IDEOLOGY

he warjthenedtirelessly:, thf—twPro-)yedive .y reliant1 navalithoutitenance,'. But itea-ser-thes waraf thetile thatd.e wash powerister-i the ,'s mis-that notring theeven2 twove

ManifesFrank Caso looks at the US drive to expand across North America and beyond

THE EXPANSIONIST IMPULSE in theUnited States, with roots in thecolonial era, enjoyed its greatestphase in the 1840s, during theadministration of President JamesK. Polk. It was that era that gaverise to the philosophical rational-ization for continental and, later,imperial expansion known asManifest Destiny. Writers andpoliticians seized upon the phrase,coined by a now obscure NewYork journalist, and fleshed itout into a justification fornational aggrandizement. Thereasons for Manifest Destiny'spopularity were varied, espe-cially given the sectionalism ofthe US at that time. The biggestreason was economic, of course,but racial reasons abounded, asdid philosophical ones: Expan-sionism, it was believed, wouldcheck the United States' growingtrend toward urbanization.There was also an evangelicalbelief that the US would be inthe vanguard of spreadingdemocracy and freedomthroughout the world.

The stroke of Thomas Jeffer-son's pen aside, many historiansbelieve expansionism as US pol-icy was given impetus by JohnQuincy Adams during histenure as secretary of state in theadministration of James Monroe.At that time, Adams envisionedthe US extending to the Pacific,but by the end of his life, that is,the 1840s when the expansion-ists were gearing up, he virtuallyrenounced his earlier stance, fear-ing the extension of slavery intothe territories.

The most notable expansionistof the 1840s was President Polk.Elected over Henry Clay andJames G. Birney in 1844 with just a49.6 percent plurality (though acomfortable majority in the Elec-toral College), Polk saw his victoryas a mandate for expansionism,and the first tests of that so-calledmandate came soon after his inau-guration. Texas, which nine yearsearlier had gained its indepen-

dence from Mexico, applied to beadmitted into the union as a state.Outgoing president John Tyler hadalready set the annexation wheelsin motion, but Polk immediatelyvoided Tyler's proclamation so asto examine the situation further.After having done so, he reversedhimself and sent the application toCongress. By then, the rabble rous-ing had begun.

As llth president, James K. Polk acquiredvast territories along the Pacific coast and

in the Southwest for the US.

The Coining of a PhraseChief among the expansionist pro-pagandists was John L. O'Sullivan.O'Sullivan was a JacksonianDemocrat to the core who, in 1837,founded the literary journal UnitedStates Magazine and DemocraticReview. Among its contributorswere Nathaniel Hawthorne, EdgarAllan Poe, Ralph Waldo Emersonand Henry David Thoreau. Coinci-dentally, that same year, Bostonpreacher and founder of the Uni-tarian Church in the US, WilliamEllery Charming, in a letter toHenry Clay pessimistically wrote:

"There is no necessity for crime.There is no Fate to justify rapa-cious nations.... We are destined(that is the word) to overspreadNorth America; and intoxicatedwith the idea, it matters little to ushow we accomplish our fate."Although Charming condemnedthe policy of expansion, he under-stood it as inevitable. O'Sullivan,on the other hand, viewed expan-

sion not only as a right, but as apurpose for the US which, in an1839 essay he had dubbed "thegreat nation of futurity." WithFolk's election, he and othersbegan to push their program.

In addition to the Texasannexation question, anotherproblem Polk faced early in hisadministration was the bound-ary of the Oregon territory. Bothmatters involved Britain as apotential adversary, though theidea of Britain imposing itsinfluence on a sovereign nation(Texas) against that nation's willseemed more like expansionistbugaboo, especially in light ofthe Monroe Doctrine. Neverthe-less, O'Sullivan used the issue asa pretext, to lay out his views,and in doing so, he unwittinglycoined a phrase. In'an essayappropriately titled "Annexa-tion" in the July-August 1845issue of the Democratic Review,O'Sullivan chastised othernations (primarily Britain) "forthe avowed object of thwartingour policy and hampering our

power, limiting our greatness andchecking the fulfillment of our •manifest destiny to overspread thecontinent allotted by Providencefor the free development of ouryearly multiplying millions."O'Sullivan thereby linked adminis-trative policy to a divine plan.

