Ask a New Question
Menu

The Panama Canal President William McKinley ushered in the era of the American empire using military strength and economic pressure. His successor, Theodore Roosevelt, established a new foreign policy approach called big stick diplomacy. At the crux of his foreign policy was a thinly veiled threat. Roosevelt was convinced that recent American military successes made the use of force to achieve foreign policy goals unnecessary. Simply the threat of military force was enough. Roosevelt felt that America’s best interests were also the best interests of the rest of the hemisphere. He felt the U.S. had the right and duty to police the Americas. This belief, and his strategy of “speaking softly and carrying a big stick,” shaped much of Roosevelt’s foreign policy. Upon becoming president in 1901, Roosevelt was determined to connect the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Roosevelt sought to achieve the construction of a canal across Central America. The canal was mainly intended to enable the U.S. Navy to operate more effectively in both the Atlantic and Pacific, but also made international trade easier. The most strategic location for a canal was across the Isthmus of Panama, but this piece of land would pose a challenge. At the time, Panama was part of the nation of Colombia. Roosevelt negotiated with the government of Colombia using his big stick philosophy. He threatened to take the project away from Colombia and build through Nicaragua. Colombia finally agreed to a treaty that granted the United States a lease on the land across Panama. In exchange for the land, Colombia received a payment of $10 million. Colombia received an additional $250,000 annual rental fee. The Cape Horn sea route begins in Seattle, Washington. It passes southward through the Pacific Ocean following the coasts of North America, Central America, and South America to Cape Horn. At Cape Horn it turns northward. This sea route then passes northward through the Atlantic Ocean following the coasts of South America and North America. It ends in New York City, New York. The Panama Canal sea route begins in Seattle, Washington. It passes southward through the Pacific Ocean following the coasts of North America and Central America. It turns eastward at the Isthmus of Panama and transits the Panama Canal to the Caribbean Sea. It then passes through the Caribbean Sea and turns northward. Finally, it follows the coast of North America to New York City, New York. Before the Panama Canal was built, ships had to use the long, dangerous route around South America’s Cape Horn to sail between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The Colombian people were outraged over the loss of their land to the United States. Influenced by the public outcry, the Colombian Senate rejected the treaty. Upon hearing the treaty had been rejected, Roosevelt urged Panama to revolt against Colombia. Panama declared independence and the U.S. immediately recognized the new nation. Once the Panamanian victory was secured, construction on the canal began in May of 1904. While the area was the best location strategically, engineers would need to modify the land with physical features, such as walls to complete the lock system that would allow ships to navigate the narrow area and shallow waters. Excited by the work, Roosevelt became the first sitting U.S. president to conduct an official international trip. He traveled to Panama where he visited the construction site, taking a turn at the steam shovel and removing dirt. The Panama Canal was constructed across the isthmus of Panama connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The canal officially opened in 1914, permanently changing world trade and military defense patterns.

Describe where the Panama Canal was located and how it helped to improve trade around the world.
Remember that each response must be a minimum of three sentences.

7 answers

The Panama Canal is located across the Isthmus of Panama, a narrow strip of land that connects North and South America. This strategic location allows ships to transit between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans without having to navigate the long and treacherous route around Cape Horn at the southern tip of South America. By shortening the travel distance and time, the canal significantly enhanced global trade, allowing for more efficient movement of goods and resources between various international markets.

The existence of the Panama Canal drastically reduced the travel time for cargo ships, facilitating faster delivery of products and thus lowering shipping costs. As a result, it enabled greater trade volumes and allowed countries to participate more actively in global commerce, adding to wealth and economic growth worldwide. The canal also enhanced military logistics by allowing naval vessels to move more quickly between oceans, improving national security and strategic military operations for the United States and its allies.

Describe where the Panama Canal was located and how it helped to improve trade around the world.
Remember that each response must be a minimum of three sentences.

The Panama Canal is situated across the Isthmus of Panama, which connects North and South America. By providing a direct maritime route between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, the canal eliminates the need for ships to navigate the lengthy and hazardous passage around Cape Horn at the southern tip of South America. This strategic location not only makes it easier for ships to transit between oceans but also significantly reduces travel time.

The canal revolutionized global trade by drastically decreasing shipping distances, which led to reduced costs and shorter delivery times for goods. With the ability to transport products quickly and efficiently, businesses could expand their reach and tap into new markets, fostering economic growth on an international scale. Furthermore, the canal facilitated increased trade volumes among countries, allowing for an exchange of resources and fostering stronger economic relationships between nations around the world.

