Download manifest destiny

MANIFEST DESTINY
PROMOTION OF MANIFEST DESTINY
THEOPHILUS FISK: “YOUNG AMERICA”
America’s Manifest Destiny could not be denied, even if it meant fighting for land, which is what
Theophilus Fisk suggested in this editorial. He refers to “Young America,” the concept of democracy and the United States’ right to the continent. Because of his views on Manifest Destiny,
Fisk pushed the policies of James K. Polk in his newspaper.
United States Journal (Washington, D. C.), 3 May 1845
There is a new spirit abroad in the land, young, restless, vigorous and omnipotent. It
manifested itself in infancy at the Baltimore Convention. It was felt in boyhood in the triumphant
election of James K. Polk; and in manhood it will be still more strongly felt in the future administration of public affairs in this country. . . . It sprang from the warm sympathies and high hopes
of youthful life . . . it is Young America, awakened to a sense of her own intellectual greatness by
her soaring spirit. It stands in strength, the voice of the majority. . . . It demands the immediate
annexation of Texas at any and every hazard. It will plant its right foot upon the northern verge of
Oregon, and its left upon the Atlantic crag, and waving the stars and the stripes in the face of the
once proud Mistress of the Ocean, bid her, if she dare, “Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war.”
JOHN L. O’SULLIVAN: “THE POPULAR MOVEMENT”
John L. O’Sullivan edited two publications, the Democratic Review and the Morning News, bot
in New York. He used both to promote Manifest Destiny. This editorial glorifies all aspect of
Manifest Destiny and plainly states that all would be better off under the American scheme of
government, religion, and point of view.
Morning News (New York), 24 May 1845
From the time that the Pilgrim Fathers landed on these shores to the present moment, the
older settlements have been constantly throwing off a hardy, restless and lawless pioneer population, which has kept in advance, subduing the wilderness and preparing the way for more orderly
settlers who tread rapidly upon their footsteps. It is but a short time since Western Massachusetts,
Connecticut and Rhode Island, although now proverbially the land of “steady habits” and good
morals, presented a population no ways superior socially to that of Texas at the present day. As
their numbers increased, law and order obtained control, and those unable to bear constraint
sought new homes. Those latter have rolled forward in advance of civilization, like the surf on an
advancing wave, indicative of its resistless approach. This is the natural, unchangeable effect of
our position upon this continent, and it must continue until the waves of the Pacific have
hemmed in and restrained the onward movement.
To say that the settlement of a fertile and unappropriated soil by right of individual purchase is the aggression of a government is absurd. Equally ridiculous is it to suppose that when a
band of hardy settlers have reclaimed the wilderness, multiplied in numbers, built up a community and organized a government, that they have not the right to claim the confederation of that
society of States from the bosom of which they emanated. An inalienable right of man is to
institute for themselves that form of government which suits them best, and to change it when
they please. On this continent communities grow up mostly by immigration from the United
States. Such communities therefore inevitably establish the same form of government which they
left behind and demand of them that they come into the Union. Mexico, in whole or in part,
becomes so settled by the Anglo-Saxon race that they have a majority and decide to alter the
system to that of the United States model, and ask for admittance into the Union, the same
inalienable right will exist and who will deny it?
JOHN L. O’SULLIVAN: “ANNEXATION”
The annexation of Texas provided the event at which the term manifest destiny was inserted into
the rhetoric of American expansion across North America. O’Sullivan’s authorship of this editorial has long been assumed, but it may have been written by one of his reporters, Jane Storm.
United States Magazine and Democratic Review (New York), July/August 1845
It is time now for opposition to the Annexation of Texas to cease, all further agitation of
the waters of bitterness and strife, at least in connexion with this question. . . . But, in regard to
Texas, enough has now been given to Party. It is time for the common duty of Patriotism to the
Country to succeed;–or if this claim will not be recognized, it is at least time for common sense
to acquiesce with decent grace in the inevitable and the irrevocable.
