Comparison: William Jennings Bryan &Theodore Roosevelt

The part of the world where the Philippines lies was one of the most volatile and dangerous in the world. That being said, it also had some of the most profitable trade routes, richest resources and was a vital part of the world to have a stronghold. By following through with the annexation of the Philippines, the Americans were able to gain a stronghold on the other side of the world, enrich themselves by gaining access to the valuable resources that were so plentiful and to take the time to help spread freedom and democracy. William McKinley clearly believed and stated that “ we could not turn them over to France and Germany – our commercial rivals in the Orient – that would be bad business and discreditable.”

George Washington, the first president of the United States, had written a very important historical speech and document towards the end of his time in office. He had written the Farewell address which focused on helping America understand the importance of preserving unity, acknowledging the rise of political parties forming, strengthening religion and morality, and he stated his position on American foreign policy. He addressed these ideas with strong tone and used incredible amount of dictions that strengthens his tone as well as representing his appeal to ethos to a strong degree. However, today’s society seemed to forget Washington’s position on foreign policy and has created a new form of the policy. But nonetheless as time grew,

After the assassination of President McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt inherited a growing empire when he took office in 1901. The U.S. had annexed Hawaii in 1898 and Spanish-American War granted the U.S. control of the Philippines. It also led the U.S. to establish a protectorate over Cuba and grant territorial status for Puerto Rico. By taking on the Philippine Islands as an American colony after the Spanish-American War he had ended the U.S.'s isolation from international politics. Theodore Roosevelt believed that nations should pursue a strenuous life and do their part to maintain peace and order. It was also a belief that civilized nations had the duty of modernizing the barbarous ones. He also pushed for a bigger army and navy and by

When thinking about the numerous, dynamic leaders that America has had over the course of the nation’s history, it can become troublesome to fairly compare these respective heads of state. Though each American president has unquestionably left their own unique legacy from their time in office, when comparing leaders from similar times, certain consistencies can present themselves. While the Presidency is of course beholden to constructs of political normativity subjective to the era they presided in, by choosing two POTUS’ from the same era, we can more adequately synthesize comparable actions and philosophies between the two. To this end, we will analyze the terms of Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft, cutting through narratives of their tenures to truly delineate their comparability. Through a comprehensive analysis of these two leaders on the subjects of foreign policy, we begin to parse out many similarities and differences between these two early 20th century leaders.

“No man is good enough to govern another man without that other’s consent.” Abraham Lincoln. (Document A). The United States did just this in 1898, when they annexed the Philippines. The Filipino people had been fighting for their independence against Spain for many years before the US intervened. The rebels, led by Emilio Aguinaldo, were grateful for the assistance. The Filipino people thought that the US had come to help free them from Spain. Unfortunately for the Filipino people, they were incorrect. On February 6, 1899, the United States of America annexed the Philippines, much to the disgust of the rebels in the Philippines and many people in America (including Mark Twain, Andrew Carnegie, and former President Grover Cleveland.) The reasoning behind this was partially for economic prosperity, thinking that the Philippines held the “secret route” to riches by being a trading partner and a jumping

In 1776, the Unites States finally gained its independence from Great Britain, leaving the US to face new challenges about governance and international relations. The new states, which were originally thirteen colonies would now have to come together to try to be a player with the world biggest super powers. The unification of the colonies as an independent nation also meant that he people must be unified as well culturally, politically, and economically. As an independent nation, the Unites States would face many successful, yet challenging events resulting in the unification of the American identity. Early international relations would be shaped by the desire to gain international respect while integrating the crucial American culture of religion, race, and honor.

For example, in Document 4, during the conclusion of the war, Jane Addams, a social reformer who established the Hull House in Chicago, criticized the Spanish-American War to an audience who supported social reform. She discusses how this war does not bring peace but only more violence back home to the American people, and Adams believed that such hatred against the Spaniards was inhumane and against the US’s morals. Other people like William Jennings Bryan were against imperialism because by annexing the Philippines, it will lead to further problems for Americans and hurt America’s status. In his presidential speech, while campaigning to become president, which occurred after the Spanish-American War, he was against annexing the Philippines. He believed that American’s cannot force their ideals on Filipinos, for they follow a Republic, not a Democratic government. Jennings further believes we cannot represent both the US and the Philippines equally since race became a big issue for the US. During the Philippine-American War, the US did not view Filipinos as equals; the US forced them into concentration camps and invaded the Philippines, which only lead to additional problems overseas. Similar to Jennings’ views, William Graham Sumner, a Yale University who opposed imperialism and the Spanish-American War, told affluent students at Yale University the US should care more about the

The Filipino people had helped the US fight the Spanish-American War in hope to gain independence in return. However, instead of gaining independence the Philippines was annexed to the United States on December 10, 1898. When the Filipino’s had found they were going to be ruled over once again they were very unhappy, after all they had helped the US. When Aguinaldo had found out that the Philippines were going to be controlled by the US, he had declared war on the United States.

