AP/IB American History
Mr. Blackmon
Manifest Destiny
I.
John Tyler as President
A.
Ardent and doctrinaire States' Rights man
1.
Believed that the President should defer to Congress on foreign policy
2.
Having succeeded to the presidency upon Harrison's death, Tyler had a
very weak political power base.
B.
Quarrel with Henry Clay
1.
Clay resented being passed over for the Presidency
2.
A new bank bill was passed, but Tyler, although a Whig, vetoed it as a
violation of states' rights.
a.
The veto led to the resignation of the entire cabinet except for
Daniel Webster (who was engaged in negotiations)
C.
Legislation
1.
Pre-emption Bill 1841
a.
This is really a Jacksonian bill, since it legalized the rights of
squatters to occupy unsurveyed land and to buy it at $1.25 / acre
b.
An amendment voided the bill if the tariff rose to over 20%
2.
Distribution Act
a.
Distributed money from land sales to states (a ploy to justify higher
tariffs)
b.
Please bear in mind that, in this era, federal revenue comes chiefly
from land sales and then the tariff. Excise taxes brought in very
little income.
c.
Tyler vetoed a tariff of over 20% and the Distribution Act was
repealed in consequence.
3.
Tariff of 1842 returned rates to the level of 1832.
4.
Despite having a Whig in the White House, the Whigs are getting little
benefit from this since Tyler is also a States' Rights man, and properly
belongs in the Democratic Party.
D.
Webster-Ashburton Treaty
1.
Helped to settle several issues
2.
Maine-New Brunswick boundary dispute
3.
Aroostook War in 1838 between US and Canadian lumberjacks and
timber
4.
Problems over the slave trade
a.
Great Britain had abolished the slave trade in 1806, had signed
treaties with European nations outlawing the slave trade
internationally, and actively attempted to interdict the trade.
b.
Great Britain abolished slavery itself in its colonies in 1834
c.
The Caroline affair 1837, when slaves revolted, took over the
vessel, and sought shelter in a British port. The British refused to
extradite them.
AP/IB American History
Manifest Destiny
d.
5.
II.
Texas
Mr. Blackmon
Page 2
The Creole affair 1841 when the US protested the search of a US
vessel.
(1)
Officially, the US government was just as opposed to the
slave trade as Great Britain was; slaving was defined in US
law as piracy, and was a hanging offense.
(2)
The US protest overlooked the fact that the Creole was a
slaver.
(3)
The US protest is a compound of acute sensitivity at Britain
stopping a US vessel for any reason and the opposition of
Southerners in the administration (who wielded a lot of
influence) to interference in the slave trade.
(4)
The ugly head of slavery and sectionalism is beginning to
rear itself up. Slavery will begin to distort national issues
and policies from this moment on, as we shall see.
Lord Ashburton's mission
a.
Britain needed a territorial concession in order to build a military
road.
b.
Webster was eager to ease the friction and was willing to
compromise.
c.
A map drawn by Ben Franklin demonstrated that the land in
dispute did, in fact, belong to Canada. Unfortunately for the
British, they had lost their copy. Webster had a copy (Franklin's
autograph) but felt no need to tell the British that.
d.
Webster conceded the land along the New Brunswick border.
e.
Britain ceded land in what is now Michigan. This turned out to
include some fabulously wealthy iron ore deposits.
f.
There was an agreement for Anglo-American cooperation to
interdict the slave trade.
(1)
The US did in fact send squadrons to block the trade.
However, Congress was always miserly about paying for it.
They had little real effect.
(2)
The major loophole--of slaving vessels hiding behind an
American flag--remained until Abraham Lincoln became
President.
(3)
Lincoln had little attention to give to ending the slave trade
(he had other things on his mind) but he gave the British
permission to stop and search suspected slavers flying US
colors. The Royal Navy then strangled the Atlantic Slave
trade.
g.
Great Britain increasingly needed the import of US food.
h.
The US badly needed British capital to pay for our development.
AP/IB American History
Manifest Destiny
A.
Mr. Blackmon
Page 3
Stephen F. Austin
1.
Moses Austin asked the Spanish government for permission to bring
American settlers into Texas.
2.
The Spaniards finally gave permission. By then, however, Mexico had
achieved independence. Austin set out to gain permission from Mexico.
By the time that was granted, Moses was dead, and so Stephen, his son,
led the first settlers.
3.
Austin's settlement was established in 1821.
4.
Why did the Mexicans ever agree to let the Americans in?
a.
This is an important question, since Mexican permission made US
annexation of Texas inevitable.
b.
The reason for this is population density. Northern Mexico was
sparsely settled, and the internal convulsions tearing Mexico apart
precluded any movement of settlers into Texas, California, New
Mexico, or Arizona.
c.
The American frontiersman was restless, land hungry, ambitious,
and aggressive. He saw land available and set out to take it.
d.
This movement was not planned or directed from Washington, or
any other central location. It is a genuine grass roots movement
west.
e.
The frontiersmen settled farther and farther west, and eventually
expected the land of their birth to catch up to them. When they
demanded government, they expected the democratic government
of the US. In fact, they would tolerate no other government.
f.
These people were hard, resilient, self-sufficient, resentful of all
distant authority, unruly and individualistic in the extreme.
g.
It was inevitable that these people clashed with the Mexican
government. There were differences of language, religion, and
culture. Conflict would occur even with good will on both sides.
In a period of restless movement in the US and revolutionary
turmoil in Mexico, goodwill was likely to be in short supply--at
least between Texas and Mexico City.
h.
The reasons for the Spanish and then Mexican agreement were the
Comanche and Apache Indians.
i.
Man for man, no deadlier fighter (their name means "enemy" and is
not the Apache name for themselves; their own name means "the
people;") existed in North America than the Apache. Their skill,
ferocity, endurance, cunning, and ability to survive under brutal
conditions is astounding. I cannot cover the history of the Apache
in this small space. I do not wish to either cover up the brutality of
war with the Apache nor to cover up the atrocities committed by
whites against them. In the last analysis, their history is a
AP/IB American History
Manifest Destiny
B.
C.
D.
Mr. Blackmon
Page 4
genuinely tragic one of a brave and proud people being subjugated
by overwhelming force. There were, in fact, very few of them.
The great Mimbreño leader, Victorio, probably had no more than
150 warriors at his disposal (he also had to take all his women and
children with him, feeding and protecting them constantly.)
j.
The Apache were perpetually at enmity with the Mexicans. Their
depredations were very serious.
k.
The Comanche were even more formidable. Much more
numerous, fully adapted to the horse (the Apache were not). The
finest horsemen of the plains, and exceedingly wealthy in
horseflesh, the Comanche were the dominant tribe of the southern
plains. Only the Sioux, the most numerous tribe of the northern
plains, could rival them. The two more or less left each other
alone.
l.
Armed with a powerful compound bow, and possessed of
astonishing mobility and knowledge of the land, Comanche raided
deep into Mexico, penetrating as far as Yucatan.
m.
One measure of how deadly they were is their utter defeat of the
Lipan Apache in Texas and driving the remainder into the most
barren lands available. Anyone who can defeat the Apache is a
pretty serious opponent.
n.
Together, these two opponents kept the population down not only
in what is now the US but also northern Mexico.
o.
Americans were good Indian fighters. The Mexicans hoped for
relief.
p.
In this respect, it worked. The Comanche made a treaty with the
Spanish (before the garrisons left) that specifically excluded
Texans. The Comanche enjoyed fighting Texans. Texans
responded in kind. Descendants of men who fought the Iroquois,
Shawnee and Creek turned their energies to the Comanche. It was
implacable.
