The birth of a new nation only comes from the most extraordinary of circumstances. In ancient times, tribesmen compromised over shared lands to establish order marking an end to the vast uncivilized history of humanity. However, the condition of human desire was far too great to be doused through negation as for some men found unimaginable success as conquerors. First to rise to extraordinary prominence were the ancient Greeks, whose societal and political construction has been instituted in most nations within the Western Hemisphere. Centuries later with the absence of Greek dominance throughout the Mediterranean grew the Romans, who perhaps emulated the Greek model to a previously inconceivable degree of success. The mortar that solidified the Roman Empire deep within the tale of history was how they thrived in political balance. The ability maintain rule over the entire Mediterranean was originated from the stability of their political process, as it is the will of kings and lawmakers who dictate the course of history (Wasson). 

The Romans found balance in a system of compromises as, “the new government chose consuls, two in number. These individuals were not elected by the populace but appointed by the popular assembly”, with both consuls having equal influence (Wasson 2). However, when in times of crisis a leader was elected to act as dictator to ensure decisive actions could be made free from any restraints that referring to government can produce, as time being a relative factor. It is for this reason the Founding Fathers of America chose to emulate the model established by the Romans. The revolution stirred by the colonists against the British Empire was no conventional route to forge a nation, and within those desperate times rose some of our nation’s finest figures. Recognizing the successes and failures in history, the Founding Fathers determined a democratic republic would be best for the new, naive nation prone to all the dangers that comes inadvertently with independence. There was a consensus deciding that a government with foundations within three separate branches creates equality and stability from which America will grow. But in today’s modern world America is not viewed as a weak or inexperienced country. And how is that? How did America transform from a newly separated colony to a dominant world force in only 240 years? The answer lies within our dealings with other nations. After America experienced the growing pains of birth, culminating in the Civil War, the nation solidified and began to view outwards upon the world as a new horizon of opportunity. America underwent a dramatic cultural shift from isolationism to expansionism in the late 1800’s to early 1900’s that transformed our nation into a global superpower by adopting an aggressive ideology towards the implementation of our Foreign Policy agenda.

The conclusion of Civil War began a new uncharted chapter for the United States. While the Civil War saw brothers fight against brothers, the contrary was true in its aftermath. From the turmoil and unrest rose a sense of unity through a bond over a new purpose. A solidified America now looked upon the world with a fresh set of eyes as, “after the Civil War, the United States became a recognized world power and established hegemony within the Western Hemisphere” (Mead 174). An increase in infrastructure resulting from the Industrial Revolution provided the backbone for further growth as underdeveloped areas soon became equipped with all facets of modern technology. Railroads, telegraphs and astoundingly entire cities illuminated from the glow of electric light quickly brought internal stability within the country that was ripe for influence that began to be filled with the prosperity of business. Top business men and tycoons of industry began to see the underutilized value of the American market in relationships with foreign nations. And as history will always tell, the interests of business align with the interest of politics when the benefits are insurmountable. During Reconstruction, Presidents and their administrations began to establish relationships with other nations within the continent. However, the old empires of Europe still had their foothold in North and South America through numerous colonies with perceived less military strength than America itself. Here sets the stage for the beginning of conflict as American interests conflicted with European intentions in the colonies, and the start of America becoming a global force. 

Most notable in the birth of American Imperialism would have to be the Spanish -American War of 1898, whose intricacies foreshadowed many conflicts that were to come. Cuba in the late 1800’s was still controlled by Spanish Rule who maltreated the natives whose small rebellion called for liberation. Upon hearing their cries for freedom, the American people resonated deeply with Cuba’s plea, as Americas too had been previously under harsh foreign rule. Aside from sympathy there was also much interest in Cuba as an economic opportunity for its relative location to Florida. With a popular public understanding for the trails of the native Cubans and a deviously motivated government, it only took one accusation against Spain to ignite war. In the early morning hours of, “February 15th, 1898, the U.S. battleship Maine was sunk by a large explosion while docked in Havana harbor, killing 252 men” (Raico 4). While even to this day the cause for the explosion is still unknown, that did not hold back the overwhelming backlash of so many Americans who blamed the Spanish regime. The decision to take immediate action against the Spanish was quickly reached and what followed was the extremely successful rout of Spanish rule in Cuba. While the Spanish – American War was brief and largely forgotten, the circumstances leading up and consequences thereafter became almost a model in hindsight for how America began to establish influence in the rest of the world. A precedent was established as “the 1891 – 1919 extrovert phase included the Spanish – American War, in which the United States intervened in the Cuban situation to protect its developing interest as the dominant indigenous power in the Western Hemisphere” (Holmes 82). In essence, America would befriend a colony subjected to European Rule, supply revolutionaries with proper equipment and sometimes militarily intervene themselves to overthrow the current administration only to install a friendly government that aligns with American interests. During peace negations, America gained significant territories relinquished by Spain in Gaum, Puerto Rico and the Philippines, not even to mention the annexation of Hawaii that occurred separately during this time. With the most prosperous benefits ever reaped from a treaty in our nation’s history, America got a taste for blood and never looked back (Raico).

