Manifest destiny

Manifest Destiny is a phrase that expressed the belief that the United States had a divinely inspired mission to expand, spreading its form of democracy and freedom. Originally a political catch phrase of the nineteenth century, Manifest Destiny eventually became a standard historical term, often used as a synonym for the territorial expansion of the United States across North America towards the Pacific Ocean.

Manifest Destiny was always a general idea rather than a specific policy. In addition to expansionism, the term also encompassed notions of American exceptionalism, Romantic nationalism, and a belief in the natural superiority of what was then called the "Anglo-Saxon race". While many writers focus primarily upon American expansionism when discussing Manifest Destiny, others see in the term a broader expression of a belief in America's "mission" in the world, which has meant different things to different people over the years. This variety of possible meanings was summed up by Ernest Lee Tuveson, who wrote: "A vast complex of ideas, policies, and actions is comprehended under the phrase 'Manifest Destiny.' They are not, as we should expect, all compatible, nor do they come from any one source."^[1]

The phrase "Manifest Destiny" was first used primarily by Jackson Democrats in the 1840s to promote the annexation of much of what is now the Western United States (the Oregon Territory, the Texas Annexation, and the Mexican Cession). The term was revived in the 1890s, this time with Republican supporters, as a theoretical justification for U.S. intervention outside of North America. The term fell out of common usage by politicians, but some commentators believe that aspects of Manifest Destiny continued to have an influence on American political ideology in the twentieth century.^[2]

Note that this article is not a history of the territorial expansion of the United States, nor is it the story of the westward migration of settlers to the American frontier. Manifest Destiny was an explanation or justification for that expansion and westward movement, or, in some interpretations, an ideology or doctrine which helped to promote the process. This article is a history of Manifest Destiny as an idea, and the influence of that idea upon American expansion.

Origin of the phrase

The phrase, which means obvious (or undeniable) fate, was coined by New York City journalist John L. O'Sullivan in the July–August 1845 issue of his magazine the Democratic Review. In an essay entitled "Annexation", which called on the U.S. to admit the Republic of Texas into the Union, O'Sullivan wrote of "our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions." Amid much controversy, Texas was annexed shortly thereafter, but O'Sullivan's first usage of the phrase "Manifest Destiny" attracted little attention.^[3]

O'Sullivan's second use of the phrase became extremely influential. On December 27, 1845 in his newspaper the New York Morning News, O'Sullivan addressed the ongoing boundary dispute with Great Britain in the Oregon Country. O'Sullivan argued that the United States had the right to claim "the whole of Oregon":

And that claim is by the right of our manifest destiny to overspread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federated self-government entrusted to us.

That is, O'Sullivan believed that God ("Providence") had given the United States a mission to spread republican democracy ("the great experiment of liberty") throughout North America. Because Great Britain would not use Oregon for the purposes of spreading democracy, thought O'Sullivan, British claims to the territory could be disregarded. O'Sullivan believed that Manifest Destiny was a moral ideal (a "higher law") that superseded other considerations, including international laws and agreements.^[4]

O'Sullivan's original conception of Manifest Destiny was not a call for territorial expansion by force. He believed that the expansion of U.S.-style democracy was inevitable, and would happen without military involvement as whites (or "Anglo-Saxons") emigrated to new regions. O'Sullivan disapproved of the outbreak of the Mexican-American War in 1846, although he came to believe that the outcome would be beneficial to both countries.^[5]

O'Sullivan did not originate the idea of Manifest Destiny: while his phrase provided a useful label for sentiments which had become particularly popular during the 1840s, the ideas themselves were not new. And while O'Sullivan was one of the foremost advocates of what came to be known as Manifest Destiny, many other writers had been using different words to describe the same ideas. The growth of the press in the United States in the 1840s, particularly the often sensationalistic "penny press", greatly contributed to the wide dissemination of ideas like Manifest Destiny.

O'Sullivan was not aware that he had created a new catch phrase. The term became popular after it was criticized by Whig opponents of the Polk administration. On January 3, 1846, Representative Robert Winthrop ridiculed the concept in Congress, saying "I suppose the right of a manifest destiny to spread will not be admitted to exist in any nation except the universal Yankee nation". Winthrop was the first in a long line of critics who suggested that advocates of Manifest Destiny were citing "Divine Providence" for justification of actions that were motivated by more earthly interests.