5.
By 1830, there were 20,000 white Texans, mostly Southerners, with 2,000
slaves and only a few thousand Mexican. (this is not proper terminology;
the native Mexican population was Texan, too; I am arbitrarily calling the
white US Texans "Texans" and the Mexican Texans "Mexicans.")
John Quincy Adams offered to buy Texas
Andrew Jackson offered to buy Texas
Mexico became alarmed at the flood of immigrants and tried to close the barn
door--too late.,
1.
Slavery was outlawed in Mexico; the government emphasized that slaves
were not to be brought into Texas or held.
2.
Further immigration by Americans was banned (a useless provision; the
AP/IB American History
Manifest Destiny
E.
Mr. Blackmon
Page 5
frontier was wide open)
3.
Heavy duties were placed on American goods
4.
Troops were sent to enforce national authority.
5.
Antonio López de Santa Anna, the new dictator of Mexico (unfortunately
for Mexico, he will be dictator off and on for quite some time; this man is
a disaster for his country) repudiated the promise of separate statehood for
Texas (which might have delayed rebellion in Texas) and also abolished
the Mexican federal system.
a.
Federalism versus centralism is a major theme in Latin American
history. Santa Anna is not overly concerned with Texas per se. It
is worth noting, however, that a country as large and
geographically diverse as Mexico cannot effectively be governed
centrally without a very good transportation system, which did not
exist. Santa Anna was trying to achieve something that was
fundamentally not possible.
Texas War of Independence
1.
Fighting broke out between settlers and soldiers in 1835.
a.
It should be noted that the rebels were not exclusively Americans.
Native Mexicans supported independence as well. The Americans
were most prominent due to numbers and general belligerency.
2.
The Alamo (Feb. 13-Mar. 6, 1836
a.
If I get started on the Alamo, you will be here a while.
b.
I have always regarded, and continue to regard (in the face of
revisionists) the Alamo as an epic story of courage and dedication.
c.
The 187 man garrison was led by James Bowie, William Barrett
Travis, and Davy Crockett. Two of these men were living legends
of the Southwestern frontier.
d.
Their purpose was to delay Santa Anna's army in its advance
against Sam Houston, who was trying to organize an army.
e.
The defenders were outnumbered at least 10:1. There is
uncertainty as to how large an army Santa Anna had. (Garraty 289
lists 6,000) He seems to have started with a hard professional core
(I believe it to have been 2,000 men) and recruited on the way
(another 5,000 unwilling men, I believe. This is open to debate.
f.
What is forgotten (or not widely known) is that the siege was never
air tight. Men rode out several times. Once messenger rode out
and then back in just to die there. The defenders were skilled
frontiersmen; any of them had a very good chance of escape any
time they chose to do so. Travis offered them the chance--he
wanted no one there who was not willing to be there. No one had
illusions as to their fate or the outcome of the battle. Santa Anna
had promised to kill them all. All but one man crossed the line
AP/IB American History
Manifest Destiny
g.
h.
i.
j.
Mr. Blackmon
Page 6
Travis drew in the dust (yes, he really did that; Travis was
flamboyant). Bowie, who was badly injured and couldn't walk,
asked to be carried over the line.
Crockett's diary reveals a lot of concern about liberty and the
American concept of freedom. Certainly, he had nothing at stake
directly in Texas at all.
Why did these men stand and fight? I believe that they fought for
freedom and self-government. Modern revisionists do not believe
that to be a cause worth fighting for, and so do not believe that men
in the past could or would fight and die for such a reason. They
know little about the American frontiersman. Liberty and selfgovernment were intensely personal and fiercely guarded;
frontiersmen were overwhelmingly patriot in the Revolutionary
War for precisely the same reasons.
Incidentally, the flag flown over the fort was the Mexican flag, and
the constitution they defended was the liberal constitution of 1824,
which Santa Anna had abrogated.
The fighting during the assault is perhaps the most savage fight in
North American history, as measured by the percentage of
casualties.
(1)
Movies tend to make the Mexican soldiers look like
klutzes. They weren't. Only tough, brave troops could have
continued an assault in the face of that rifle fire. Once
inside, they were probably blood and fear crazed. The
defenders were determined to kill as many of their enemies
as they could.
(2)
All 187 defenders were killed. A handful of prisoners
were executed.
(3)
Mexican losses were appalling. Tindall and Shi list 1,544
dead. This is also debated, but there were too many to bury
properly or to count properly. Alcalde Francisco Ruiz, who
was responsible for separating Mexican from Texan dead,
placed the Mexican dead at about 1,600 (this does not
include wounded). Santa Anna's personal secretary told the
American Dr. Sutherland, after San Jacinto and in Santa
Anna's presence, that the army had had 5,000 men to begin
the siege and lost 1,544 dead, the flower of the army. The
Tolucca battalion was cited as having lost 700 of 830 men
killed. (by the way, in military terminology, a "casualty" is
dead, wounded, or missing. Normally, a ratio of dead to
wounded would be 1:3 or 1:4. The ratio of dead to
wounded at the Alamo is shocking.) Sutherland also
AP/IB American History
Manifest Destiny
Mr. Blackmon
Page 7
(4)
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
reported a terrible death toll from Mexican wounded a
month later, owing to Santa Anna's indifference to giving
his own men medical care. He reported that 300 or 400 had
died of wounds.
Santa Anna's army fought miserably at San Jacinto; in
essence, they ran away in panic. This is far from their
behavior at the Alamo. Why the difference? I believe that
the answer is that Santa Anna blunted his instrument: the
men who died at the Alamo were his elite, veteran troops,
leaving the ill-trained and unwilling conscripts. No army
can lose 35% dead unscathed. That at least, is my theory.
Goliad
a.
A worse atrocity than the Alamo was the massacre at Goliad. The
Texan garrison surrendered to the Mexicans, but were massacred in
cold blood. (I am looking for a number; I remember 400, but I
don't trust that memory. It was substantially larger than the Alamo
garrison.)
b.
The Alamo and Goliad resulted in fanatical Texan resistance.
Texas declared its independence on March 3, 1836.
Sam Houston surprised and routed Santa Anna's army at San Jacinto on
April 21, 1836. Santa Anna was captured, and forced to acknowledge
Texas' independence.
a.
Mexico repudiated this acknowledgement, and continued to regard
Texas as Mexican soil. They did not, however, attempt to
reconquer Texas. The next ten years were marked by sporadic
bloodshed and atrocities.
Houston was elected the first President of the Lone Star Republic.
a.
A plebescite overwhelmingly requested annexation by the United
States.
Andrew Jackson (to whom Sam Houston was as close as a natural son)
very much desired the annexation on strategic grounds, but he was
cautious on the issue (unlike his basic personality).
a.
He foresaw that annexation would mean war with Mexico.
b.
He foresaw that annexation would stir up the slavery controversy,
which he regarded as a red herring used by his political enemies to
break the Union.
c.
Jackson recommended that annexation be put off.
Texas therefore had no choice but to seek assistance elsewhere. The
logical choices were France, and especially, Great Britain.
a.
The British were attracted by Texas cotton.
b.
Texas offered no tariff barriers, in contrast wit the US.
c.
Texas offered favorable terms for investment.
AP/IB American History
Manifest Destiny
d.
III.
Mr. Blackmon
Page 8
Texas also entered into serious negotiations for the emancipation
of their slaves.
