In his infamous 1912 speech, President William Howard Taft pledged to “substitute dollars for bullets”, signaling a departure from the Roosevelt administration’s Big Stick Diplomacy. The United States would shift from reliance on its military prowess to reliance on its economic might. But although Taft’s Dollar Diplomacy may have been a deviation in intent, it was not a significant deviation in reality from Roosevelt’s Big Stick Diplomacy.

To understand the extent to which Dollar Diplomacy deviated from Big Stick Diplomacy, the nature of each needs to be known. The name of Big Stick Diplomacy comes from the African proverb, “speak softly and carry a big stick, and you will go far,” which Roosevelt was particularly fond of. Although often overlooked, the “speak softly” portion of the proverb translated to the first step in foreign relations: peaceful diplomacy. If this failed to achieve United States’ objectives, then the “big stick”, the US military, came into play. The power of the US military was supposed to be enough of a threat so that it would never need to be utilized, but it could if needed. On the other hand, Taft believed he could harness the power of the United States economy to pressure other nations financially. Instead of pressuring foreign nations with the US military, Dollar Diplomacy entailed giving other nations financial incentives to align with the United States’ objectives.

The construction of the Panama Canal illustrates Big Stick Diplomacy in action. For military and economic reasons, the United States wanted to build a connection between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. The best place to construct such a canal was in what was then Colombia. Roosevelt attempted to negotiate with the government of Colombia to pay $10 million and $250 thousand a year on an annual rental. This was the “speak softly” portion of Roosevelt’s diplomacy. After the Colombian government refused the deal, the Panamanians, who were at that point under Colombian rule, were outraged and revolted with the aid of the United States. US battleships prevented Colombia from quelling the Panamanian revolt, and this would greatly contribute to Panama’s independence and the creation of the canal.

The case of the Panama Canal under Roosevelt can be compared to the case of Nicaragua under Taft. To place the affair in historic context, the United States had been paying off the debts owed to Europe of several Latin American countries. Through this financial support, Taft had hoped to align these countries with US foreign policy through new debts owed to the United States. However, Nicaragua refused to accept the US loans. In response, Taft sent warships and marines to Nicaragua to pressure their government to comply. This eventually led to military occupation of the country, which did not end until 1925.

These two prominent cases of United States foreign affairs are almost indistinguishable, despite being part of two supposedly differing diplomacies. Taft wanted to replace bullets with dollars, but United States financial incentives were in effect just another step before military involvement. Taft needed the “big stick” just as much as Roosevelt did. Likewise, Roosevelt’s initial negotiation with Colombia relied on payment from the United States government. It would not be inaccurate to say that Taft’s Dollar Diplomacy was, as enacted, not a significant deviation from Roosevelt’s Big Stick Diplomacy, and, in certain cases, could even be considered a continuation of it.