Milestones: 1830–1860 - Office of the Historian Milestones: 1830–1860 United States Maritime Expansion across the Pacific during the 19th Century The westward expansion of the United States during the 19th century was not limited to North America, but rather included an ongoing push to establish a stronger U.S. presence in and across the Pacific Ocean. This maritime expansion, driven mostly by commerce, had important implications for U.S. foreign policy. “Flying Cloud” (James E. Buttersworth, 1859–60) The appeal of profits to be earned from the China trade served as the initial impetus to motivate U.S. citizens and officials to enter into the Pacific region. China was the source of some of the world’s most sought after commodities—tea, porcelain, and silk—and Western merchants had sought access to this highly lucrative trade since at least the 17th century. Following U.S. independence, U.S.-based merchants continued to seek opportunity in China.

In February 1784 the Empress of China became the first ship to sail from the United States to China, and in its wake came a steady flow of merchants in search of wealth. During the first decades of the 19th century, U.S. merchants amassed sizable fortunes that they subsequently invested in the development of their homeland. As this trade grew, U.S. traders built a small outpost in China and their interactions with Chinese subjects became more complex and occasionally contentious. The U.S. Government realized that it had to establish formal diplomatic ties in order to protect the interests of its citizens. In the wake of war between Britain and China, and the subsequent opening of diplomatic relations between those two countries, the United States moved to negotiate its own treaty with the Chinese Government. The resulting agreement, the Treaty of Wangxia , was ratified in 1844, and soon thereafter U.S. ministers and consuls took up residence in China’s capital and port cities. Making the journey to China and maintaining the U.S. presence there also required a network of ports extending across the Pacific Ocean, and as such, the China trade soon drove the United States to expand its presence throughout the Pacific region.

Perhaps most significantly, when Commodore Matthew Perry sailed his ships to Japan in 1853, his primary motivation was to establish a foothold that would strengthen the U.S. position for trade and diplomacy in the region. In other words, the United States opened relations with Japan in large part to enhance its status in China. On a smaller scale, as U.S. merchants began to stop at many of the Pacific Islands to replenish supplies and acquire goods to trade with Chinese merchants, the U.S. Government appointed consuls to several of these places. For example, consulates were established in Fiji in 1844, Samoa in 1856, and the Marshall Islands in 1881. The U.S. presence in Hawai’i grew out of the need for a substantial base of operations in the Pacific to support U.S. interests in China. Ultimately this need became so great, and the U.S. presence so large, that the United States annexed the islands in 1898. Commodore Matthew Perry The process of U.S. maritime expansion in the Pacific eventually became a goal in and of itself, culminating in the acquisition of the Philippines from Spain in 1898.

The Spanish-American War began with a dispute over Cuba, but a rising tide of interest in overseas empire among U.S. leaders, such as President William McKinley and future President Theodore Roosevelt, helped expand the conflict to Spanish possessions in Asia. After a swift victory over Spain, the United States set up a temporary military administration to govern the islands and promote their political, economic, and social development. The United States established full colonial rule over the Philippines in 1900 during the Philippine-American War . U.S. expansion across the Pacific fundamentally changed the global position of the United States. In 1800, the United States held closely to George Washington’s advice to avoid “entangling alliances” while pursuing foreign relations based upon trade. By 1900, the United States was a recognized world power with substantial commercial, political, and military interests and territorial holdings throughout the Pacific region. Maritime expansion led to the proclamation of an Open Door policy for China in 1899­–1900, and set the stage for much greater involvement in local and regional politics and trade during the early 20th century.

Background Essay on Late 19th and Early 20th Century Immigration · HERB: Resources for Teachers Professional Learning Background Essay on Late 19th and Early 20th Century Immigration This summary of late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century immigration describes the "new immigration" that originated from Southern and Eastern Europe. The essay also outlines American responses to the new wave of immigration, including some of the laws designed to restrict immigration that were adopted between 1880 and 1910. Between 1880 and 1910, almost fifteen million immigrants entered the United States, a number which dwarfed immigration figures for previous periods. Unlike earlier nineteenth century immigration, which consisted primarily of immigrants from Northern Europe, the bulk of the new arrivals hailed mainly from Southern and Eastern Europe. These included more than two and half million Italians and approximately two million Jews from Russia and Eastern Europe, as well as many Poles, Hungarians, Austrians, Greeks, and others. The new immigrants’ ethnic, cultural, and religious differences from both earlier immigrants and the native-born population led to widespread assertions that they were unfit for either labor or American citizenship. A growing chorus of voices sought legislative restrictions on immigration.

Often the most vocal proponents of such restrictions were labor groups (many of whose members were descended from previous generations of Irish and German immigrants), who feared competition from so-called “pauper labor.” After the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 barred Chinese immigration and made it nearly impossible for Chinese to become naturalized citizens, efforts to restrict European immigration increased. In the same year, the Immigration Act for the first time levied a “head tax” (initially fifty cents a person) intended to finance enforcement of federal immigration laws. The act also made several categories of immigrants ineligible to enter the United States, including convicts, "lunatics" (a catch-all term for those deemed mentally unfit) and those likely to become “public charges,” i.e., those who would place a financial burden on state institutions or charities. A second Immigration Act in 1891 expanded these categories to include polygamists and those sick with contagious diseases, and established a Bureau of Immigration to administer and enforce the new restrictions. In 1892, Ellis Island opened in New York Harbor, replacing Castle Garden as the main point of entry for millions of immigrants arriving on the East Coast.

In accordance with the 1891 law, the federal immigration station at Ellis Island included facilities for medical inspections and a hospital. While business and financial interests occasionally defended unrestricted immigration, viewing a surplus of cheap labor as essential to industry and westward expansion, calls for measures restricting the flow of the new immigrants continued to grow. Although President Grover Cleveland vetoed an 1897 law proposing a literacy test for prospective immigrants, further restrictions on immigration continued to be added. Following the assassination of President William McKinley in 1901 by the anarchist Leon Czolgosz, xenophobia and hysteria about political radicalism led to the Anarchist Exclusion Act, which excluded would-be immigrants on the basis of their political beliefs. In 1907, immigration at Ellis Island reached its peak with 1,004,756 immigrants arriving. That same year, Congress authorized the Dillingham Commission to investigate the origins and consequences of contemporary immigration.

The Commission concluded that immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe posed a serious threat to American society and recommended that it be greatly curtailed in the future, proposing as the most efficacious remedy a literacy test similar to the one President Cleveland had vetoed in 1897. Ultimately, the Commission’s findings provided a rationale for the sweeping immigration laws passed in the years after World War I. Source | American Social History Project/Center for Media and Learning, 2008. Creator | American Social History Project/Center for Media and Learning Rights | Copyright American Social History Project/Center for Media and Learning This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License . Item Type | Article/Essay Cite This document | American Social History Project/Center for Media and Learning, “Background Essay on Late 19th and Early 20th Century Immigration,” HERB: Resources for Teachers, accessed January 14, 2017, Historical Era Imperialism The Rise of U.S.