(1)
The British government were determinedly anti-slave, and
were seriously pursuing schemes for compensated
emancipation, paid for by the British taxpayer (the number
of slaves was small enough to make this feasible.)
9.
Tyler's Cabinet became alarmed at the negotiations with Britain.
a.
Southern fire-eaters feared British domination of Texas, the
emancipation of Texas' slaves, and the block of all hopes of future
expansion of slavery. To men like John C. Calhoun, if slavery
could not grow, then it would surely die. Furthermore, a haven for
runaways could not, in their mind, be tolerated.
b.
A patriotic surge swept not only the South and Southwest, but also
the Northwest.
c.
Secretary of State Abel P. Upshur (no friend to abolitionists!!)
was killed in an accident. Tyler named John C. Calhoun to the
position.
d.
Calhoun's open identification of Texas with slavery, combined
with really inept negotiations (that is, if he did not want war) cost
annexation its northeastern support.
e.
The Whig Henry Clay (a slave-holder) and the Democrat Martin
Van Buren (who was opposed to slavery) both opposed annexation
because they did not want war with Mexico.
The Northwest: California and Oregon
A.
California
1.
Like Texas, California was sparsely settled.
2.
21 Catholic missions dominated life
3.
There were a handful of American settlers in the 1830's
B.
Oregon
1.
Our claim to Oregon rested upon Capt. Robert Gray in 1792 and upon the
Lewis and Clark Expedition.
2.
John Jacob Astor's Rocky Mountain Fur Company was established in
1811 on the Columbia River.
3.
Missionaries to the Indians began to arrive in the 1830's:
a.
Marcus and Narcissa Whitman (Presbyterian)
b.
Jason Lee (Methodist)
c.
Pierre de Smet
4.
There was British activity farther north with John McLaughlin as the
agent for the Hudson's Bay Company.
5.
Reports of the rich land by missionaries set off a population migration
along the Oregon Trail.
a.
Again, I want to stress that this is a genuine grass roots movement,
AP/IB American History
Manifest Destiny
IV.
Mr. Blackmon
Page 9
without any central organization.
b.
It is my belief that, however interesting the ideology of Manifest
Destiny might be, it is distinctly less important than the simple fact
of land hunger. I tend to see the debates of a Jackson, a Benton, a
Webster, an O'Sullivan, a Calhoun, a Thoreau, a Clay as somewhat
beside the point. I do not think any force on earth could have
prevented American settlers from seizing the available land, other
than a substantial population already in occupation. The outcome
of the debates was really pre-determined (which Calhoun, at least,
certainly understood).
6.
By 1845, there were 5,000 Americans living south of the Columbia River,
and they were demanding the extension of the US government to include
them by annexation.
An Interpretation of Manifest Destiny
A.
Manifest Destiny is getting a lot of attention now, since it fits in so nicely with
politically correct, revisionist historians' preconceptions and enables one to write
essays in which Americans can beat their breasts and exclaim mea culpa! mea
culpa! It also permits one to draw parallels with later expansion, for somewhat
similar reasons and with somewhat less validity.
B.
Please do not anyone write an essay on the outbreak of the Mexican War
without mentioning Manifest Destiny.
1.
In its broadest sense, Manifest Destiny is the underlying cause of the
Mexican War and the subsequent Mexican Cession.
C.
Albert K. Weinberg provided an interesting discussion of the ideology of
expansion in a book published in 1935, at a time when ideology was relatively
more important but racism relatively less important. Partly because he takes a
different approach from the current fad, I include a discussion of his analysis.
(Another reason is that, in reviewing the debates, I think he is quite sound.)
1.
Causation in history is usually multiplex. Weinberg's vision does not
necessarily negate the vision of revisionists. I believe that there is a high
degree of compatibility. Here, the difference between one school and
another is more one of emphasis.
2.
Weinberg believed that the "Roaring Forties" saw the welding of two
ideals together, which gave a new integration of the national
consciousness. (507)
3.
One ideal was Territorial Expansion
4.
The second ideal was Democracy, thought of as a complex of
individualistic values.
5.
The slogan for the era became the "extension of the area of freedom"
(508)
a.
This phrase was coined by Andrew Jackson in a letter written in
1843 to Rep. Aaron V. Brown and which was published without
AP/IB American History
Manifest Destiny
6.
Mr. Blackmon
Page 10
his permission in 1844. I will get back to it later.
b.
It is also worth noting that the phrase was used primarily with
respect to the annexation of Texas. (508)
Originally, the idea of "extending the area of freedom" was not perceived
as being logically related to the extension of territorial extent. The idea
was that we would spread democracy by example. (509)
a.
Please note that Weinberg is pointing out one example of an
American national characteristic: a belief that we have a special
purpose, mission or destiny.
(1)
This idea goes back to the Puritan Errand Into the
Wilderness.
(2)
It includes this idea that we are the beacon of hope,
freedom, and democracy to a world held in the thralls of
corrupt monarchical governments.
(a)
Lincoln shared this view very strongly; that is one
reason why he was willing to fight so hard to
preserve the Union. For Lincoln, this dream has the
force of religious conviction.
(b)
Although given to the US by France at a later date,
the Statue of Liberty embodies this ideal of
democracy by example.
(3)
Manifest Destiny will mark a more aggressive phase, with
the addition of racist and strategic/economic motives to the
original ideological ones.
(4)
The Young America Movement, which is usually dated in
the 1850s may be seen as an example.
(5)
Both the North and the South in the Civil War described
their reasons for fighting in terms of liberty and freedom.
Many modern historians regard such formulations as a mere
smokescreen for the real reasons, and do not credit the
participants with either telling the truth (even to
themselves) or understanding themselves. That is their
problem.
(6)
US Imperialism in many ways is a continuation of elements
of Manifest Destiny (racism, strategic, economic motives
combined with democratic ideology) with the addition of
Social Darwinism.
(7)
We fought World War I "to make the world safe for
democracy." Other, more cynical explanations have been
given, but the evidence that these reasons influenced actual
policy makers is not (to me at least) convincing.
(8)
World War II was a moral crusade if ever there was one.
AP/IB American History
Manifest Destiny
7.
8.
9.
Mr. Blackmon
Page 11
We fought for the Four Freedoms, the Atlantic Charter, to
defend and preserve our very way of life and our most
fundamental values.
(a)
If I might get personal a bit here. I regard World
War II as the most important event of the twentieth
century because I believe that the challenge to
human values was so profound and the possibility
of an Axis victory so great. Had Hitler won, the
world would have been plunged into a dark and
bloody era whose end no one could predict (I am
stealing some thoughts from Churchill here, but not
phrasing it as well). Without the US, Hitler wins.
Therefore, I tend to interpret US history with World
War II in mind, and I tend to believe that, if God has
a plan to use the United States (a Puritan idea) then
that plan culminated in World War II or, at the
latest, the end of the Cold War. My father's
generation saw the apex of our history and, to steal
another phrase, our nation's finest hour.
(9)
We defended democracy against the threat of Communism
during the Cold War. Again, cynical motives can be and
have been adduced, but the average voter (and we are, after
all, a democracy, and the average voter counts) visualized
the struggle in terms of a morality play. Russia represented
the "Evil Empire."
(10) As recently as the Gulf War, one will note that President
Bush found it necessary to justify the war by portraying
Saddam Hussein as another Hitler and casting the struggle
in moral terms. We really fought to preserve the free flow
of oil, but that would not secure votes.
