The main argument would be that America was already an imperialistic power before the Spanish-American war, plainly seen in the annexation of Alaska and the Big Sister Policy in the 1800s. Alaska’s annexation in 1867, otherwise known as Seward’s Folly, was essentially a land grab by America that most Americans did not see as profitable. However, it did provide valuable ports and gave access to the northern Pacific Ocean, as well as not offending Russia. The Big Sister Policy was a bit more of a profitable endeavor for Americans in the 1800s. This policy declared that the United States would help keep the peace in Latin America so that American traders could use Latin American ports for trade (Kennedy 482, 608). Both of these provide a base to the argument that the Spanish-American war was not a turning point in American foreign policy. However, both Alaska’s annexation and the Big Sister Policy did not have as great effect as the Spanish-America war did on the American people, and the united anger and jingoism inspired by the Spanish-American war make it the true turning point for American foreign …show more content…
Because of the imperialistic mindset America had, Americans believed that it was their duty to end communism in the world. Many feared that South Vietnam would become fully communist unless the United States interfered. American help was not exactly wanted in Vietnam, but because of the mindset created from the Spanish-American war, the U.S. decided to enter into the war anyway. It was not quite the success many pictured, but many Americans still believed they were right in entering Vietnam due to the imperialistic foreign policy resulting from the Spanish-American