Imperialism in the early 20th Century &nbspThe colonization of Puerto Rico in the early 1900s by the United States began a policy in which the U.S. became an imperialistic nation. This policy undertaken by the U.S. shows that economic interests trumps U.S. belief in democracy. This initial act of colonization of Puerto Rico would have long lasting effects on both U.S. foreign policy in the form of modern imperialism and on Puerto Rico itself. Imperialism, it sounds like a strong and intimidating word, well in truth, it is. According to the dictionary, imperialism is defined as this: �the policy of extending a nation�s authority by territorial acquisition�.� Imperialism has been around for several centuries; however the modern context of the word mainly refers to the British Empire and specifically to the time period of the 19th and early 20th centuries. The British Empire grew out of Great Britain exploring the new world and establishing colonies. It eventually became an empire and out of this, the phrase �the sun never sets on the British Empire.� The British Empire reached it�s zenith during the reign of Queen Victoria (World Book Encyclopedia �U� 68).

The United States hasn�t always been imperialistic. Out of the United States� 230 years as a country, it has only been within the last 100 years it has practiced imperialism. This is due in part of the infancy of the U.S. as a nation. The U.S. maintained a policy of isolationism until the late 19th century. In the late 19th century, the U.S. began to become a major player in international trade and the arena of world affairs and therefore needed more �breathing room� The Spanish-American War (1898) and the years shortly thereafter was when U.S. imperialism was really started. The Spanish-American War was during the presidential administration of President McKinley. It was caused by the sinking of the U.S. battleship, USS Maine, in Havana harbor in 1898. The U.S. blamed Spain and a war quickly started thereafter, of which the U.S. quickly won (�World Book Encyclopedia �U� 183). Under the terms of the Treaty of Paris the U.S. acquired Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines from Spain in return for $20 million.

With a win under its belt, the U.S. began to flex its political muscle in the form of an imperialistic policy. The U.S. had by this time three main objectives in regard to foreign policy; build a canal in Central America, become a dominant player in the affairs regarding the Caribbean, and annex Hawaii. (Campbell 14) As the result of the Spanish-American War, these objectives could be reached. By the turn of the century, the U.S. had already annexed Hawaii and was well on there way to having a canal built. As for the Caribbean, under the provisions of the Treaty of Paris, the U.S. had a strong hold on the situation there. Instead of helping other countries establish stable democratic governments, the U.S. acquired these countries and ruled them as a war trophy. The dawn of the 20th century ushered in an era of extreme imperialistic policies. President McKinley was assassinated in 1901 and Vice-President Roosevelt assumed the presidency. It is during Roosevelt�s administration in which the United States� imperialism policy became ever so clear to the world.

He was known for his policy of �talk softly, but carry a big stick.� The �big stick� in which he is referring to is the full force of the U.S. military. The U.S. military would be the primary enforcer of President Roosevelt�s imperialistic policies. To show the world he meant what he said, he sent a naval task force on a around the world voyage. This voyage was meant to show primarily Japan that the U.S. was a force to be reckoned with in the Pacific Ocean. During this time period, the queen of the seas was the battleship and the task force consisted of sixteen battleships. So having this many battleships go on a public relations cruise was a significant sign that the U.S. was now a major player in global affairs and that the U.S. wouldn�t be bullied or threatened by other countries in the way it carries out its foreign policy. His imperialistic policy stance was clearly evident before he became either president or vice-president. His primary reason or excuse for this policy was security of the U.S. and its interest. As Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Roosevelt pushed his imperialistic agenda by lobbying for a Nicaraguan Canal and the reason for this is so that U.S.

battleships could have a shorter route from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean and vice-versa (Schoonover 73). Once he became president, building a canal was one of his top priorities. By 1903, he knew he couldn�t negotiate with either Nicaragua or Colombia to let the U.S. build a canal so he took matters into his own hands. What happened next was definitely not democratic in any way but imperialistic. The United States, with his authorization, backed a revolution by wealthy Panamanian landowners. With U.S. backing the revolution was successful and on November 6th, 1903 the Republic of Panama was formed (Musicant 135). Twelve days later, President Roosevelt got the permission he sought to build a canal in Central America. The Panama Canal was finally finished in 1914, five years after Roosevelt had left office but he lived to see his pet project become a reality. After Theodore Roosevelt left office, his successor Howard Taft didn�t follow in the footstep of his predecessor in regards to foreign policy.

Howard Taft primary concern was domestic issues and the only time he intervened in another country�s political affairs was in Nicaragua in 1912, when he sent in U.S. Marines to establish order. When order was restored, a small contingent of U.S. Marines remained in country for nearly two decades to ensure that peace would prevail (Musicant 150-156). The time between Woodrow Wilson�s presidential administration through WWII were a time of inactivity in regards to U.S. imperialism. Both WWI and the Great Depression occurred during this time period and the U.S. was in no position to be a dominant world power. This quickly changed right after WWII with the threat of communism in both Europe and Asia. The U.S. began to re-exercise its imperialistic policy around the world in the name of world peace and upholding democracy, even though in reality the U.S. was trying to compete with the Soviet Union to prove who the great superpower was. The U.S. fought in many wars, conflicts and misc. military operations between the beginning of the cold war to the present day all in under the guise of ensuring freedom but in reality the U.S.

was mainly protecting both its political and material interests around the world. Some examples of these engagements include Korean War (Conflict), Vietnam, Grenada in 1983, Panama in 1989, and mostly recently both Gulf Wars of 1991 & 2003. The first Gulf War did liberate Kuwait but in reality it was all about the oil in the Middle East. The same goes with the Gulf War of 2003. Clearly, you can see that the U.S. will turn a blind eye to promoting and ensuring democracy when its economic or political interests are being jeopardized. The country that has been impacted and is still affected by the U.S. which has caused controversy recently is Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico as previously mentioned was acquired by the U.S. as a result of the Spanish-American War as with the Philippines and Guam. However, the Philippines gained their independence in 1946 and Guam is still a U.S. territory, but Puerto Rico has stirred the most controversy and discussion in regards to its status than any other U.S. territory. Currently, Puerto Rico is officially considered a commonwealth of the United States.

Puerto Rico officially became a commonwealth of the U.S. on July 25, 1952 when its new flag was raised by its governor at the time (Bhana 164). Even though it is considered a Commonwealth of the U.S., it is still subject to U.S. laws and U.S. policy in regards to its legal status and security. Democracy in Puerto Rico has had to overcome a lot of obstacles in order to be where it is right now in the 21st century. Right after the U.S. acquired Puerto Rico in 1898, it didn�t try to make Puerto Rico a democratic government but in contrasts, it treated harshly. Between end of the Spanish-American War and 1900, Puerto Rico was under military occupation by the U.S. military. In 1900 the troops were removed and replaced with a U.S. appointed governor (Malavet 36, 37). Little changed in regards to Puerto Rico until WWI. The Jones Act of 1917 gave Puerto Ricans U.S.

citizenship, but not to the fullest extent unless they chose to live in the United States (Malavet 41) Slowly but surely, Puerto Rico was gradually taking steps to independence thanks not the U.S., but to circumstances of the day. After the Jones Act of 1917, no progress was made to solve the status question of Puerto Rico. This was due primarily because of difficulties with Congress and its bureaucracies. It wasn�t until Harry S. Truman became president did the U.S. begin to make progress once again in deciding the status question, but the progress slow and based on caution (Bhana 93). Puerto Ricans didn�t give up and still pressed on, and were eventually rewarded when their country was given the power self-govern. This now brings up one key question; should Puerto Rico be allowed to join the Union and enjoy the privileges of statehood? This question has been tossed around for over fifty years and still is a subject to controversy. In addition this issue regarding Puerto Rico future has been brought before the United States Congress many times.