Despite this criticism, Democrats embraced the phrase. It caught on so quickly that it was eventually forgotten that O'Sullivan had coined it. O'Sullivan died in obscurity in 1895, just as his phrase was being revived; it was not until 1927 that a historian had determined that the phrase had originated with him.^[6]

Themes and influences

Historian William E. Weeks has noted that three key themes were usually touched upon by advocates of Manifest Destiny:

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.^[7]

The origin of the first theme, also known as American Exceptionalism, was often traced to America's Puritan heritage, particularly John Winthrop's famous "City upon a Hill" sermon of 1630, in which he called for the establishment of a virtuous community that would be a shining example to the Old World. In his influential 1776 pamphlet Common Sense, Thomas Paine echoed this notion, arguing that the American Revolution provided an opportunity to create a new, better society:

We have it in our power to begin the world over again. A situation, similar to the present, hath not happened since the days of Noah until now. The birthday of a new world is at hand....

Many Americans agreed with Paine, and came to believe that the United States had embarked upon a special experiment in freedom and democracy—and a rejection of Old World monarchy—which was of world-historical importance. President Abraham Lincoln's description of the United States as "the last, best hope of Earth" is a well-known expression of this idea. Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, in which he interpreted the Civil War as a struggle to determine if any nation with America's ideals could survive, has been called by historian Robert Johannsen "the most enduring statement of America's Manifest Destiny and mission".^[8]

The belief that the United States had a mission to spread its institutions and ideals through territorial expansion—what Andrew Jackson in 1843 famously described as "extending the area of freedom"—was a fundamental aspect of Manifest Destiny. Many believed that American-style democracy would spread without any effort by the United States government. American pioneers would take their beliefs with them throughout North America, it was thought, and other countries in the world would seek to emulate American institutions. Thomas Jefferson initially did not believe it necessary that the United States itself should expand, since he believed that other republics similar to the United States would be founded in North America, forming what he called an "empire for liberty". With the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, however, he embraced expansion. As more territory was added to the United States in the following decades, whether or not "extending the area of freedom" also meant extending the area of slavery became a central issue in a growing divide over the interpretation of America's "mission".

Effect on continental expansion

File:John Quincy Adams 2.jpg

John Quincy Adams, painted above in 1816 by Charles Robert Leslie, was an early proponent of continentalism. Late in life he came to regret his role in helping U.S. slavery to expand, and became a leading opponent of the annexation of Texas.

The phrase "Manifest Destiny" is most often associated with the territorial expansion of the United States from 1815 to 1860. This era, from the end of the War of 1812 to the beginning of the American Civil War, has been called the "Age of Manifest Destiny". During this time, the United States expanded to the Pacific Ocean—"from sea to shining sea"—largely defining the borders of the continental United States as they are today. Manifest Destiny played a role in U.S. relations with British North America (later Canada) to the north, but was more consequential with regards to Mexico and the outbreak of the Mexican-American War. The pervasive racialism of Manifest Destiny had serious consequences for American Indians.^[9]

Continentalism

The nineteenth century belief that the United States would eventually absorb all of North America is known as "continentalism". An early proponent of this idea was John Quincy Adams, the leading figure in U.S. expansion between the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 and the Polk administration in the 1840s. In 1811, Adams wrote to his father:

The whole continent of North America appears to be destined by Divine Providence to be peopled by one nation, speaking one language, professing one general system of religious and political principles, and accustomed to one general tenor of social usages and customs. For the common happiness of them all, for their peace and prosperity, I believe it is indispensable that they should be associated in one federal Union.^[10]

Adams did much to further this idea. He orchestrated the Treaty of 1818, which established the United States-Canada border as far west as the Rocky Mountains, and provided for the joint occupation of the Oregon Country. He negotiated the Transcontinental Treaty in 1819, purchasing Florida from Spain and extending the U.S. border with Spanish Mexico all the way to the Pacific Ocean. And he formulated the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, which warned Europe that the Western Hemisphere was no longer open for European colonization.

The Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny were closely related ideas; historian Walter McDougall calls Manifest Destiny a "corollary" of the Monroe Doctrine, because while the Monroe Doctrine did not specify expansion, expansion was necessary in order to enforce the Doctrine. Concerns in the United States that European powers (especially Great Britain) were seeking to increase their influence in North America led to calls for expansion in order to prevent this. In his influential 1935 study of Manifest Destiny, Albert Weinberg wrote that "the expansionism of the [1840s] arose as a defensive effort to forestall the encroachment of Europe in North America".^[11]

British North America

Before 1815

At the outset of the American Revolution, the American revolutionaries hoped French Canadians would join the Thirteen Colonies in the effort to throw off the rule of the British Empire. The Canadian provinces were invited to send representatives to the Continental Congress, and Canada was pre-approved for joining the United States in the Articles of Confederation. When Canada was invaded during the war in an attempt to expel the British from North America, Americans hoped French Canadians would join them in the effort. None of these measures proved successful in bringing Canada onto the side of the Thirteen Colonies, and so in the Paris peace negotiations, Benjamin Franklin unsuccessfully attempted to convince British diplomats to cede Canada to the United States. The continued presence of the British Empire on the northern border of the United States led to a second unsuccessful U.S. invasion of British North America during the War of 1812.

These attempts to expel the British Empire from North America are sometimes cited as early examples of Manifest Destiny in action. Canadian historian Reginald Stuart, however, argues that these events were different in character than those during the "Era of Manifest Destiny". Before 1815, writes Stuart, "what seemed like territorial expansionism actually arose from a defensive mentality, not from ambitions for conquest and annexation." From this point of view, Manifest Destiny was not a factor in the outbreak of the War of 1812, but rather emerged as a popular belief in the years after the war.^[12]

Filibustering in Canada

Americans became increasingly accepting of the presence of British colonies to the north after the War of 1812, although Anglophobia continued to be widespread in the United States. Many Americans, especially those along the border, were hopeful that the Rebellions of 1837 would bring an end to the British Empire in North America and the establishment of a democratic government in Canada. Of those events John O'Sullivan wrote: "If freedom is the best of national blessings, if self-government is the first of national rights, ... then we are bound to sympathise with the cause of the Canadian rebellion." Americans like O'Sullivan viewed the Rebellions as a reprise of the American Revolution, and—unlike most Canadians at the time—considered Canadians to be living under oppressive foreign rule.^[13]

Despite this sympathy with the cause of the rebels, belief in Manifest Destiny did not result in widespread American reaction to the Rebellions, in part because the Rebellions were over so quickly. O'Sullivan, for his part, advised against U.S. intervention. Some American "filibusters"—unauthorized volunteer soldiers often motivated by a belief in Manifest Destiny—went to Canada to lend aid to the rebels, but President Martin Van Buren sent General Winfield Scott to arrest the filibusters and keep peace on the border. Some filibusters persisted in secretive groups known as the Hunters' Lodges, and tried to stir up war in order to "liberate" Canada—the so-called "Patriot War" was one such event—but American sentiment and official government policy were against these actions. The Fenian raids after the American Civil War shared some resemblances to the actions of the Hunters, but were otherwise unrelated to the idea of Manifest Destiny or any policy of American expansionism.^[14]

Oregon Country

On the northern border of the United States, Manifest Destiny played its most important role in the Oregon Country border dispute with Great Britain. The Anglo-American Convention of 1818 had provided for the joint occupation of the region, and thousands Americans migrated there in the 1840s over the Oregon Trail. The British refused a proposal by President John Tyler to divide the region along 49th parallel (an offer made earlier by John Quincy Adams), and instead proposed a boundary line further south along the Columbia River, which would have added what is now the state of Washington to British North America. Advocates of Manifest Destiny protested, and called for the annexation of the entire Oregon Country. Presidential candidate James K. Polk used this popular outcry to his advantage, and the Democrats called for the annexation of "All Oregon" in the 1844 U.S. Presidential election.

As president, however, Polk renewed the earlier offer to divide the territory along the 49th parallel, to the dismay of the most ardent advocates of Manifest Destiny. When the British refused the offer, American expansionists responded with the slogan Fifty-Four Forty or Fight!, referring to the northern border of the region. (The slogan is often mistakenly described as having been a part of the 1844 campaign.) When Polk moved to terminate the joint occupation agreement, the British finally agreed to divide the region along the 49th parallel, and the dispute was settled diplomatically with the Oregon Treaty of 1846.

