CHAPTER 22

AMERICAN IMPERIALISM, 1898-1917

The Great White Fleet on its globe girdling cruise in 1906. TR sent the fleet to test US the range and readiness of warships and to impress other powers, notably Japan. After returning to the US the ships were painted a more business-like battleship gray.

STUDY GUIDE QUESTIONS

22.a.1

Paradigm Shift

22.a.2

Long term causes of the Spanish-American War (1898)

22.a.3

McKinley as the 1st Modern President

22.c.1

Aguinaldo

22.d.1

TR's flawed geopolitical thinking

22.d.5

The Great White Fleet (see picture description above)

22.e.1

Dollar Diplomacy

22.f.1

Dependency Relationships

Related WWW sites

Scroll down for xword solutions

[a.1]

PARADIGM SHIFT

Paradigm shift means change

Paradigm shift is a phrase made popular by historian Robert Beisner in From the Old Diplomacy to the New, 1865-1900, (c.1975, 1986). Beisner uses the term Paradigm Shift to describe the totally new way US policy makers viewed foreign relations and expansion. Beisner explains during the 1890's, "hammer blows" fell upon America during the 1890's that caused a feeling of "malaise"--a sensation that all was not well in America. The events and trends that caught the attention of intellectuals are listed below

[a.2]

LONG TERM CAUSES OF THE SPANISH-AMERICAN WAR

1.

Closing of the frontier (1890) and Frederick Jackson Turner's thesis that the frontier had been responsible for democracy in America (1894). What would happen to democracy if there was no frontier to vent steam and offer fresh starts?

2.

The Increase in US trade and production meant that overseas markets were becoming more important.

3.

The Depression and Pullman Railroad Strike (1893-94). Was the country heading toward social revolution?

4.

Foreign government raised tariffs against US exports. Where would American businessmen sell their products if not in traditional markets?

5.

Nationalism and Imperialist thought were making inroads in American intellectual circles. If a nation does not seek "greatness" by acquiring colonies, can it compete against those who do?

6.

A.T. Mahan popularized navalism. Can a nation obtain access to foreign markets without command of the seas?

7.

Immigrants continued to arrive. Would they dilute old Anglo-American stock?

8.

Urbanization had spawned a huge working class. Would they look to American elites for leadership, or would they follow radical labor leaders preaching socialism?

9.

The growth of powerful trusts had robbed power from the common man. Could Abraham Lincoln have been elected president in 1896?

10.

The increase of foreign missions, especially in China. Missionaries increasingly demanded protection from their nation's embassies and armed forces.

[a.3]

McKINLEY AS THE 1st MODERN PRESIDENT

Centralized control

Management of America's new-found empire required central control and speedy communications. William McKinley occupies a key role in the development of presidential power as his presidency was the first to confront warfare in the age of empire. How did he do it?

  1. McKinley appointed men to cabinet posts who were dependent on him for their positions.

  2. McKinley aligned himself with the interests of the ruling oligarchy in Congress.

  3. McKinley, a Civil War veteran, retained complete control over US operations in Cuba and the Philippines. Technology helped in this process. Through cable transmission, McKinley was able to communicate with General Shafter in Cuba inside of 10 minutes.

  4. McKinley raised troop levels on his own authority, much as Lincoln had one in 1861.

Power would coalesce in the presidency over the following 75 years. Did McKinley exceed his constitutional authority?

[c.1]

EMILIO AGUINALDO

This is Emilio Aguinaldo (1864-1964). At age 36 he led the fight of the Filipino nationalists against the United States. He was captured in a daring military raid in 1901. After his capture he ordered his forces to stand down and accept US control of the Philippines. The US retained the Philippines until 1946.

[d.1]

THEODORE ROOSEVELT'S FLAWED POLICY

Roosevelt's choices

TR presided over both a world in revolution, and a world in which the United States was making its mark as an imperial power. The question TR faced was one of power vs. the forces of history: Should the United State align itself with similar Great Power, like Great Britain, or should the US support 3rd World revolutions in places like China and Mexico who are seeking to overthrow centuries of European domination?

His love of the British

Howard K. Beale, an expert on Roosevelt's foreign policy (1901-1908) with choice one. TR admired the British empire, and believed the future of the United States and Anglo-Saxon domination of the world scene depended on the cooperation of Britain and the US. In this respect, TR was out of touch with historical forces. The emerging 3rd world, not Europe, represented the wave of the future.

Did TR play it right?

John F. Kennedy realized this in 1961, when he said it was the peoples of the southern half of the glob who were the emerging powers of the world. Today, countries like Malaysia make microchips. They are confident that they have unlocked the secret of the West--that they are indeed the new economic powerhouses who have waded into world commerce full of confidence that their time has come.

SOURCE: Howard K. Beale, Theodore Roosevelt and the Rise of America to World Power. (1956).

[e.1]

DOLLAR DIPLOMACY

Diplomatic expression that defines the foreign policy of President William Howard Taft (1908-1912) and his Secretary of State, Philander C. Knox. The policy entails US penetration of Central American economies by making loans to them, then using the debt issue to justify intervention on behalf of US corporations operating in the host Central American country. This informal imperialism--economic control--was the preferred American method.