(11) There has always been a messianic, moralistic, and
ideological streak in the American consciousness
There was also the belief among many of the early national leaders that
democracy and expansion were incompatible: expansion would threaten
to disrupt the balance of the sections and thus subvert the Union. (510-1)
In addition, there was fear that expansion threatened states' rights by
creating a new section with conflicting interests with the original sections
that could shift the balance of power according to its own interests. To
paraphrase John Randolph of Roanoke, why should Americans acquiesce
in adding territories that would eventually rule them? (511)
The common thread of these objections were an egoistic fear that
expansion threatened the liberties of the nation, state, and individual. (511)
AP/IB American History
Manifest Destiny
10.
11.
Mr. Blackmon
Page 12
The acquisition of the Louisiana Purchase and the War of 1812 helped to
allay these fears. Westerners proved to be loyal democrats, and the federal
principle proved to be flexible and successful. (512-3)
The fear of European encroachment, especially British encroachment,
is the catalyst for change.
a.
Texas--fear of British influence began in 1843. This fear, by the
way, was well-founded. Please note that the US had previously
refused a request by Texas for annexation. In our view, and in the
view of international law, there was no reason not to annex morally
or legally, since the overwhelming majority of Texans wished it.
Mexico's refusal to acknowledge Texas' independence is a cause of
the Mexican War, but it is not very rational--Texas had in fact
defeated Mexican arms, and maintained an independent
government for ten years in defiance of Mexico City. One of the
conditions by which Santa Anna and his troops were released from
captivity was recognition of Texas' independence. While one
should seek to comprehend the other person's point of view, and
while one may certainly concede valid points, Mexico's refusal to
accept the loss of Texas was emotional, irrational, and ultimately
self-destructive. In the meantime, the question for US policy is
"What was different in 1844 than in 1836?" The answer is Texas'
negotiations with Great Britain. As far as racism is concerned, the
US was neither more nor less racist in 1846 as it was in 1836 or
1856. Racism may play a role, but not a decisive one; it is not a
catalyst for events.
b.
Oregon--The territory was jointly governed, but a sharp ideological
element enters discussions about Oregon; to Americans of this
generation, Great Britain was an enemy, and its government a
corrupt monarchy. We are as yet unable to distinguish between the
rule of Queen Victoria and the Tsar. Sen. Dickinson announced
that the issue was " 'a question between two great systems;
between monarchy and republicanism.'" (516)
c.
California--we feared that the British would use Oregon as a
springboard for entry into California as well. (517) Note that it
was assumed that Mexico could not retain California. One cannot
help but feel that paranoia is creeping into our national dialogue
(on the other hand, considering Great Britain's success at
imperialism, perhaps not so paranoid.) It was with respect to
California that John L. O'Sullivan first coined the phrase "Manifest
Destiny." (cf below)
d.
We evidently regarded the threat under three heads:
(1)
Whatever threatened US security threatened democracy.
AP/IB American History
Manifest Destiny
Mr. Blackmon
Page 13
(2)
(3)
12.
13.
14.
European absolutism threatened to pollute our democracy.
Adjacent European power threatened to block the extension
of our democracy. (518)
The assumptions of the earlier era were therefore inverted during the
Roaring Forties: expansion came to be viewed as essential to our
democracy and Union, and failure to expand came to be viewed as a threat.
(518)
There are different strands to this inversion.
a.
Southern paranoia (a problem which will grown steadily from
this point on) (518)
(1)
Threats by Northern abolitionists to dissolve the Union
should Texas be annexed give substance to the fire-eaters'
fears. (518-9)
(2)
Fireeaters like Robert Barnwell Rhett candidly admitted
that they desired Texas to extend slavery in the US. They
reconciled this with States' Rights by arguing that it would
preserve the power of the South, taken as a section, to
protect their "peculiar institution."
b.
Ideological: expansion increased the opportunities for selfdevelopment. The pioneers forging their way West were seen now
as the carriers of that ideal of Jefferson's: "That government is
best which governs the least." (521)
c.
Economic: the continued existence of democracy required
continuous economic expansion (521) [This is really an important
strand; do not forget it!]
(1)
Rep. Duncan stated, in defense of the Oregon Bill, "'I have
before remarked that personal liberty is incompatible
with a crowded population. . . . The inability of the
weak, the humble and the non-assuming to contend with
the over-bearing, the cunning, and the grasping
monopolist makes it necessary, to the equality of
circumstances and personal liberty, that the advantages
of territory should constantly be kept open to all who
wish to embrace it." (521)
The traits of this new national consensus included a egoistic
disparagement [today, scholars tend to describe it as "racist" rather than
"egoistic"] of other peoples to help themselves (526)
a.
They had not responded by our example yet.
b.
They must be taken under our wing for their own good.
c.
This arrogance was partially ameliorated by idea of America as a
"refuge to all devotees of freedom in a world elsewhere threatened
with a rising deluge of despotism." (527)
AP/IB American History
Manifest Destiny
Mr. Blackmon
Page 14
(1)
V.
This ideology has not yet excluded foreigners from our soil,
an important difference with the nativism of the late 19th
and early 20th century.
15.
"Enshrined in expansionism, then, was this dogma of the special mission. .
. . The expansionist dogma of destiny was essentially ethical in its
assumption that 'Providence had given to the American people a great and
important mission . . . to spread the blessings of Christian liberty.' It was
ambitiously ethical in its further assumption that 'Providence' had a
'design in extending our free institutions as far and wide as the American
continent.' But the primary providential end was no more the elevation of
the Latin-American heathen than was the elevation of the adjacent
Philistines the end of the Israelite's journey to the Promised Land. The
end in view was, as stated by John L. O'Sullivan in his first passage on
manifest destiny, 'the free development of our yearly multiplying millions.'
But in a second reference to manifest destiny he implied the moral
significance of this free development of Americans. Americans were
destined to develop themselves as subjects in 'the great experiment of
liberty and federated self-government entrusted to us.'" (531)
Some Readings in Manifest Destiny
A.
The following selections will attempt to provide a representative sample. Note
the various lines of argument. They are arranged in chronological order. Please
note the context!
B.
John C. Calhoun, Jan. 24, 1843 [Speaking in opposition to a bill to fortify the
Oregon border] "Our population is rolling toward the shores of the Pacific with
an impetus greater than what we realize. . . . Such is the wonderful growth of
a population . . . and such the impetus with which it is forcing its way,
resistlessly, westward. It will soon . . . reach the Rocky Mountains and be
ready to pour into the Oregon territory, when it will come into our possession
without resistance or struggle. . . ." (Calhoun 88)
C.
Andrew Jackson Letter to Aaron V. Brown Feb. 12, 1843, published without his
consent in 1844: ""Soon after my election, it was made known to me . . . that a
new treaty was there concluded [with Spain] by which the Sabine, and not the
Rio Grande, was recognized and established as the boundary of Louisiana. . .
. I thought . . . that it was right never to cede any land or boundary of the
republic but always to add to it by honorable treaty, thus extending the area of
freedom. . . . .We can now only look at it as one of annexation, if Texas
presents it to us; and if she does, I do not hesitate to say that the welfare and
happiness of our Union require that it should be accepted. . . . If, in a military
point of view alone . . . it will be found to be most important to the United
States to be in possession of that territory. Great Britain has already made
treaties with Texas. . . . [Jackson discusses the military implications of this in
quite a lot of detail; this is clearly his chief concern] The question is full of
AP/IB American History
Manifest Destiny
D.