Despite the earlier clamor for "All Oregon", the treaty was popular in the U.S. and was easily ratified by the Senate, particularly because the United States was by that time at war with Mexico. Many Americans believed that the Canadian provinces would eventually merge with the United States anyway, and that war was unnecessary—and counterproductive—in fulfilling that destiny. The most fervent advocates of Manifest Destiny had not prevailed along the northern border because, according to Reginald Stuart, "the compass of Manifest Destiny pointed west and southwest, not north, despite the use of the term 'continentalism'".^[15]

Mexico and Texas

In 1836, the Republic of Texas declared independence from Mexico and, after the Texas Revolution, sought to join the United States as a new state. This was an idealized process of expansion which had been advocated from Jefferson to O'Sullivan: potential states would request entry into the United States, rather than the United States extending its government over people who did not want it. The annexation of Texas was controversial, however, since it would add another slave state to the Union. Presidents Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren declined Texas' offer to join the United States in part because the slavery issue threatened to divide the Democratic party.

Before the election of 1844, Whig candidate Henry Clay and the presumed Democratic candidate, ex-President Van Buren, both declared themselves opposed to the annexation of Texas, each hoping to keep the troublesome topic from becoming a campaign issue. This unexpectedly led to Van Buren being dropped by the Democrats in favor of Polk, who favored annexation. Polk tied the Texas annexation question with the Oregon dispute, thus providing a sort of regional compromise on expansion. (Expansionists in the North were more inclined to promote the occupation of Oregon, while Southern expansionists focused primarily on the annexation of Texas.) Although elected by a very slim margin, Polk proceeded as if his victory had been a mandate for expansion.

"All Mexico"

After the election of Polk, but before he took office, Congress approved the annexation of Texas. Polk moved to occupy a portion of Texas which was also claimed by Mexico, paving the way for the outbreak of the Mexican-American War on April 24, 1846. With American successes on the battlefield, by the summer of 1847 there were calls for the annexation of "All Mexico", particularly among Democrats in East, who argued that bringing Mexico into the Union was the best way to ensure future peace in the region.

This was a controversial proposition for two reasons. First of all, idealistic advocates of Manifest Destiny like John L. O'Sullivan had always maintained that the laws of the United States should not be imposed on people against their will. The annexation of "All Mexico" would be a violation of this principle. And secondly, the annexation of Mexico was controversial because it would mean extending U.S. citizenship to millions of Mexicans. Senator John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, who had approved of the annexation of Texas, was opposed to the annexation of Mexico, as well as the "mission" aspect of Manifest Destiny, for racial reasons. He made these views clear in a speech to Congress on 4 January 1848:

[W]e have never dreamt of incorporating into our Union any but the Caucasian race—the free white race. To incorporate Mexico, would be the very first instance of the kind, of incorporating an Indian race; for more than half of the Mexicans are Indians, and the other is composed chiefly of mixed tribes. I protest against such a union as that! Ours, sir, is the Government of a white race.... I see that it has been urged ... that it is the mission of this country to spread civil and religious liberty over all the world, and especially over this continent. It is a great mistake.

This debate brought to the forefront one of the contradictions of Manifest Destiny: on the one hand, while racist ideas inherent in Manifest Destiny suggested that Mexicans, as non-Anglo-Saxons, were not qualified to become Americans, the "mission" component of Manifest Destiny suggested that Mexicans would be improved (or "regenerated", as it was then described) by bringing them into American democracy. Racism was used to promote Manifest Destiny, but, as in the case of Calhoun and the resistance to the "All Mexico" movement, racism was also used to oppose Manifest Destiny.

The controversy was eventually resolved by the Mexican Cession, adding the territories of California and New Mexico to the United States, which were more sparsely populated than the rest of Mexico. Like the "All Oregon" movement, the "All Mexico" movement quickly abated.

