From the birth of the American Republic, there has been a debate over whether the American government acts in an isolationist or interventionist manner. Throughout its history, from the Mexican-American War and Mexican Revolution, the U.S. in Nicaragua, and World War I, that the United States has undeniably and continuously acted as an interventionist in world affairs. The United State’s economic interests, as well as its mission to spread democracy, were leading causes for intervention. There is a fine line between encouraging change in countries and interfering in their international affairs; however, the U.S. has repeatedly crossed it. The Mexican-American War was a major military intervention for the US. The United States began to infringe upon Mexico’s sovereignty in the 1840s when the American mission of manifest destiny advances the United States’ economic interests of Westward expansion throughout Mexican territory (Lecture Sept. 24). In this case, the American public, which was influenced by the Polk administration, justified and disguised means for war and territorial and economic expansion as being “pioneers of civilization,” (Herring 201) and spreading the blessing of democracy; American public support for the war was strong. Moreover, Mexican land was the driving factor of the war because Polk considered Western territory to the Pacific Coast to be valuable as it would be pivotal to increase American power, as well as important to conquer before European powers could ally with Mexico, hindering US expansion. He therefore convinced Congress that this was enough of a threat to declare war. It was Polk’s mission to secure the border of the Rio Grande and the lands of California and New Mexico to secure additional economic and military advantage.
Another example of economic interventionism was carried out by President Taft in the early 1900s. He adopted