P5 | APUSH | Wiley | Manifest Destiny, D___ Name:This document will describe the ideology of Manifest Destiny, and how it was applied in this Period, through events like the Mexican-American War (1846-’48) and the acquisitions of Oregon (1846) and the Gadsden Purchase (1854).

Expansionist Surge of the 1840s

The 1840s was characterized by an expansionist surge. This surge for western land was not something new; instead it had deep roots. Since the nation’s founding in 1776, visionaries conceived its future both as a republic and as an empire, and they predicted an expansion across the continent. By the early 1800s many felt that the Pacific Ocean was the natural boundary and destiny of the U.S. But the creation of a continental republic was far from inevitable. It would require a revolution in transportation—which had, of course, occurred by 1840, with the Market Revolution in the first half of the 19th century. Yet other obstacles remained. Well-armed Indian peoples controlled the Great Plains, Mexico (now freed from Spain) controlled Texas and the lands west of the Rocky Mountains, and Great Britain shared the Oregon Territory with the U.S., a decision made under the Monroe administration. To extend the American republic would involve new Indian wars and possibly armed conflict with Britain and with Mexico. An ardent imperialist, President James K. Polk (1845-’49) willingly assumed those risks. Ultimately, Polk’s aggressive expansionism led to a long, costly, and bloody war with Mexico from 1846-1848. Then, having won an enormous amount of territory from Mexico, the nation would be consumed with the question of slavery—whether it could extend into these new lands. It would be this question that haunted the 1850s and led to the Civil War the following decade.

Think back to 1820, the year the Missouri Compromise was signed into law (brokered by Henry Clary, under the Monroe administration). After that point, the nation’s politicians avoided policies—such as the annexation of slaveholding Republic of Texas—that would prompt regional strife over the slavery question. But then, during the 1840s, many citizens embraced an ideology of expansionism, proclaiming a God-given duty to extend American republicanism to the Pacific Ocean. That ideology, which helped to bring about the Mexican-American War, was then confronted with the question of what the destiny of those newly acquired territories would be. Whose version of republicanism would extend: the hierarchical slave system of the South, or the more egalitarian, reform-minded capitalist-managed society of the North and Midwest? Ultimately, the failure to find a political solution to this question would rip the nation apart.

Manifest Destiny

As expansionists developed continental ambitions, the term Manifest Destiny captured those dreams. John L. O’Sullivan, a newspaper editor, coined the phrase in 1845. See some of his more famous excerpts below, while considering what underlying beliefs were reflected in his writing, regarding race, republicanism, and religion.

The Great Nation of Futurity (1839): “Our national birth (and the Declaration of Independence) was the beginning of a new history, which separates us from the past and connects us only with the future. We are the nation of progress, of individual freedom, of universal enfranchisement. Our future history will be to establish on earth the moral dignity and salvation of man -- the undeniable truth and goodness of God. America has been chosen for this mission among all the nations of the world, which are shut out from the life-giving light of truth. Her high example shall put an end to the tyranny of kings, and carry the happy news of peace and good will to millions who now endure an existence hardly better than that of beasts of the field. Who, then, can doubt that our country is destined to be the great nation of the future?”

Annexation (1845): “It is time now for all opposition to annexation of Texas to stop . . . Texas is now ours. She is no longer to us a mere geographical space. She is no longer to us a mere country on the map. The time has come for everyone to stop treating Texas as an alien, and to stop thwarting our policy and hampering our power, limiting our greatness and checking the fulfillment of our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions.”

1. What does John O’Sullivan think America stands for? Is he correct, given what we’ve learned from Periods 1-4? Why or why not?

2. What underlying beliefs are reflected in his statements?

1

3. What party would O’Sullivan likely support at this time? Why?

John Gast, an American painter, is famous for his painting American Progress, an allegorical representation of the concept of Manifest Destiny, where a female personification of the U.S. leads civilization westward with American settlers. See his painting on page 1.