Texas is now ours. Already, before these words are written her Convention has undoubtedly ratified the acceptance, by her Congress, of our proffered invitation into the Union; and
made the requisite changes in her already republican form of constitution to adopt it to its future
federal relations. Her star and her stripe may already be said to have taken their place in the
glorious blazon of our common nationality; and the sweep of our eagle’s wing already includes
within its circuit the wide extent of her fair and fertile land. She is no longer to us a mere geographical space. . . . She comes within the dear and sacred designation of Our Country; no longer
a “pays,” she is a part of “la patrie;” and that which is at once a sentiment and a virtue, Patriotism, already begins to thrill for her too within the national heart. The next session of Congress
will see the representatives of the new young State in their places in both our halls of national
legislation, side by side with those of the old Thirteen. . . .
Why, were other reasoning wanting, in favor of now elevating this question of the reception of Texas into the Union, out of the lower region of our past party dissensions, up to its
proper level of a high and broad nationality, it surely is to be found, found abundantly, in the
manner in which other nations have undertaken to intrude themselves into it, between us and the
proper parties to the case, in a spirit of hostile interference against us, for the avowed object of
thwarting our policy and hampering our power, limiting our greatness and checking the
fulfilment of our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free
development of our yearly multiplying millions. . . .
H. W. BELLOWS: “THE DESTINY OF THE COUNTRY”
The American Review was a publication of the Whig party and promised “to stand by the Constitution,” with this slogan under its name. In this article by H. W. Bellows, the greatness and
superiority with which many Americans viewed their nation in the 1840s is easily evident. The
splendor of “national destiny,” the granting of “providential advantage,” and America as God’s
“ultimate triumph” are all part of the rhetoric.
American Review (New York), March 1847
NOTWITHSTANDING the proverbial pride of Americans, few have yet attained any due sense
of the magnificence of their country and the splendor of their national destiny. . . . There is more
to sober than to intoxicate, to awe than to addle, in a true estimate of ourselves and our country.
Our vanity springs from the contemplation of what we have done, or what we are, and is often
based upon comparisons which nothing but our own ignorance renders possible or flattering. . . .
Every providential advantage in our possession we appropriate as the result of our own intentions
and labors. We attribute our institutions wholly to the sagacity of our Fathers,
and the maintenance of them to the wisdom of their Sons. Our national importance seems to us to
have been wrought out by our own right arms. And there is a very amusing feeling throughout
the nation, that Americans are a different order of beings from others; that one American soldier
is at least equal to four Mexicans, three French or two Englishmen. . . . If we understood better
our real claims to the respect and confidence of the world; if we appreciated the greatness, not
which we have achieved, but which has been thrust upon us by Destiny; if we valued ourselves
upon our real advantage and upon a greatness not dependent upon contrast or admitting comparison, but of a totally different kind from any the world has yet seen, we should cease to be vain
and become self-respectful. . . .
There is no nation on the face of the earth or in the records of history, if we except the
Jews, whose origin, circumstances and progress have been so purely providential as ours; none
which owes so little to itself and so much to the Ruler of its destiny. . . .
And this broad continent, this new world, with lakes like oceans and rivers like seas,
penetrated to the heart with bays and gulfs; this region comprising every clime and furnishing the
products of all–the furs of the north and the fruits of the tropics–the bread stuffs of temperate
zones–the woolens of cold, and the cottons of warm climates–stretching from one great ocean of
the globe to the other, and from the frozen serpent almost to the equator–this vast area with
natural divisions to indicate it as the home of many nations, is, by the Providence of God, one
country, speaking one language, rejoicing in one common Constitution, honoring the same
greatnational names, celebrating the same great national events. It is one nation. And it is a free
nation. It possesses an ideal form of government, the dream of ancient heroes no longer a vision
of the night; the prophetic visionary song of poets become the prosaic language of matter-of-fact
men. It is without hereditary rulers, without a legalized aristocracy. It is self-governed. It is a land
of equal rights. It is a stable republic.
And what a marvelous and providential history has it had! . . .
Have we often considered the wonderful and providential aptitude of our country for
deriving the greatest and most indispensable advantages from the most brilliant discoveries of
modern times in science and art? . . . Was not the railroad expressly invented to hold together in
its vast iron cleets our broad and otherwise unbound country, threatening to fall to pieces by its
own weight? . . . Let its fiery horse, with a continent for his pasture, speed as swiftly as he can;
where there is land to sustain his hoof, he cannot take us off our own soil, or away from the
sound of our native tongue! Is not the lightning-winged telegraph, that puts a girdle of intelligence round the earth in the eighth of a second, a providential angel whose mission is peculiar to
our own land an all but omnipotent spirit whose business it is to facilitate the intercourse of a
nation whose territories stretch into different climates, and are divided by chains of mountains,
and which yet depends for its united existence upon agreement of sentiment, frequency of intercourse, concurrence of sympathies and central unity of operations? If the providence of God,
choosing out a theatre for the ultimate triumph of his earthly purposes toward our race, had
selected this land after having long, and until the fullness of time, kept it back
from civilized possession, would not the whole world have recognized the justice and expediency of the choice? . . .
