From the Old Diplomacy to the New, 1865-1900

by Robert L. Beisner

Historians have long argued about the nature of the changes that occurred in American foreign policy at the turn of the century, and whether those changes represented an abrupt break from the past or the culmination of long-term trends. Beisner addresses these issues by recasting the questions involved, and synthesizes the most useful contributions of both traditional and revisionist historians. From the Old Diplomacy to the New reinterprets the entire period as one in which American foreign policy underwent a fundamental paradigm shift that affected the goals and methods of diplomacy. A commitment to systematic policy and a determination to promote American interests in a dangerous world characterized the "new diplomacy."

Genres: History, American History

195 pages, Paperback

First published January 15, 1986

About the author

A historian of American foreign relations, Robert Beisner taught at American University from 1965 until his retirement in 1998. He attended Hastings College for two years, before transferring to the University of Chicago, where he earned both his master’s degree (1960) and his doctorate (1965) in history. His dissertation won the Allan Nevins Prize for the best dissertation in American history in 1966, and he served as editor in chief of the two-volume bibliographic Guide to the Foreign Relations of the United States.

Reviews

[Michael · Rating 3 out of 5]

Robert Beisner's book begins with a historiographical sketch which covers the themes and issues of the period 1865-1900. Whereas a general consensus seems to reign amongst historians of the antebellum period, Beisner's consideration demonstrates that the debate over the interpretation of diplomacy and foreign policy heats up once we enter the period which follows the Civil War. Beisner hints that this might well be explained by reference to the distorting influence of the Cold War historiographical context, an explanation which Kinley Brauer updates in his recent essay in Diplomatic History entitled "The Great American Desert Revisited". After presenting the dichotomies which have divided the guild since WWII, Beisner proposes to go beyond them - to restore the synthesis - with recourse to the scientific concept of paradigm.

The period under discussion for this week falls within the time span in which Beisner claims the foreign policy of the United States is directed by "The Old Paradigm." He characterizes this period as:

"years when the outlook of American policymakers was generally isolationist, noninterventionist, and unilateralist; their customary manner of conducting foreign affairs was passive and reactive, their guidance of diplomats abroad - many of whom were rank amateurs - was minimal and vague, and their country's army and navy were ill prepared for serious warfare." (p. 39)

In brief, foreign policy was not weighty enough a matter during Reconstruction or the Gilded Age to merit a systematic approach. It would take the traumas of the 1890s, a period beyond the scope of this week's study, to bring about the formalization and professionalization of foreign policy under the aegis of "The New Paradigm".

[Alex Hope · Rating 2 out of 5]

This historical research is utter garbage from beginning to end. I cannot tell you how bored I was whilst reading this! Oh my God! This is like the first book in months which I am going to give a 1 star! He is just listing stuff as if it is a Wikipedia chronology: this is so boring! Stuff and names of works of other historians, nothing else! Here is a summary of the reading in 4 sentences:
- The US did not want to interfere in anything as it wanted to grow
- The US started growing very fast, started to produce a lot of goods post Civil War, however, was not able to sell it, therefore it had to interfere
- The US became a global power
- The relationships of the US are not consistent, as we can see that their relationship with Russia doomed after time, therefore, US’ relationships were only for profit.
End. Save your time and money (mostly time) and do not read it even if you are taking a history class! I am so disappointed that this is the first thing I had to read getting into History major that at this point I consider switching to English or Philosophy!
update: well, it was good enough for an answer of the essay question + provides an overview on how the american foreign policy changed in the 1890s and how the United States has become a world power with an established sphere of influence. Yet still I find all the previous mistakes I have pointed out as being present: it has a lot of drawbacks to other works by other historians, as well as it includes a lot of unnecessary information + the formatting of the text is very much like a “bad textbook”.

[Kingslee · Rating 3 out of 5]

Did I have to write an essay over this book- yes. Is it the stereotypical history book- yes. Did I learn- yes. Should I have read this two months ago so that finals are easier- yes.

[Thuy Dung · Rating 5 out of 5]

i want read !