First and foremost, it is the people of Puerto Rico that has the final say in this debate of whether to be become a state of the United States of America since they are the ones who have to live with this decision even though the political decision rests with the United States Congress. Within the last fifteen years, there have been two nation wide democratic elections held in 1993 and 1998 respectively to see if the people of Puerto Rico want their country to be part of the U.S. Both times the people of Puerto Rico have voted to note support such a motion (Malavet 87, 89). So clearly the people of Puerto Rico are not ready or willing to have their country become part of the United States. Perhaps one day they will join the Union, but not today. As for the United States Congress� involvement, the last time they were involved was in 1998 when HR 856 was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives. This bill was a proposal that was meant to have English be the official language in Puerto Rico and provide a roadmap for Puerto Rico to be admitted into the United States (Malavet87,88).

However this bill died within the bureaucracy of Congress and nothing significant has happened since then to solve the question of Puerto Rico�s status or future. One possible reason for Puerto Rico�s hesitancy of becoming a state could be because long lasting effects of U.S. imperialism. One of the most recent examples of U.S. imperialism is the use of Vieques Island as a practice range for the U.S. Navy. The U.S. Navy bought out most of the property in the 1940s and was considered the majority owner of the island (Barreto 23). Is what the U.S. Navy did right? Is U.S. national defense more important that Puerto Rico�s rights? Well apparently, the U.S. Navy thought so. U.S. Navy Admiral Ernest E. Christensen stated that the U.S. national interest outweighed those of viesqueses (Barreto 35). The U.S. Navy, under extreme pressure from the locals on Vieques Island, finally closed the base on the island and withdrew completely in 2003. Clearly the shear will of the people can have a significant impact in the arena of foreign policy. The U.S.

might not be actively engaged in an imperialistic-type policy, but there are some subtle examples of U.S. policy that do push the envelope. Imperialism has been practiced by many countries for a long time now, and will continue to be used by countries that seek to gain power and influence. U.S. imperialism saw its peak during the early 1900s, but hasn�t completely gone away and probably won�t anytime soon. Also, the long term effects of U.S. imperialistic policy on countries that were affected will not disappear or diminish in anyway in the near future, but will be forever engraved in the history of those countries. Bibliography Barreto, Amilcar Antonio. Vieques, the Navy, and Puerto Rican Politics. Florida: The University Press of Florida, 2002 Bhana, Surendra. The United States And The Development of the Puerto Rican Status Question, 1936-1968. Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 1975. Campbell, Charles S.. The Transformation of American Foreign Relations 1865-1900. New York: Harper & Row, 1976.

Malavet, Pedro A. America�s Colony. New York: New York University Press, 2004. Musicant, Ivan. The Banana Wars. New York: Macmillan, 1990. Schoonover, Thomas. War of 1898 and the Origins of Globalization. Kentucky: The University Press of Kentucky, 2003. World Book Encyclopedia, vol. �U�. USA, World Book Inc., 1994 reform.html As of December 31, 2014, I retired from full-time teaching in Humboldt State University's Department of History . While this website will remain online, it is no longer maintained. History 111 - Dr. Gayle Olson-Raymer Politics and the Impulse to Reform Today we begin the last discussion of Unit I in which we have spent a great deal of time talking about the domestic policies that resulted in the closing of old frontiers and the foreign policies resulting in the opening of new frontiers - in terms of political and economic gains in the Caribbean, Latin America, and the Pacific.

As we have learned, there is often a high price to pay for progress, and today's discussion focuses on those Americans who, at the turn of the 20th Century, recognized that price and began to clamor to use the political arena for both economic and political reform. As we begin this discussion, it is important to set the stage. So, what was America like in 1900 and how it compared with America 100 years later in 2000? Today, we are going to continue our discussion about progress and the price of progress through three specific goals. Discussion Goals: To understand what is meant by the Progressive Era and progressive politics. To the discuss the reasons for reform in late 19th and early 20th Century America. To examine the overall achievements and failures of Progressive reform during this period. Goal #1: To understand what is meant by the Progressive Era and progressive politics What was the Progressive Era ? The period of social activism and political reform in the United States that is known as the Progressive Era occurred from the 1890s to the 1920s. One main goal of the Progressive movement was and establishing further means of direct democracy.

Progressives also sought regulation of monopolistic trust corporations through antitrust laws, which were seen as a means to promote fair competition for the benefit of consumers. The Progressive sought several goals: Eliminating corruption in government by exposing and undercutting political machines and their bosses Establishing direct democracy - such as voting directly for U.S. Senators and for state issues. Regulating monopolistisic trust corporations through the use of anti-trust laws that would promote fair competition and benefit the American consumer. As historian Eric Foner tells us in Give Me Liberty, the Progressive Era was: A period of "explosive economic growth, fueled by increasing industrial production, a rapid rise in population, and the continued expansion of the consumer marketplace." The "last time in American history [when] farms and cities grew together." An era when politics focused on the city and its "stark urban inequalities" as well as the "corporate greed" that "undermined traditional American values." A time when immigrants came to American cities in unprecented numbers. The only time in American history when socialism had any real influence in American politics. A period of enormous unrest between labor and management.

The first time that nationalization occurred on a large scale - national corporations dominated the economy; national organizations arose for many professions; national sporting leagues came into existence. Who were the Progressives? Progressive reformers formed a loosely defined political movement - the Progressive Movement - of individuals and groups who were worried about the state of society, the effects of industrialization and urbanization, social disorder, poverty, and political corruption. Progressives included: forward-looking businessmen who believed workers and labor activists musst have a voice in economic decision making; women involved in reform organizations that sought to protect women and children from exploitation; journalists - especially muckrakers - who exposed the ills of industrial and urban life in the hope that their exposes would encourage reform; social scientists who believed that academic research could be used to help solve social problems; and anxious middle class folks who were fearful that the rise of big business threatened their economic and social status. What were the goals of the Progressives? Progressives believed that a strong central government could become a weapon for social justice by helping to reform the excesses of society and of capitalism.

