United states and Latin America
(Of each Diplomacy) Big Stick Diplomacy Dollar Diplomacy Moral Diplomacy |
|
SImilarities
- Each diplomacy used military forces at some point.
Whether they wanted to be like the Big Stick Diplomacy or not, each policy used the military to enforce a way of life. Under the Dollar Diplomacy, Taft uses the military in Nicaragua in 1909 and in 1912 to protect the formation of American government. Under the Moral Diplomacy, Wilson uses the military to protect American investments in Haiti and to guard against potential German or French aggression, he also sent troops to the Dominican Republic and Mexico.
- They each shared a similar goal: to improve American interests in Latin America and to imperialize.
Although each diplomacy had its own way of achieving this goal, each one wished to gain more land to increase American interests over seas. The Big Stick Diplomacy wanted to imperialize or civilize smaller nations with military force. The Dollar Diplomacy wanted to increase American investments in businesses and banks throughout Central America and the Caribbean, by substituting dollars for bullets. The Moral Diplomacy did not want to take any land by conquest, but ended up having the right to control Haiti's financial and foreign affairs.
- They each dealt with foreign affairs.
Differences
- The main difference was that each diplomacy had its own way of achieving its goals.
The Big Stick Diplomacy's main way to achieve its goals was by military force. The Dollar Diplomacy used American businesses and money to imperialize. The Moral Diplomacy wanted to build relationships with Latin America, and did not want anything to do with taking land by conquest.
- Each of these diplomacies were created by different presidents.
Big Stick diplomacy was created by Theodore Roosevelt. The Dollar Diplomacy was created by President Taft, and the Moral Diplomacy was created by Woodrow Wilson.
Effects of the Diplomacies
Under Big Stick Diplomacy, the panama canal was built, and it extended across Central America. In order for Roosevelt to have the right to build the canal, he needed consent from Columbia. Columbia wanted more than what the US was willing to provide. Being under the Big Stick Diplomacy, Roosevelt sent in warships to support the Panamanian rebellion against Columbia. The US being there made Columbia scared to suppress the uprising. The use of the Big Stick Diplomacy worked to improve American interests in Latin America.
The Dollar Diplomacy did not work likeTaft intended it to. He failed in many places like Mexico and China. The policy failed to counteract economic and political instability, and it failed to realize profits for Americanbusiness.Because Taft used the militaryforces to obtain what he needed, heshowed that the Big Stick Diplomacy was, in fact, the better idea for foreign policy.
Under the Moral diplomacy, Wilson faced some issues with Mexico. Mexico was under the rule of General Victoriano Huerta. Under the Dollar Diplomacy, Taft would have seen Huerta as the leader of Mexico, because he pledged to protect American investments. Under the Moral Diplomacy,Wilson was not ok with Mexico being run by a "government of butchers". Wilson decided to support Venustiano Carranza, who organized anti-Huerta forces. By usingmilitary force, Wilson helped Carranza obtainpresidency in Mexico, but that did not stop therebellious behavior. Francisco Pancho Villa was the leader of the rebellion to take down Carranza. US stayed uninvolved until Americans were killed in New Mexico. Once again, Wilson contradicts himself and sends introops to deal with the situation. Theeffects of the Moral Diplomacy were similar to the Dollar Diplomacy, and it was that the Big Stick ideas werevery successful. These three diplomaciesalso proved that America was a world power after defeating Spain and actions in Asia and Latin America.
