Manifest Destiny Essay Outline

Essay 3: Manifest Destiny

Manifest Destiny was a term coined by a New York journalist, John L. O’Sullivan that sanctioned the right of the United States to expand its territory all over North America, which took place between 1815-1860. It invoked the idea that territorial expansion was a divine mission and was so self-evident that their entitlement to those lands were beyond any international treaty, discovery, or long term settlement.

The underpinnings of Manifest Destiny that had the support of Americans throughout the States was that as a free and sovereign nation, dedicated to the ideals of liberty and freedom, the U.S. had the moral authority to expand its territory and spread those notions elsewhere. As in the case of Texas – formerly known as the Republic of Texas – which was soon annexed by the U.S., promoting freedom was of supreme importance to the American people.

Why did Americans view themselves in such grand and venerable terms? Were they more superior than other nations and countries? Well, in fact, this is exactly how they felt. There were essentially three explanations why Americans held themselves in this regard: the virtue of the American people and their institutions; the mission to spread these institutions, thereby redeeming and remaking the world in the image of the U.S.; and the destiny under

God to accomplish this work.

Those reasons concentrated solely on the American people, not the country as a whole. How would Manifest Destiny, as its advocates argued, have helped the country? There are several reasons for this as well: expansion of the republic for continued survival; continued prosperity; expansion of American markets; and an even more important reason was Americans’ distrust of the British Empire. Since the beginning of the American Revolution until many years afterward, Americans have had such skepticism and resentment of the British that in order to overcome those suspicions and no longer fear their prowess, they found a solution: westward expansion. Now their fears were, for the most part, quelled.

All of this may have been true of the north; in the south it was a different story altogether. The south’s economy mainly consisted of farming and the slave trade. Slavery was so paramount to their economy that they became one of the most vocal in proclaiming Manifest Destiny. An article on PBS’ website written by Sam W. Haynes, puts it well:

“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.”

Support for Manifest Destiny was not limited specifically to the American people; in fact, many in the government, such as the Democrats, supported it for reasons given above. Yet, as much support as it garnered, it had its critics also. The Whigs, for example, vehemently opposed it because they viewed America’s rapid expansion not as a mission of liberty – rather as imperialistic and a mission of conquest. No doubt that the majority of Americans believed in American exceptionalism – but even that had its boundaries. Rather than expanding, the Whigs argued, we should focus on advancing – agriculturally, technologically and economically – the goal and future of the territory already under possession of the U.S. Once those advancements have been realized, then we should concern ourselves with westward expansion.

People in the work force, as a consequence of rapid industrialization, were also ardent backers of expansion. Dr. Gayle Olson-Raymer, a professor at Humboldt State University, Arcata, California, explains the basic factors for this:
“Both the colonies and the fledgling United States were tied into a free market economy - Americans depended upon the laws of supply and demand to voluntarily produce what people want and to sell their products to whom they want, with little to no interference from the government. Prior to the 1820s, the market economy was primarily dependent on international trade whereby goods were generally produced within the United States, but most goods were sold to international markets. What this means is that while many parts of the U.S. produced goods locally, they traded these goods largely with Europe. Why - because we had not created the industrial or transportation infrastructure to allow us to trade among the new states. Beginning in the 1820s, the market economy began to depend on domestic trade whereby we not only produced our goods within the United States, but we also sold our good to domestic markets. In so doing, we created a national market economy.”
Because the American market functioned based on the Free Enterprise System, the current national market would benefit Americans at home. More goods and services can be either sold or traded according to the demands of the American people and the supply of those goods and services. For example, if a certain product that will be sold on the market has to be imported from another country, say somewhere in Europe, the price of that product will naturally be higher than a product that was made and sold here, at home. Therefore, with the current industrialization and advancement in workplace technology, that product can be produced domestically and will have a lower price in the marketplace.
At times, Manifest Destiny became a controversial matter, such as in the case of Mexico.

Congress, before the election of James K. Polk for the presidency, had sanctioned the annexation of Texas – which Mexico claimed as their own – into the Union, which triggered the Mexican-American War on April 24, 1846. As the War went on and Americans enjoyed many military successes, some called for all of Mexico to be annexed into the U.S. This view became controversial, however, for two reasons: first, Americans should not impose their will on other people; and annexing Mexico would mean incorporating non-white Caucasian people into the

U.S.
The outcome was a paradox within the concept and goal of Manifest Destiny itself: on the one hand, it was thought to promote liberty which would admit people of other states and regions, yet there was the “racist factor” that non-whites would not be included in this experiment.
Additionally, this “racist factor” extremely effected Native Americans, who were also categorized as non-white, and were thus subject to expulsion from their territories. As a direct result of the wave of nationalism rocking the country and a growing demand from European Americans for more land on which to settle, President Andrew Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act on May 28, 1830. The policy gave Jackson the right to negotiate removal treaties with certain tribes. These treaties compelled them to give up lands east of the Mississippi and relocate west to areas specifically delegated to them. Some tribes went peacefully, and others refused to depart their native lands. The Second Seminole War caused thousands of deaths, and the brutal westward march of the Cherokee Nation ended in an estimated 4,000 deaths due to starvation, exhaustion, disease and vulnerability.

In summation, Manifest Destiny was widely held by Americans and sanctioned by the U.S. government as a means to propagate the message of liberty and freedom by extending its territory all across North America, which they regarded as a noble and moral cause for humanity.