For all practical purposes,Americans, in the eyes of expan-sionists and even nonexpansion-ists, were a chosen people. It wasto them that Providence hadbestowed the great destiny of"overspreading the continent" andbringing an enlightened society

History Magazine • June/July 2007 47

IDEOLOGY

and government to the world.Racial theorists in the US adoptingfrom European colleagues, hadbeen setting the tone for suchthinking that would contribute torefining the notion of ManifestDestiny. Various proponents ofracialism invented and thendefined their theories, stratifyingdifferent groups, while alwaysplacing their race, Caucasian, atthe top of the development ladder.Simply put, within the Caucasianrace, the Germanic group was themost developed and among theGermanics, the so-called Anglo-Saxon group was the creme de lacreme. Rebuttals of racial theorieswere given short shrift, as theyhave been in Western cultureever since. Ironically, racialtheory would come to play arole in checking Manifest Des-tiny.

Meanwhile, O'Sullivancontinued to hammer homehis point. In December 1845,with the Texas questiondecided once and for all withthat territory's admission intothe Union, O'Sullivan tackledthe Oregon boundary problemwith an article in the New YorkMorning Nezvs (which he alsoco-founded). In addition toarguing the legal right of theUnited States to the territory,O'Sullivan again invoked "theright of our manifest destiny tooverspread and to possess thewhole of the continent which Prov-idence has given us for the devel-opment of the great experiment ofliberty and federated self-govern-ment entrusted to us." The phrase,manifest destiny, was quicklyrepeated, and debated, in Congressand soon after taken up by bothsides in the expansionist question.As for Oregon, the extremists hadtheir own slogan: "54-40 or fight,"referring to the parallel of latitudeat which they wanted the bound-ary drawn. Polk, however, settledwith Britain at the 49th parallel.

As the US began to feel morecomfortable with the notion of.Manifest Destiny, expansionistsoffered differing interpretations ofhow to apply it to American policy.Some saw it merely as a means ofreaching the Pacific; others took

48 History Magazine • June/July 2007

O'Sullivan literally and wanted toexpand over the entire mass ofNorth America, while the mostextreme interpreters pushed foreventual US sovereignty over theWestern Hemisphere.

The expansionist's quest for allof North America really began inthe late 1830s when Texas, largelypopulated by American immi-grants, declared itself independentof Mexican rule following a suc-cessful revolution. While it wasn'ta foregone conclusion that Texaswould join the Union, given themakeup and culture of its popula-tion, especially the ruling class,signs certainly pointed that way.

John Cast's American Progress shows Columbia, apersonification of the US, moving westward as an

allegory of Manifest Destiny.

But the real prize for expan-sionists, one that had remainedelusive since the RevolutionaryWar, was Canada. This reached itsapex during the brief rebellions inUpper and Lower Canada againstBritish rule during 1837 and 1838.In fact, the leader of the UpperCanada rebellion, William LyonMackenzie, even traveled to Buf-falo to seek support. He received itin. the form of 24 filibusters whowere soon reinforced by another500 men. (The term "filibuster" isused here in its 19th-century senseof a person engaged in fomentinginsurrection in a foreign country.)Not only did the filibusters andtheir American supporters greatlyoverestimate Canadian disloyaltyto the Union Jack and desire, if itever existed, to become part of theUS, but they failed to take intoaccount the foreign policy of Presi-dent Martin Van Buren. Van Buren

sent General Winfield Scott tomaintain order along the border.Though Mackenzie was eventuallyarrested by American authoritiesfor violating the neutrality laws(he served 11 months in prison),American filibusters continuedtheir incursions to no avail afterScott's forces withdrew. The dreamof Canadian annexation died hardin the US.

War With MexicoMartin Van Buren did not wish toengage in a third war with Britainand, ultimately, neither did JamesPolk, which was why the Oregonboundary was settled peacefully.

Mexico was a different story.After the success of the TexasRevolution, Americans viewedMexico as a weak country.Expansionist lust for Californiaincreased exponentially —although some were content toannex only the port of SanFrancisco — and American set-tlers began to repeat the "Texaspattern". In this they wereaided by John C. Fremont, thePathfinder and future Republi-can presidential candidate (in1856). Although there was ashort-lived Bear Flag Republicin California, it never achievedthe status of the Texas Repub-lic, overshadowed as it was by

the Mexican War.The Mexican War is the event

in American history most associ-ated with Manifest Destiny. Thewar began in 1846 over anotherborder dispute — between Mexicoand the new state of Texas. The USclaimed that Mexican troops'crossing over the Rio Grande wasan incursion onto American soil. •Mexico, as well as anti-war propo-nents in Congress, claimed theboundary was actually furthernorth at the Neuces River. In amaneuver future war hawk presi-dents would emulate, PresidentPolk managed to steamroll a decla-ration of war through Congress.The conflict unleashed the forcesof Manifest Destiny; to the delightof the expansionists, the rhetoricwas finally backed by militaryaction. The army's early successesallowed the expansionists to takethe rhetoric up a notch or two. Not

only was California a prize to betaken but' so was New Mexico andthe whole of what is now thesouthwestern US. Furthermore, thedecisive victories of Scott and,especially, General Zachary Taylorprompted a call among expansion-ists to claim all of Mexico.

