The United States has a long history of great leaders who, collectively, have possessed an even wider range of religious and political convictions. Perhaps not unexpectedly, their beliefs have often been in conflict with one another, both during coinciding eras, as well as over compared generations. The individual philosophies of William Jennings Bryan, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, with regard to America’s roles in world affairs and foreign diplomacy; are both varied and conflicted. Despite those conflicts however, each leader has left his own legacy behind, in terms of how the U.S. continues to engage in world affairs today. William Jennings Bryan, despite being a thrice-failed presidential candidate, was a well respected Congressman known for his impassioned speeches. Due to his experiences in the Spanish-American War, he was also staunchly opposed to Imperialism; and he wrote and delivered many speeches dedicated to this philosophy. Leading the charge for American neutrality in foreign affairs, Bryan argued that the U.S. acting as an imperial power over foreign colonies would produce negative outcomes. Holding that his anti-imperialistic views were a direct result of his sense of social justice, Bryan declared that colonial governments were a threat to democracy and represented exploitation. In 1900, delivering a speech in Indiana, Bryan defended his approval of the Treaty of Paris, which had annexed the Philippines (as well as Guam and Puerto Rico) from Spanish rule; stating that he “thought it safer to trust the American people to give independence to the Filipinos than to trust the accomplishment of that purpose to diplomacy with an unfriendly nation.” (Bryan, “Imperialism”) Essentially, his view was that the Ph... ... middle of paper ... ...Mount Holyoke College, South Hadley, Massachusetts. Retrieved April 20, 2011, from http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bryan.htm Roosevelt, T. (n.d.). "Obstacles to Immediate Expansion" Mount Holyoke College, South Hadley, Massachusetts. Retrieved May 2, 2011, from http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/trmahan.htm Wilson, T. W. (n.d.). "A Declaration of Neutrality" PBS: Public Broadcasting Service. Retrieved April 14, 2011, from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/wilson/filmmore/fm_neutrality.html Wilson, T. W. (n.d.). "Fourteen Points" Avalon Project - Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy. Retrieved April 14, 2011, from http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/wilson14.asp Wilson, T. W. (n.d.). "This is War" American Rhetoric: The Power of Oratory in the United States. Retrieved April 14, 2011, from http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/wilsonwarmessage.htm
Davidson, J. (Ed.). (2002). Nation of nations: A concise narrative of the American republic. (3rd ed., Vol. 2). New York: McGraw-Hill
The U.S. president is a person deemed to be the most fitting person to lead this country through thick and thin. It’s been such a successful method that it has led to 43 individual men being put in charge of running this country. However, this doesn’t mean that each one has been good or hasn’t had an issue they couldn’t resolve when in office. But no matter what, each one has left a very unique imprint on the history and evolution of this nation. However when two are compared against one another, some rather surprising similarities may be found. Even better, is what happens when two presidents are compared and they are from the same political party but separated by a large numbers of years between them. In doing this, not only do we see the difference between the two but the interesting evolution of political idea in one party.
Based on Wilson’s war message to Congress, It was believe that the United States had a moral and humanitarian obligation to intervene in World War I and “make the world safe for democracy” (Wilson). Luce’s point in The American Century was not imperial, but idealistic. It was America’s time to shine, “to be the powerhouse from which the ideals spread throughout the world and do their mysterious work of lifting the life of mankind from the level of the beasts to what the Psalmist called a little lower than the angels” (Luce). Both sources demonstrate that the ideals of Woodrow and Luce inspired many Americans and shaped much of the foreign policy for the remainder of the twentieth century and on. The more significant viewpoints are the differences.
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 Avalon Project at Yale Law School. 18 May 2006. The Avalon Project. 18 MAY 2006. The War Powers Act of 1973.
Compare and contrast the foreign policies of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Which do you think was a more effective president? Why?