Among their primary goals were using that strong central government to end abuses of power - unfair privilege, monopolies, urban government corruption (as can be seen in the above cartoon of Nelson Rockefeller toying with the White House in the palm of his hand. In the background, Washington D.C. has been transformed into a series of factories.) replace corrupt power with reformed versions of traditional institutions based upon the belief that that government could and should intervene in society and the economy to protect the common good of individuals; and elevate the public interest above self-interest. Who were the Progressive Presidents? The three Progressive presidents - Theodore Roosevelt (Republican until 1912 and then a Progressive), William Howard Taft (Republican), and Woodrow Wilson (Democrat) - were men who Believed, according to Eric Foner in Give Me Liberty, that "only energetic national government...could create the social conditions of freedom." Thought that national solutions were needed for the national problems of poverty, inequality, labor unrest, uncontrolled immigration. Began an unprecedented journey into government invention in the economy - the first step away from the traditional laissez faire economy. Sought unprecedented reforms. Their party affiliation was less important than the issues they championed.

Goal #2: To discuss Five Reasons for Reform in Late 19th and Early 20th Century America There were at least five specific reasons that individuals and groups of reformers arose during the turn of the century: The consequences and excesses of industrialization and urbanization. A historic shift in Republican party politics. Interest in reform among members of all classes. Economic depression. Criticism of capitalism. Reform Reason #1: The Consequences and excesses of industrialization and urbanization (Review) The nation grew faster than it ever had, bringing about great shifts: from a largely homogeneous population of Western European immigrants into a more heterogeneous population; from an agricultural economy to an industrial economy; from a predominately rural society to a predominately urban society; and from an isolated nation that was economically dependent upon European capital and manufactured good to an international nation that became a major industrial, financial, and trading power. American social beliefs became intimately tied to capitalism and Social Darwinism. Corporations became increasingly dominant in the American economy. Violent conflict arose between the industrialists/Robber Barons and American laborers. The nation became increasingly urban.

Reform Reason #2: A Shift in Republican Party Politics With the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, and its success in a Union victory in the Civil War and abolishing slavery, the Republican Party dominated the national political scene until 1932. It's supporters were largely northern white Protestants, businessmen, small business owners, professionals, factory workers, farmers, and African-Americans. Thus, the party was pro-business, and in so doing, supported banks, railroads, and tariffs to protect industry. Under William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt, it emphasized an expansive/imperialistic foreign policy. Beginning in 1900, however, with the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, for the first time in American political history the entire domestic economic and social foundation of America was being questioned. And it was our first progressive president, the Republican Theodore Roosevelt, who shepherded this shift because of his belief that the president was "the steward of the public welfare." How is Roosevelt's philosophy on the presidency different from past presidents? Prior to Roosevelt's presidency, what role did the federal government play in the economy? How does Roosevelt change the nature of Republican Party Politics?

Roosevelt: Used the Sherman Antitrust Act (passed in 1890 to prohibit any contract, conspiracy, or combination of business interests in restraint of foreign or interstate trade) to prosecute J.P. Morgan's Northern Securities Company. In effect, it was a "holding company" - it held/owned the stocks and directed the business of three major railroads, thus monopolizing transportation between the Great Lakes and the Pacific Ocean. Designed his "Square Deal" around the notion that there were good corporation that served the public interest and there were bad corporations led by greedy financers who were only interested in huge profits. Good corporations should be supported and encouraged while bad corporations should cease to exist. Acted upon his belief that the president "should be an honest broker in labor disputes, rather than automatically siding with employers." Thus, he became the first president to bring union leaders and management together to solve their disputes. Pushed for direct federal regulation in the economy - especially through the creation of the Pure Food and Drug Act that established a federal agency - the FDA - to police the quality and labeling of food and drugs. Called for federal inheritance and income taxes, as well as the regulation of all interstate commerce.

Made conservation a national policy, especially through the expansion of the national park service which aimed to have the federal government develop "responsible, scientific plans" of using the abundant natural resources in the nation's parks. This is a photograph of President Roosevelt with John Muir at Yosemite in 1903. What does the presidency of William Howard Taft add to this shift in Republican Party Politics? Taft: Stated in his inaugural address that "The scope of a modern government ... has been widened far beyond the principles laid down by the old 'laissez faire' school of political writers." Pursued antitrust policy, especially through his order to breakup Rockefeller's Standard Oil Company into separate marketing, producing, and refining companies. Supported the 16th Amendment that authorized Congress to enact a graduated income tax that provided a steady and reliable source of revenue for a nation whose powers were rapidly expanding. What was the status of the Republican Party after 8 years of the Roosevelt Presidency (1900-1908) and four years of the Taft Presidency (1909-1912)?

The party was divided: The conservative wing was led by Taft who had enacted some progressive policies but had also shown his more traditional Republican side by often supporting business needs over the public good. The progressive wing was led by Roosevelt who was deeply troubled by Taft's decision not to pursue Roosevelts progressive agenda. This split in the Republican Party - between the conservative and progressive sides - played a huge role in the Election of 1812. So, let's look at the candidates: William Howard Taft - the Republican incumbent - took over the presidency in 1908 after Theodore Roosevelt turned it down. Taft is decent, well-meaning, and eager to please his both his mentor - TR - and the big-money party donors. Taft shouldered the burdens of the presidency, but he did not enjoy it much. He wanted nothing more than to retire to the Supreme Court - which he eventually did. During his presidenial four years, Taft puts forth a conservative Republican plan that preaches a politics of contentment and calls for minor reform without activism. Taft carried 2 states (Vermont and Utah) and 3,500,000 votes.

Theodore Roosevelt - who formed the Progressive Party after failing to receive the Republican nomination - had been chomping at the bit after 4 years out of public office and was eager to return to the political limelight. By 1912, he is fed up with Taft and eager to reassume the presidency and continue his trust-busting agenda. But this agenda is the reason he is turned down in 1912 by the wealthy party bosses - for ordering a successful antitrust suit against J.P. Morgan's holding company, forcing mining owners to accept arbitration of their employee's grievances, authorizing government control of railroad rates, limiting injunctions against labor unions, and calling for the imposition of income and inheritance taxes. TR carried 6 states with 88 electoral votes and 4,100,000 votes. Woodrow Wilson - the Democratic candidate - was the relatively unknown governor of New Jersey, a former history professor and president of Princeton University. The Democratic Party bosses felt he had a chance to overcome the progressive agenda presented by Roosevelt. He was a conservative Virginia Democrat, steeped in religion and racist prejudices of the Old South.

He was an apostle of states' rights, limited government, and the corrective virtues of free competition. However, he was also interested in reform and what he called "moral regeneration." His New Freedom program called for breaking up monopolies in order to restore free competition. Wilson carried 40 states with 435 electoral votes and took 6,300,000 votes. Eugene Debs - the Socialist Party candidate - was a labor leader, pacifist, political agitator, and socialist - and unlike the other candidates, he had known poverty and hardship. He would be a virtually unthinkable candidate today. Such a person would have to combine Howard Zinn's politics with Ralph Nader's crusading zeal and Bill Clinton's charisma. He did not stand a chance of winning, but he had a cause to pursue and a voice to be heard. His presidential platform calls for the peaceful transferal of the power held by American capitalists to those who produced the wealth by the sweat of their brows - the workers. (Debs carried no states, but garnered 900,000 votes.) Notes All but Debs were Progressive supporters of capitalism and corporations.