The All-Mexico movementgained momentum because theterritorial acquisition wouldinclude the Isthmus of Tehuante-pec, across which the Americangovernment had dreams of build-ing a canal linking the Atlantic andPacific oceans. This would thwartBritish ambitions of building andcontrolling their own canal acrossthe isthmus. Furthermore, if Mex-ico were to become a US territory,then the Gulf ofMexico would befirmly in Americanhands — not asmall matter, espe-cially in light of afuture canal. Athird reason foracquiring theentire country wasa so-called human-itarian one. Manysimply felt that theMexican peoplewere in need ofuplifting by themore advanced"Anglo-Saxon"culture. However,racism, even ofthis sort, had adouble edge to it.

Even the mostardent expansion-ists supported thenotion of federalism, which at thetime meant that territories wouldeventually be allowed admissioninto the Union as states. It was justthis system, the expansionists •claimed, that made the US supe-rior to empires of the past. Theproblem, as some saw it, was thatMexico was not like previous USterritories-turned-states where USculture was transplanted by Amer-icans who quickly became themajority group. Mexico had a longestablished culture that was .Roman Catholic and deemed hardto assimilate. Caucasians were avery small minority of the popula-

tion, and the thought of incorpo-rating non-Caucasians as full citi-zens frightened even abolitionists.Another question, much debated,was if the various Mexican stateswould eventually join the Union asfree or slave states?

All of these questions becamemoot when the Treaty ofGuadalupe Hidalgo ending theMexican War was secretly ham-mered out and later ratified byCongress in 1848. The treaty gavethe US nearly all the Mexican terri-tory from the Rio Grande to thePacific Ocean for $15 million plusthe cost of indemnity to Americancitizens. (In 1853, James Gadsdennegotiated the purchase from Mex-ico of approximately 30,000 square

The Disturnell map of 1847, shown here, was used to negotiate the Treaty ofGuadalupe Hidalgo, ending the Mexican War (1846-48).

miles in what is now southernNew Mexico and Arizona for $10million. The purchase ensuredright of way for a rail line to thePacific Ocean.) In just 30 years,from the time John Quincy Adamshad first enunciated a US stretch-ing to the Pacific, expansionistshad realized their dream. But withthe cry for all of'Mexico, ManifestDestiny had begun to take on anew form.

Manifest Destiny in the Age ofImperialismThe desire for Canada notwith-standing, US expansionists began

to turn toward the more extremeinterpretations of Manifest Destinywhen they floated the All-Mexicoidea. The notion of empire beganto take root. In 1848, the Polkadministration secretly tried topurchase Cuba from Spain for $100million but was turned down.Over the next six years, filibustersattempted to cause insurrection inCuba, among them was O'Sulli-van, who had relinquished controlof both his magazine and news-paper in 1846.

In 1854, during the administra-tion of Franklin Pierce, the USagain tried to purchase Cuba,increasing the offer to $120 million.When Spain refused again, Pierceordered his ministers (ambas-

sadors) to Britain,France and Spain'to confer on theCuba matter atOstend, Belgium.Out of this camethe Ostend Mani-festo, whichdeclared that ifSpain refused tosell Cuba, then theUS "by every lawhuman anddivine... shall bejustified in wrest-ing it from Spain."Unlike Mexico,Cuba was a slave-holding territory,and its annexationby the US wouldhave increased theeconomic andpolitical power ofthe southern

states. Naturally, the North wasopposed to Cuban annexation.Since both North and South wereopposed to granting Cubans citi-zenship, the attempt to "wrest"Cuba from Spain never really gotoff the ground. What's more, in theyears prior to the Civil War,domestic problems, especially theterritorial "wars" between freesoilers and slavery proponents,dominated the US political scene.

With the Pacific coast secured,Americans began gazing furtherwest. By the early 1850s, expan-sionists had begun to fix theirattention on the Hawaiian Islands.

