Questions to Guide Manifest Destiny Readings

1. How specifically does O’Sullivan contrast America with other great civilizations? What makes us unique? How does this relate to the concept of exceptionalism that we have been discussing?
2. Summarize the five specific pressures driving American expansion in the 1830s-1850s. Why did Mexico not develop and tie northern Mexico more closely to the core of Mexican society.
3. In what ways was this drive for expansion a part of the larger Romantic movement of the 19th century?
4. What technological advances helped keep the bonds of Union strong as distances grew greater?
5. Explain this statement by Mr. González Quiroga: “Manifest Destiny was a graceful way to justify something unjustifiable.” What main challenge is he making to the traditional view that these lands were “empty” and “uncivilized?”

Manifest Destiny Reading 4: An American historical perspective

Manifest Destiny
By Sam W. Haynes, University of Texas at Arlington

The 1840s were years of extraordinary territorial growth for the United States. During a four year period, the national domain increased by 1.2 million square miles, a gain of more than sixty percent. So rapid and dramatic was the process of territorial expansion, that it came to be seen as an inexorable process, prompting many Americans to insist that their nation had a “manifest destiny” to dominate the continent.

Yet, the expansionist agenda was never a clearly defined movement, or one that enjoyed broad, bipartisan support. Whig party leaders vigorously opposed territorial growth, and even expansionist Democrats argued about how much new land should be acquired, and by what means. Some supporters of Manifest Destiny favored rapid expansion and bold pursuit of American territorial claims, even at the risk of war with other nations. Others, no less committed to the long-term goal of an American empire, opposed to the use of force to achieve these ends, believing that contiguous land would voluntarily join the Union in order to obtain the benefits of republican rule. In an often-used metaphor of the day, these regions would ripen like fruit and fall into the lap of the United States. Thus the champions of Manifest Destiny were at best a motley collection of interest groups, motivated by a number of divergent objectives, and articulating a broad range of uniquely American concerns.
Several factors help to explain why the United States embarked upon an aggressive program of expansion during this period. In the early decades of the nineteenth century, many Americans had dismissed as fanciful the idea of a transcontinental republic, convinced that the bonds of Union would weaken as the nation grew larger. But such vast distances were quickly being conquered by technological innovations. By the 1840s, steamboats had turned America’s waterways in busy commercial thoroughfares, while a network of railroads integrated eastern markets with towns and cities on the western slope of the Appalachians. The telegraph, first used in 1844, ushered in a modern age of long distance communication. An American dominion stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific now seemed within reach.
Although the United States had no shortage of unoccupied lands, expansionists argued that the republic must continue to grow in order to survive. Echoing the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson, they viewed an abundance of land as the mainstay of a prosperous republic, and warned against the concentration of political and economic power. Troubled by creeping urbanization and a rising tide of immigrants from Germany and Ireland, expansionists viewed Manifest Destiny as a means to obtain a new, long-term lease on the Jeffersonian ideal. Far from weakening the republic, they argued, territorial growth would actually serve to strengthen it, providing unlimited economic opportunities for future generations.

Expansionists were also motivated by more immediate, practical considerations. Southerners anxious to enlarge the slave empire were among the most ardent champions of the crusade for more territory. New slave states would enhance the South’s political power in Washington and, equally important, serve as an outlet for its growing slave population. For American commercial interests, expansion offered greater access to lucrative foreign markets. Washington policy-makers, anxious to compete with Great Britain for the Asia trade, had long been convinced of the strategic and commercial advantages of San Francisco and other ports on the Pacific coastline of Mexican-owned California. The disastrous Panic of 1837, which had resulted in huge surpluses and depressed prices for American farm products, also focused attention on the need to develop new foreign markets.

Most important of all, perhaps, was the growing sense of anxiety which Americans felt toward Great Britain. Americans had always been suspicious of British activities in the western hemisphere, but inevitably this fear had grown as the United States began to define its strategic and economic interests in terms that extended beyond its own borders. Great Britain’s claim to the Pacific Northwest and its close relationship with Mexico were matters of great concern to American interests, which viewed Great Britain as the United States’ only rival for control of the Pacific coastline. Fearful of being “hemmed in” by Great Britain, Democratic leaders saw Her Majesty’s government poised to block American territorial ambitions at every turn. In addition, southern slaveowners were particularly apprehensive of Great Britain, which had abolished slavery in its West Indies colonial possessions in 1833. In 1843, southern statesmen alleged, on the basis of little evidence, that Great Britain was actively engaged in a plot to abolish slavery throughout North America. These rumors provoked a frenzied outcry in the South, which called for the immediate annexation of the Texas Republic in order to secure the interests of the planter class in the cotton-growing regions of North America.

