One of the defining characteristics of Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy was the moral stance he took on American intervention in global affairs. He and his Secretary of State, William Jennings Bryan, believed that it was the religious imperative of the United States to advance democracy and moral progress in the world. This high sense of purpose influenced Wilson’s response to growing unrest in Mexico and the Caribbean. Following the 1910 revolt in Mexico, which ousted the former military dictator Porfirio Diaz, General Victoriano Huerta assumed power in the country. Wilson refused to acknowledge the new Mexican government, as he believed that it had come about illegally. He famously asserted that:
“We hold… that just government rests upon the consent of the governed.”
This statement implied that, because Huerta had assumed power illegitimately, his power was not derived from the consent of the Mexican people, and therefore should not be recognized...
Unlock This Answer Now
Start your 48-hour free trial and get ahead in class. Boost your grades with access to expert answers and top-tier study guides. Thousands of students are already mastering their assignments—don't miss out. Cancel anytime.
Already a member? Log in here.
internationally. In a period when the life or death of fledgling Latin American governments depended on American support and recognition, Wilson extended the idea that immorality was not a suitable precedent for power.
In the Caribbean, Wilson took a stance against maintaining troops in countries that American businesses had heavy investments in. This had been the policy of his predecessor, William Howard Taft, and Wilson could not always follow through with his convictions (for example, he maintained the presence of marines in Nicaragua). Unlike Taft, who favored the protection of American overseas business interests at all costs, Wilson believed in protecting American workers by devoting money and energy in developing the domestic economy. Unfortunately (for Wilson), continuing unrest in the Latin American countries of the Caribbean necessitated the deployment of more US troops. In 1915, Wilson dispatched troops to Haiti, and then in 1916 to the Dominican Republic. For Wilson, the moral imperative of maintaining democratic government in Latin America outweighed his commitment to noninterventionism, which likened his policy somewhat to that of Taft.
Finally, Wilson’s foreign policy differed in spirit, but was similar in practice, to the imperialist stance taken by Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt pushed strongly for the permanent acquisition of the Philippines in 1900, and he also helped broker peace between the Russians and Japanese after the conclusion of the Russo-Japanese War in 1905. Roosevelt believed that the United States, as an emerging industrial global power, should take a strong stance in international affairs, a point of view that differed from Wilson’s more timid approach to imperialism. Still, in practice, Taft, Wilson, and Roosevelt all interfered in the affairs of Pacific and Caribbean countries extensively.
How did Woodrow Wilson's foreign policy differ from Theodore Roosevelt's?
Roosevelt believed in projecting American power. He sent the Great White Fleet on a worldwide tour to show off the modernized American navy and to state American interests in the Pacific. Roosevelt supported Panamanian independence in order to create the Panama canal. He signed the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine which gave the United States the right to intervene in Latin America. Roosevelt also arbitrated in the Russo-Japanese War, an act which won a Nobel Peace Prize. At the onset of WWI, Roosevelt argued for immediate American intervention on the side of the Allies and even offered to lead a division of American soldiers in the conflict. Roosevelt believed that the United States had a duty to project power and its way of life abroad in order to cultivate both manly virtue at home and American values abroad.
Wilson, on the other hand, was more idealistic. He did not want to be known for his foreign policy but rather his domestic agenda. Wilson sent troops into Mexico in order to chase after Pancho Villa and to reestablish the rightful ruler after he was overthrown. While Wilson allowed financiers to loan billions of dollars to the Allies, he did not ask Congress for a declaration of war against the Central Powers until 1917 after Germany resumed unrestricted submarine warfare and the Zimmerman note surfaced. After the war, Wilson's Fourteen Points were seen as a way to promote self-determination for Europeans and to ensure a peace without revenge. Wilson's undoing happened with his stubbornness over the League of Nations. The League ultimately had no power without the United States's backing and proved to be powerless in the buildup to WWII.
Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy is typically said to have been much more idealistic than that of Theodore Roosevelt. However, this is not completely accurate.
There is no doubt that Roosevelt’s policies were not very idealistic. He did win the Nobel Peace Prize for mediating between Russia and Japan to end their war. However, he did so largely because he thought the war was contrary to US interests, not because he loved peace for its own sake. Roosevelt is known for his “big stick” policies in which he used US military power to advance the interests of the country. This can be seen, for example, in his interventions in Latin America when he thought developments there were hurting the US.
Wilson, by contrast, is seen as idealistic. This is particularly true with respect to WWI. In that instance, Wilson wanted to use the US military (through its part in the victory in WWI) to create a new world order that would be fairer, more democratic, and therefore more peaceful. However, Wilson was not always as idealistic as that. He, too, intervened often in the affairs of Latin American countries.
Thus, we can say that Wilson was more idealistic than Roosevelt, but we must not overstate his level of idealism.