4. Describe the painting: What do you see and how does it reflect the concept of Manifest Destiny?

5. How does the visual contrast with images elicited in the American mind when thinking of other expansionist countries “on the march”? What do you suspect accounts for this contrast? (Examples: North Korea invading the South after WWII; Hitler taking Austria (with their approval!) in the lead up to WWII; Britain imperializing India throughout the 18 th-20th centuries; Japanese imperializing Korea in the 20th century; Russia annexing Crimea; etc.]

Life on the Roads Leading West—Primary Accounts

While the continued movement of U.S. settlers into the West had disastrous effects on the Native American communities there, the experience was somewhat perilous for traders and settlers as well. Settlers endured long, arduous, and dangerous journeys, as well as epidemic diseases. Nevertheless, thousands made the trek; thankfully, many Americans kept records of the migration, helping us to understand the obstacles they faced and what motivated them to uproot their lives and head to strange lands.

Amelia Stewart Knight’s account: Amelia Stewart Knight and Joel Knight met and married in Boston in 1834. Within a few years, the Knights moved to Iowa, where they settled for 16 years. In 1853, they gathered their seven children, packed their household belongings into a covered wagon, and headed west again. Amelia’s diary of her family’s five-month journey to Oregon began with a brief note: “Started from Home.” She went on to describe the varied scenery: “the beautiful Boise River, with her green timber,” which delighted the family, as well as the “months of travel on the dry, dusty sage plains, with nothing to relieve the eye.” She told of camping by hot springs where she could brew tea without starting a fire, of cows dying along the road, and of the rich wild currants that provided a family feast. Knight wrote her last entry when she and her family reached their destination, Oregon. “My eighth child was born. After this week we picked up and ferried across the Columbia River, utilizing skiff, canoes and flatboat to get across, taking three days to complete. Here husband traded two yoke of oxen for a half section of land with one-half acre planted to potatoes and small log cabin and lean-to with no windows. This is the journey’s end.” Knight’s situation was by no means unique; probably one in five women who made the trek was pregnant. Her condition, however, did nothing to lighten her workload, as every woman and even young children shouldered important responsibilities on the trail.

Lucy Deady and Catherine Haun’s accounts:Lucy Deady traveled the Oregon Trail in 1846 at the age of 11. She wrote of the thunderstorms that caused everything to be “soaked with the driving rains” and made the oxen stampede. She also recalled crossing a desert for two days and one night: “There was no water at all, so we filled every keg and dish so the cattle should have water as well as ourselves.” Fever, diarrhea, and cholera plagued people, some of whom died and were buried alongside the trail. Caravans provided protections against possible attack by Native Americans and they also helped combat the loneliness of the difficult journey, as Catherine Haun, who migrated from Iowa, explained: “We womenfolk visited from wagon to wagon or congenial friends spent an hour walking, ever westward, and talking over our home life back in ‘the states’; telling of the loved ones left behind; voicing our hopes for the future . . .

2

Phoebe Goodell Judson, "A Pioneer's Search for an Ideal Home" :“It is the oft repeated inquiry of my friends as to what induced me to bury myself more than fifty years ago in this far-off corner of the world, that has determined me to take my pen in hand at this late day. Did I come around the Horn, cross the Isthmus, or come across the plains? Was I not afraid of the Indians, and much more they ask. So I have decided to answer them all and singly by writing a short history of our pioneer life, and to affectionately dedicate my book to the memory of the late Holden A. Jundson, my dear husband, who journeyed with me for half a century in the wilderness. This will be but a condensed narrative of events which I shall endeavor to recall out of the mists of the past, written with no attempt at literary display, containing no fiction, but simply a record of the homely, everyday incidents of a plain woman, who has now exceeded her three score years and ten, and who has roughed it in the early fifties on the extreme northwestern frontier.