E.
Mr. Blackmon
Page 15
interest, also, as it affects our domestic relations and as it may bear upon
those of Mexico to us. . . . The annexation of Texas to the United States
promises to enlarge the circle of free institutions, and is essential to the
United States, particularly as lessening the probabilities of future collision
with foreign powers, and giving them greater efficiency in spreading the
blessings of peace." (Jackson 95-7)
Editorial, United States Magazine and Democratic Review [a Democratic
magazine] April 1844: [the editorial quotes extensively a letter written by Sen.
Robert J. Walker of Miss. advocating annexation; Walker was from
Pennsylvania, immigrated to Mississippi, became a wealthy planter and
slaveholder, later served in the Cabinet and as governor of Kansas, where he
incurred the hatred to his fellow planters; he was loyal to the Union in 1861, and
served as an envoy for the US in Europe] "Che serà, sarà--what must be, must
bee--and, in general, the sooner therefore it is, the better. . . . That Texas is to
be . . . included in the Union . . . we have long . . . regarded as an event
already indelibly inscribed in the book of future fate and necessity. . . . We are
neither Southerners, to desire the annexation for the purpose of propping up
that side of the fast failing equilibrium in the federal government between the
free and the slave states; nor Abolitionists, who, erroneously making the
question of slavery a political and a federal question, with equal vehemence,
for the same reason, deprecate that event. . . . The Valley of the West, or of
the Mississippi--the magnificent region allotted already by the unequivocal
finger of Providence, for the main center and home of the great republican,
confederated empire of the West. . . . .That the whole of this valley region . . .
must . . . come together into one homogeneous unity of political system, is a
simple geographical fact. . . . [quoting Walker] 'The Creator . . . has planned
down the whole valley, including Texas, and united every atom of the soil and
every drop of the water s of the mighty whole. . . . it is impious in man to
attempt to dissolve this great and glorious Union. . . . . To refuse to accept the
reannexation is to lower the flag of the Union before the red-cross of St.
George and to surrender the Florida pass, the mouth of the Mississippi, the
command of the Mexican Gulf, and finally, Texas itself, into the hands of
England' . . . [The article urges annexation because of] the danger of
England's acquiring the possession of, or a dominant control over, the young
state. . . . And as for what may be termed the anti-slavery objection, this has
no greater force than the other. The question of slavery is not a federal or
national but a local question. . . . This balance of political power between the
sections we regard as of little consequence. . . . Free states will be made faster
than slave ones, to say nothing of probable decay of that institution in some of
the more northern of the Southern states." ("Texas Without War," 192-200)
Rep. Joshua Giddings, Whig and Abolitionist, in opposition to annexation, May
AP/IB American History
Manifest Destiny
F.
G.
Mr. Blackmon
Page 16
21, 1844: "The North and West now hold the balance of political power; and
at the present session we have asked for a bill for the protection of our lake
and river commerce. . . . But let us admit Texas and we shall place the
balance of power in the hands of the Texans themselves. They, with the
Southern states, will control the policy and the destiny of this nation. . . . Are
the liberty-loving Democrats of Pennsylvania ready to give up our tariff?"
(Giddings 201)
James K. Polk from his Inaugural Address, Mar. 4, 1846: "I regard the question
of annexation as belonging exclusively to the United States and Texas. . .
.None can fail to see the danger to our safety and future peace if Texas
remains an independent state or becomes an ally or dependency of some
foreign nation more powerful than herself. . . . Our title to the country of the
Oregon is 'clear and unquestionable,' and already are our people preparing to
perfect that title by occupying it with their wives and children. . . . The world
beholds the peaceful triumphs of the industry of our emigrants. To us belong
the duty of protecting them adequately." (Polk 286-8)
John L. O'Sullivan, "Annexation" from the United States Magazine and
Democratic Review, July 1845: "Texas is now ours. . . .the fulfillment of our
manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free
development of our yearly multiplying millions. . . . The independence of
Texas was complete. . . It was not revolution, it was resistance to revolution. .
. Nor is there any just foundation for the charge that annexation is a great
pro-slavery measure--calculated to increase and perpetuate that institution.
Slavery has nothing to do with it. . . . That it will tend to facilitate and hasten
the disappearance of slavery from all the northern tier of the present slave
states, cannot surely admit of serious question. . . . Every new slave state in
Texas will make at least one free state from among those in which that
institution now exists. . . . to say nothing of the far more rapid growth of new
states in the free West and Northwest. . . . It is undeniably much gained for
the cause of the eventual v voluntary abolition of slavery, that it should have
been thus drained off toward the only outlet which appeared to furnish much
probability of the ultimate disappearance of the Negro race from our borders.
The Spanish-Indian-American populations of Mexico, Central America, and
South America, afford the only receptacle capable of absorbing that race
whenever we shall be prepared to slough it off--to emancipate it from slavery,
and (simultaneously necessary) to remove it from the midst of our own. . . .
California will . . . next fall away. . . Imbecile and distracted, Mexico never can
exert any real government over such a country. . . . The Anglo-Saxon foot is
already on its borders. A population will soon be actual occupation of
California, over which it will be idle for Mexico to dream of dominion. . . .
Their right to independence will be the natural right of self-government
AP/IB American History
Manifest Destiny
H.
I.
Mr. Blackmon
Page 17
belonging to any community strong enough to maintain it." (O'Sullivan 28892)
Anonymous Editorial, American Review, a Whig journal, Jan. 1846: "Regarding
the accession of California as an event which present tendencies, if not checked
or counteracted, must render inevitable. . . . No one who cherishes a faith in
the wisdom of an overruling Providence, and who sees, in the national
movements which convulse the world, the silent operation of an invisible but
omnipotent hand, can believe it to be for the interest of humanity, for the wellbeing of the world, that this vast and magnificent region should continue
forever in its present state. . . . the manifest designs of Providence are
unfulfilled, and the paramount interests of the world lack due advancement.
While California remains in possession of its present inhabitants and under
control of its present government, there is no hope of its regeneration. This
will demand a life, an impulse of energy, a fiery ambition of which no spark
can ever be struck from the soft sluggishness of the American Spaniard. . . .
The affairs of the whole world are, in many very important respects, linked
and even fused together. Commerce, which has come to be the ruling power
upon the globe, makes its home upon the broad sea that knows no bounds--its
familiar paths are upon the world's great highways. . . . [Mexico] cannot lack
the sagacity to perceive that, with Great Britain firmly fixed in California, she
could not engage in war with the United States without a certainty, or, at the
least, a very strong probability of having Great Britain for an active ally. . .
We deem it impossible that Great Britain should expect to occupy California,
either as a colony or 'somewhat in the manner of the East India Company,'
with the acquiescence or indifference of the United States. In no spot upon
the continent could she establish her power where it could be so effectually
wielded to our lasting injury. It can scarcely be doubted that the Pacific
Ocean is hereafter to bear upon its bosom a far greater commerce than now
floats upon the Atlantic. Whatever may be its relation to Europe, to the
United States, it is destined to be the highway to Asia." ("California and the
National Interest," 323-328)
Thomas Hart Benton, Senate speech, May 28, 1846 "It would seem that the
White race alone received the divine command, to subdue and replenish the
earth,' for it is the only race that has obeyed it--the only one that hunts out
new and distant lands, and even a New World, to subdue and replenish. . . .
