Was US foreign policy between 1890 and 1940 "isolationist" or not?

I'm writing a history paper on it and looking for more opinions. Any help you can give me will be greatly appreciated.

There are more informed than I to speak on this, but the way it acquired and treated the Philipines, Panama, Hawaii, Cuba, and its treatment of Japan in that time period are not examples of minding its own business. Also its entry into WWI on behalf of an Empire, that of Britain, wasn't either. BTW after the end of WWI, Britain, retained an embargo on landlocked Germany that caused over 100,000 civilian deaths.

In general, the US did not want to meddle in "old continent" affairs, although it was rather busy tending to its own imperialistic interests...like today...
Both world wars "dragged" the US into the fight but I personally believe that "hidden agendas" did more to the US involvement than "goodie two-shoe sentiments" of going out to help out in the war effort.

we went back and forth during that time period. from 1890 to the start of the spanish american war we were isolated. under Mckinley and the war i would consider that to be active (especially when our stated goal was to free cuba, puerto rico and the philapeans from the spanish)
roosevelt obviously was active internationally with the panama canal and the roosevelt corollary to the monroe doctrine.
under taft we withdrew internationally. something that continued for part of woodrow wilsons term. Wilson wanted us to be a leader internationaly, but needed WWI to do that.
after the war the country wanted to pull back and become isolationist again. (defeat of the league of nations)
our isolationist attitude continued under harding, coolidge and hoover.
FDR began (slowly of course) our becoming more active in international affairs

hope that helps

peace
david
:hippie:

The Nye Committee hearings in 1935 revealed the extent to which arms manufacturers had deliberately dragged the US into World War I. This helped intensify isolationist leanings across a broad spectrum of political opinion, from the pro-fascist right to the pacifist left.

FDR himself was not an isolationist, but he had to contend with these isolationist tendencies in the US, which became even stronger with the outbreak of World War II in Europe in 1939.

The left, of course, largely got over its isolationism once the US was actively involved in the war. The paleoconservative right never did.

Our action in the Phillipines near the turn of the century was certainly not isolationist; McKinley's stated desire was the "Christianize the Phillipines. I doubt T. Roosevelt would have considered himself isolationist.

WW1 should probably not even be considered, as our actions in it were more in response to the perceived German threat against us than anything else. Certainly, the US resistance to the League of Nations, and the subsequent election of Harding (who opposed the League) reflects a turn towards strong isolationism.

I would put down our Isolationist period as being from 1919-1941. Our Army shrunk in size, we resisted involvement in the League of Nations, and we avoided WW2 until we were directly attacked.

I'm sure I'm being vague, but it's late in the evening...

this has all been really great. I think there is something inherently contradictory about just labelling the US "isolationist" in this period. As most of you have written, there are times that foreign policy was and was not what we could now consider to be isolationist. Thanks for your help.

If anyone else wants to chime in with some information, I'd be most grateful.

Cheers.

reluctance to get involved in the "Old World"'s (Europe's) politics was common during that time period (and throughout American history before 1941), with a few notable exceptions (ie World War I.)

However, the Spanish-American war could never be construed as isolationist, nor could the control the US government had over that of Cuba. The willlingness to mantain territories in the Phillipines and other areas in the Carribean and Pacific was far from isolationist as well. Border skirmishes with Mexico, plus quite a bit of involvement within that country, was also not isolationist.

if isolationism means sticking out of the affairs of the rest of the world, then the US wasn't isolationist. But should the term 'isolatonist' really mean "sticking out of the affairs of the rest of the world where there are no US interests." In that regard, only FDR and WWI could really be considered breaking with isolationism between 1890 and 1940, couldn't it? The rest had something to do with US strategic interests in whatever areas they got into.

We were active in the stuff we got from Spain. We didn;t get involved much with things not in our hemisohere (except the Phillipins, an awful war no one talks about)

and this is where I'm having issues. I think this may have to be one of the points of conjecture in my argument: that it really depends on how one defines the word.

If it's US interests only, then the US was, most of the time, isolationist in this era.

If isolationism has nothing to do with interests, one way or another, and is only about involvement in other peoples' affairs, then the US was not isolationst...

Any thoughts?

without its interests at heart, even if cloaked in the ideology of protecting freedom and democracy in the world and at home.

Perhaps a good way to look at it is from the perspectives of binding alliances and of selective interventionism.

The US has been isolationist about alliances, collective security, etc. until WWII.....but has always been active in selective military interventionism when it felt its interests were threatened.

DemEx

from the start up until after ww2 we were isolationists