MOSES Y. BEACH: “CUBA UNDER THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES”
Westward expansion was not the only manifestation Manifest Destiny. Moses Y. Beach, editor
and owner of the New York Sun, was not alone in considering it America’s right to control other
territories, specifically Cuba. In this editorial, Beach calls for the annexation of the Caribbean
island. Beach wrote the editorial as the United States and Mexico were at war. He believed
America should own territory from Florida to Yucatan, which included Cuba.
Sun (New York), 23 July 1847
When in Havanna last winter, we had a consultation with a meeting of the most influential and wealthy en of that city upon the union of Cuba to the United States, and promised to lay
the matter before the people of this country as soon as the Mexican question had been disposed
of. Mexico, to all intents and purposes, is now in our possession. All parties in the United States,
and even foreign nations look upon that question as settled so far as conquest and occupation are
concerned, and we now hasten to fulfil our promise, and that promise must be our apology for
this article. Cuba by Geographical position, necessity and rights belongs to the United States, it
may be and must be ours. The moment has arrived to place it in our hands and under our flag.
Cuba is in the market for sale, and we are authorized by parties eminently able to fulfil what they
propose, to say that if the United States will offer the Spanish government one hundred millions
of dollars, Cuba is ours, and that, with one week’s notice, the whole amount will be raised and
paid over by the inhabitants of the Island. One weeks is all they ask, if our Government will only
make the offer for them to act upon, and which Spain is ready to accept. This is no vision, but a
fixed fact, of which we have seen, and now hold the most undoubted proofs. The possession of
Cuba will complete our chain of territory, and give us the North American Continent. It is the
garden of the world, the key to the Gulf, and the richest spot of its size on the face of the earth.
From Florida Point to its northeastern coast is only fifty miles, bringing the Island almost within
cannon shot and sight of the United States. Cuba yields to Spain an annual revenue of seven
millions . . . which will double the amount the moment it comes under the United States. . . .
Cuba must be ours! Stretching from Florida to Yucatan it commands the Gulf and coast of
Mexico. . . . To us it is indispensable. We want its harbors for our ships to touch at, to and from
Mexico. . . . Give us Cuba, and our possessions are complete.
OPPOSITION TO MANIFEST DESTINY
WESTON GALES: “THE TEXAS FEVER”
Manifest Destiny encompassed many issues. One of them was the annexation of Texas. In this
editorial, Weston Gales of the Register seems to be uncertain as to what should happen with
Texas and other land in North America. He believes that adding more land will be detrimental to
the South because it is unlikely that any of it will be slaveholding. For that reason, the nation
needs to add no more land. Gales ultimately concludes that the United States should set an
example for all with republican liberty, acting perhaps as the “mother of republics” in
America–the one to whom they look for guidance. They may, if they choose, join the United
States, but should never be forced.
Weekly Raleigh Register, and North Carolina Gazette, 21 May 1844
Should not those impatient spirits who raise the banner-cry of “Texas, now or never,”
look at least the length of their noses before them! Should they be so awfully patriotic as madly
to shut their eyes and rush on, “uncaring of consequences?” Do they suppose that our Govern-
ment can embrace all North America, from the North Pole to Panama, from Cape Cod to California? . . . As Southern men–as identified with the Slaveholding interest–should they not look
ahead? Is it not prudent to look boldly to the future? Let them face it like men. Let them look at
the map and say whether the acquisition of Texas would add even temporary strength to our
peculiar interests? Texas has territory sufficient for about five States. Two of them would be
Slave States, and in them would Slave labor be profitable. The other three must, out of necessity,
be free States, inasmuch as Slave labor in grazing countries is never profitable–and, at least,
three-fifths of Texas is only a grazing country. Would three against us, and two in our favor, add
greatly to our relative strength? Not according to our Arithmetic.