This fear of British designs, real and imagined, changed the face of Manifest Destiny, converting many advocates of gradual expansion into apostles of a new, more militant brand of imperialism. By the mid-1840s, with Great Britain rumored to be plotting with Mexico to block Washington’s efforts to annex the Texas Republic and scheming to acquire California, U.S. expansionism took on a greater sense of urgency. Elected on a pro-expansion platform in 1844, Democrat James K. Polk moved quickly to annex Texas as the twenty-eighth state. Polk also threatened to disregard long-standing British claims to Oregon, convinced that he only way to deal with “John Bull is to look him straight in the eye.” Polk’s defiant brinkmanship would ultimately lead to a compromise with Her Majesty’s government over the Oregon territory, while precipitating a war with Mexico, whose government, Polk incorrectly believed, was acting in concert with Great Britain to thwart U.S. territorial ambitions. Although Polk insisted that the United States was not waging a war of conquest, critics accused the president of manufacturing a war to seize California and New Mexico. In the months following the war, Polk also considered extending U.S. sovereignty over the Yucatan peninsula and Cuba, two regions which he believed were vulnerable to encroachments from the British. These initiatives received little support in Congress, however, and were abandoned shortly before Polk stepped down from office.

In the 1850s, having established itself as a transcontinental empire, the United States ceased to regard British activities in the western hemisphere with alarm. Preoccupied with the increasingly bitter sectional conflict over slavery, many Americans rejected Manifest Destiny. Although southern extremists would sponsor filibuster expeditions into Latin America with the objective of gaining new lands to extend the slave empire, the expansionist movement faded from the national agenda in the years prior to the outbreak of the Civil War.

Manifest Destiny Reading 5

The Power of an Idea
by Miguel Ángel González Quiroga

1996 marked the 150th anniversary of the start of the war between the United States and Mexico. This is the proper time to recall an event which had lasting consequences for our two countries but which has now been mostly forgotten.
It is said that wars usually begin many years before the first shot is fired. I believe this to be so, and most especially in the case of this war. But how far back do we go? Ten years to the separation of Texas? Twenty-five years to the founding of the Mexican State? I would agree with those who hold that the die was cast when the United States was born as a nation and began its slow but inexorable expansion to the West.
The westward movement is one of several factors attributed to this war. You’ve heard them all: the slave interests of the South, the commercial interests of the Northeast, the land hunger of the West, Manifest Destiny, the Warhawks, James K. Polk. For those who blame Mexico: her internal divisions, her inability to colonize and govern the Northern lands, her rampant militarism, her unbounded arrogance.
American expansion, or growth, to use a less belligerent term, was, in my estimation, the principal cause of this great conflict. Without it, the war is simply incomprehensible. We could almost say the expansion was an irreducible brute fact.
Within the overall concept of expansion stands the doctrine of Manifest Destiny, which has an immense fascination for many of us in Mexico. Without pretending to add anything new to what has been said of old, I wish to include a few words on the concept of Manifest Destiny.
It is dangerous to underestimate the power of an idea. Especially one which captures the imagination of a people. Manifest Destiny was such an idea. To extend American democracy to the rest of the continent was to place a mantle of legitimacy on what was essentially an insatiable ambition for land. Some have argued that it was villainy clad in the armor of a righteous cause, to use an expression by Lippman. It is difficult to argue against democracy and its extension to the farthest reaches of the continent although historians have pointed out that, at least in this case, extending the area of freedom also signified extending the area of slavery.
The assertion of the superiority of the American race and the concomitant denigration of Mexico is another element of Manifest Destiny. It was Walt Whitman who stated: “What has miserable, inefficient Mexico–with her superstition, her burlesque upon freedom, her actual tyranny by the few over the many–what has she to do with the great mission of peopling the new world with a noble race? Be it ours, to achieve that mission!”
Those of us who admire Whitman as the greatest of American poets cannot but be disappointed at this stand on the war. Can this be the same poet who glorified equality and the respect for others when he said, “For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you?” Or when he wrote, “Whoever degrades another degrades me, and whatever is done or said returns again to me?”
How can we reconcile this contradiction? The poet of the body and of the soul himself explained it when he wrote, “I am vast, I contain multitudes.”
It is a painful exercise to look in the mirror of our past and discover that we are found wanting. It is sobering to read that we were beaten because we were a backward and decaying people. I cannot think that Mariano Otero and Carlos Maria Bustamante were the products of a decayed race. But we in Mexico cannot and do not ignore the weakness and the underdevelopment which was our lot in the 19th century. Nor do we ignore that underdevelopment was also the product of long and complex historical forces.
Manifest Destiny was a graceful way to justify something unjustifiable. It has not escaped our attention that Ulysses S. Grant, one of the most prominent of American military men, and himself a participant in the war, wrote in his memoirs, “I do not think there ever was a more wicked war than that waged by the United States in Mexico. I thought so at the time, when I was a youngster, only I had not moral courage enough to resign.”
But as a historian I do not wish to judge or to censure. Let me state my own views on the matter: expansion was a historical process that, like a westward wind, swept all before it. Not Mexico, not any force on this continent or any continent could have prevented it. This is not a question of good demographics. European immigration led to an explosive growth of the population of the United States and this inevitably led to expansion. Expansion led to war.