The difference was that Roosevelt and Wilson proposed reforms that they felt would make capitalism more successful and competitive- while Taft continued to support big business and laissez faire capitalism without any reform. The real battle was between Roosevelt and Wilson. It was clear from the beginning of the election that this was the real battle. Had the Republican Party not split, Taft probably would have won. But it did split and below you can see the results. The results: Wilson carried 40 states with 435 electoral votes and took almost 6,300,000 popular votes; Roosevelt carried 6 states with 88 electoral votes and 4,200,000 popular votes; Taft carried 2 states (Vermont and Utah) and took 3,500,000 popular votes; Debs took no states, but garnered 900,000 popular votes.

(Map at ) The Significance of the 1912 Election According to James Chase in 1912: Wilson, Roosevelt, Taft, and Debs - The Election That Changed the Country (NY: Simon and Schuster, 2004), the election is important for at least three reasons: It fractured the Republican Party by splitting it into reactionary and reformist wings. If TR had won the Republican nomination, the Republicans probably would have become the party of domestic reform and international realism. It changed the nature of the Republican and Democratic parties. The split within Republican ranks brought about a historic shift. Thereafter, the Republicans become associated with conservatism and the Democrats with governmental activism and reformist idealism. It framed the questions that we continue to address in the 21st Century: What are the limits of the power of capital and the rights of labor? What are the responsibilities of government in that power struggle? What is the place of the United States in the world? Reform Reason #3: Interest in reform among members of all classes 1. Reform among the urban laboring classes - Labor Union Organizers and Supporters. Lower class members of the labor force joined or supported unions as a way to improve their working conditions.

Foremost on their list of reforms was adopting the 8-hour workday; raising wages; and ending the use of convict labor. National Labor Union (NLU), Knights of Labor, and American Federation of Labor (AFL) were the largest unions. 2. Reform among the middle class work force - Small farmers and small businessmen. These lower to middle-class workers had a long list of proposed reforms: government ownership of railroads, banks, and telegraph lines; prohibition of large landholding companies; imposition of a graduated income tax; creation of an 8-hour workday; prohibition of land ownership by non-Americans; stimulation of "free and unlimited coinage of silver;" and restriction of immigration. In particular, small farmers suffered greatly at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century. Many small farmers had become victims of both an Agrarian Myth and the growing commercialization of farming. The Agrarian Myth. Throughout the 19th Century, many Americans believed that rural life and self-sufficient farming as a vocation were sacred and that farmers provided the most important of the nation's functions - feeding and supporting all Americans.

This myth was originally created in late 18th Century by upper class men who did not have the faintest notion of what farming was like and instead believed in an ideal myth - the self-sufficient farmer who lived in a lovely farming village (like this Grant Wood painting, Stone City), was physically and morally strong and admired by his neighbors for his hard work, independence, and ability to produce and enjoy a simple abundance. In truth, farmers and their children were leaving their farms by the droves. The few remaining self-sufficient farmers knew their lives were neither romantic, virtuous, or enviable - they faced constant hardships, no longer produced all the food and supplies they needed, rarely had cash, and envied the prosperity of commercial farmers. Commercialization and Farming. By 1860, the vast majority of farmers were commercial, not self-sufficient. Indeed, the U.S. had never developed a truly rural culture that was dedicated to generational cultivation and preservation of the soil. Instead, from colonial times forward, Americans had nourished an agricultural society that was attached to the value of their land in terms of its production capacity, future wealth, and speculative value 3.

Reform among the middle and upper classes - The Progressive Party drew heavily from the middle and upper classes. To get a real understanding of reformist thinking among the middle and upper classes, we can look at the creation of Central Park in New York City. In the 1830s when NYC was booming, the city government decided on a drastic way to provide more housing: destroying the natural topography of Manhatttan by completely leveling the island. In so doing, they created a massive grid that stretched all the way from Battery Park to what is now Harlem. In the 1850s, the effects of the grid were troubling - there were no open spaces or places for people to walk, ingle, or get away from the stresses of urban life. So the effort to build a park began. This video clip from Ric Burns, New York chronicles the history of Central Park and its role in urban reform, . As you watch the clip, be sure to listen to the language of democracy that you hear among those involved in this early reform effort. What does it tell you about the goal of these earliest reformers? Reform Reason #4: Economic Depression The Gilded Age was a period of explosive growth and devastating depressions.

Three major depressions occurred: 1873, 1884, and 1893 - the last one having the most devasting effects. The Panic and Depression of 1893 began with the railroad industry that had experienced incredible growth in the previous two decades and had resulted in wild investment and speculation. Business and financial interests promoted a laissez-faire environment during boom times, over did it, and lived beyond their means. So when railroad growth slowed down in early 1890s, so did the iron and steel industries. Then, when the Philadelphia and Reading Railroad collapsed, investors panicked and converted their stock to gold, forcing stock prices to decrease, and dramatically decreasing the gold reserve - thus leading to an economic collapse in 1893.

By mid-1894, a full-scale depression had begun and by the end of the year, 74 railroad, 600 banks, and 15,000 businesses had gone under in urban America, industrial unemployment ranged from 20-25% stimulating widespread misery and poverty; in rural America, farm prices decreased more than 20%; in NYC alone, more than 20,000 people were homeless; as the chart below of real US GNP per capita (GNP = the value of all goods and services produced in a country in one year, plus income earned by its citizens abroad, minus income earned by foreigners in the country) indicates that the GNP took a nose dive in 1893 and only gradually recovered toward the end of the decade. (Annotations are major financial panics during the period - e.g., Panic of 1893, Panic of 1907. Shaded areas are recessions. Data on real GNP comes from The American Business Cycle by Robert Gordon. Source: No relief occurred until early 1897 when gold was discovered in Alaska, good harvests came in, and new industrial growth and investment occurred.

But the depression's end exposed fundamental tensions in the industrial system - a huge gap between the employers and employees, the haves and have nots. Such tension gave rise not only to the demands for reform, but for further labor agitation, and for greater attraction to alternative political and economic systems - especially Socialism and in some cases, anarchism. Reform Reason #5: Criticisms of Capitalism Toward the end of the Century, a small minority of Americans began to question the wisdom of capitalism. In so doing, some began to express interest in socialism, communism, and anarchism Capitalism - An economic system in which goods, services, and the means of production are controlled by individuals. Capitalism is based on the economic philosophy that governments should keep their hands off business. This laissez-faire attitude, popularized largely by the Scottish economist, Adam Smith (1723-1790) argues that self-interest supplies an "invisible hand" in the market place by automatically balancing the supply of and demand for goods and services. Socialism - An economic system in which goods, services, and the means of production are controlled by the government.

Socialism is based upon the German philosophers and writers Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Friedrich Engels (1821-1895) who argue in The Communist Manifesto that capitalism is ultimately undemocratic because employers gain profit, or "surplus value" at the expense of their workers. Thus: The history of society is marked by the ongoing struggles between the empowered and the unempowered, the exploiters and exploited. Capitalism was a corrupt system and as such, was destined to be overthrown in a revolution during which the proletariat - working class - would seize control of the state and all means of production and distribution. Communism - A political system that comes about under a Socialist economy. Communism emerges after the proletariat revolution when the state would "wither away," thus bringing about the emergence of a collective, classless, communist society in which exploitation would vanish. Anarchism - A political system in which governments are believed to be unnecessary and that people will voluntarily cooperate to meet the political, economic, and social needs of society at large.