The van of the Caucasian race now top the Rocky Mountains . . . Commerce
is a great civilizer . . . the White race will take the ascendant . . . The Red race
has disappeared from the Atlantic coast: the tribes that resisted civilization
met extinction. Civilization, or extinction, has been the fate of all people who
have found themselves in the track of the advancing Whites." (Benton 204206)
AP/IB American History
Manifest Destiny
J.
Mr. Blackmon
Page 18
James Russell Lowell, excerpts from the Bigelow Papers, 1848:
"T would n't suit them Southern fellers,
They 're a dreffle graspin' set.
We must ollers blow the bellers
Wen they want their irons het;
May be it's all right es preachin',
But my narves it kind o' grates,
Wen I see the overreachin'
O' them nigger-drivin' States.
Them thet rule us, them slave-traders,
Hain't they cut a thunderin' swarth
(Helped by Yankee renegades.)
Through the vartu o' the North!
We begin to think it's nater
To take sarse an' not be riled;
Who 'd expect to see a tater
All on eend t being' biled?
Ex fer wat, I call it murder-There you he it plain an' flat;
I don't want to go no furder
Than my Testyment fer that;
God hez sed so plump an' fairly,
It's ez long ez it is broad,
An' you've got to git up airly
Ef you want to take in God.
They may talk o' Freedom's airy
Tell they're pupple inn the face-It's a grand gret cemetary
Fer the barthrights of our race;
They jest want this Californy
So's to lug new slave-states in
To abuse ye, an' to scorn ye,
An' to plunder ye like sin.
Tell ye jest the eend I've come to
Arter cipherin' plaguy smart,
An' it makes a handy sum, tu,
AP/IB American History
Manifest Destiny
Mr. Blackmon
Page 19
Any gump could larn by heart,
Laborin' man and laborin' woman
Hev one glory an' one shame.
Ev'ry thin' thet's done inhuman
Injers all on 'em the same.
K.
L.
M.
Charles Sumner, Whig and Abolitionist, "Report on the War with Mexico"
adopted by the Massachusetts legislature 1847: "A war of conquest is bad; but
the present war has darker shadows. It is a war for the extension of slavery
over a territory which has already been purged by Mexican authority from this
stain and curse. Fresh markets of human beings are to be established. . . .
But it is not merely proposed to open new markets for slavery: it is also
designed to confirm and fortify the 'Slave Power.' Here is a distinction which
should not fail to be borne in mind. Slavery is odious as an institution . . .
But it has been made the basis of a political combination, to which has not
inaptly been applied the designation of the 'Slave Power.' . . . The object of the
bold measure of annexation was not only to extend slavery, but to strengthen
the 'Slave Power.' The same object is now proposed by the Mexican War. . . .
it is virtually . . . a war against the free states of the Union." (Sumner 361365)
Albert Gallatin, "Peace with Mexico," a pamphlet published in 1847: "It is said
that the people of the United States have a hereditary superiority of race over
the Mexicans, which gives them the right to subjugate and keep in bondage the
inferior nation. This, it is also alleged, will be the means of enlightening the
degraded Mexicans, of improving their social state, and of ultimately
increasing the happiness of the masses. [Is it] compatible with the principle of
democracy, which rejects every hereditary claim of individuals, to admit a
hereditary superiority of races? . . . .In the progressive improvement of
mankind, much more has been due to religious and political institutions than
to races. . . . .At this time the claim is but a pretext for covering the justifying
unjust usurpation and unbounded ambition. But [even] admitting with
respect to Mexico, the superiority of race, this confers no superiority of rights .
. . no man is born with the right of governing another man. He may, indeed,
acquire a moral influence over others, and no other is legitimate. The same
principle will apply to nations. However superior the Anglo-American race
may be to that of Mexico, this gives the Americans no right to infringe upon
the rights of the inferior race." (Gallatin 369-372)
Abraham Lincoln, speech to Congress, from the Spot Resolutions, "A true issue
made by the President would be about as follows: 'I say the soil was ours, on
which the first blood was shed; there are those who say it was not.' . . . As a
nation should not, and the Almighty will not, be evaded, so let him [Polk]
AP/IB American History
Manifest Destiny
VI.
VII.
Mr. Blackmon
Page 20
attempt no evasion . . . if. . . he can show that the soil was ours where the first
blood of the war was shed, . . . then I am with him . . . . But if he can not or
will not do this . . . then I shall be fully convinced of what I more than suspect
already--that he is deeply conscious of being in the wrong." (Lincoln 212-217)
N.
Henry David Thoreau, from Civil Disobedience, 1849: "That government is
best which governs not at all. . . . Can there not be a government in which
majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience, in which
majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is
applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment . . resign his conscience to the
legislator? . . . if it [an injustice perpetrated by government] is of such a
nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say,
break the law. Let your life be a counterfriction to stop the machine." (Thoreau
540-548)
The Election of 1844
A.
The Whigs unanimously nominated Henry Clay.
1.
Clay tried to avoid the issue of Texas in his platform.
B.
The Democrats pull a surprise
1.
Van Buren was upset at the convention, and failed to obtain the 2/3 vote
necessary for nomination.
2.
John C. Calhoun demanded Texas for slavery.
3.
The convention turned to a "Dark Horse" candidate, one acceptable to both
wings: James Knox Polk, Jackson's House leader, who was known as
"Young Hickory."
4.
Polk's platform demands the "reannexation of Texas and the
reoccupation of Oregon."
C.
Clay tried to straddle the fence on expansion, but his effort is too late.
D.
Polk won the election
1.
The Liberty Party had formed, with James G. Birney as its presidential
candidate. Birney was a Kentucky slaveholder who repudiated slavery,
emancipated his bondsmen, and devoted his full time attention to trying to
end slavery.
a.
The Liberty Party cost Clay New York, and New York cost him the
election.
E.
Tyler decided to seize credit for annexing Texas for himself. He called for
annexation by a joint resolution of Congress, which avoided the requirement for a
2/3 vote of the Senate.
1.
Texas retained title to all public lands but bears all debts incurred as an
independent nation.
2.
In addition, the joint resolution permitted Texas to divide itself into as
many as 5 slave states.
3.
Texas was admitted as a state in December 1845.
Polk as President
AP/IB American History
Manifest Destiny
A.
VIII.
Mr. Blackmon
Page 21
Polk promised to
1.
Lower the tariff (he did)
2.
Restore Van Buren's independent treasury (he did)
3.
Acquire California (he did)
4.
Settle the Oregon question (he did)
5.
Oppose internal improvements such as bills for harbors, canals, and
railroads. (he did)
6.
After just one term, physically exhausted, Polk retired, having fulfilled
every campaign promise. He died very soon after. How many Presidents
have fulfilled every promise?
B.
Oregon
1.
The northern border of the territory was 54° 40', which is the southern
edge of Alaska.
2.
Polk began by demanding everything. He then offered to compromise at
the 49° (our present border).
3.
The British reject this proposal.
4.
Polk then decides to play hard-ball. He demands it all again.
a.
In 1846, he asks Congress to abrogate the Treaty of 1818, which
provided for joint occupation.
b.
The Democratic Party begins proclaiming the slogan "54° 40' or
Fight!" Highly belligerent war talk fills the nation.
5.
The British change their position and offer to compromise
a.
The Hudson's Bay agent, John McLaughlin, pointed out that the
preponderance of American settlers made the British position
militarily undefendable. He wanted to save the Company trading
center at Vancouver Island.
6.
Polk agreed to a compromise along the 49th parallel, except for Vancouver
Island, which remained British. This clears one potential international
embroilment and allows him a free hand in the southwest.
