Manifest Destiny Research Paper

Manifest Destiny represented a God given right to expand West, justifying any action to accomplish the sacred duty. However, such a grand quest could not have been left unscathed and the Mexican-American War was the inevitable action that left a mark on the Manifest Destiny of being motivated by nothing more than greed and extreme nationalism. The inevitability of the war and the claimed “injustices” that were done toward Mexico were justified because of the annexation of Texas, there was a legitimate national threat and the war being a last resort.

The Mexican War was viewed as one of the most controversial wars in United States history. Originating from the annexation of Texas, or the lack thereof in Mexico’s eyes, the final spark to cause the war was an incident between soldiers of both countries in disputed land. Both Mexico and the US claimed to have been provoked by the other, and that they were only protecting their country. Many US citizens argued the war, as it appeared President Polk was using it for reasons other than self defense. By going to war with Mexico, the US faced the possibility of gaining much more of Mexico’s land and extending slavery in the country. The United States' decision to go to war with Mexico was based on a desire to extend slavery, to gain land they had

The term “Manifest Destiny” was, in part, an expression of a genuine ideal on the part of Americans. Yet it was also a justification to a push and to assume territory. The idea of Manifest Destiny was sparked by revolutionary American writings that encouraged appropriation of Canada. These writings rationalized that the Louisiana Purchase and the Untied States’ annexation of Texas ordained American complete domination of the North American continent. More broadly stated, Manifest destiny was a conviction that God intended North America to be under the control Americans. It’s an assertion of Anglo-Saxon supremacy.

The belief in Manifest Destiny, that settlers were destined to expand across North America, was held by most Americans. At the same time the belief came about, debates in Washington were going on about the future of America. While many debates were held in Washington, there was also a lot of conflicts in states like Kansas and Nebraska. Both the debates in Washington regarding the westward expansion of the new nation and the laws by which it should govern itself, as well as the conflicts on the ground regarding those very same issues, set America on the path that could lead to only one destination; the Civil War.

While Manifest Destiny and territorial expansion created conflict with foreign nations, including the Mexican-American War (1846-1848), and within the United States, it worked to unify the United States from 1830 to 1860 by strengthening the nation as a whole, creating economic opportunities for people from all different walks of life, and expanding the United States through the annexation of Texas and the acquisition of California from Mexico.

In the 19th century there was a popular doctrine or belief that the westward expansion of the United States not only could happen, but that it was destined to stretch from coast to coast. For awhile, the nation’s leaders were unable to resolve the divisive issue of slavery. This belief was called Manifest Destiny and it eventually provided a larger stage for the growing conflict over slavery in America.

Manifest Destiny is a term coined by John L. Sullivan in 1845 when talking about the annexation of Texas. He believed, along with other expansionists, that it’s inevitable that the US population would spread across North America because the land is given by Providence to the United States and that it’s natural that the land should be part of the country [Doc 1]. The idea of westward expansion and Manifest Destiny had positive and negative effects on the politics, society and the economics of the United States and

By the time James Polk became president in 1845, an idea called Manifest Destiny had taken root among the American people. The belief that the U.S. had a God-given right to occupy and expand gained favor as more Americans settled to the west. Manifest Destiny was

Following the ratification of the treaty, some politicians felt the manifest destiny of the United States was to annex all of Mexico. The territory gains between 1845 and 1848 were enough to satisfy all but the most zealous advocates of manifest destiny. John O'Sullivan criticized the opponents of Texas annexation. He went beyond the immediate issue of Texas to argue that it is the fate of America to grow to encompass much, if not all of the North American continent. O'Sullivan is credited with inventing the term "manifest destiny" to describe his expansionist views for America. This phrase was coined in a New York Morning News editorial. (Wexler,153).