Anarchism is based upon the belief that because any considerable accumulation of property is theft, capitalism is merely theft with legal sanction; laws protecting property and property-holders were immoral; and any government - capitalist or socialist - existed chiefly to oppress individuals by upholding the rights of property. The early 20th Century publication Mother Earth, defined anarchism as "the theory that all forms of government rest on violence and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary" and associated anarchism with "voluntary economic co-operation of all towards the needs of each. A social arrangement based on the principle: To each according to his needs; from each according to his ability." Disagreement about capitalism was especially rampant in the Unions. Workers in general were widely unhappy - and corporate owners took advantage of their situation by making certain that they were divided by ethnicity, race, gender, and age. Such divisions were fostered in order to keep workers from uniting. Divisions within the Work Force Ethnicity, race, gender, and age. Skills - skilled, unskilled, and family tenement workers Skilled workers were 1/6 of the work force - typically white men of old American stock, although there were some immigrants.

They enjoyed relatively high wages because managers and owners were not master craftsmen and did not understand the details of production. Thus, skilled workers had some control over their working conditions. Most skilled workers made a good living and in order to keep their employers respect, they did not become involved in working class reform or unions; no more than 1/3 of all skilled craftsmen ever joined unions. As industrialization evolved, the proportion of skilled jobs in the labor market declined due to mechanization. Unskilled laborers - the vast majority of the work force - 5 of every 6 workers - were most often immigrants compelled to take any kind of work available. They had no control over their working environment, could be easily fired and were often due to illness or accidents, and received extremely low pay for very difficult work. Family tenement workers - labored for long hours in their living quarters rolling cigars, making artificial flowers, and sewing clothing. In 1892, nearly 11,000 people toiled in 600 tenement workshops in Chicago. Despite such divisions, workers had much in common.

Thus, it is not impossible to understand why many workers who were divided in so many ways turned to union organization and other reform measures! Commonalities among the Workers They worked long hours - about 10 hours a day, 6 days a week. They all hoped for a federal law that would require an 8-hour work day . They had to deal with the impersonality of the large factory and the sense of being an anonymous cog in a big wheel. They were subjected to poor wages, wage reductions, and inflated living costs. As owners tried to raise profits, many laborers were forced to live in company-owned homes and shop in company-owned stores with inflated prices. They faced dangerous and unsafe working conditions each day. The railroads were a perfect example. In 1881, 30,000 railroad workers were injured or killed on the job. They faced a growing sense of powerlessness as corporate profits grew; the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. Thus, some workers turned to unions for help. And what about the Unions? Unions were a positive reform mechanism of the industrial age. Most unions began with peaceful efforts to achieve economic reform.

As peaceful efforts failed, both union members and the vast majority of American workers who were unorganized turned to strikes and violence as a way to protest. Despite popular belief, labor unions were weak throughout the 19th Century. They never included more than 2% of the total labor force or more than 10% of industrial workers. Regardless of the fact that unions never gained widespread acceptance, they gradually gained strength in the latter part of the 19th and early 20th Centuries. The three largest - National Labor Union (NLU, 1866 - 1873); Knights of Labor (1869 - 1889); and American Federation of Labor (AFL, 1886 to present) - all worked to achieve an 8-hour workday, end convict labor, and raise wages. But it was the 8-hour work day around which most labor union members rallied. The most powerful and longest lasting, the AFL, reformed the union movement by making the national organization a federation comprised of many craft unions which retained control of their own members and were linked by an executive council that coordinated national strategy.

The AFL had over 1.6 million members by 1904. g The United States had the greatest number of violent confrontations between owners and labor in the industrial world. Between 1880 and 1900, there were more than 23,000 strikes involving 6.6 million workers. The corporations, federal and state governments responded to strikes in at least two effective ways: They associated strikes and strikers with foreign influences of socialism and anarchism. By exploiting this connection, corporations were able to heighten public animosity toward unions and corporate change. They called in private and public militias to break the strikes. Many labor organizations and unions were openly hostile to women. While the number of women employed in industry tripled between 1870s and 1900 and 6.3 million were employed in 1910, fewer than 2% belonged to unions. Some unions felt women were not qualified for wage labor, that they competed with men for their jobs (especially since their wages were lower for the same jobs), and that they could not work side by side with men.

In the early 1900s, women reacted to such exclusion by forming their own unions. And what were the achievements of unions during this period? In general, unions did not achieve most of their reforms. However, they did bring the plight of workers to the attention to middle and upper class Americans, as well as people around the world. One example of this success was heightened public interest in an 8-hour workday. In 1850 the average workweek was 70 hours; in 1900 the average workweek was 60 hours; and in 1920 the average workweek was 50 hours. As early as the 1840s unions began working for a 10-hour day. But organized labor agitation did not begin until after the Civil War. In June 1868, Congress passed an eight-hour law for federal employees, but it was largely ignored. In the 1880s, unions again began to agitate for the 8-hour day. It was during this time that the song "Eight Hours For What We Will" was written and became the official song for the movement.

Despite union efforts, the eight-hour day was not established and enforced for all workers in the United Sates until 1938 - during the New Deal - with the passage of the Wage and Hour Law. Goal #3: To examine the overall achievements and failures of Progressive reform during this period Progressive Accomplishments 1. Enacted government reform and passed new legislation promoting social welfare and a "more desirable" moral climate Local government reform: Adopted city-manager and city-commission forms of government - urban officials chosen for professional expertise, not political connections. Encouraged public ownership of utilities to prevent gas, electric, & streetcar companies from profiting at public’s expense. State government reform: nominated candidates via direct primaries, thus ending party caucuses that bred fraud and bribery; made legislators responsible to the people, thus ending legislative responsibility to the boss - through the initiative - voters could propose new laws on their own; referendum - voters could accept or reject a law; and recall - voters could remove offending officials and judges from office before their terms expired. Federal Government - 17th Amendment - direct election of U.S. Senators (1913).

Social Legislation: many states enacted factory inspection laws, victim compensation laws, minimum age employment laws (varied from 12-16 of age who could work no more than 8-10 hours a day.) Moral Legislation: Federal government passed two federal laws - The Mann Act (1910) and Prohibition (1919); and by 1915, almost all states had outlawed brothels and solicitation of sex 2. Used "enlightened social tinkering" to achieve educational, racial, and feminist reform Educational Reform grounded in beliefs that education could better society, learning should focus on real-life problems, children should be taught to use their intelligence and ingenuity as instruments to control their environment. Goals: to build more public schools and increase enrollment. In 1870, 500 public schools taught approximately 7 million youth between 5-17; in 1910, over 10,000 schools with over 18 million youth; in 1920, 78% of youth enrolled in public elementary and high schools - another 8% attended private and parochial schools.