History Magazine • June/July 2007 49

IDEOLOGY

In its 26 November 1853 issue, theCincinnati Daily Enquirer, talkingabout the islands, opined; "Theirmanifest destiny is to become apart of the American domain."Over the better part of the nexthalf century, Hawaii would followthe Texas paradigm. By 1893, theyear historian Frederick JacksonTurner had declared the US fron-tier closed, Hawaii had a white-controlled legislature and SupremeCourt, but the monarchy clung topower. That year the islands'wealthy sugar interests engineeredthe overthrow of Queen Lili-uokalani and named Sanford Bal-lard Dole as president of theprovisional government of Hawaii.Dole had been leader of the com-mittee that sought the queen'sremoval. The real intent of theleadership was annexation by theUS, but their plan backfired whenPresident Grover Cleveland with-drew the annexation treaty fromconsideration by the Senate andcalled for Liliuokalani's restora-tion. The next year (1894), the lead-ers of the coup established theRepublic of Hawaii with Doleagain as president.

What many perceive as Mani-fest Destiny in its second, imperial-ist stage, historian Frederick Merkhas termed mission, arguing thatthe imperialists of the late 19thcentury differed in their aims fromwhat O'Sullivan had professed.However, many of O'Sullivan'scontemporaries, especially thoseadvocating the annexation of Mex-ico, were themselves imperialists.Perhaps chief among these proto-imperialists was Mississippi sena-tor Robert J. Walker, who becameFolk's secretary of the treasury. Avirulent racist and one of the mostardent expansionists in the federalgovernment, the Pennsylvania-born Walker called for the annexa-tion of the entire WesternHemisphere, as well as Greenlandand Iceland. Furthermore, theUnited States' westward advance-ment was itself an imperialistmovement toward the NativeAmericans for whom America'sdestiny was anything but manifest.

The irony of the imperialists ofthe 1890s was that they wereRepublicans, political descendants

50 History Magazine • June/July 2007

of the Whigs, who had opposedManifest Destiny 50 years earlier.The most notable imperialists ofthe time were Alfred Mahan,Henry Cabot Lodge and TheodoreRoosevelt. They, and others of likemind, argued for a greater USpresence in world affairs —Mahan, a captain in the navy and anoted naval historian, especially -favored Hawaiian annexation, asthe islands would give the US astrategic advantage in the Pacific.Cuba, always on the minds ofCongress and the executive,became the flashpoint of US impe-rialist aims, and when the Spanish-American War — the "splendidlittle war" as Secretary of StateJohn Hay famously characterized

A political cartoon in the ChicagoRecord-Herald from 1901, entitled

"Miss Cuba Receives an Invitation".Miss Columbia to her fair neighbor:"Won't you join the stars and be my

forty-sixth?"

it — ended, the island became aclient of US economic interestsuntil 1959.

The Spanish-American Wareffected a fundamental change tothe US, which as a result of con-quest became an empire, even if,as some argue, an accidental one.The US now ruled people as faraway as the Philippines and asclose as Puerto Rico; and while thePhilippines has been granted inde-pendence, none of the other terri-tories captured from Spain in thewar have been admitted into the

Union. Hawaii being more than2,500 miles closer to the Philip-pines than San Francisco, theislands' planters and AlfredMahan finally got their wish forannexation in 1900.

There is little doubt that thespirit that moved Americansonward, decades before the now-obscure O'Sullivan coined the termManifest Destiny, continued tomotivate the US government andits citizens in the 20th century, andstill does so in the 21st. The differ-ence being that in the 1840s,expansionists had claimed thatfederalism had created a new typeof empire, one that graduallyincorporated territories into theUnion as equal states, while in the20th century, American imperial-ism concentrated on economicaspects, divorcing them fromdirect land acquisition. The senseof Manifest Destiny was still evi-dent in the US's post-WWII statusas "leader of the free world" (it isno accident that both Alaska andHawaii were granted statehoodduring the height of the Cold War),in the early years of the space race,and in the conflicts the US hasfought (and continues to fight)since 1945.

Further Reading:• Bergeron, Paul H. The Presidencyof James K. Polk (Lawrence, Kansas:University Press of Kansas, 1987).• Haynes, Sam W. and Christo-pher Morris (eds.) Manifest Destinyand Empire: American AntebellumExpansionism (College Station,Texas: The University of Texas atArlington, 1997).• Horsman, Reginald. Race andManifest Destiny: The Origins ofAmerican Racial Anglo-Saxonism(Cambridge, Mass. And London:Harvard University Press, 1981).• Merk, Frederick. ManifestDestiny and Mission in AmericanHistory: A Reinterpretation (NewYork: Alfred A. Knopf, 1963).• Stephanson, Anders. ManifestDestiny: American Expansion and theEmpire of Right (New York: Hilland Wang, 1995).