American Indians

U.S. continental expansion usually meant the occupation of American Indian land. The United States continued the European practice of recognizing only limited land rights of indigenous peoples. In a policy formulated largely by Henry Knox, Secretary of War in the Washington Administration, the U.S. government sought to expand into the west only through the legal purchase of Indian land in treaties. Indians were encouraged to sell their vast tribal lands and become "civilized", which meant (among other things) for Indian men to abandon hunting and become farmers, and for Indian society to reorganize around the family unit rather than the clan or tribe. Advocates of "civilization" programs believed that the process would greatly reduce the amount of land needed by the Indians, thereby making more land available for purchase by white Americans. Thomas Jefferson believed that while American Indians were the intellectual equals of whites, Indians had to live like the whites or inevitably be pushed aside by them. Jefferson's belief, rooted in Enlightenment thinking, that whites and Indians would merge to create a single nation did not last his lifetime, and he began to believe that the Indians should emigrate across the Mississippi River and maintain a separate society, an idea made possible by the Louisiana Purchase of 1803.

In the Age of Manifest Destiny, this idea, which came to be known as "Indian Removal", gained ground. Although some humanitarian advocates of removal believed that Indians would be better off moving away from whites, an increasing number of Americans regarded the natives as nothing more than "savages" who stood in the way of American expansion. As historian Reginald Horsman argued in his influential study Race and Manifest Destiny, racial rhetoric increased during the era of Manifest Destiny. Americans increasingly believed that Native Americans would fade away as the United States expanded. As an example, this idea was reflected in the work of one of America's first great historians, Francis Parkman, whose landmark book The Conspiracy of Pontiac was published in 1851. Parkman wrote that Indians were "destined to melt and vanish before the advancing waves of Anglo-American power, which now rolled westward unchecked and unopposed".

Beyond North America

We reaffirm our approval of the Monroe doctrine and believe in the achievement of the manifest destiny of the Republic in its broadest sense.

Republican Party Platform of 1892 [16]

Annexation of Hawaii
Spanish-American War
Philippine Insurrection
White man's burden
Woodrow Wilson and "making the world safe for democracy"

References

Hayes, Sam W. and Christopher Morris, eds. Manifest Destiny and Empire: American Antebellum Expansionism. College Station, Texas: Texas A&M University Press, 1997. ISBN 0890967563.
Horsman, Reginald. Race and Manifest Destiny: The Origins of American Racial Anglo-Saxonism. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1981.
McDougall, Walter A. Promised Land, Crusader State: The American Encounter with the World Since 1776. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1997.
Merk, Frederick. Manifest Destiny and Mission in American History: A Reinterpretation. New York, Knopf, 1963.
Stephanson, Anders. Manifest Destiny: American Expansionism and the Empire of Right. New York: Hill and Wang, 1995. ISBN 0-8090-1584-6; ISBN 0-8909-6756-3. (review)
Stuart, Reginald C. United States Expansionism and British North America, 1775–1871. Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1988. ISBN 0-8078-1767-8
Tuveson, Ernest Lee. Redeemer Nation: The Idea of America's Millennial Role. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968.
Weeks, William Earl. Building the Continental Empire: American Expansion from the Revolution to the Civil War. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1996. ISBN 1566631351.
Weinberg, Albert K. Manifest Destiny: A Study of Nationalist Expansionism in American History. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1935. Cited by many scholars as still the best book on the topic.

External links

Notes

^ Tuveson quote, p. 91.
^ Stephanson's Manifest Destiny: American Expansionism and the Empire of Right examines the influence of Manifest Destiny in the 20th century, particularly as articulated by Woodrow Wilson and Ronald Reagan.
^ Robert W. Johannsen, "The Meaning of Manifest Destiny", in Hayes, p. 9.
^ Weinberg, p. 145; Johannsen p. 9.
^ Johannsen, p. 10.
^ Winthrop quote: Weingberg, p. 143; O'Sullivan's death, later discovery of phrase's origin: Stephanson, p. xii.
^ Weeks, p. 61.
^ Haynes, pp. 18-19.
^ Stuart and Weeks call this period the "Era of Manifest Destiny" and the "Age of Manifest Destiny", respectively.
^ Adams quoted in McDougall, p. 78.
^ McDougall, p. 74; Weinberg, p. 109.
^ Stuart, p. 76.
^ O'Sullivan and the U.S. view of the uprisings: Stuart, pp.128-46.
^ O'Sullivan against intervention: Stuart p. 86; Filibusters: Stuart, ch. 6; Fenians unrelated: Stuart 249.
^ Treaty popular: Stuart, p. 104; compass quote p. 84.