Essay Undergraduate 385 words

McKinley vs. Cleveland: U.S. Foreign Policy in the 1890s

~2 min read

Abstract

This essay examines and compares the foreign policy approaches of two American presidents active during the 1890s: William McKinley and Grover Cleveland. It argues that McKinley's imperialistic worldview, shaped heavily by public opinion and the "yellow press," drew the United States into the Spanish-American War and left the country appearing aggressive on the world stage. By contrast, Grover Cleveland demonstrated greater diplomatic skill by asserting American interests — as in the Venezuelan boundary crisis — without pursuing territorial expansion at the expense of other peoples. The paper concludes that Cleveland's more restrained and principled approach made him the more effective foreign policy leader of the era.

📝 How to Write This Type of Paper Writing guide — click to expand

▼

What makes this paper effective

The paper establishes a clear comparative thesis early and returns to it in the conclusion, giving the argument a cohesive through-line.
It grounds its comparison in specific historical events — the Spanish-American War, the Venezuelan boundary crisis, and the proposed annexations of Hawaii and Cuba — rather than speaking only in generalities.
The contrast between McKinley's responsiveness to the "yellow press" and Cleveland's more principled restraint is a concrete and evaluable criterion for judging "skill" in foreign policy.

Key academic technique demonstrated

The paper demonstrates a point-by-point comparative analysis. Rather than describing each president in isolation, it consistently measures both leaders against the same standard — whether their foreign policy served genuine national interests without unnecessary aggression or territorial overreach. This technique keeps the argument focused and prevents the essay from becoming a simple biographical summary.

Structure breakdown

The essay opens with a direct statement of purpose and thesis. It then devotes one paragraph to McKinley, presenting his imperialistic record as evidence of poor diplomatic judgment. The following paragraph covers Cleveland, offering three specific foreign policy episodes as evidence of more skillful statecraft. The essay closes by restating the comparative verdict. The structure is tight and appropriate for a short comparative essay at the introductory undergraduate level.

Introduction

This paper examines United States foreign policy in the 1890s by comparing two presidents who shaped it: William McKinley and Grover Cleveland. The central question is which president conducted American foreign policy more skillfully during that decade, and why. As the analysis below suggests, Cleveland's approach was ultimately the more measured and effective of the two.

McKinley's Imperialistic Foreign Policy

William McKinley favored an imperialistic worldview and brought the United States into the Spanish-American War, which ultimately added the Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico to the United States. He favored American intervention in foreign affairs, especially when that intervention would benefit the country. McKinley's imperialistic foreign policies dominated his presidency, and he is most remembered for the war and its resulting territorial gains.

McKinley's foreign policy was anything but skillful. He listened to the American people, whose opinion was heavily shaped by the "yellow press," rather than by broader world sentiment. His approach was domineering and expansionist, and it left America appearing aggressive and overbearing on the world stage.

Cleveland's Diplomatic Approach

President Grover Cleveland, by contrast, handled foreign policy with a firm hand but without imperialistic ambition. Cleveland faced three major foreign policy challenges during his presidency. The first was the Venezuelan boundary crisis, in which he took a strong stand demanding that Britain renegotiate the disputed boundaries — a demand to which Britain ultimately capitulated. The other two challenges involved the proposed annexations of Hawaii and Cuba, both of which he opposed.

Had Cleveland annexed these two island nations, the Spanish-American War might have been averted. However, Cleveland was not an expansionist; he believed the most pressing American problems were closer to home rather than abroad. His stand on Venezuela demonstrated that he could act decisively, while his broader record showed he had no interest in taking over countries at the expense of their peoples and wishes. Cleveland's foreign policy was more engaged with significant global issues than McKinley's, without resorting to imperialistic advances.

Conclusion

Cleveland handled foreign policy much more effectively than McKinley did, because he did not involve the United States in conflicts that did not directly affect it, and he did not make the country appear as a bully. His foreign policy was more skillful precisely because it balanced strength with restraint, addressing major international issues without pursuing territorial domination.

You’re 98% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.

130,000+ paper examples AI writing assistant Citation generator Cancel anytime

Key Concepts in This Paper

Foreign Policy Imperialism Spanish-American War Yellow Press Venezuelan Crisis Hawaii Annexation Territorial Expansion Diplomatic Restraint American Presidents 1890s Diplomacy