Isabella Carter
Manifest Destiny, a phrase coined in 1845, is the idea that the United States is destined—by God, its advocates believed—to expand its dominion and spread democracy and capitalism across the entire North American continent. This philosophy drove the 19th-century US territorial expansion and was used to justify the forced removal of Native Americans and other groups from their homes. Whigs denounced manifest destiny, arguing that it went against the Constitution and Declaration of Rights. The acquisition of territories such as Hawaii, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, and American Samoa marked a new chapter in U.S. history, as these islands were acquired as colonies rather than prospective states, marking a break from the original intention of manifest destiny.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Whigs denounced manifest destiny as a treason to the Constitution and Declaration of Rights | The Constitution |
| Manifest destiny contradicts the Constitution's guarantee of equal rights for all | Equality |
| The acquisition of colonies instead of prospective states | Equality |
| The annexation of Mexico would extend U.S. citizenship to millions of non-white, non-Christian people | Equality |
Explore related products
$14.61 $17
$27.99 $27.99
What You'll Learn
Whigs denouncing manifest destiny as 'treason to our Constitution'
Whigs denounced manifest destiny as treason to the Constitution and Declaration of Rights, arguing that it went against the principles of republicanism. Representative Robert Winthrop, a Whig, first used the term "manifest destiny" in Congress on January 3, 1846, to mock President James K. Polk's policy towards Oregon. He argued that the idea of manifest destiny—the belief that the United States was destined to expand across the North American continent—was a "new revelation of right" that went against the fundamental values of the nation.
The Whigs, including prominent members like Alexander Stephens and former President John Quincy Adams, opposed territorial expansion and the acquisition of new territories as colonies. They believed that the concentration of national authority in a limited area was preferable to spreading out too widely. This view was in direct opposition to the Democratic claim that the United States had a divine obligation to spread its political system and way of life throughout the continent. Whigs also disagreed with the annexation of Texas and the Mexican-American War, which they saw as a means to expand slavery.
The annexation of Mexico was particularly controversial for Whigs like Senator John C. Calhoun, who opposed it for racial reasons. He argued that the United States was a government of the white race and that incorporating Mexico, with its majority Indigenous and mixed-race population, would be unacceptable. Whigs also tried to suppress filibustering expeditions to Latin America, which were often financed by wealthy American expansionists.
The acquisition of territories such as Hawaii, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, and American Samoa marked a break from the original intention of manifest destiny, as these islands were acquired as colonies rather than prospective states. This further validated the Whig opposition to manifest destiny, as it demonstrated the divergence from the ideal of equal statehood for acquired territories.
Asylum Seekers: What Constitutional Rights Protect Them?
You may want to see also
The annexation of Mexico
The annexation of Texas, formerly a part of Mexican territory, was a significant event in the history of the United States and its relationship with Mexico. Texas had rebelled against Mexico in 1836, declaring independence and seeking to join the United States as a new state. This was in line with the idea of Manifest Destiny, which advocated for the westward expansion of American democracy across the continent. However, the annexation of Texas led to border disputes with Mexico, as they considered Texas as rightfully their land.
The United States also attempted to purchase "Mexican California" from Mexico, but these efforts were seen as an insult and only served to heighten tensions. Mexico refused to sell California, and President James K. Polk's desire to acquire this territory, as well as Oregon, contributed to the outbreak of the Mexican-American War in 1846. This war, which lasted until 1848, resulted in the Mexican Cession, where Mexico ceded the territories of Alta California and Nuevo México to the United States.
The proposal to annex all of Mexico was a controversial aspect of Manifest Destiny. Supporters of total annexation regarded it as an anti-slavery measure and were concerned about Mexico's Catholicism, weak republicanism, and potential for nationalism. However, the idea of extending US citizenship to millions of Mexicans was problematic for some idealistic advocates of Manifest Destiny, as it contradicted the principle of not imposing American laws on people against their will. Additionally, identitarian ideas inherent in Manifest Destiny suggested that Mexicans, as people of color, posed a threat to white racial integrity and were therefore not qualified to become US citizens.
The Mexican-American War brought to light the contradictions within Manifest Destiny. Whigs, opponents of the Polk administration, denounced Manifest Destiny as a "doctrine of the right of conquest", arguing that it was treasonous to the Constitution and Declaration of Rights. Abraham Lincoln, who opposed the Mexican-American War, saw Manifest Destiny as a disordered form of patriotism that threatened the moral and fraternal bonds of liberty and union. Ulysses S. Grant, who served in the war with Mexico, also regarded the conflict as unjust and unnecessary.
