Exams || Calendar || Comments/Sign-in