The romance of frontier life beyond the confines of civilization with its varied, exciting and interesting experiences among the children of nature—both human and brute—has caused the years to fly swiftly, as on the wings of the wind. Our pioneer story begins where love stories (more is the pity) frequently terminate, for Holden Allen Judson and Phoebe Newton Goodell had been joined in the holy bonds of matrimony three years before we decided to emigrate to the vast and uncultivated wilderness of Puget Sound, which at that time was a part of Oregon. . . . Seldom were two more congenially mated to travel the rough voyage of life. Both were endowed with vigorous health, fired with ambition and a love of nature. The motive that induced us to part with pleasant associations and the dear friends of our childhood days, was to obtain from the government of the United States a grant of land that “Uncle Sam” had promised to give to the head of each family who settled in this new country. This, we hoped, would make us independent, for as yet we did not possess a home of our own—all of which meant so much to us that we were willing to encounter dangers, endure hardships and privations in order to secure a home that we might call “ours.” The many air castles that I built concerning my “ideal home” while the preparations for our long journey were being made, are still fresh in my memory. It should be built by a mountain stream that flowed to the Pacific, or by some lake, or bay, and nothing should obstruct our view of the beautiful snow-capped mountains. True, it would be built of logs, but they would be covered with vines and roses, while the path leading to it should be bordered with flowers and the air filled with their sweet perfume. Home, home, sweet home; Be it ever so humble, There’s no place like home.

The time set for our departure was March 1st, 1853. Many dear friends gathered to see us off. The tender good-byes were said with brave cheers in the voices, but many tears from the hearts. After we were seated in the stage that was to carry us forth on the first part of our journey in to the wide, wide world, little Annie put out her hands and asked Fazzer, as she called her grandpapa, to take her. He begged us to leave her with them—mother seconding his request with tearful eyes. Her sweet young life was interwoven with theirs, and well I knew the anguish that rent their hearts at the parting with their little darling. Deeply we sympathized with them in their grief, but how could we part with our only treasure? Amid the waving of handkerchiefs and the lingering God bless yous the stage rolled away—and we were embarked on our long and perilous journey.”

6. Describe some of the noteworthy insights these accounts reveal about life heading west:

3

Territorial Acquisitions of the EraMexican-American War (1846-’48)

Context (1821-‘36)

In 1821, Mexico declared itself free from its “mother country,” Spain. Mexico was enormous in size, stretching from Guatemala to Oregon. But there was a problem: Their northern lands, like Texas, were near empty. One way to increase the population was to welcome settlers from the U.S., who desperately wanted to expand west and bring slavery with them. A special effort was made by the Mexican government to encourage American farmers to settle in the Mexican province of Texas, offering enormous land grants at very cheap prices. For Mexico, this turned out to be a bad idea. Mexico was Catholic, anti-slavery, and wanted to keep American Texans under their control. American settlers were Protestant, pro-slavery, and largely ignored Mexican authority; Americans in Mexican Texas disregarded Mexican laws concerning religion and slavery (which the country had outlawed in 1829). These Americans became increasingly anti-Mexican and began agitating for greater self-government, and eventual, independence from Mexico.

It did not take long for these differences to boil into revolt. Determined to force Texans to obey the laws the Mexican government established, Santa Anna (the Mexican president, see right) marched into Texas. Stephen Austin, the leader of the American Texans, issued a call for Texans to arm themselves. Following bloody encounters at places like the Alamo (where the Texans lost), the Texans eventually defeated Santa Anna’s forces at the Battle of San Jacinto, shouting “Remember the Alamo!” for inspiration. Santa Anna was captured and forced to sign the Treaty of Valasco (1836), ending the war. But the Mexican government refused to acknowledge the forced treaty and hoped to regain Texas. Thus, they never recognized Texan independence as Texans themselves had.

7. Why did Americans start settling in Mexican Texas in the 1830s? For what reasons was there conflict between the Mexican government and the American settlers?

Post “Independence” Texas, or, the Texas Republic (1836-’46)

Most Texans wanted to be annexed by the U.S., but the country was unable to do so due to the slavery question. As early as 1837, Texas attempted to negotiate annexation. Democrats supported their request, hoping to continue Jefferson’s ideal of an agrarian republic while also spreading the institution of slavery. Whigs opposed Texas’s request, preferring industrialization and fearing the extension of “slave power,” which referred to the fact that the expansion of slavery thwarted mobility for average whites while also adding more representation for slave-friendly interests in the national government (House of Representatives and Electoral College).

