Roosevelt’s foreign policy in Latin America lowered the level of compliance due to fear that the creditor countries of Latin America would use it for their political purposes. The main difference between Theodore Roosevelt’s foreign policy towards Latin America was the revision of the Monroe doctrine. This measure determined the main directions and principles of the foreign policy of the United States of America in the nineteenth century (Scarfi, 2020). Moreover, the doctrine was used to limit the colonization of lands by European countries. The document that played a significant role in bringing changes to the doctrine was the “Roosevelt Consequences.” It implied the permission of the United States to interfere in the activities of Latin America, provided that the latter acted unreasonably and resorted to offenses. Roosevelt argued that there is no reason for concern on the part of Latin America since the states adhere to the standards of behavior (“New policies for Latin America, Asia,” n.d.). Things were different with the foreign policy of Theodore Roosevelt concerning Asia.
In the case of Asia, the formation of a new policy was provoked by the acquisition of the Philippines and caused the creation of equal access of countries to Chinese market. This was useful for the country, as the country was in territorial proximity with China, whose market had valuable potential and prospects for America. The invasion of European countries into China could be a limitation of working with the country’s market. Thus, equal access of countries to shipping and compliance with the principles of free trade was proposed as a solution. Thus, the difference between the policy towards China and Latin America has become less abrupt and calmer conduct of affairs. The United States of America used different methods because it had different goals and intentions towards the affected countries.
Robber Barons played a significant role in the Industrial Revolution and had both negative and positive effect of society. The term appeared during the Industrial Revolution and is of particular value for study. This concept was used for some nineteenth-century American businessmen who used questionable methods to gain their wealth (Harasymiw, 2021). It is worth noting that the judgments about these people were not entirely accurate in every case and were not based on rumors. These “questionable methods” usually included the idea that they were offering their own further. The methods resorted to by robber barons usually related to the distribution of products at low prices, which affected the small wages of labor and the redemption of competitors gain leadership. When business people made sure that they were at the top of the market, they sharply increased prices, which caused dissatisfaction on the part of the general public. Thus, these entrepreneurs also monopolized industries by creating trusts. In addition, they engaged in unethical practices to achieve their goals and exploited employees.
Despite this, the Robber barons significantly contributed to the Industrial Revolution. They have contributed to bringing significant transformation into the life of American society, causing complex social and economic changes. Therefore, the number of negative sentiments and discontent began to grow in the country, which was reflected in riots and the appearance of trade unions. It is essential to add that the barons also had the name “captains of industry,” which denoted a business leader whose personal funds were directed to positive changes in the country (Lefèvre & Elson, 2020). Among such figures who fell under both categories of businessmen were J.P. Morgan, Andrew Carnegie, and John D. Rockefeller (“The second Industrial Revolution,” n.d.). These figures invested in such areas as increasing productivity, creating more jobs, or simple charitable initiatives.
References
Harasymiw, T. (2021). The Industrial Revolution. Cavendish Square Publishing, LLC.
Lefèvre, S. A., & Elson, P. R. (2020). A contextual history of foundations in Canada. PR Elson, SA Lefèvre, & J.-M. Fontan, Philanthropic Foundations in Canada: Landscapes, Indigenous Perspectives and Pathways to Change, 13-32.
New policies for Latin America, Asia. (n.d.). Office of the Historian.
Scarfi, J. P. (2020). Denaturalizing the Monroe Doctrine: The rise of Latin American legal anti-imperialism in the face of the modern US and hemispheric redefinition of the Monroe Doctrine. Leiden Journal of International Law, 33(3), 541-555.
The second industrial Revolution. (n.d.). Lumen. Web.