Compare the interventionist foreign policies of Taft and Wilson. How were they similar? How were they different? Give a few examples of each to support your facts.
March 22, 2017 5:46:46 PM CDT
1 hour ago
Employing an approach termed “Dollar Diplomacy,” (Shi, p.691) Taft sought to assert U.S. influence in foreign lands through investment and trade. A 1911 free-trade agreement between the U.S. and Canada would have gone far toward lowering tariffs between the neighboring countries had it not been rejected by the Canadian parliament. Taft did not shy away from displaying American military might to protect U.S. business interests, especially in Latin America. When revolution threatened in Honduras and Nicaragua, Taft dispatched troops to safeguard U.S. citizens and property. Equally noteworthy were his decisions not to interfere with revolutions taking place in Mexico and China. Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy was based on an altruistic yearning to impart the benefits of constitutional democracy on other nations. To his detractors, his approach was seen as condescending and naive. His noble intentions did not prevent him from exercising military force when he ordered the seizure of the port of Veracruz as a way of aiding a counterrevolution in Mexico and later sending an expedition into Mexico in pursuit of Pancho Villa. Wilson’s core belief that a “moral force controlled the relations of peace” would shape his attitude and actions during World War I, and most definitively, in its aftermath, when he sought U.S. participation in a world league. They both believed in intervening in other nations political affairs. Their approaches were somewhat different.