SS 353 01
Essay 2
What was "Manifest Destiny?" Three excellent historians, Anders Stephanson ( Major Problems, p. 206), Frederick Merk (Merk in "Course Documents"), and Thomas Heitala (Major Problems, p. 213) argue very different interpretations and explanations. Briefly explain the view of all three authors. Was "Manifest Destiny" primarily a short-term manifestation of a long-term ideology, a temporary messianic impulse, a cynical political plan, or some combination of the two or three of the above? In a short (3-4 page, double spaced) essay, attempt to explain the age of "Manifest Destiny" in the 1840s.
Manifest destiny was interpreted quite literally. The expansion towards the entire North American continent and to a certain extent even the Western Hemisphere, was obviously an extension of the perfect union built on liberty and federated governance. It was fated that these lands would come into possession of superior Anglo-Saxons who even had God on their side, but politics at the back of their minds.
Anders Stephanson, Frederick Merk and Thomas Hietala all agreed that the hand of God was perceived to have played a role in the land-grabbing excitement of the 1840's. O' Sullivan, an editor of two influential and original papers, the New York Morning News and the Democratic Review, would coin the fundamental belief that "the nation of many nations is destined to manifest to mankind the excellence of divine principle; to establish on earth the noblest temple ever dedicated to the worship of the Most High-the Sacred and the True." Such was the view shared by expansionists. As the idea gained popular support in the South, which was stoically conservative and religious, it made sense, intellectually and economically, to conjure a "messianic imagery" out of the concept of manifest destiny, as Hietala put it. After all, the politicians and political commentators understood that having God on their side not only made for a good justification to their cause, as it was indeed, as Stephanson argued, "the highest stage of history, God's plan incarnate". In fact, it also solidified the resolve and support of the South when they did execute their plans. After all, how could a Southerner not support a Democratic game plan that bore God's stamp of approval and when it was clear that the only thing they had to do was, according to Stephanson, the "administration of things and vigilant preservation of the sacred Origin." Numerous claims by Southern congressmen and Southern intellectual which included biblical terms when addressing this issue, such as Providence, Israelites and Ararat in Merk's text,
would only solidify this conclusion. In fact, argued Stephanson, even rationale and logic could be reconciled in God's working by "natural theology". It was only geographically rational that Oregon, Texas, New Mexico and California were possession of the United States, for truly they belonged to the North American continent and no "natural border" could be better invoked than when the land that was rightfully American ran into the open seas. Truly such marvelous geographical engineering had to be maneuvered by Him and Him alone.
The implementation of Manifest Destiny as foreign policy spoke volumes about America and how it viewed itself. To begin with, the fact that America was ready to take on the British on the 54 ̊40' parallel or fight demonstrated a self-believe that it was equal if not greater than the British. American diplomacy was starting to show signs of coming of age and a big part of this maturity and self-confidence was fueled by the belief that the American form of government was superior to the enslaving monarchial rule of Europe and its colonies, hence it was worth exporting. In fact, according to Hietala, the world's progress hinged upon American progress and the European oligarchs were doing their own people a gross injustice by discouraging the expansion of the United States. It was the core belief of Jacksonians and expansionists that the law of "American progress" was a natural law that would go on indefinitely and had to be obeyed much like the law of gravity, as Merk pointed out. Hence, the expansionists were just playing their role in the bigger picture of US progress by enforcing manifest destiny. After all, who were they to question or even stop the momentum of so inherently noble a movement as the one that posed America as "the city on a hill"? A more cynical view taken by the Whigs and critics of this movement, as illustrated by Hietala, was that the both the Tyler and Polk administrations were being hypocritical and imperial by pushing the Mexican government around but retreating on the Oregon issue with the British. The distinction was clear: Britain was strong and Mexico was weak; America came somewhere in between and Polk would obviously choose to pick on the weaker ones as opposed to someone stronger or of equal strength, depending on perspective. Overtures of imperialism were hurled at the Democrats and expansionists, even though the Democrats were specific to draw the line between their conquests and the European conquests as theirs being one of enlightenment and natural order. The choice of attitudes towards two different opponents of polarizing strength demonstrated the Polk administration's real theme for expansion.