From http://www.pbs.org/kera/usmexicanwar/dialogues/prelude/manifest/d2ceng.html

Chapter 17 questions

Chapter 17 questions
Due Monday.
Answer fully, specifically, and in your own words. Answers must be handwritten. INCLUDE DATES WHERE AT ALL POSSIBLE!!!! That means put the dates next to events!

1. What was the origin and meaning of the term “Manifest Destiny?” What overriding question would interfere in the pursuit of our “Manifest Destiny?
2. Who were the real leaders of the Whig Party? How did they view Harrison, and why? What kinds of people belonged to the “minority wing” of the party?
3. Why did John Tyler become a Whig? What exactly were his political beliefs and inclinations (look up the meaning of the phrase “lone wolf” to help)? Why had he been placed on the 1840 ticket?
4. How did Tyler become president? What stance did he take toward many Whig programs, especially the independent treasury system and tariffs? What happened to his cabinet, and why?
5. Let’s talk about nicknames….What euphemisms did the Whigs use to try to sneak a new Bank of the US across Tyler? What did angry Whigs call Tyler, and what was the “Tyler grippe?” What were the specific consequences of his veto of a new central banking system, whatever the name?
6. Why did Whigs support tariffs (we have talked about this before in the chapter on Jackson)? What did the Tariff of 1842 do to tariff rates?
7. How did American economic expansion lead to resentment of Britain?
8. Explain how specific events (Canadian insurrection, the Caroline affair, the McLeod affair, the Creole affair, Aroostook War, Oregon joint resolution, etc.) influence British- American relations during the years between the War of 1812 and the Civil War (You might want to make a cause-effect chart)? What was the “Third War with England?”
9. What was the purpose of the Webster-Ashburton Treaty, and what were its effects?
10. How and why did the British interfere in Texas? What about the French? What role did cotton play?
11. Explain how Texas was eventually annexed. Which president actually oversaw the annexation, and how? What effect did that have on American relations with Mexico? Why were abolitionists opposed to annexation (I have already explained this—remember?)?
12. Exactly what were the original boundaries of the Oregon Country? How many countries had originally had claims in this area? What were the British and American claims based upon? How did missionaries influence America claims?
13. What is the relationship between the Anglo-American Convention of 1818 and the “joint occupation” plan? How did “Oregon fever” doom “joint occupation?” What exactly was the area in dispute? What group most supported annexation of the entire Oregon country, and why?
14. Why was James K. Polk the answer to the Democrats’ deadlock in 1844? What were his positives? What was the specific Democratic platform that year?
15. What were Clay’s positives and negatives in 1844? How was Texas his Achilles’ heel?
16. Explain each of the four points on Polk’s “must list.”
17. Why was Polk willing to accept the 49th parallel offer from Britain regarding the Oregon country? Why were the British willing to deal?
18. What role did California and Texas play in our tensions with Mexico? What were the specific grips between our two countries? What was John Slidell supposed to do?
19. How exactly did Polk force a showdown with Mexico? Why exactly did we go to war? How did slavery influence Mexican actions?
20. Explain “American blood has been spilled on American soil!” Explain “spotty Lincoln’s” response.
21. Explain why the “Conscience Whigs” opposed the war. What did the Wilmot Proviso attempt to do?
21. Summarize the roles that each of these military men played in the war with Mexico: Santa Anna, Stephen Kearney, Zachary Taylor, John C. Fremont, and Winfield Scott.
22. What were the terms of the Treaty of Guadalupe- Hidalgo? How did Nicholas Trist make the negotiations much more interesting?
23. What were the specific effects of the Mexican War? Consider territorial expansion, military experience, and of course the slavery controversy in your answer.
24. What specific role did the Catholic Church play in the settlement of Mexico by Europeans as well as on the treatment of the indigenous people who lived there? What happened at Sutter’s Mill in 1848?