The Immediate Origins of the Mexican War
A.
I tend to be extremely critical of revisionist historians (as you may already have
guessed!) However, lest anyone not understand, I think that it is clear that the
United States forced a war upon Mexico in 1846. Neither side is without blame,
but the US clearly forced the issue.
B.
Mexico, as promised, broke off diplomatic relations with the US when Texas was
annexed.
C.
Mexico had real and substantial grievances
1.
Patriotic anger over annexation.
2.
A dispute over the Texas boundary--whether at the Nueces River, as
Mexico claimed, or the Rio Grande del Norte, as Texas and the US
claimed.
a.
The issue went back to the exact dimensions of the Louisiana
AP/IB American History
Manifest Destiny
D.
E.
F.
G.
Mr. Blackmon
Page 22
Purchase and the Adams-Onís Treaty. This debate is the origin of
Polk's "reannexation of Texas." On its merits, I believe that the
Mexicans had a substantially better case.
3.
The obvious determination, enshrined in campaign promises, of Polk to
acquire California.
4.
I am very critical of the Mexicans' unwillingness to face reality and accept
the loss of Texas. But they had every right to contest the border; they
had every right to regard Polk as an enemy and his plans as a threat;
and why should emotional patriotism be the exclusive province of the
US?
5.
I have no moral quarrel with the annexation of Texas. Texas was
independent, and annexation was the desire of its people. Everything else
is another matter indeed. We stole California, fair and square.
American grievances
1.
The instability of Mexican governments. The first 20 or 30 years of
Mexican independence are chaotic, at best. The nation is rent by chronic
civil war.
2.
Debts owed American citizens by Mexico and Mexicans, which were not
being paid. This is a legitimate grievance. It is also a consequence of the
instability of the Mexican government. Any statesman would not be
surprised and would also not expect any real solution until the underlying
instability is rectified.
James K. Polk was very willing, if not eager, to resort to force to achieve his
objectives.
1.
Polk ordered Gen. Zachary Taylor and a small army to the Nueces River.
a.
Under the circumstances, the presence of Taylor there could only
be viewed as a provocation.
John Slidell's Mission
1.
Polk did in fact make a serious effort to buy California.
2.
He offered, via Slidell, to accept $2,000,000 in debts and to pay
$30,000,000 for New Mexico and California.
a.
Polk regarded this as a reasonable offer since American citizens
would seize the land in question with or without government
assistance.
3.
Slidell's mission was so unpopular with Mexicans that the government that
dared receive him was overthrown.
4.
Mexican Gen. Mariano Paredes then affirmed Mexico's claim to all of
Texas, a move that was popular, but turned out to be suicidal.
Outbreak of Hostilities
1.
Polk decided to fight.
2.
He orders Taylor to cross the Nueces and advance to the Rio Grande, into
the disputed territory.
AP/IB American History
Manifest Destiny
a.
IX.
Mr. Blackmon
Page 23
He was hoping that this would provoke an incident which he
could then use as an excuse for war.
b.
Under the circumstances, this ends all discussion of who started the
war. It is open provocation.
c.
Polk then composed a war message, and waited for news of
bloodshed.
d.
When it was slow in coming, he lost patience, and decided to ask
for war anyway.
e.
At the last minute, news of a border incident arrived, and allowed
Polk to pretend that American blood had been shed on American
soil.
3.
For some reason, John Garraty claims that war was not declared. (297)
That is not true. The vote was 40-2 n the Senate, 174-14 in the House. Cf
Blum, 286, Current 381, Morrison and Commager Vol I 551)
The Course of the Mexican War
A.
Subsequent history should not cause one to think that US victory was inevitable.
In 1846, the Mexican army was four times the size of the US army, and had been
engaged in war almost continuously. It was European trained. The US army had
not fought anyone except Indians for a generation. British newspapers were
certain that the Mexicans were better soldiers. The British minister to Mexico
City regarded the Mexicans as clearly superior. (Casdorph 52)
1.
The Mexican decision to renew their claim to all of Texas is
comprehensible only if the Mexican generals were utterly confident of
their ability to defeat the US and seize by force of arms the territory they
had lost.
2.
European observers have traditionally had, and in some cases still have, a
very low opinion of the American fighting man.
3.
The small US army was led by two outstanding generals, Zachary Taylor
and Winfield Scott.
4.
The US army included a cadre of young, very well-trained West Pointers
who demonstrated very remarkable aggressiveness, resourcefulness, and
courage. Men who distinguished themselves in this war included
Jefferson Davis, Ulysses S. Grant, A.P. Hill, George B. McClellan,
Thomas Jonathan Jackson, and, above all else, Scott's chief of engineers,
Robert Edward Lee.
5.
The Mexicans consistently fought with great, at times, extraordinary
courage. They were consistently miserably led. The Americans
consistently fought with great courage, but added far superior leadership
and initiative. US forces were generally outnumbered by the Mexicans.
B.
Strategy
1.
Polk attempted to direct strategy personally, which was hopeless
considering the state of communications, and a bad idea anyway.
AP/IB American History
Manifest Destiny
2.
C.
D.
Mr. Blackmon
Page 24
The first stage was to clear the northern border areas of Mexican forces
while simultaneously seizing Santa Fe New Mexico and California.
3.
After this was accomplished, we would launch a knock out blow by
amphibious landing at Vera Cruz and a march on Mexico City itself.
The Northern Theater
1.
Polk was deeply suspicious of both Taylor and Scott, who were Whigs.
This poisoned his relationship with his generals.
2.
There was fierce domestic opposition to the war from both Northern and
Southern Whigs (please note, Southern Whigs as well) and some Southern
Democrats, such as John C. Calhoun.
a.
One line of attack was that the war was being fought to extend
slavery. Charles Sumner represents this view.
b.
One line of attack was that we had been misled by our leaders.
Abraham Lincoln represents this point of view.
c.
The war was particularly unpopular in New England. Henry David
Thoreau went to jail rather than pay a poll tax in protest of the war
(he did, however, allow a relative to pay it for him and get out of
jail.)
3.
Zachary Taylor, "Old Rough and Ready"
a.
Defeated a Mexican force at Palo Alto.
b.
Defeated another force at Resaca de la Palma. He was now firmly
over the Rio Grande.
c.
Won a tough battle at Monterrey, 9/21-23/46.
d.
Polk now stripped Taylor of most of his army. He feared Taylor's
popularity and wants to leave him idle for the rest of the war.
e.
Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna is allowed to pass through a US
blockade from Cuba to return to Mexico. He establishes himself
(again) as dictator and then tries to surprise the weakened Taylor
and crush him.
(1)
I can't help but think that allowing Santa Anna back into
Mexico was the nastiest thing we did to Mexico.
f.
Taylor crushed Santa Anna at the Battle of Buena Vista (2/2223/47)
(1)
Jefferson Davis, Taylor's son-in-law (but they were not on
good terms) distinguished himself in the battle. This helps
launch him on his public career.
The Southwestern Theater
1.
California
a.
In Sacramento, American settlers proclaim the Bear Flag
Republic.
b.
John C. Frémont, (Thomas Hart Benton's son-in-law; they were
not on good terms either; at least, they weren't when he married
AP/IB American History
Manifest Destiny
E.
Mr. Blackmon
Page 25
Jessie) had been stationed near the California border by Polk (by
sheerest chance, I'm sure!). Frémont offered to lead the rebels.