He constantly pulls on the heartstrings of the audience by persuading them to choose a truce and freedom over violence. When listeners heard the tranquil life they could live if they followed the points, many of them eagerly agreed with Wilson. When he explained why he entered the war, he said that war “touched us to the quick” (Wilson) because the United States simply could not move on without joining in and correcting the issue. This use of language appeals to the emotions by showing America’s sensitivity and passion towards righteousness. Later, he continues to establish his nation’s morals by declaring “We stand together until the end” (Wilson). Woodrow Wilson makes the unity of his country very clear, likely inspiring others who yearn for similar connections. Also, he uses the word “we” (Wilson) instead of only referring to himself to show that this was a decision made by his whole country. He ends the speech by explaining the commitment of his people, announcing that “they are ready to devote their lives, their honor, and everything that they possess” (Wilson). American citizens are so committed to what they believe in, that they are willing to risk it all just to stand up for what they believe is right. All of these statements appeal to feelings because it is moving to hear how the citizens of the United States put their lives on the line in an attempt to achieve a state of peace for every country involved in the
Foner, Eric. "Chapter 9." Give Me Liberty!: An American History. Brief Third ed. Vol. One. New York: W.W. Norton, 2012. N. pag. Print.
could not rightfully seize the Philippines. McKinley, an imperialist presidential candidate against Bryan, gave a speech to clergymen in 1899. McKinley attributed his will to annex the Philippines to God for guiding him (Document C). At an opposition to those words. Christianity is truly against violence and injustice yet the Filipino people were at crystal clear unrest with not being free. Since McKinley was speaking to clergymen instead of nonreligious individuals, he could have used religion as a way to snatch votes against the anti-imperialist Bryan. In his speech to like-minded citizens of the same political party, Bryan stated that God’s order to preach the gospel “has no Gatling gun attachment” (Document D). At the Democratic National Convention, he knew many people would vote for him as a Democrat; Bryan did not need to be corrupt and lie about his opinion. Beyond this, these words opposed Imperialism as a whole which strongly emphasized military, particularly the Navy. Using force to steal land would further ruin a nation’s image and could hurt existing trade relationships. Promoting unfair power usage only makes light of political machines, monopolies, and other greediness. Progressives could have been discouraged by the government’s lack of care about morality and not strive for it. To preserve its morals since its birth and prevent corruption, America should not have annexed the
Alan Axelrod, American Treaties and Alliances, (Washington, DC: A Division of Congressional Quarterly Inc., 2000)
... An American History of the World. 4th ed. of the book. W.W. Norton, 2012, 671. 2.)
During the late 19th and 20th century, the United States pursues an aggressive policy of expansionism, extending its political, military, and economic influence across the globe. The events during this ‘age of imperialism’ laid the foundation for America’s international power while simultaneously defining the use of the these powers. The policy that the United States implemented at this time is known as Big Stick Diplomacy which was to speak softly but carry a big stick. This meant that the United States would ask for something or take a stance on an issue and if another nation refused or went against the United States, then the military would be summoned to ‘resolve’ the issues. This domineering foreign policy defined the politics of American Imperialism that was especially prevalent from 1890-1913.
During the times of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, America was utterly going through its ups and downs with its political identity. Lincoln and Roosevelt each acquired unique skills that predominately shaped America in many different ways. Expectations of government were evolving during the periods of both Presidents because the people wanted more justice and to be a globally recognized country with an immense amount of power. Moreover, Lincoln’s role as being President was to preserve the Union along with initiating the Emancipation Proclamation that ended slavery. On the contrary, Roosevelt strongly influenced America with his enthusiastic ways and reshaped it by establishing powerful imperialistic views, becoming involved in foreign affairs, and assuring that the US get the justice that it deserved. Although both Lincoln and
In former Civil Rights Activist, Martin Luther King Jr.’s speech “Beyond Vietnam-- A Time to Break Silence”, he asserts that the war in Vietnam is utterly immoral and has a far negative implication, not only for Vietnam but for the United States as well. In this speech, King uses three main rhetorical devices, in order to strengthen his position on this war. The three main rhetorical devices: ethos, pathos, and logos, are universally considered as the three necessary tools of persuasion in literature.
It is somehow strange for today’s reader to find out that the situation with America’s foreign affairs hasn’t changed much. As some clever people have said, “The History book on the shelf is always repeating itself.” Even after nineteen years, Americans think of themselves as citizens of the strongest nation in the world. Even after the September the 11th. Even after Iraq. And Afghanistan.