Manifest Destiny

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Jump to: navigation, search
This painting (circa 1872) by John Gast called American Progress is an allegorical representation of Manifest Destiny. In the scene, an angelic woman (sometimes identified as Columbia, a 19th century personification of the United States) carries the light of "civilization" westward with American settlers, stringing telegraph wire as she travels. American Indians, buffalos and wild animals are driven into the darkness before them.
Enlarge
This painting (circa 1872) by John Gast called American Progress is an allegorical representation of Manifest Destiny. In the scene, an angelic woman (sometimes identified as Columbia, a 19th century personification of the United States) carries the light of "civilization" westward with American settlers, stringing telegraph wire as she travels. American Indians, buffalos and wild animals are driven into the darkness before them.

Manifest Destiny is a phrase that expressed the belief that the United States had a divinely inspired mission to expand, to progress, and to spread 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 notion rather than a specific policy. In addition to territorial expansionism, the term also encompassed notions of individualism, idealism, American exceptionalism, Romantic nationalism, White supremacism, and a belief in the inherent greatness of what was then called the "Anglo-Saxon race". Given this variety of components, the phrase defies precise definition. As Ernest Lee Tuveson has written: "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 one source."[1]

The phrase 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 American 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 then is a history of the idea of Manifest Destiny and the influence of that idea upon American expansion.

Contents

Origin of the phrase

The phrase, which means obvious (or undeniable) fate, was coined in 1844 by New York journalist John L. O'Sullivan in 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." Texas became a U.S. state 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. In a column which appeared in the New York Morning News on February 27, 1845, 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.

John L. O'Sullivan, sketched in 1874, is generally remembered only for using the phrase "Manifest Destiny" to advocate the annexation of Texas and Oregon.
Enlarge
John L. O'Sullivan, sketched in 1874, is generally remembered only for using the phrase "Manifest Destiny" to advocate the annexation of Texas and Oregon.

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's phrase provided a label for sentiments which had become particularly popular during the 1840s, but the ideas themselves were not new. O'Sullivan himself had earlier expressed some of these ideas, notably in an 1839 essay entitled "The Great Nation of Futurity". O'Sullivan was not the originator of Manifest Destiny, but one of its foremost advocates.

At first, 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:

  1. the virtue of the American people and their institutions;
  2. the mission to spread these institutions, thereby redeeming and remaking the world in the image of the U.S.; and
  3. 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

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.
Enlarge
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 encompass 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. 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, embracing the slogan Fifty-Four Forty or Fight! in the 1844 U.S. Presidential election, referring to the northern border of the region. The Whig candidate Henry Clay, misjudging popular sentiment, spoke against annexing any part of Canada or Texas, which some historians believe cost him the election.

American westward expansion is idealized in Emanuel Leutze's famous painting Westward the Course of Empire Takes its Way (1861). The title of the painting, from a 1726 poem by Bishop Berkeley, was a phrase often quoted in the era of Manifest Destiny, expressing a widely held belief that civilization had steadily moved westward throughout history. (more)
Enlarge
American westward expansion is idealized in Emanuel Leutze's famous painting Westward the Course of Empire Takes its Way (1861). The title of the painting, from a 1726 poem by Bishop Berkeley, was a phrase often quoted in the era of Manifest Destiny, expressing a widely held belief that civilization had steadily moved westward throughout history. (more)

The dispute was settled diplomatically with the Oregon Treaty of 1846, setting the border at the 49th parallel, the original U.S. proposal. Despite the earlier clamor for "all of Oregon", the treaty was popular in the U.S. and was easily ratified by the Senate. Many Americans believed that the Canadian provinces would eventually merge with the United States, 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


American Indians

There can be no doubt ... that the Creator intended the earth should be reclaimed from a state of nature and cultivated; that the human race should spread over it, procuring from it the means of comfortable subsistence, and of increase and improvement. -- Lewis Cass, in an article advocating Indian Removal in 1830.

Manifest Destiny shaped the ideas and writings of one of America's first great historians, Francis Parkman, whose landmark book The Conspiracy of Pontiac was published in 1851. Parkman believed that Indians were "destined to melt and vanish before the advancing waves of Anglo-American power, which now rolled westward unchecked on unopposed".

Manifest Destiny and various other statements of moral, political, and often racial superiority were used to justify the displacement of Native Americans. Similar doctrines (such as the white man's burden) were concurrently being used by Europeans elsewhere in the world to justify colonial conquests in Africa and Asia.

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 source

See also

Other people associated with Manifest Destiny:

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
  • 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 scholars such as Robert W. Johannsen and Anders Stephanson as still being the best book on the topic.

External links

Notes

  1. ^  Tuveson quoted from his book Redeemer Nation by Robert W. Johannsen, "The Meaning of Manifest Destiny", in Hayes, p. 13.
  2. ^  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.
  3. ^  Johannsen, p. 9.
  4. ^  Weinberg, p. 145; Johannsen p. 9.
  5. ^  Johannsen, p. 10.
  6. ^  Winthrop quote: Weingberg, p. 143; O'Sullivan's death, later discovery of phrase's origin: Stephanson, p. xii.
  7. ^  Weeks, p. 61.
  8. ^  Haynes, pp. 18-19.
  9. ^  Stuart and Weeks call this this period the "Era of Manifest Destiny" and the "Age of Manifest Destiny", respectively.
  10. ^  Adams quoted in McDougall, p. 78.
  11. ^  McDougall, p. 74; Weinberg, p. 109.
  12. ^  Stuart, p. 76.
  13. ^  O'Sullivan and the U.S. view of the uprisings: Stuart, pp.128-46.
  14. ^  O'Sullivan against intervention: Stuart p. 86; Filibusters: Stuart, ch. 6; Fenians unrelated: Stuart 249.
  15. ^  Treaty popular: Stuart, p. 104; compass quote p. 84.
Personal tools