The U.S. and Latin America FRQ
-
a) “Economic factors were the major reasons for the expansionist foreign policy of the U.S. in the late 19th and early 20th century.” To what extent was this idea supported by the actions of the U.S. Government? Cause
b) Analyze the reasons for the expansionist foreign policy of the U.S. during the period 1880 – 1929. Cause
c) “The U.S. policies of the Big Stick Policy and Moral Diplomacy in Latin America had different motives, but similar consequences.” To what extent do you agree with this statement? Perspectives
-
1) _____Thesis – 1st paragraph (4 pts)
a) _____Supporting Argument #1 (4 pts)
b) _____Supporting Argument #2 (4 pts)
2) _____Supporting Argument #1 – 2nd paragraph (4 pts)
a) _____ Describe/Explain Historical Thinking Skill. (4 pts)
b) _____ Elaborate about the time period and/or argument. (4 pts)
c) _____Names OR Events OR Vocabulary AND why they are important. (4 pts)
d) _____Names OR Events OR Vocabulary AND why they are important. (4 pts)
e) _____Names OR Events OR Vocabulary AND why they are important. (4 pts)
f) _____Historical Accuracy (are your historical facts correct) (4 pts)
g) _____The Argument answers the question (4 pts)
3) _____Supporting Argument #2 – 3rd paragraph (4 pts)
a) _____ Describe/Explain Historical Thinking Skill. (4 pts)
b) _____ Elaborate about the time period and/or argument. (4 pts)
c) _____Names OR Events OR Vocabulary AND why they are important. (4 pts)
d) _____Names OR Events OR Vocabulary AND why they are important. (4 pts)
e) _____Names OR Events OR Vocabulary AND why they are important. (4 pts)
f) _____Historical Accuracy (are your historical facts correct) (4 pts)
g) _____The Argument answers the question (4 pts)
4) _____Contextualization (Summarize the time period) – 4th paragraph (4 pts)
a) _____ What was occurring? (4 pts)
b) _____ Where were the events occurring at? (4 pts)
c) _____ Why were these events occurring? (4 pts)
d) _____ How were these events occurring? (4 pts)
e) _____ Who was involved and in what ways? (4 pts)
-
Date of writing: 9/23/2025
Time limit: 45 minutes
Preparation time: 4 days
Chosen prompt: “The U.S. policies of the Big Stick Policy and Moral Diplomacy in Latin America had different motives, but similar consequences.” To what extent do you agree with this statement? Perspectives
Word count: 841
Grade: 92%
The statement that "the Big Stick Policy and Moral Diplomacy in Latin America had different motives, but similar consequences" is a reasonably justifiable statement, as while the policies had clear, distinct motives---military dominance versus ethical governance---they ultimately had similar effects in Latin America as political instability and anti-American emotion gained clarity. Theodore Roosevelt's Big Stick Policy and Woodrow Wilson's Moral Diplomacy were completely separate in the reason for action, as Roosevelt mostly carried imperalistic behaviors and pushed for American interests while Wilson was careful about the moral aspects of governing. Though, undeniably, both policies led to relatively similar effects in the form of power vacuums upon American exit, anti-American sentiment due to military occupation, and economic exploitation.
As stated prior, Theodore Roosevelt's Big Stick Policy and Woodrow Wilson's Moral Diplomacy had clear disparities in terms of why they were enacted. Roosevelt pursued anything that benefited the U.S.'s trade apparatus, global influence, or political power, thus his perspective called for intial, peaceful negotiation, but to always be prepared for the participation of military. Wilson, on the other hand, had a perspective more based on the ethical interest and basis of which guided the majority of his actions. It should be noted that Roosevelt's policy emerged during a time in which imperialistic ideas were strong---and when the U.S. was beginning its debut as an international, self-governing actor---while Wilson's policy originated during the wake of World War One, when ideals of global peace and unity were arising. The Big Stick Policy, or also known as Roosevelt's Corollary, was a U.S. foreign policy by Roosevelt that said to "speak softly, but carry a big stick", referring to diplomacy as speaking softly and military intervention as a big stick. Roosevelt, having a strong emphasis on the conduction of imperialistic behaviors, often sought out actions that furthered America's economic and political status, and as such, his primary motivation was for the policy to enhance the U.S. economy and political power. Contrastly, Moral Diplomacy was a U.S. foreign policy by Wilson that identified and considered the moral side of governing, taking into account the possibly negative effects that a strong, boasting military could have. Through this policy, Wilson conveys his attempt at respecting self-determination, global peace, and collective security, ideologies that would later be reflected in his Fourteen Points at the Paris Peace Conference. Aside from personal ambition, the policies had clear disparities in terms of each presidents' economic interests. While Roosevelt actively demonstrated his desire for increased American influence and economic advantage, Wilson's policy, in a way, showed his desire to prevent economic exploitation as seen in his clear promotion of democracy internationally---a desire not fufilled.
Although each policy differed in motive, their ultimate effects were identical in outcome. Latin America during U.S. foreign policy effect had a perspective extremely skewed toward negativity---frustration at U.S. control and anti-American sentiment. During the time of active foreign policies, projects such as the Panama Canal and government action like the 1905 customs receivership, built up resentment toward America and its omnipresent influence in Latin America. This sense of resentment arose mainly due to military occupation and absurd social, political, and economic manipulation. This is seen in actions like the Panama Canal, which reflected the forceful establishment of U.S. presence in the area, furthered by the 1905 customs receivership, which increased taxes and took a toll on Latin American economies. Additionally, military occupation, in American troops were stationed in a selected nation, proliferated rapidly and became a prominent contributor to anti-American sentiments. Furthermore, power vacuums, a state in which there is a sudden gap in political, social, and economic upkeep as a result of an integral structure suddenly leaving, became detrimental issues handed on to Latin American countries. Once U.S. military interventions were pulled from their respective territories, numerous countries experienced a sudden lack of infrastructure in the form of political power, economic control, and social structuring, leaving a heavy burden many governments could not easily recover due to the previous economic and political exploitations performed by both the Big Stick Policy and Moral Diplomacy.
In the period of time that was U.S. foreign policy, Theodore Roosevelt's Big Stick Policy---Roosevelt's Corollary---and Woodrow Wilson's Moral Diplomacy were primary actors on the stage of Latin America, preceeding the progress of the Panama Canal and role of the 1905 customs receivership. As a whole, this time frame played out in both the U.S. and majority of South America, but primarily South America. Initially, they occurred as a result of Roosevelt's interventionism and imperialism, and wer followed by Wilson's interest in global affairs. Leading to military intervention, mass economic exploitation, and general power collapse, the effects of the U.S. foreign policies was no short of devastating for Latin American countries. This puzzle piece of time involved many nations and their governments, but the two most prevalent figures were Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.
