Answer:
diplomacy of the United States—particularly during President William Howard Taft's presidential term—was a form of American foreign policy to minimize the use or threat of military force and instead further its aims in Latin America and East Asia through the use of its economic power by guaranteeing loans made to foreign countries.[1] In his message to Congress on 3 December 1912, Taft summarized the policy of Dollar Diplomacy:
The diplomacy of the present administration has sought to respond to modern ideas of commercial intercourse. This policy has been characterized as substituting dollars for bullets. It is one that appeals alike to idealistic humanitarian sentiments, to the dictates of sound policy and strategy, and to legitimate commercial aims.[2]
Dollar diplomacy was not new, as the use of diplomacy to promote commercial interest dates from the early years of the Republic. However, under Taft, the State Department was more active than ever in encouraging and supporting American bankers and industrialists in securing new opportunities abroad. Bailey finds that dollar diplomacy was designed to make both people in foreign lands and the American investors prosper.[3]
The concept is relevant to both Liberia, where American loans were given in 1913, and Latin America. Latin Americans tend to use the term "dollar diplomacy" disparagingly to show their disapproval of the role that the U.S. government and U.S. corporations have played in using economic, diplomatic and military power to open up foreign markets. When Woodrow Wilson became president in March 1913, he immediately canceled all support for Dollar diplomacy. Historians agree that Taft's Dollar diplomacy was a failure everywhere. In the Far East, it alienated Japan and Russia and created a deep suspicion among the other powers hostile to American motives.[4][5]
The statement is true concerning the campaign of the summer of 1778 is that General Howe was replaced by General Clinton to command the British Army. Thank you for posting your question here at brainly. I hope the answer will help you. Feel free to ask more questions here.
Answer:
Liberty versus strong national government, large states versus small states, and slavery.
Explanation:
Note: Those who supported the Constitution and a stronger national republic were known as Federalists. Those who opposed the ratification of the Constitution in favor of small localized government were known as Anti-Federalists. They both disagreed over the Constitution.