During the 19th century of the American expansion the United States but was heading to stretch from coast to coast. But this attitude helped fuel western settlement, Native American removal and war with Mexico. The belief of the Manifest Destiny had numerous parts for many things, each was serving people in different ways. The Manifest Destiny was supported by many Americans. The components created separate reasons to overcome a new land. Manifest Destiny was used among the Americans in the 1840’s as a defense for U.S. territorial expansion. It was an idea that was taken to be true that God had destined that “the white man” to a godly mission of American movement and defeat in the name of Christianity and democracy. John O’Sullivan first initiated manifest destiny in America in 1845. He edited the annexation of Texas was published on 1845 edition of the United States Magazine and Democratic Review. in 1845 to promote the annexation of Texas and the Oregon Country to the United States. And to give the name and description to the creed of victorious Americans. Though the next two decades of the nation needed more territory, so then began the enormous territory growth. The nation stretched. The

The idea of Manifest Destiny, the belief that American settlers had the God-given right to expand across North America, essentially led to the Mexican-American War. This American belief eventually caused a tremendous deal of suffering for many Native Americans, Mexicans, and American citizens. Tensions grew between the North American independent nation and Mexico when Texas later became a state in the U.S following the war over Texas earlier on. Consequently, dispute over the border lines of Texas triggered military confrontation as well as President Polk’s desire for war to acquire large areas of land from Mexico. The Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo ended the war formally, and as a result, the United States received the disputed Texas territory, as well as the New Mexico Territory and California.

The Americans bought land from Mexico for fifteen million dollars, and that converts to about $276,206,642.58 today. Manifest Destiny is the expansion of the U.S. where it was believed that the U.S. was destined to have the land from Atlantic to Pacific oceans. During the 1800s Americans bought, made treaties, or went to war over the land that is now the U.S. The land was taken from the indians and the mexicans. There are several reasons that Manifest Destiny was both justified and unjustified.

Manifest Destiny is a term that was first coined in 1845 by a journalist named John L. O’Sullivan, and was described as America’s destiny to expand, and that it was God’s will that America was to expand. According to Genovese, “The notion of westward expansion and domination of the white races struck a responsive chord in many Americans” (Genovese, 2017). The idea of expanding America’s territory was so popular that is was even later used in Congress to justify the claiming of Oregon’s territory. While the idea of expanding America seemed great to the Americans, it was not so great for those who were living on the land that the Americans would later claim. According to Hastedt, “The failure to assimilate and prosper was the fault of those receiving America’s goodness” (Hastedt, 2016). The Americans felt that they were superior to those whose lands they were trying to take, such as the Native Americans and Mexicans, and that they should be the ones to adopt American culture, even if they were there before the Americans claimed the land. The Americans even thought that those whose lands they were taking would be happy to convert to their way of living, as is stated by Hastedt, “The inherent superiority of American Values was sure to be recognized by those with whom they came in contact and would gladly be adopted” (Hastedt, 2016). This mindset would ultimately lead to the expansion of America, turning it into what we know today, but it would also ultimately result in conflict with those that the American’s were attempting to take the land from for the sake of expansion.

Manifest Destiny, one of the most influential ideologies in American history, was used as the basis to justify almost-continuous conflict from the early- to the late-19th century (Greenberg 3). This conflict included the relentless displacement of Native Americans from their ancestral lands, a war of aggression against Mexico in 1846, and attacks on countries such as Canada, Cuba, and even Central America, by filibusters and military action to gain overseas colonies (Greenberg 10, 25, and 26). While Manifest Destiny first arose as a dominant ideology during the early nineteenth-century, the concept of American exceptionalism, the heart of this ideology, was older than the nation itself. This concept was taken by white Americans as proof that they, and their nation, were unique and marked by God for a special destiny (Greenberg, 5). It would be several decades before the advantages of American settlement would be presented to the world. One advantage being the Louisiana Purchase, which was the expansion westward.

Manifest Destiny was the idea that it was the United States’ destiny to take over all of North America from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Most of the public was in favor of territorial expansion, though some politicians felt it contradicted the constitution.