In 1870, 563 colleges and universities served 52,000 students; by 1920, over 1,000 institutions served 600,000 students, 47% of whom were women. Racial Reform. Progressivism, a white movement, did not directly advocate racial reform, but several prominent black scholars who lived during this era were able to more readily espouse their beliefs in the atmosphere of reform. Accommodation and Booker T. Washington - Best hope for black assimilation was a temporary accommodation to whites by working hard, acquiring property, enhancing their dignity through self-improvement, and proving they were worthy of their rights. Whites were supportive of Washington who advocated patience and reminded black people to stay in their places. The NAACP and W.E.B. DuBois - Blacks must not accommodate but must, instead, agitatefor what was rightfully theirs - equality. With help from white Progressives, DuBois co-founded the NAACP that aimed to end racial discrimination by seeking legal redress. Women's Reform .

Until 1910, the "women's movement" was a label used to describe women trying to move beyond the home and into social-welfare activities,higher education, and paid labor. In 1910, some women took a more activist stance, declaring that women should unite to abolish their shared disadvantages as women. For these women, suffrage was the ultimate goal: by 1912, 9 western states allowed women to vote in state and local elections; and in 1920, the 19th Amendment took effect giving women the right to vote in federal elections. Others, like Margaret Sanger, believed that working-class women must be empowered to make choices about bearing children. In 1921, she formed the American Birth Control League. Progressive Failures The vast majority of Progressive reforms did not pass due to the power of those who opposed reform - especially corporate power. Many of the new laws failed to really redistribute power because they were not adequately enforced - federal regulatory agencies had no resources for thorough investigations, and they had to get information from the companies they were supposed to police.

Many reforms were watered down - often because reform in reality meant a great deal of political compromise to meet the needs of all involved - the capitalists, workers, reformers, the president, and the congress. Very little real reform had occurred in the work place other than some state factory inspection laws, victim compensation laws, minimum wage employment laws, and the creation of a watered-down Meat Inspection Act. Politics and the Impulse to Reform Conclusions The impetus for reform in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries arose from the excesses of industrialization and urbanization; a historic shift in party politics; the interest of many people in reform, especially the Progressives; economic depressions; and increasing criticisms of capitalism. The Election of 1912 is extremely important because it: fractured the Republican Party by splitting it into reactionary and reformist wings; changed the nature of the Republican and Democratic parties by bringing about a historic shift that thereafter associated Republicans with conservatism and the Democrats with governmental activism and reformist idealism; and framed many of the questions that we continue to address in the 21st Century.

Reformers of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries were responsible for some admirable accomplishments. For example, reformers helped Increase the social, economic, and political power of the middle classes, women, and intellectuals. Sensitize the American public to economic wrongdoing in both the public and private sectors - to the evils of trusts, to the need to protect themselves against price fixing and dangerous products, and to the dangers of the urban machines. Define their government in a new, more progressive light, and to recognize that it could help or hinder the quality of their lives. Introduce the concept that Americans had the right to challenge the way things were done both in the public and private sectors. Reformers failed to create real change for at least three groups: Most immigrants did not secure any real social, economic, or political power. Asians in particular were systematically unempowered. Black Americans were systematically disenfranchised and unempowered during this era of reform. Laboring Americans who continued to strain under long work days, the problems related to unhealthy working environments, no protection from owners, and rules making it difficult if not dangerous to belong to a union. Most reformers failed to recognize the ambiguity of their reform movements.

While reformers wanted to change genuine societal ills, their reform spirit was combined with moral convictions that used "hatred as a kind of creed" - hatred of anything that was different, especially European immigrants, blacks, Asians, Hispanics, big business, trade unions, Socialists, anarchists. In these cases, some types of reform actually stimulated reactive policies rather than proactive reform - especially labor strikes and urban race riots. Taken as a whole, these reforms were gradual and predictable changes that represented "progress" in a society that could no longer turn a deaf ear to the excesses of industrialization and urbanization, bear the consequences of government corruption, ignore women's demands for equal rights, or allow the wanton destruction of the environment. As such, the reforms of late-19th and early-20th Century America reflected an evolutionary step forward slightly altering the status quo - not a revolutionary overthrow of historical values or operating practices of the nation's traditional power brokers. Despite the efforts of a few vocal socialists and anarchists, capitalism emerged healthier than ever at the end of the Progressive Era. Early Twentieth Century U.S. Foreign Policy, 1901-1941 U. S.

Foreign Policy, 1901-1941 Kyle Wilkison United States foreign policy between 1901 and 1941 can be characterized as generally confident, sometimes aggressive and, occasionally, even cautious. The first twenty years of the century saw the U.S. leadership pursue confidently interventionist strategies in dealing with other countries. The next decade-a-half witnessed a clear modification toward cautious non-entanglement if not outright isolationism. With the election of Franklin Roosevelt to the White House a gap grew between the isolationist American public and an increasingly internationalist policy. This gap temporarily disappeared with Japans attack on Pearl Harbor and Americas entry into World War II. Period of Confident Intervention, 1901-1919 Theodore Roosevelts arrival as president could not have been less auspicious, coming as it did at the hands of an assassin who ended the life of President William McKinley. While others may have doubted Roosevelt's abilities, the new president gave no indications that such doubts ever troubled his over-sized self-confidence. President Theodore Roosevelt relished the strenuous life almost as much as he enjoyed his status as a media celebrity.

Horseback riding was a favorite pastime and helped boost his image as the "Cowboy President." (Smithsonian Institution) He moved aggressively to realize the long-held U.S. goal of building (and controlling) an inter-oceanic canal through Central America. For U.S. policy-makers the best choice lay through the northern end of the Republic of Colombia; the Colombian government, however, proved resistant to the notion of surrendering territory to the American government. Roosevelt promptly supported a highly suspect independence movement within the northernmost Colombian state of Panama and hastily recognized the government of a pro-canal American sympathizer there. Panama began its fight for independence from Colombia on November 3, 1903. Read the preamble and first three articles of the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty granting the U.S. the rights to the Panama Canal. Note the date the treaty was originally negotiated as well as the remarkable statement in Article I.

Alarmed at the prospect of European intervention in the internal affairs of Latin American nations, Roosevelt also toughened and extended the historic Monroe Doctrine (1824) with his Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. After clicking on the following link, first read the editors note then scroll down and read the text of the "Roosevelt Corollary" as delivered to Congress in 1904. (See the section entitled "Policy Toward Other Nations of the Western Hemisphere.") What did Roosevelt promise would happen if Latin American countries invited foreign aggression? What assumptions does he make regarding the relative status of the U.S. in comparison with its Latin American neighbors? Roosevelt further confidently intervened in world affairs by practicing a unique form of presidential diplomacy. In 1905 he personally led negotiations to end a war between Japan and Russia, resulting in his being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. A year later he successfully handled a similarly explosive colonial conflict between France and Germany. Overall, Roosevelt sought to strengthen the U.S. Navy and solidify previous gains in the Pacific.