After years of debate, the U.S. finally admitted Texas to the Union as a slave state in 1845, under President John Tyler, shortly before James K. Polk entered office. Polk, having won the White House with his unwavering support for Manifest Destiny, had his eye on places like California and New Mexico and wanted to shore up the border between Texas and Mexico, which was disputed. The U.S. took the Texan view, since their 1836 victory, that the boundary was at the Rio Grande. Mexico, on the other hand, took the view that the border should be what it was under Mexican rule—the Nueces River.

In 1845, Polk sent American troops under general Zachary Taylor into the disputed area of southern Texas, the Rio Grande, which the Mexican government claimed was their land. Polk claimed to be sending troops in the event of Mexican aggression, but to Mexicans, this was an invasion of their land. At the same time, Polk also sent John Slidell, a diplomat, to Mexico City to try to buy New Mexico and California and discuss the border dispute. The combination of American troops in land Mexico believed was its own and the attempt to buy a large part of their country angered the Mexican government. Slidell was asked to leave Mexico City. Polk saw Mexico’s treatment of Slidell as an opportunity. He felt America’s honor had been challenged, and he wanted revenge. Polk knew any attack on U.S. troops

4

would garner support in Congress for a declaration of war. When word arrived 11 U.S. soldiers were killed on the “Texas side” of the Rio Grande, President Polk believed he had a reason for going to war.

8. Why was Texas’s admission into the U.S. tied up for some time?

9. Polk sent Taylor and Slidell on two important missions in 1845. Where were they sent and why?

10. Evaluate America’s decision to annex Texas and Polk’s decision to send troops to the Rio Grande.

Events of War

America’s wars have often been controversial. Remember, the Revolution (1776-’83) is estimated to have had the support of only one-third of the American colonists. The War of 1812 caused some New Englanders at the Hartford Convention to threaten secession. Entry into WWI and the continuation of fighting in places like Vietnam and Iraq, were vigorously opposed. It should come as no surprise, then, that America’s war with Mexico had both its supporters and its critics.

Though many Whigs/Northerners opposed the war, most supported the declaration of war that Polk encouraged from Congress, due to lessons learned from the War of 1812 (opposing war meant collapse for the Federalists). To Whigs/Northerners, the war was viewed as a Southern conspiracy to extend slavery into Mexico and South America. There were also questions about Polk’s justification for war; the land Polk sent U.S. soldiers to was disputed and U.S. soldiers were said to have provoked Mexican aggression, leading to the deaths of 11 soldiers. Lincoln, elected to Congress from Illinois as a Whig after war began, stated, “We charge the president with usurping the war-making power, . . . with seizing a country, . . . which had been for centuries, and was then in the possession of the Mexicans. . . . Let us put a check upon this lust of dominion. We had territory enough, Heaven knew.” Transcendentalists, such as Henry David Thoreau, were opposed to the war, Thoreau so much so that he refused to pay taxes he knew would fund the war effort, and was jailed for it.

Despite notable opposition, the war with Mexico raged on. The question of what to do with the new lands acquired from Mexico, assuming the U.S. won the war, caused controversy from the start in the nation’s capital. PA Representative David Wilmot (see right) introduced legislation in the House called the “Wilmot Proviso,” in 1846, shortly after war broke out. Though an ardent racist himself, Wilmot was adamantly against the extension of slavery in lands expected to be ceded by Mexico. His Proviso boldly declared, “neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist” in lands won by the war. What drove Wilmot and some of his supporters from the North? They felt that the entire Cabinet and national agenda were dominated by Southern minds and principles. Under Polk’s leadership the tariff had been decreased, internal improvements were denied, and compromise was made in Oregon. Instead of western lands opening to slavery, Wilmot hoped the new territories would be a place where free whites could work and improve themselves, without the competition of slave labor. Though Wilmot managed to get the bill passed in the House, laws require majority support from both houses of Congress. Since the Senate was evenly divided between slave and free states, that chamber never passed the bill. Though Congress had previously passed a gag rule (1836-’44) forbidding the discussion of slavery, the issue could no longer be avoided given the new circumstances.