Review of Slavery in America

Biblical Verses used by Slaveowners to Justify Slavery

Psalm 123:2 (New International Version (NIV)): As the eyes of slaves look to the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maid look to the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look to the LORD our God, till he shows us his mercy.

Ephesians 6:4-6: Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord. Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.

Ephesians 6:5:Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

Ephesians 6:9:And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

Colossians 3:22:Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.

Colossians 4:1:Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.

Titus 2:9:Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,

1 Peter 2:18:Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

Slaveowners would read these verses to slaves as part of the worship services that they allowed (and controlled) as a means of encouraging the proper attitude among their slaves. Based upon these isolated verses, slaveowners claimed that the Bible supported slavery and taught slaves to be obedient to their masters.

On the surface, this certainly appears true. However, When looking at the evidence, one has to remember that the Bible was created in a time when slavery was certainly condoned. Paul’s letters mention slavery so often because Christianity appealed to slaves. Many slaves converted to the new religion of Christianity because of Christianity’s message of justice and freedom. Nonetheless, Christianity was an outlawed religion in the Roman Empire. Therefore, Paul counseled his followers, if they were slaves, to be peaceable and obedient so that further oppression would not be brought down on the heads of slaves as well as upon the members of the Church in general. The verses about obedience are not condoning slavery but are practical matters to try to prevent further suffering of Christians, whether slave or free.

The most compelling argument AGAINST slavery in the New Testament is Paul’s letter to Philemon, in which Paul asks a Christian to free his Christian slave. Most Christians countered these claims of Biblical support that owning slaves violated the spirit of Christian teaching.

Review Questions for tomorrow’s discussion

Place these in order: the annexation of  California, Oregon, and Texas. Know the dates.

What treaty ended the war between Texas and Mexico?

Why did some British people support an alliance between Britain and Texas?

Which group of people was most determined to gain ALL of the Oregon country?

What group was most instrumental in saving Oregon for the US?

What were Mexico’s goals during its war with the US?

Who were the main candidates in the election of 1844 and their party affiliations?

What president presided over the annexation of Texas?

Why did Southerners in particular support the annexation of Texas?

Why and how did settlers get to the Willamette Valley?

From readings:

What were 5 reasons why the US was driven to expand during the 1830s and 1840s?

Why were Mexico’s northern territories so thinly populated?

What were some justifications used by Americans to support why Manifest Destiny would actually benefit the people we would conquer?

How was Manifest Destiny a Romantic movement?

What innovation became a Romantic metaphor for American expansion? Why?

MC practice 17:2

Given in class 10/25:
MC Practice 17:2
1. The earliest known use of the term Manifest Destiny was by
A. Mark Twain
B. James K. Polk
C. John Tyler
D. John L. O’Sullivan
E. Ralph Waldo Emerson 396

2. Although a Democrat at heart, John Tyler joined the Whig party because he
A. could not stomach the dictatorial policies of Andrew Jackson.
B. believed it better represented Virginia’s interests.
C. was forced to resign from the Senate.
D. thought it was the easiest way to become president.
E. believed in its pro-bank, pro-tariff positions. 397

3. The Whigs chose John Tyler as their vice presidential nominee to
A. have him rather than Harrison actually run the executive branch.
B. attract the vote of states’ rightists.
C. win northern votes.
D. reward him for his strong support of the party platform.
E. respond to the Democrats’ expansionist appeal. 397

4. The main leaders of the Whigs in 1840 were
A. William Henry Harrison and John Tyler.
B. Daniel Webster and William Henry Harrison.
C. John Calhoun and Robert Haynes.
D. James Polk and Henry Clay.
E. Henry Clay and Daniel Webster. 396

5. Relations between the British and the US in the 19th century could basically be characterized as
A. harmonious at the diplomatic level but full of popular resentments on both sides.
B. generally peaceful, with occasional periods of tension.
C. generally tense, with periods of violence alternating with peaceful resolutions.
D. constantly on the brink of war.
E. marked by growing American economic supremacy. 398-403