[e.1]

DOLLAR DIPLOMACY IN ACTION

Stability or disorder?

In a way, "dollar diplomacy." is not an entirely accurate way to describe the Taft-Knox foreign policy. Often, warships, marines, and bullets were introduced in order to stabilize Central American countries protesting the American domination of their economies. In other words, the "opportunity" that dollar diplomacy was intended to provide American corporations often ended in revolution against this system by native peoples. Force usually restored the system to the status quo. Likewise, TR and Taft sometimes started revolutions to create enough disorder for the American corporation to move in. This alternating strategy of squashing revolutions or starting them was the preferred method of creating corporate opportunity.

Below are examples of dollar diplomacy in action:

Nicaragua

1909--US corporate interests sponsored a revolt against Nicaraguan leader Jose Santos Zelaya. When Zelaya tried to defend himself, US Marines landed and Zelaya fled to Spain. The new US-backed government, unpopular with the people, handed over majority stock control of Nicaraguan railroads and banks to New York financiers in exchange for North American loans. US Marines stayed in Nicaragua until 1933.

Honduras

1910--In Honduras, US banana corporations owned 80% of the land.

Mexico

1911--The Mexican Revolution was sparked by too much of Mexico being owned by the US, Great Britain, and Germany. The Portfiro Diaz regime, long supported in power by foreign investments, began to totter as revolutionary forces gathered against him. Land distribution was horrible: 1% of the Mexican population--those who benefited from foreign investment, oil, and mineral operations, controlled 97% of the arable land. Mexico then underwent a decade of revolutionary violence. The first of many to replace Diaz was Francisco Madero who, by promising not to make land reforms that might impinge on foreign corporate interests, was paid as much as $500,000 to overthrow Diaz.

China

1912--In the early stages of the Chinese Revolution, which overthrew the last Manchu emperor, the US supported General Yuan over the reform minded Sun Yat-Sen. Woodrow Wilson continued his support the military dictator until the old Chinese general died in 1916. Because the US sided with perceived economic imperatives (preservation of the fabled "China Market" and the "Open Door Policy") instead of revolutionary forces, an opportunity for better relations with China was lost. Instead, the Chinese became suspicious of US intentions. In 1949 the communists under Mao Zedong triumphed, ending for good the "special relationship" that US policy makers sincerely believed had characterized US-Chinese relations.

[f.1]

DEPENDENCY RELATIONSHIPS

US intervention led to dependencies

Dependency theory stands as the most provocative and creative way to view US-Central American relations. In short, dependency is a relationship in which the economies of Latin America became dependent--or subordinate--to US financial and economic interests. Historically, a dependency relationship was one in which a US corporation(s) forced the cultivation of one or two "cash" crops, such as sugar, coffee, or bananas, or reduced a particular Central American economy to the mining of one type of ore. By robbing the Central American republics of economic diversity, they became dependent on global markets, which were dominated by the Great Powers. Dependency cripples the host country:

  1. Children are malnourished because too much land is occupied by cash crops.

  2. Prices of cash crop exports are dependent on international prices. They must be sold on the global market because their is no demand for massive amounts of sugar, coffee, and bananas on the domestic market.

  3. People are divested of land while wealthy elites, in collusion with the foreign companies, reap windfall profits.

A closer look

When these conditions become intolerable, liberation doctrines such as Marxism become attractive. For this reason, revolution has been a part of Central American life for years, especially since the 1970's. The following list shows the effects of dependency among the 5 Central American republics as seen in the 1980's.

  1. Guatemala--per capita income is $81 a year, and the Indians of this region are among the poorest and most isolated in the western hemisphere. When they formed revolutionary bands, the 20,000 man, US backed army made them the targets of rape, torture, and execution.

  2. Honduras--The original "Banana Republic," Honduras is the most underdeveloped country in the western hemisphere next to Haiti. The dire poverty has been caused by foreign exploitation, internal corruption, and exhausted mountainous soil. A Honduran legislator once dropped a crumpled sheet of paper on his desk and said, "That is an outline map of Honduras."

  3. El Salvador--For decades, 14 families (2% of population) controlled nearly all the fertile soil and 60% of the land. Erosion is ruining the land. Between 1980-81, the El Salvadorian army, backed by the US, murdered 30,000 people. That the proportional equivalent of 2 million Americans.

  4. Nicaragua--The backed Somoza family ruled this country from 1934-79 and expropriated a land area equal to Massachusetts. Nicaragua is only the size of North Carolina. The 200,000 peasants who didn't own land were died regularly from parasitic diseases and malnutrition. The Sandanistas (communists) overthrew Somoza in 1979, making Nicaragua a target for US military intervention until the 1990's when the Sandanistas were voted out of power.

  5. Costa Rica--Heavily dependent on coffee, banana, and sugar exports, Costa Rica is the only Central American state with an illiteracy rate lower than 44%. Land is distributed well, but declines in coffee prices threaten the stability of this more peaceful Central American republic.

For a good movie showing the effects of dependency, see El Salvador (1985), co-produced by Oliver Stone.

How a dependency operates

XWORD SOLUTON

RELATED WWW SITES

Return to 1302