(1)
In case you are wondering, both women married very young
and without their father's approval. Davis' first wife died
tragically of fever after only a short time together; Varina
Davis, the First Lady of the Confederacy, was Davis'
second wife, whom he married some time later. Davis
mourned his first wife a long time. Jessie Benton Frémont
had been spoiled by her doting father. She was quite young
when she eloped with Frémont. Her enraged father
arranged for him to go exploring the West--as far from
Jessie as possible. That suited them both--they were
ambitious. Frémont was very handsome, very brave, very
ambitious, and pretty stupid. Jessie had all the brains in the
family. In the end, dealing with Abraham Lincoln, she
became a liability rather than an asset. So much for family
gossip.
c.
Commodore John Sloat, who by another sheer chance had a
flotilla off the coast, seized Monterrey and San Francisco.
2.
New Mexico
a.
Stephen Watts Kearney left Ft. Leavenworth for Santa Fê.
b.
Santa Fê., which was essentially undefended, surrendered
peacefully.
c.
Kearney then continued on to California to seize San Diego and
Los Angeles.
Winfield Scott "Old Fuss and Feathers"
1.
Winfield Scott landed at Vera Cruz on 3/9/47.
2.
He then began a march along the route used by Cortez (it is the logical
invasion route).
3.
It is a brilliant campaign, and I am filled with astonishment. It is little
discussed today. But consider that Scott had to accomplish the most
difficult of all military operations, an amphibious landing, and then march
a small army into the heart of a hostile nation, overcoming military
opposition, severe difficulties of terrain, maintaining his supply and
communications, and fending off an increasingly jealous President in his
rear.
4.
We will see later that the aged and corpulent Winfield Scott, who was
disgracefully shunted aside in 1862, could still see strategically very
clearly indeed. His Anaconda Plan was scorned by McClellan and others
in 1861, but the means by which the North won the Civil War look an
awful lot like Scott's Anaconda Plan. He is the most overlooked man in
US military history.
AP/IB American History
Manifest Destiny
5.
X.
XI.
Mr. Blackmon
Page 26
Scott smashed a very strong Mexican position at Cerro Gordo
a.
The key to victory was a brilliant flanking maneuver led by Capt.
Robert E. Lee.
6.
Scott defeated the Mexicans at Contreras 8/7/47
7.
Scott defeated the Mexicans at Churubusco 8/20/47
8.
Scott defeated the Mexicans at Molino del Rey 9/8/47
9.
Scott defeated the Mexicans at Chapultepec 9/13/47
a.
Mexican officer cadets put up a truly heroic defense at this battle.
10.
With the fall of Chapultepec, Scott had possession of Mexico City itself.
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo
A.
We have won the war. Now, can we get the Mexicans to concede defeat so we
can go home?
B.
Nicholas Trist had accompanied Scott, with powers to negotiate a treaty.
1.
Trist could not find an organized Mexican government with which to
negotiate. This is potentially a very dangerous situation for us, since a
popular, disorganized uprising could have been bloody and prolonged. Cf
the Paris Uprising against the Prussians in 1872.
C.
Polk became very impatient. He expected to gain from Mexican weakness, and he
recalled Trist.
D.
Trist refused to go, and instead negotiates a treaty that Polk did not like lest all
order in Mexico collapsed.
E.
Polk repudiated Trist, refusing to pay his salary or expenses.
F.
The terms of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo
1.
Mexico acknowledges US annexation of Texas
2.
Mexico acknowledges the Rio Grande as the border.
3.
Mexico cedes New Mexico (that includes Arizona) and Upper California
to the US.
4.
The US will pay $15,000,000 plus debts owed to US citizens (about
#3,250,000)
5.
Mexico thereby lost about 1/3 of its territory (1/2 if one includes Texas in
that area)
6.
Guadalupe Hidalgo was a very harsh treaty, yet Polk was furious! He
wanted more.
7.
Polk accepted the treaty only grudgingly in order to avert further fighting
and because the war's unpopularity was growing.
8.
The treaty was ratified 36-14.
Immediate Aftermath
A.
Gold was found at Sutter's' Mill California in January 1848.
B.
The California Gold Rush was on
1.
This is the origin of the Forty Niners. Eat your heart out Joe Montana.
2.
$200,000,000 was taken out in just 4 years. This is really enormous
wealth.
AP/IB American History
Manifest Destiny
3.
Mr. Blackmon
Page 27
The population of California explodes, leading to the question of
statehood. The final phase on the way to the Civil War is about to begin
AP/IB American History
Manifest Destiny
Mr. Blackmon
Page 28
Works Cited
Benton, Thomas Hart. "The Superior Race and the Divine Command." Main Problems in
American History. Quint, Howard H., Cantor, Milton, Albertson, Dean, Editor. Volume I.
Belmont California: Wadsworth Publishing Co. 1987.
Blum, John M., Morgan, Edmund S., Rose, Willie Lee, Schlesinger, Jr., Arthur M., Stampp,
Kenneth M., and Woodward, C. Vann. The National Experience: A History of the United
States. 5th ed. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1981.
Calhoun, John C. "On Territorial Expansion." Annals of America. Vol. 7. Chicago:
Encyclopeadia Britannica, 1976. 87-88.
Casdorph, Paul D. Lee and Jackson. New York: Dell Publishing,
1992.
"California and the National Interest." Annals of America. Vol. 7. Chicago: Encyclopeadia
Britannica, 1976. 323-8.
Gallatin, Albert. "The Unjust War With Mexico." Annals of America. Vol. 7. Chicago:
Encyclopeadia Britannica, 1976. 369-73.
Garraty, John. The American Nation. 5th Ed. New York: Harper & Row, 1983.
Giddings, Joshua. "Texas and Slavery." Annals of America. Vol. 7. Chicago: Encyclopeadia
Britannica, 1976. 201.
Jackson, Andrew. "The Annexation of Texas as Essential to the United States." Annals of
America. Vol. 7. Chicago: Encyclopeadia Britannica, 1976.
Lincoln, Abraham. "The President is Arraigned." Main Problems in American History. Quint,
Howard H., Cantor, Milton, Albertson, Dean, Editor. Volume I. Belmont California:
Wadsworth Publishing Co. 1987.
Lowell, James Russell. "War and Slavery." Annals of America. Vol. 7. Chicago: Encyclopeadia
Britannica, 1976. 348-50.
O'Sullivan, John. "Our Manifest Destiny." Annals of America. Vol. 7. Chicago: Encyclopeadia
Britannica, 1976. 288-95)
Sumner, Charles. "A War to Strengthen the Slavery Interests." Annals of America. Vol. 7.
Chicago: Encyclopeadia Britannica, 1976. 361-5.
"Texas Without War." Annals of America. Vol. 7. Chicago:
Encyclopeadia Britannica,
AP/IB American History
Manifest Destiny
Mr. Blackmon
Page 29
1976. 192-200.
Thoreau, Henry David. "Resistance to Civil Government." Annals of America. Vol. 7.
Chicago: Encyclopeadia Britannica, 1976. 540-548
Tindall, George Brown and Shi, David E. America: A Narrative History. 3rd Ed. New York:
W.W. Norton, 1992.
AP/IB American History
Manifest Destiny
Mr. Blackmon
Page 30
Works Consulted
Freehling, William W. The Road to Disunion: Secessionists at Bay 1776-1854. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1990.
Myers, John Myers. The Alamo. New York: Bantam, 1948.
Tinkle, Lon. The Alamo. New York: Signet, 1958.