<p>If it helps, here is one of my essays. The FRE question was To what extent was Americas foreign policy based on economic, moral, political, and strategic interests from the years 1890-1916</p>
<p>For the most part, American forign policy between 1890 and 1916 was not determined by economic intrested, but by moral, political, and strategic ones. Though economic reasons were not totally overlooks, if you analize some major issues from the time, such as Cuba,The Philipines,The Panama Canal, and WWI, you see the reasoning behind them was not primarly economic.</p>
<p>Cuba and the spanish american war is one example. The USA went to war with spain not to conqure cuba, but to liberate cuba. The yellow press told stories about the atrocities that spain commmited which outraged Americans, even though they may have been fabricated. The Maine explotion gave us a supposedly legitament excuse for war. When we went to war we captured cuba, but then granted them their indapendence, keeping only guantamano as a strategic base, not for economic gains.</p>
<p>The Philipines were another heated issue of the day. The USA did not exploit the country, but instead tried to asimilate it by improveing infastructer, schools etc. Things that costed money, but were caried out because we belived that we had a moral obligation to help those people. Social Darwinism, not profits shaped our policy on The Philipines, and they were eventualy given their inapendence.</p>
<p>The Panamana Canal may superficialy look like a economic venture, but it was much more a political and stategic one. A Nicgorega rout was just as practical, but Panama was desided because Roosevelt wanted to be relected. The Panamainas had recently revolted against Columbia, and offered land for the Canal. The Immidate construction of the canal in panama as the election loomed boosted Roosevelts populatiry and helped insure his re-election. Once completed, The Panama Canal served a inportant stateic purpose, linking east and west costs by a faster sea rout, and like above was eventualy ceeded back to its native people.</p>
<p>Economics most directly affected US policy at the start of WWI, but even then polical and moral were bigger issues. The nutral United States traded heavily with England, but not with Germany due to a englich blocade. If profits had not been high we may not have been satified, but also if we could only trade with the germans it is unlikely we would be happy either. Positive relations with england following the Venazuela dispute kept the nutral United States leaning close the allies. The United States was not angered by the British blocade, but were outraged by the germans attmped to blocade with U-Boats, leading the the sinking of the Lusitiania, amoung other ships. In addition the Kaizers autoracy directly contradicted with american values of demoracy. Though economic reasons were a part of it, politcal and moral reasons also keept america on the side of the allies both before and after it officaly entered the war.</p>
<p>From 1890 to 1916 american forign policy was very different then that of most countried at the time and beforehand. Our primary goal was not profit, but to expand our ideals. This lead to US returning the areas we gained controll of to its natives for self government, something rarely done beforehand without any sort of fight. These ideas also helped ensure our alligance with the Allies during WWI, and is a policy we would try to maintain untill present day.</p>