Again: Let our greedy annexationists look on the map, and tell us, what other country,
besides Texas, in all North America, can be hereafter added to our Union by which the Slave
interest can gain any strength? Let them remember that Slavery is not tolerated in Mexico. Let
them also remember, that by the Missouri compromise, Slavery cannot, for all time to come,
exist north of 36 degrees. . . . Every argument used now for the Annexation of Texas, may be
used hereafter for other accretions, from this large extent of Territory, with this difference indeed
in their favor, that they are already ours and will not cost us Ten Millions in purchase–and the
further difference, that we should not entangle ourselves in a War with foreign nations in making
the acquisition. . . .
And we ask those who are so passionately devoted to the acquisition of Texas, that their
war-cry is “Texas of Disunion”–whether they can lay the flattering unction to their souls, that
when Texas is safely housed, that immediately after that, the door will be closed? Can they be so
short sighted? Let them go to their horn books and study Geography. It may reduce their temperature to the proper point.
It may be asked what is to be our destiny then? What should be our true policy? We
answer that we are obliged to stop somewhere. We must have a imit to our acquisition of Territory. If we annex Texas–there is Mexico and beyond–we are obliged to have an outer boundary.
Our true policy, we believe to be this: Let the United States be for this continent, the mother of
Republics. They have already been reared on our principles in South America, in Mexico, in
Texas; some of these Republics have adopted almost precisely our Constitution. Let the Canadas
constitute one or two Republics–when their time shall arrive. Let our Territories over the Mississippi, as they get old enough, be set up as Republican daughters around us. Let them extend to
the Pacific. Let Texas continue as she undoubtedly will a Republic. Let Mexico, with her government in form, whatever it is in practice, similar to ours, be admitted into our family of Republics,
and treated kindly. Let there be treaties of amity and commerce between this Union of Republics
and let us show that we are the true advocates of Republican liberty throughout the continent,
and that we are willing others should enjoy the blessing in its purity, whether under our control or
not.
AN ANONYMOUS REPORT:
“NO MORE TERRITORY–NINE REASONS AGAINST THE NEW PLATFORM”
The National Era opposed the spread of slavery into any new American territory. It also opposed the Mexican War, but the paper’s editor, Gamaliel Bailey, did not oppose ethical national
expansion. These excerpts, taken from an editorial that disagreed with them, presents Whig-party
sentiment on annexing more territory. Though it is not included here, Bailey believed this platform, which staunchly opposes Manifest Destiny, was really a ploy to protect slaveholding
interests.
National Era (Washington, D. C.), 16 September 1847
The Whigs of Cuyahoga county, Ohio, in Convention assembled, lately passed the following resolutions:
“Resolved, That while we regard the ‘Wilmot Proviso’ as the ‘freeman’s platform,’ we at
the same time declare the WHIG DOCTRINE TO BE STILL BROADER; namely, Unqualified
opposition to any further annexation of territory to this Union; that upon THIS GROUND the
Whigs of the North and South, East and West, SHOULD UNITE AND DO BATTLE AGAINST
ALL ATTEMPTS TO BRING IN ANY MORE TERRITORY, either by purchase or by conquest,
or under the cunning pretext of payment of the expenses of the war.
“Resolved, That, in carrying out our principles, we can support no man for the Presidency
unless he be a staunch, tried Whig, approved by a Whig National Convention, and who is openly
pledged against any further annexation of territory or extension of slavery.”
These resolutions present distinctly the issue, “No More Territory,” without qualification.
...
“Provided, always, and it is hereby declared to be the true intent and meaning of Congress
in making this appropriation, that the war with Mexico ought not to be prosecuted by this Government with any view to the dismemberment of that Republic, or to the acquisition, by conquest, of any portion of her territory; that this Government, ever desirous to maintain and preserve peaceful and friendly relations with all nations, and particularly with the neighboring
Republic of Mexico, will always be ready to enter upon negotiations with a view to terminate the
present unhappy conflict, on terms which shall secure the just rights and preserve inviolate the
national honor of the United States and of Mexico; that it is especially desirable, in order to
maintain and preserve those amicable relations which ought always to exist between neighboring
Republics, that the boundary of the State of Texas should be definitively settled, and that provision be made by the Republic of Mexico for the prompt and equitable adjustment of the just
claims of our citizens on that Republic.”