11. Why did Whigs/Northerners end up supporting the declaration of war, even though many of them opposed it?

5

12. The [failed] Wilmot Proviso was introduced to the House shortly after war broke out. What does that suggest about how Americans perceived the war and what the expected outcome would be?

Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848)

In the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the U.S. enlarged its population by a third. Mexico ceded to the U.S. its vast northern territories—the present day states of California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and half of Colorado. Mexico also agreed to the Rio Grande border. The agreement cost the U.S. $15 million. But fighting the war cost $97 million, along with 13,000 U.S. lives, and 50,000 Mexican lives.

There was much debate in the Senate over whether the treaty went far enough. President Polk wanted U.S. diplomats to push for all of Mexico, since the U.S. had taken Mexico City. But both Southern Democrats and Northern Whigs agreed that doing so would be too problematic. Both were nervous about expanding further into Mexico. It was believed that Mexicans would “poison the U.S.” since territorial governments and rights would eventually be extended to them; Mexicans weren’t seen as being capable of republican governance. It would be racism that ensured Mexican sovereignty. Polk was upset, but reluctantly agreed to the Treaty as it stood.

13. What is meant by the statement “racism ensured Mexican sovereignty”?

14. Was Polk right? Should the U.S. have pushed for all of Mexico? Why or why not?

15. The Mexican-American War was a justifiable war both ideologically and politically. Support, modify or refute this statement.

Oregon Treaty (1846)

The United States and Britain had agreed to a joint occupation of Oregon in which citizens of both countries could settle. This arrangement, brokered by President John Quincy Adams in 1819 (while he was Monroe’s Secretary of State), lasted until 1846.

By 1840, the British in the territory were outnumbered 6 to 1. The British were chiefly fur traders while the Americans were a more eclectic lot. When accounts of the fertile soil of the region spread rapidly to the East, thousands of American families migrated westward along the Oregon Trail. The resulting population disparity along with an overall decline in the fur trade, convinced the British government to work for a negotiated settlement to the Oregon issue. As with Texas, popular opinion over the Oregon Country was divided. Whereas Texas territory would have added proslavery representation in Congress, any potential states formed from the Oregon Country would be free states. Accordingly, Northerners were the chief advocates of acquiring as much Oregon Country as possible.

6

In the presidential election of 1844, Democrat James K. Polk rode to victory over his Whig opponent Henry Clay on an aggressively expansionist platform that welded together the Texas and Oregon issues. Shortly thereafter, negotiations between the United States and Britain over the Oregon Country began. The initial American proposal called for the boundary to be drawn at the 49th parallel. When British negotiators rejected this proposal, President Polk took a bolder position by reasserting his campaign promise to support the 54° 40' line and announcing the American intent to terminate the joint occupancy agreement within a year. While expansionist Northerners cheered these provocative actions with shouts of "Fifty-Four Forty or Fight!," Southerners in Congress made it clear that they would not risk war with Britain over Oregon. British leaders were similarly adverse to conflict and did not want to jeopardize their important economic relationship with the United States (plus their fur trade in the area had significantly declined, as mentioned above). In June 1846, the Senate, preoccupied with war against Mexico, quickly approved the Oregon Treaty with Britain, setting the boundary at the 49th parallel.

The Gadsden Purchase (1854)

The Gadsden Purchase, or Treaty, was an agreement between the United States (under Franklin Pierce’s administration, 1853-’57) and Mexico, in which the United States agreed to pay Mexico $10 million for a 29,670 square mile portion of Mexico that later became part of Arizona and New Mexico. Gadsden’s Purchase provided the land necessary for a southern transcontinental railroad and created the southern border of the present-day United States, despite the beliefs of some policymakers at the time who thought the United States would eventually expand further into Mexico.

16. Using the information contained in this document, along with relevant Period 4 materials that comment on those territorial acquisitions (Florida, Louisiana Purchase, etc.), annotate this map, providing additional context for each section.

7