Achieving such a great victory with such little cost heavily refined the ideology of how strategically successful American Foreign policy can be if properly implemented by Congress and Presidential administrations. Across all political parties there was a consensus that, “the foreign policy deals first with the perseveration of its independence and security, and second with the pursuit and protection of its economic interests” (Holmes 231). However, the analysis of this statement did provoke conflict between those who read into a broad interpretation proclaiming it was America’s right to keep expanding influence against those with a narrower opinion preaching caution for America to not overextend its liberties that would result in the world viewing the nation as a newly born ruthless empire. These discretions in interpretation of America’s new role on the global stage was kept relatively dormant with the monumental impending crisis in Europe. Decades of delicate treaties involving seemingly every country and empire in Europe placed the region in a high stress situation in the 1910’s. The most prevailing alliances posed to cause the most conflict was the Triple Entente composed of the Russian Empire, the French Republic and the United Kingdom against the Central Powers consisting of Germany and Austria-Hungary. The assassination of Austrian Duke Franz Ferdinand in the Bosnian capital of Sarajevo on June 28, 1914 was the spark in the powder keg that ignited the world in the War to End All Wars. However, while Europe toiled away in the deadly conflict, there was very little support from American citizens and politicians alike to jump headlong into intervention. There was a popular view that America should refrain from such a costly war overseas that would produce little monetary or territorial benefit if even victorious. 

President Woodrow Wilson however understood the truth of what potential growth for our nation could be lost if the American allies in the United Kingdom and France were to fall the German and Austrian-Hungarian armies. Wilson comprehended that, “while habit, tradition, and the popular fetish of isolationism dictated an attitude of indifferent aloofness toward transatlantic problems, the steady decline of trade, the increasing insecurity of the huge American investments in Europe, and the palpable impossibility of European governments meeting their debt obligations required vigorous co-operative action to avert disaster” (Schuman 885). Despite this knowledge, Wilson still was presented the difficult challenge of convincing the public and Congress that expending capital and American lives towards a war effort across the Atlantic was worthwhile to the future integrity of our nation. To counter the growing resentment, the Wilson administration, “continued to play an influential role in world affairs up to World War I, under president … Woodrow Wilson: and this role reached an unpresented climax with the America’s entry into the war in 1917. Woodrow Wilson demonstrated a new approach to diplomacy… guided by a moral fervor which he ultimately applied in stimulating Americans to respond vigorously to the German challenge of 1917” (Klingberg 18). 

American intervention in coalition with the Triple Entente of the United Kingdom, France and Russia immediately had a profound impact on the moral of soldiers and military victories along a previously stagnant Western Front across the Maginot Line. For the first time in history, Europe was fully focused on the strength of America’s military force, firmly establishing in the eyes of the even the harshest European critics that the prominent shadow cast from across Atlantic was now a formidable force to be reckoned with. The bold Foreign Policy initiative enacted by Wilson was a successful experiment in seeing how far America’s new influence can stretch around the world as the war quickly ended following the initial military intervention. But Wilson did not halt at victory as the final culmination to influence Europe towards America interests. Wilson placed America to become an integral part of the following peace negotiations occurring in Paris 1919 even through apparent relevant fact that, “the United States still had a disproportionately influential role in shaping the peace, with fewer casualties than any other great power and fewer forces on the ground in Europe” (Mead 172). Despite this, Wilson still had significant influence on Treaty of Versailles that was hoped to bring an end to all future conflicts in Europe. The notable initiative initiated by Wilson was the League of Nations, a proposed intergovernmental organization whose main purpose was to maintain world peace through disarmament and arbitration. Americans claimed enormous stake to negotiations as, “in 1919, it must have seemed to many that the main developments in our history (especially in the two previous decades) had all paved the way for our full participation in the great postwar experiment for peace” (Klingberg 10).

Following the signage of the Treaty of Versailles from all of the waring nations, America underwent a transition inclined towards isolationism rather than further expansion. The horrible causalities sustained in the year of fighting in Europe off put many politicians and citizens alike to any further advancement in the pursuit of our nations interests with the fear of more loss of life. Fulfilling a desire for self-interest did not diminish the potency of the nation in regards to global influence as in the post war years American influence began to reign supreme coinciding with English becoming the predominant language of business. Nevertheless, Europe would not main docile for long as the apparent weakness of the Treaty of Versailles began to unwind with the rise of the National Socialist Party in Germany during the 1930’s. As the political situation deteriorated yet again in Europe, Americans were again incredibly reluctant with involving itself in another overseas conflict. Public resentment came as much relief to the now arisen Axis Powers of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and the Empire of Japan, who were intent of keeping the American war machine docile. However, the nation would not remain neutral following the surprising bombing of the American Fleet at Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941 as, “America’s most basic interest, preservation of its territorial integrity and well-being, has been directly threatened. Japanese aggression in the Pacific eventually posed a definite threat to American territorial integrity and was countered by the United States entry into WWII” (Holmes 233). The fears of the Axis Powers had been made true as America rolled headlong with ultimate effort previously unseen towards the war effort. The dragging economy coming out of the Great Depression was snapped into life with the production of the necessities for military strength including everything from ammunition rounds to aircraft carriers. 

