In examining the presidential statements of Chester A. Arthur and William McKinley, two distinct but interconnected themes emerge: Native American policy and US expansionism. Although there is a gap over two decades old, these quotes provide an insight into the changing philosophies of American leadership in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. This paper intends to give a comparative analysis of Arthur’s and McKinley’s viewpoints, with a special focus on their approaches to assimilation and expansionism. Much like the two presidents were trying to push American interests and values, their means of applying the strategies differed, depicting changes in both domestic and foreign policy. Through an in-depth analysis of the likenesses and dissimilarities in Arthur and McKinley’s statements, this paper endeavors to unravel the complicated nature of executive leadership and diverse elements of American identity and aspirations in the transformative period of the nation’s history.
Chester A. Arthur, in his policy statement on American Indians in 1881, advocated for the assimilationist policy, suggesting the need to integrate the Indian culture of the United States by adopting the use and customs of dominant American society(Chester A. Arthur on American Indian Policy (1881). He thought that such an approach would result in the development and transformation of the Native people as they would be integrated into American mainstream life. In contrast, William McKinley, on the other hand, voiced his opinion regarding American expansionism in 1903, paying attention to the advantages of territorial acquisition as well as the propagation of American influence overseas (Mckinley). He portrayed expansionism as a way towards economic development, military flanking, and the propagation of the American way of life throughout other regions. Although it was twenty-two years apart and concentrated on different subjects, there were many similarities and differences depicted in their outlooks and approaches between Arthur and McKinley’s statements (McKinley). First, both presidents underscored that American interests and values played a significant role in forming domestic and foreign policies.
Arthur viewed assimilation as the means for solidarity and development in American society, while McKinley was for expansion to ensure prosperity and security in the nation. Nevertheless, notable dissimilarities arise in their approaches towards the less privileged populaces and foreign affairs. The fact that Arthur stresses assimilation is indicative of a paternalistic position towards Native Americans, where he tends to regard Native Americans as backward people and their integration into American society as a way of their civilization and modernization. (Chester A. Arthur on Indian Policy (1881). While FDR supported expansionism, his advocacy is markedly different from McKinley’s, where it is more assertive and interventionist, stemming not from cultural assimilation but from economic and strategic concerns. Arthur’s policy concerning Native Americans involved the attempt to weaken tribal autonomy and force assimilation through the use of the Dawes Act and other coercive measures to divide tribal lands and promote individual land ownership. Instead, McKinley’s expansionist program was conciliatory and allied with the use of diplomatic negotiations, military interventions, and territorial acquisitions, including the annexation of Hawaii and the Spanish-American War as a way to extend American power and influence.
To sum up, the comparison of Chester A. Arthur and William McKinley’s presidents on American development comprehensively provides similar principles and different procedures during the last part of the 19th and the start of the 20th century. While Arthur stressed assimilation as the way of assimilating Native Americans into the mainstream of American society, McKinley campaigned for expansionism to reach far for American influence worldwide. Both of the presidents emphasized American interests and values, and their policies manifested that their approaches were different in their views on the subordinated groups and international relations. The patriarchal view of Arthur in the Native Americans was different from McKinley’s assertive expansionist policy, which shows the diversity and development of American political thought. Although there are temporal and thematic irregularities between their pronouncements, the legacies of Arthur and McKinley reveal the perennial strife between unity and diversity, isolationism and interventionism, that is, have been crucial in shaping postmodern American governance and national identity.
Works Cited
Mckinley, William. “William McKinley on American Expansionism (1903) | the American Yawp Reader.” Americanyawp.com, 2012, www.americanyawp.com/reader/19-american-empire/william-mckinley-on-american-expanionism-1903/.
Chester A. Arthur on American Indian Policy (1881) | the American Yawp Reader. www.americanyawp.com/reader/17-conquering-the-west/chester-a-arthur-on-american-indian-policy-1881/#:~:text=I%20recommend%20the%20passage%20of. Accessed 12 Feb. 2024.
write