Expansionists such as O' Sullivan were generally Jacksonians who believed in expansion as the solution to a slew of the nation's problems. In a twisted manner, Jacksonians also believed in subduing abolitionist cries and movements. Embedded in this not-oft mentioned principle was a tinge of racial superiority, or more explicitly, white supremacy. Throughout Stephanson's text, it was apparent that social Darwinism played a big role in O' Sullivan's definition of the interactions between white settlers and everyone else of color. O' Sullivan's beliefs' that the Mexican vote would be substantially below the national average in terms of intelligence and purity motivated him to call for commercial means by the "northern race" to instill in the Mexicans "confidence and respect for our institutions"; as clearly "the degraded Mexican-Spanish" were in no state to receive the "virtues of the Anglo-Saxon race." O'Sullivan was not alone in this opinion as the great poet and editor of the Democratic Brooklyn Eagle, Walt Whitman, as coined by Stephanson, had found "miserable and inefficient Mexico" totally incompatible "with the great mission of peopling the New World with a noble race." So radical and racially chauvinistic were O' Sullivan's views, and undoubtedly most Jacksonian Democrats' views, that he had no qualms whatsoever in calling for "homogeneity" as the top factor to take into account in empire building, refusing to allow "dissimilar and hostile materials" to chip away and crumble the temple of homogenous bigots. Back in the 1840's, this underlying unfavorable view of anyone of color was accepted as a societal norm, explicitly by slave-owning Democrats and implicitly by pro-abolition Whigs. Manifest destiny was another way to exert the white supremacy over other inferior races and ethnic groups as they could use some enlightenment in their government and life in general. Expansion was yet another way to relieve the white man of his burden to elevate other lesser races.
As the essay proceeds, the glow of manifest destiny as a glorious Westward movement to serve the Union and the needs of her free citizens diminishes more and more. Frederick Merk further dampens the mood on the bright and sunny outlook. Merk argues that Francis P. Blair, the editor of the Washington Globe, declared that the treaty by Tyler to annex Texas was written with defeat in mind as a calculated result, so as to serve the Calhoun secession movement. The Democrats, argued Merck, stood on no higher moral grounds. They would drop Tyler and Van Buren for their presidential nominees and choose the militantly expansionist, Polk as their nominee. In fact, they would go on to market Polk as "Young Hickory", in an attempt to link him with the perceived need for youth as the preeminent reform catalyst towards continentalism and beyond. The Whigs would move to kill the Tyler treaty at the eve of Polk's presidency while Tyler and consequently Polk would conjure foreign devils out of thin air to summon nationalistic pride in attempts to annex Texas. Much as Merk would argue, manifest destiny was yet another sparring ring for both political parties, just like slavery and health care reform would be for subsequent generations of politicians. Time and age might pass, but the essence of political dueling would remain a constant, even for the great task of expanding the Union's land mass.
Even though other themes resonated with manifest destiny, such as the ripe political situation and technological advancement as well as economic incentives, the ones mentioned above dominated the motifs and drive behind continentalism and beyond. Hietala summarizes that the concept of manifest destiny is often glossed over "to reconcile American imperialism with an extremely favorable national image." However, if the ends justify the means, and modern-day citizens of the thirty seven states which were not part of the original thirteen in the union would probably agree, that as much as manifest destiny was flawed, it was a necessary evil.
References
- Stephanson, Anders. Major Problems in American Foreign Relations, The Ideology and Spirit of Manifest Destiny, p. 206.
- Merk, Frederick.
- Heitala, Thomas. Major Problems in American Foreign Relations, Empire by Design, Not Destiny, p. 213.