Enumerated and Implied Powers: Commerce Regulation Explained
You may want to see also
The spread of slavery
During the Constitutional Convention, several delegates voiced strong objections to slavery. Luther Martin of Maryland, a slaveholder himself, argued that the slave trade should be subject to federal regulation and was contrary to America's republican ideals. He believed that it dishonored the American character to include such a feature in the Constitution. Other delegates, such as George Mason of Virginia, also spoke out against slavery.
However, the framers of the Constitution ultimately sidestepped the issue of slavery to gain the support of southern delegates for a strong central government. They recognized that if the Constitution restricted the slave trade, states like South Carolina and Georgia would refuse to join the Union. This compromise laid the foundation for future conflicts, as slavery continued to be a divisive issue between the northern and southern states.
In the years following the ratification of the Constitution, slavery did not immediately disappear. Instead, it persisted and even spread through natural increase and slave imports from abroad. The expansion of the country to the west exacerbated disputes between the northern and southern sections of the nation over slavery. While the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 banned slavery in new western territories, other compromises, like the Missouri Compromise of 1820, banned slavery in only part of the Louisiana Territory, contributing to the spread of slavery over a large swath of America.
The controversy over slavery eventually led to the Civil War, during which Americans would finally end slavery constitutionally. Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, and the Thirteenth Amendment ended slavery in the United States forever. While the Constitution may have played a role in advancing liberty and equality, the spread of slavery in the nation's early years demonstrates the complexities and challenges faced in upholding those ideals.
FDR's Vision: A Living, Breathing Constitution
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The removal of Native Americans
The US Constitution, in recognising Native American tribes as distinct political entities, empowered Congress to "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes". However, the interpretation and implementation of this clause fell short of protecting the rights and interests of Native Americans.
The Indian Removal Act of 1830 was a significant legislative tool used to displace Native Americans from their tribal lands. While the Act itself did not authorise forced removal, it strengthened the hand of the US government in negotiating treaties with Native American tribes. This resulted in a combination of coerced treaties, treaty violations, and judicial determinations that facilitated the removal process.
President Andrew Jackson played a pivotal role in the Indian removal campaign, negotiating and signing nearly seventy removal treaties during his presidency. These treaties led to the relocation of approximately 50,000 Native Americans from their ancestral homelands in the east to the Indian Territory west of the Mississippi River. The Indian Territory, despite its vastness, was intended by the government to confine Native Americans to a more limited area, which later became eastern Oklahoma.
The Cherokee Nation, in particular, experienced a devastating removal process known as the Trail of Tears. Of the 16,000 Cherokees who embarked on the forced relocation, only 10,000 survived the harsh conditions, poor planning, and difficult travel. Other tribes, such as the Creek, Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Seminole, also resisted removal through various means, including violent resistance and legal challenges.
The Constitution vs. People: Who Holds the Real Power?
You may want to see also
The acquisition of colonies
Traditionally, the United States acquired territories with the intention of granting them statehood and equal status with existing states. However, the acquisition of colonies, such as Puerto Rico, Guam, and American Samoa, represented a shift from this tradition. These territories were not granted full constitutional rights and remained under American control without the same privileges as states. The Supreme Court's Insular Cases validated this process, upholding that not all areas under American control automatically received full constitutional rights.
The expansionist agenda of Manifest Destiny clashed with the constitutional rights and freedoms enshrined in the founding documents of the nation. Whigs denounced Manifest Destiny as a betrayal of the Constitution and the Declaration of Rights. They argued that advocates of Manifest Destiny were "engaged in treason ... giving aid and comfort to the enemies of republicanism". The acquisition of colonies, particularly in Latin America, exemplified this tension between expansionist ambitions and the constitutional values of the nation.
In conclusion, the acquisition of colonies during the era of Manifest Destiny reflected a complex interplay between expansionist ambitions, economic interests, and racial ideologies. While Manifest Destiny was justified as a divine mission to spread democracy, it often resulted in the violation of constitutional rights and the marginalization of indigenous communities. The acquisition of colonies further complicated the nation's relationship with its founding principles, highlighting the tensions between territorial expansion and the ideals of equality and freedom enshrined in the Constitution.
Jefferson's Constitutional Stretch: The Louisiana Purchase
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Manifest Destiny is the idea that the United States is destined—by God, its advocates believe—to expand its dominion and spread democracy and capitalism across the entire North American continent.
Whigs denounced Manifest Destiny, arguing that its supporters were "engaged in treason to our Constitution and Declaration of Rights, giving aid and comfort to the enemies of republicanism, in that they are advocating and preaching the doctrine of the right of conquest".
Manifest Destiny led to the forced removal of Native Americans and other groups from their homes, intensifying the issue of slavery as new states were added to the Union, which eventually led to the outbreak of the Civil War.