6. Which group would be most likely to support Manifest Destiny?
A. Whigs
B. Abolitionists
C. Northern manufacturers
D. Democrats
E. Native Americans 404

7. The slogan “54° 40’ or Fight!” dealt with the disputed US area’s border with which other nation?’
A. Maine- Canada
B. Oregon-Canada
C. Alaska- Canada
D. Texas- Mexico
E. California- Mexico 403

8. All but one member of Tyler’s cabinet resigned in protest over
A. his support for Peggy Eaton.
B. his attempts to go to war with Mexico.
C. his refusal to approve a new bank of the US.
D. his veto of the Maysville Road Bill.
E. his approval of the annexation of Texas. 397

9. Britain invaded the US and burned an American ship
A. during the Aroostook War.
B. in the Oregon country.
C. off the coast of Alaska.
D. during the Canadian insurrection.
E. in the Creole incident. 399

10. The Battle of the Alamo was significant because
A. it was an overwhelming victory by Texans seeking independence.
B. Texans obtained much-needed supplies in their fight for independence.
C. it made Jim Bowie a national figure and enabled him to win a Senate seat.
D. it convinced the US government to support the Texas independence movement.
E. it served as a rallying cry to recruit more popular support for the Texas independence movement. 294

Preparation for chapter 17

Your text spent three chapters interrupting the flow of the narrative. Notice that it is now picking up the story where it left off in chapters 13 and 14 after our sidetrips into economics, culture, and the slave system. Make sure you review what was going on with the British, with Texas, and with Oregon in previous chapters to help you understand chapter 17. The pages you will want to review are: pp 265-267 and pp. 295-298. Make sure you note treaties and agreements from that time period.

Also, you might want to brush up on what exactly the Whig party held as its core beliefs. Pages 290-292 and 298-301 will help explain some of the politics in chapter 17. For some reason, the book suddenly left off its discussion of the Whigs and William Henry Harrison at the end of chapter 13 and now picks it up again at pages 396-97.

17:3 MC practice

MC PRACTICE 17:3

1. Which overland trail brought settlers to the Willamette Valley?
A. Mormon Trail
B. Oregon Trail
C. Santa Fe Trail
D. California Trail
E. Chilkoot Trail 402

2. Which of the following statements best describes the main reason Southerners supported the annexation of Texas?
A. They wanted a safer route across the country.
B. They wanted more territory where slavery was already established.
C. They wanted better access to trade with Mexico.
D. They wanted new seaports to help trade with Asia.
E. They felt annexation would aid in Indian relocation. d

3. What innovation became a Romantic metaphor for American expansion?
A. Telephone
B. Mechanical reaper
C. Steel plow
D. Railroad engine
E. Direct current reading

4. Who was the president who presided over the annexation of Texas?
A. William H. Harrison
B. John Tyler
C. James Polk
D. William McKinley
E. James Garfield 400

5. The group that was instrumental in saving the soil of Oregon for the US was
A. the Lewis and Clark expedition.
B. conservationists.
C. fur trappers.
D. fishermen.
E. missionaries to the Indians. 402

6. Place these in order: the annexation of (T) Texas, (O) Oregon, and (C) California.
A. T, O, C
B. C, T, O
C. C, O, T
D. O, C, T
E. T, C, O 400-410

7. In the presidential election of 1844, the Whig candidate was
A. Henry Clay
B. William H. Harrison
C. James K. Polk
D. Daniel Webster
E. Zachary Taylor 404

8. One goal of Mexico in its 1846-1848 war with the United States was to
A. demonstrate the strength of Latino culture.
B. free black slaves.
C. regain control of Texas.
D. capture slaves and take them back to Mexico.
E. force America to pay claims owed to Mexican citizens. 408

9. Which of these was not a reason cited in one of your readings that drove westward expansion in the 1840s?
A. Possession of California and Oregon would enable trade with Asia.
B. Land on the frontier was cheap if not free.
C. Mexico offered free land to Catholics.
D. Economic depressions in the 19th century drove people toward the frontier in search of a better living.
E. The population was rapidly growing due to immigration and natural reproduction. readings

10. Some people in Britain hoped for a British alliance with Texas because
A. the alliance would help support the Monroe Doctrine.
B. the area would provide an excellent base from which to attack the United States.
C. Mexican efforts to attack the US would be stopped.
D. Texas could become a place to settle undesirable British emigrants, such as prisoners.
E. the alliance would give abolitionists the opportunity to free slaves in Texas. d, 400