Beginning with the creation of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823, up to the current Obama doctrine, presidential doctrines have dominated United States foreign policy. A presidential doctrine highlights the goals and positions for United States foreign affairs outlined by the sitting president. Many of the country’s major foreign policy successes or disasters can be explained by tracing the doctrines of sitting or previous presidents and analyzing their evolution and eventual impact on world events. After established, a presidential doctrine often takes on a life of its own. This can be explained by the military resources and human capital involved in carrying out these doctrines. Future presidents often feel compelled to abide by previous doctrines, or find the reality of change can only be done with incremental changes over a period of years. For this reason, presidential doctrines often outlive their creators and consequently effect American foreign policy for years to come.

The bald red, white, and blue eagle of American Democracy is coming for you Phillipines, run while you can! Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th president of the United States, was so infatuated with the idea of democracy, and he wanted every country to have a little taste of American freedom! After America's victory in the Spanish American War, George Dewey and his 11,000 American troops marched into manila and were unsure whether to liberate or occupy the filipino people. Thinking the they were here to help, the Filipino rebels trusted the Americans, but were soon betrayed as Dewey decided to occupy the land. The United States had three choices to determine what they wanted to do with the Philippines: Give it back to Spain, Give the filipino people their freedom, or to annex the whole country itself. With much debate ranging from artists, influential citizens, and government officials, the US ultimately decided it would annex! The United States should not have annexed the Philippines but rather should have given them their independence. While others may think the annexation of the Philippines would have benefited them, what the Philippines really needed was

The world has known many great leaders for their acts of heroism, one such leader was born in the United States of America. During his presidency, Franklin. D. Roosevelt’s capability to act soon was applauded for, but he was also known for being patient, and not let his emotions conquer his actions. He was a strategical president, always waiting for when the time was right. The courage to form various programs in the first 100 days of his presidency, which came to be known as the New Deal, in the midst of the worst financial crisis in the United States’ history helped relieve many from depression and anxiety. Although some New Deal programs were not allowed to continue, there are some that are still in place even today. In the midst of the early ages of World War II, he did not directly attack the enemies, but instead, he cleverly supported the allies by lending weapons, but as time progressed, the US did have to go to war. One of the best president in the United States, Roosevelt succeeded in both, domestic and foreign issues. The 1930s and 1940s were dark ages in the United States because of the great depression, likewise, the 2010s are also dark since the national debt is over $21 trillion. The conditions of the foreign issues, on the other hand, are better than ages of World War II, but there are ways that Roosevelt would do handle differently than the current POTUS, Trump. If he were president today, Franklin.

Americans have become used to politicians who will not go against their party’s line. Instead of having numerous free thinking elected officials who come together to ensure the welfare of society, we have two parties that control almost everything. This was not how Theodore Roosevelt led our country. He was a visionary and ethical leader. This paper explains why by describing Theodore Roosevelt’s use of visionary leadership to protect America’s natural resources by being an emotionally flexible leader and using his inspirational motivation. Theodore Roosevelt was an Ethical Leader because he put service before self by resigning from the position of Assistant Secretary of the Navy to fight in the Spanish American War and was a free thinker who went against his party to protect the welfare of society. Theodore Roosevelt has personal relevance in my development as a leader by modeling service before self and allowing me to see how I can improve my inspirational motivation. In order to understand Theodore Roosevelt as a leader, you should first know the impact of his visionary leadership.

President Obama can be described as a president who is both a progressive and pragmatist. His approach at times can be progressive and at other times he is pragmatic when it comes to foreign policy issues. Also, he characterizes his foreign policy by being clearly being engaged in international affairs multilaterally and committed to humanitarianism. It is also interesting to note his foreign policy stance prior to becoming president, and Obama’s values themes, and perspectives on doctrine is outlined in his essay named “Renewing American Leadership.”

Albright tells us that religious wars are proven to be drawn out much longer and are much bloodier wars then the average (Albright 2). “As our experience in Iran reflected, the United States has not always understood this well enough. To lead internationally, American policy-makers must learn as much as possible about religion, and then incorporate that knowledge in their surgery – a necessary task, but fatal if not done well” (7). Albright illustrates that it is important to have a complete understanding of the culture of those you are trying to have diplomatic relations with. As the Dalai Lama said “We must rise to the ethical challenge as members of one human family, not as a Buddhist, a Jew, a Christian, a Hindu, a Muslim. Nor is it adequate to address these ethical challenges from the perspective of purely secular liberal political ideals, such as individual freedom, choice, and fairness” (Dalai Lama 53). Once we can accept everyone’s religion, we can have a fully functional government. Until then we have to remember to respect one another and all other countries views if we wish global decisions to go the way we want for the best of the people.

“Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is” (Mahatma Gandhi). Though many politicians of the day say that government should be in a separate category than religion, it still plays an important role. Religion may not be big in countries like America, but it weighs heavily on many other countries all around the world. That is why when doing anything, a business deal, or a diplomatic trip, there needs to be cautionary measures taken. Two authors go over the subject of one country understanding another: Journalist Thomas Friedman in his text “The Dell Theory of Conflict Prevention”, and former Secretary of State Madeline Albright in her text “Faith and Diplomacy”. In both texts the authors stem off