 World War II ended swiftly after the initial Allied invasion in Normandy, France with tremendous American intervention, but D-Day was just the beginning of an even more strenuous conflict that would test the will of nations. Following the defeat of Hitler and the surrender of the Empire of Japan, the power balance of the world started to shift dramatically. The old powers in Europe had exhausted themselves from two world wars and the power vacuum had begun to be fulfilled by the new powerful victors, the United States and the Soviet Union. Russia had transformed itself from the disillusioned monarchy traditions of the past into a powerful state following the communist ideology. Russia’s vast population and seemingly endless supply of natural resources quickly emerged as a global industrial and military powerhouse that rapidly began to exert their new position on smaller, weaker nations. The spread of communism throughout Eastern Europe and Asia began to raise concerns of American politics who were fearful of a communist takeover. American Foreign Policy was overhauled to combat the spread of communism in the most aggressive way. While Russian and American politics clashed via diplomacy, the first realization that this was becoming a global conflict was with the Korean War as, “America sought to protect its interests in East Asia by entering the Korean conflict. The danger involved in the undeclared war, although less than that in the two world wars, was considerable in the terms of possibilities for escalation” (Holmes 237). While significantly less relevant than WWI and WWII, the Korean War was crucial in bringing the Cold War to the attention of all nations. It was clear that Russia and America were now competing on a different level previously unconceivable to other nations. There was beginning of a divide amongst the all the powers of the world between the path of democracy and the support of communism.

Foreign Policy makers enacted stiff reform to counteract a pertinent threat the spread of communism that holds aversive views towards the American ideals of democracy. The Cold War ensued between the United States and the Soviet Union as a race to see which nation could prevail as the industrial and military juggernaut that would be unchallenged by all other nations. The recent nuclear developments by both countries brought unprecedented stress to the situation as the ability to wipe out entire mass urban areas had not previously available. But internal conditions within the Soviet Union began to falter giving way to the inevitable fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, leaving America to maintain the role as the sole superpower with a ubiquitous global presence. With all major challengers dissolved, “the United States not only prevailed in the Cold War, but also ensured the spread of its language, culture, and products worldwide” to establish the self-centered view of America as a dominant world force most citizens depict themselves as today (Mead 176).

While there is tremendous evidence supporting the idea of America’s volatile relationships with nations in the past, some historians and politicians argue that America has been a pioneer in deliberating for advancement in world peace. Supporters of this notion call to reference the attempted League of Nations initiated by Woodrow Wilson and the ongoing organization of the United Nations as predominant efforts by American Foreign policy makers to establish a global justice entity. However, while these administrations have had major faults in the past, supporters of the view as America’s role as peacemakers consistently call attention to the election of Jimmy Carter in 1976. The Carter administration is accredited to igniting, “a quantum leap … in bringing human rights issues in the focus of political and intellectual discourse in the USA” (Mathur 746). There is credibility to this view as the latter 1970’s saw the end of the Vietnam War, a strenuous and bloody conflict that saw the nation being pushed to the brink of unravelling through anti-government discourse. Politicians and citizens who have experienced considerable suffering from American conflicts called for the end of aggressive expansionist ideology and to be replaced with mindful legislature to protect the innate rights of all individuals across the globe.

Complexity lies within all difficult truths, and discretion must be used when evaluating the facts of history as distortions arise as more time passes. The case is true for this introspective look inwards at the history of American Foreign Policy. Glaringly evident within the margins of history is the incredibly story of a new nation beating all the odds to differentiate itself from another failed colonization. It is remarkable that America transformed itself from naïve to dominant over the course of two and a half centuries, but the nation did not do so by being passive. America seized the initiative and capitalized on the opportunities as they presented themselves in an aggressive manner. But aggression was necessary. How else could a newcomer let everyone else know understand their clear determination to become successful? In this regard, citizens of America should view the past with both admiration for the accomplishment and sacrifice made by previous generations, but also with humbled cautiousness as America has made numerous and consequential mistakes effecting the lives of people globally. Recently, Foreign Policy has again captured the attention of the public as presidential administrative, “actions over the past year reveal an increasingly aggressive military approach to our foes and geopolitical rivals, along with increased military support for key allies” (French 3). As the nation progresses into an uncharted chapter of history with the election of Donald Trump, concerned citizens can only call that our nation’s leaders have fully analyzed the past as for those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.