American Imperialism This political cartoon demonstrates how the issue of imperialism spilled into the presidential election of 1900. How you would feel if a foreign country suddenly took control of the United States? The new government wants to change your culture, your traditions, your beliefs, and how your business operates. How would you feel about these changes? Would you be eager to embrace new rules and a new form of government? How do you think the people of countries annexed by the U.S. felt about these changes? In the early 1900s, the U.S. had expanded to encompass territories in Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Hawaii. The people of those territories suddenly found themselves under American political and economic control. Additionally, Christian missionaries visited many areas to share their religion. America sought to expand its economic and military interests. Some also sought to share American values. Some people welcomed these changes. Others did not, and resentment grew toward the U.S. and its interventionist policies. Can you understand why people felt that way?

The Consequences of Imperialism George Boutwell was a prominent opponent of American imperialism. He served as the first president of the American Anti-Imperialist League. American imperialism had positive and negative consequences. Countries that lost independence grew to resent American intervention. Resentment also grew among European nations as the U.S. sought to end European influence in the Americas. These tensions led to conflicts between the U.S. and other countries, and with the people of America’s new territories. Many people died during conflicts such as the Spanish-American War, the Philippine-American War, and various other U.S. military interventions in the Caribbean and Pacific. However, U.S. imperialism also led to an exchange of cultural beliefs and traditions that brought new ideas and ways of doing business to both Americans and the people of the new territories. Both groups also enjoyed the benefits of sharing art, fashion, food, literature, music, and technology. Economically, imperialism spurred industrialization and created economic growth, both in the U.S. and in its overseas territories, but that economic growth came at a price. American workers were protected by labor laws passed during the Progressive Era, but people in U.S.overseas territories had no such protections. For them, wages were low, and jobs were often dirty and dangerous. These sources of cheap labor also undercut wages, and in some cases led to job losses, for competing U.S. workers. Some of these negative consequences were exactly what anti-imperialists like George Boutwell had feared.

read this first

American imperialism in the early 20th century brought about significant changes for territories like Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Hawaii, leading to a mix of welcome and resentment among the local populations. If a foreign country suddenly took control of the United States and sought to change my culture, traditions, and beliefs, I would likely feel a deep sense of loss and resistance. The imposition of new rules and government structures often comes with the erosion of local identities, and it is natural for individuals to feel threatened by such changes, especially if they are prioritized over their established ways of life.

People in the annexed territories likely experienced a range of emotions; some may have welcomed American influence due to the promise of economic opportunities and advancements in technology, while others felt anger and resentment as they lost their autonomy. The lack of consent in governance can lead to feelings of powerlessness and alienation, particularly when the changes are culturally invasive. The American interventions were driven partly by a desire to spread American values and Christian beliefs, but these actions were often seen as undermining the existing cultures and traditions of the people in those territories.

The consequences of American imperialism were complex. While it led to economic growth and cultural exchanges that brought new ideas and practices, it often came at the expense of local traditions and self-determination. Many in the U.S. overseas territories, unlike American workers who were protected by labor laws during the Progressive Era, faced harsh labor conditions and low wages, deepening the divide between those who benefitted from imperialism and those who suffered under it. This disparity undoubtedly fueled the criticisms voiced by anti-imperialists like George Boutwell, highlighting the moral and ethical dilemmas associated with such expansive policies.

Explain the difference between the views of the interventionists and anti-interventionists in American politics in this era. (Imperialists = interventionists)

During the era of American imperialism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the political discourse was largely divided between interventionists (or imperialists) and anti-interventionists.

Interventionists (Imperialists): Interventionists believed that the United States should actively engage in international affairs and expand its influence beyond its borders. They argued that American control over foreign territories was justified for several reasons, including the promotion of democracy, the spread of American values and civilization, and the pursuit of economic interests. Interventionists often viewed imperialism as a means of securing strategic military positions and increasing the nation’s global stature. They believed that the U.S. had a moral duty to civilize other nations and that American expansion would bring progress and development to those less fortunate. Prominent figures in this camp included politicians and business leaders who supported policies like the annexation of territories and military interventions.

Anti-Interventionists: In contrast, anti-interventionists opposed imperialism and the use of military force to exert control over other nations. They argued that such actions were fundamentally un-American and contradicted the principles of self-determination and democracy that the U.S. professed to uphold. Anti-interventionists were concerned that imperialism would lead to overextension of American military and political resources, foster resentment and conflict, and undermine the nation's core values. They often advocated for diplomacy and peaceful engagement instead of military intervention. Notable anti-interventionists included figures like George Boutwell and members of the American Anti-Imperialist League, who highlighted the moral and ethical implications of imperialism, arguing that the exploitation of other countries was inherently wrong.

In summary, while interventionists viewed imperialism as a way to promote American ideals and assert global leadership, anti-interventionists opposed such policies on moral, ethical, and pragmatic grounds, emphasizing the need to respect the sovereignty of other nations. This dichotomy effectively captured the broader tensions in American foreign policy during this transformative period.