His successor, President William Howard Taft, more or less continued the Roosevelt strategy, minus some of the bluster and impetuousness. Generally aimed at protecting American corporate interests around the globe, Taft called his policy "Dollar Diplomacy." Wilson (Woodrow Wilson Library) President Woodrow Wilson's foreign policy was much like his predecessors but informed more by paternalism than aggressiveness and opportunism. Much of Wilsons concerns focused on Asia where the rising Japanese Empire competed with the old European empires for dominance in China. Seeking to maintain an open door for American trade with China, Wilson, like both his predecessors and successors in the White House, struggled to balance the dangers of either European or Japanese dominance in that region. Wilson preferred to characterize his Roosevelt Corollary style interventions as being in the best interest of the particular Latin American nation involved. Often that conveniently mirrored U.S. commercial interests. Such was the case in revolutionary Mexico where American investors (mainly oil companies) owned over forty percent of the nations property, according to diplomatic historian Walter LaFeber.

Convinced that Mexico and her neighbors needed to be properly directed toward stability, if not democracy, Wilson sent to or retained U.S. troops in Mexico, Haiti, Santo Domingo, Cuba and Nicaragua. The largest such operation involved General John J. Pershings 6,000 troops fruitlessly pursuing Mexican revolutionary Francisco "Pancho" Villa across northern Mexico, 1916-1917. In early 1917 Wilson pulled Pershing and his troops out of Mexico for an even greater act of confident intervention to make the world safe for democracy with U.S. entry into World War I. Despite Wilsons hopeful Fourteen Points and his proposed peace-keeping League of Nations, the U.S. Senate chose not to allow American membership in the League by refusing to ratify the Treaty of Versailles. Driven by a variety of motives, the Senate was at least partially responding to a new sense caution among influential Americans.

Period of Cautious Non-entanglement, 1920-1937 Traditionally historians have assigned the label of isolationist to American foreign policy in the 1920s and early 1930s. Clearly the mood of the American people became more and more isolationist as the years went by. The decision to reject the League of Nations certainly gave the appearance that U.S. policy was isolationist, as well. Yet, recent historians have emphasized the continued role America played in world affairs. What best describes the policy of the period, then, is cautious non-entanglement. Policymakers sought not isolation but a free hand to operate, according to diplomatic historian Walter LaFeber. Two notable foreign policy achievements from the era tend to bolster this view. The Washington Naval Conference of 1921-22 sought to slow the rise of the intense rivalry between the great Pacific powers. President Warren G. Hardings Secretary of State Charles Evans Hughes shocked the international gathering of diplomats by announcing that Britain, Japan and the U.S. should each scrap dozens of warships to end the dangerous Pacific arms race.

The resulting treaty probably did stabilize the region temporarily; however, the Japanese were not as pleased with the outcome of the treaty as were the British and Americans, a circumstance that would come back to haunt the Pacific rim years later. The Herbert Hoover Administrations Kellogg-Briand Pact serves as another good example of the hit-and-run diplomacy that characterized the 1920s. The ambitious Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928) outlawed war by having each of the eventually five dozen signatory nations promise never to wage offensive war against each other. All of the major belligerent powers of the Second World War signed this document. Notice that Kellogg-Briand was not an isolationist document and that the U.S. took the lead in negotiating it. Yet, unlike the League of Nations, this pact required no definite commitment, no continuous engagement (entanglement) on Americas part. The dangerous 1930s The international economic collapse of the 1930s helped to create an ever more dangerous world. Beginning in the 1920s, totalitarian fascist parties rose to power throughout Europe promising both economic resurgence and protection from the communists.

Benito Mussolini in Italy, Adolf Hitler in Germany and Francisco Franco in Spain each rose to power by exploiting fears of the left. In the case of Germany and Italy, a combination of calculation, ideology and megalomaniacal leadership would drive those nations toward ever more explosive confrontations with nearby states. Meanwhile, a similarly militaristic coterie gained power in Japan and set that increasingly powerful nation down the path of imperialism. The American publics steady isolationism received a huge boost from the sensational Nye Committee findings . Sen. Gerald P. Nye investigated the role of business in bringing America into World War I. His committees reports, especially as simplified and exaggerated by the media, strengthened the public's determination to never be misled into another foreign war. Catching the public mood, the Congress responded with the Neutrality Acts of the late1930s. In their various versions the laws forbade American businesses from loaning money to, selling war material to or carrying goods aboard American ships to nation's at war. The last few years of the 1930s, then, saw a battle for public opinion between President Franklin D.

Roosevelt who watched the rise of fascism in Europe with growing alarm and zealous isolationists just as strongly committed to making sure America stayed out of European conflicts. Franklin Roosevelts Struggle to Return to Internationalism, 1937-1941 The American people remained staunchly isolationist although the president tried to rouse them with the famously cautionary "Quarantine speech" of 1937. Meantime, facing equally ant-war public sentiment, the governments of Britain and France charted a diplomatic path of appeasement in order to keep peace with Hitler. The low point of this policy of appeasement arrived with the Munich Peace Conference with Hitler, 1938 . Desperately gambling for peace at any price, the British and French countenanced the take-over of western Czechoslovakia under the terms of the Munich treaty. The folly of appeasement became undeniably clear the following year when Hitler's war machine roared into Germany's neighbor to the east, Poland, starting World War II in Europe. At first Roosevelt proclaimed U.S. neutrality while doing what he could to assist the French and British.

In 1939 the president persuaded the Congress to pass the "cash and carry" amendment to the earlier, tougher neutrality laws preventing the U.S. from getting any material to the Allies. Then, as the rest of the world looked on in shock, the Germans (having already disposed of Poland and Belgium) knocked France completely out of the war in June of 1940. Realizing that Britain stood alone against the Nazis in Europe, under Roosevelt's leadership U. S. "neutrality" became "measures short of war." Just after the fall of France, Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill signed an agreement to lease British naval bases in the Caribbean to the U.S. in exchange for fifty older American naval destroyers in the so-called "bases for destroyers deal." Early the following year (1941) FDR managed to get appropriations through the Congress for a "Lend-lease" program to funnel war supplies to the British. In June, 1941, the Germans made the unwise decision to attack the Soviet Union, thus bringing the Red Army into the war against Hitler. Thereafter, both the British and Russian war efforts benefited from America's "Lend-lease" assistance.

A few weeks after Germany widened the war to include the Russians, Roosevelt and Churchill met and signed the Atlantic Charter, a most remarkable step for a "neutral" nation. The Charter outlined America's overall attachment to the ideal of self-determination and freedom but more pointedly declared that the "disarmament of [aggressor] nations is essential." The leaders signed the Charter in August, the same month that a poll showed that less than twenty percent of the American people supported entering the war. Yet, more telling, that same month nearly seventy percent reported being "willing to risk war with Japan" rather than allow the Japanese Pacific expansion continue unchecked. The Japanese High Command would provide the final decisive event with the surprise attack on the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, on December 7, 1941. Afterward, President Roosevelt led a determinedly unified people to war.

Question: Who was the President of the USA at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries'?
Answer: William McKinley