John L. O'Sullivan on Manifest Destiny, 1839
Excerpted from "The Great Nation of Futurity," The United States Democratic Review, Volume 6, Issue 23, pp.
426-430.
The American people having derived their origin from many other nations, and the Declaration of National
Independence being entirely based on the great principle of human equality, these facts demonstrate at once our
disconnected position as regards any other nation; that we have, in reality, but little connection with the past
history of any of them, and still less with all antiquity, its glories, or its crimes. On the contrary, our national birth
was the beginning of a new history, the formation and progress of an untried political system, which separates us
from the past and connects us with the future only; and so far as regards the entire development of the natural
rights of man, in moral, political, and national life, we may confidently assume that our country is destined to be
the great nation of futurity.
It is so destined, because the principle upon which a nation is organized fixes its destiny, and that of equality is
perfect, is universal. It presides in all the operations of the physical world, and it is also the conscious law of the
soul -- the self-evident dictates of morality, which accurately defines the duty of man to man, and consequently
man's rights as man. Besides, the truthful annals of any nation furnish abundant evidence, that its happiness, its
greatness, its duration, were always proportionate to the democratic equality in its system of government. . . .
What friend of human liberty, civilization, and refinement, can cast his view over the past history of the
monarchies and aristocracies of antiquity, and not deplore that they ever existed? What philanthropist can
contemplate the oppressions, the cruelties, and injustice inflicted by them on the masses of mankind, and not turn
with moral horror from the retrospect?
America is destined for better deeds. It is our unparalleled glory that we have no reminiscences of battle fields,
but in defence of humanity, of the oppressed of all nations, of the rights of conscience, the rights of personal
enfranchisement. Our annals describe no scenes of horrid carnage, where men were led on by hundreds of
thousands to slay one another, dupes and victims to emperors, kings, nobles, demons in the human form called
heroes. We have had patriots to defend our homes, our liberties, but no aspirants to crowns or thrones; nor have
the American people ever suffered themselves to be led on by wicked ambition to depopulate the land, to spread
desolation far and wide, that a human being might be placed on a seat of supremacy.
We have no interest in the scenes of antiquity, only as lessons of avoidance of nearly all their examples. The
expansive future is our arena, and for our history. We are entering on its untrodden space, with the truths of God
in our minds, beneficent objects in our hearts, and with a clear conscience unsullied by the past. We are the nation
of human progress, and who will, what can, set limits to our onward march? Providence is with us, and no earthly
power can. We point to the everlasting truth on the first page of our national declaration, and we proclaim to the
millions of other lands, that "the gates of hell" -- the powers of aristocracy and monarchy -- "shall not prevail
against it."
The far-reaching, the boundless future will be the era of American greatness. In its magnificent domain of space
and time, the nation of many nations is destined to manifest to mankind the excellence of divine principles; to
establish on earth the noblest temple ever dedicated to the worship of the Most High -- the Sacred and the True.
Its floor shall be a hemisphere -- its roof the firmament of the star-studded heavens, and its congregation an Union
of many Republics, comprising hundreds of happy millions, calling, owning no man master, but governed by
God's natural and moral law of equality, the law of brotherhood -- of "peace and good will amongst men.". . .
Yes, we are the nation of progress, of individual freedom, of universal enfranchisement. Equality of rights is the
cynosure of our union of States, the grand exemplar of the correlative equality of individuals; and while truth
sheds its effulgence, we cannot retrograde, without dissolving the one and subverting the other. We must onward
to the fulfilment of our mission -- to the entire development of the principle of our organization -- freedom of
conscience, freedom of person, freedom of trade and business pursuits, universality of freedom and equality. This
is our high destiny, and in nature's eternal, inevitable decree of cause and effect we must accomplish it. All this
will be our future history, to establish on earth the moral dignity and salvation of man -- the immutable truth and
beneficence of God. For this blessed mission to the nations of the world, which are shut out from the life-giving
light of truth, has America been chosen; and her high example shall smite unto death the tyranny of kings,
hierarchs, and oligarchs, and carry the glad tidings of peace and good will where myriads now endure an existence
scarcely more enviable than that of beasts of the field. Who, then, can doubt that our country is destined to be the
great nation of futurity?
--------------------------------------------------------------------Excerpt from Inaugural Address of James K. Polk - March 4, 1845
The Republic of Texas has made known her desire to come into our Union, to form a part of our
Confederacy and enjoy with us the blessings of liberty secured and guaranteed by our Constitution. Texas was
once a part of our country--was unwisely ceded away to a foreign power--is now independent, and possesses an
undoubted right to dispose of a part or the whole of her territory and to merge her sovereignty as a separate and
independent state in ours. I congratulate my country that by an act of the late Congress of the United States the
assent of this Government has been given to the reunion, and it only remains for the two countries to agree upon
the terms to consummate an object so important to both.
I regard the question of annexation as belonging exclusively to the United States and Texas. They are
independent powers competent to contract, and foreign nations have no right to interfere with them or to take
exceptions to their reunion. Foreign powers do not seem to appreciate the true character of our Government. Our
Union is a confederation of independent States, whose policy is peace with each other and all the world. To
enlarge its limits is to extend the dominions of peace over additional territories and increasing millions. The world
has nothing to fear from military ambition in our Government. While the Chief Magistrate and the popular branch
of Congress are elected for short terms by the suffrages of those millions who must in their own persons bear all
the burdens and miseries of war, our Government can not be otherwise than pacific. Foreign powers should
therefore look on the annexation of Texas to the United States not as the conquest of a nation seeking to extend
her dominions by arms and violence, but as the peaceful acquisition of a territory once her own, by adding another
member to our confederation, with the consent of that member, thereby diminishing the chances of war and
opening to them new and ever-increasing markets for their products.
To Texas the reunion is important, because the strong protecting arm of our Government would be extended
over her, and the vast resources of her fertile soil and genial climate would be speedily developed, while the safety
of New Orleans and of our whole southwestern frontier against hostile aggression, as well as the interests of the
whole Union, would be promoted by it.
In the earlier stages of our national existence the opinion prevailed with some that our system of
confederated States could not operate successfully over an extended territory, and serious objections have at
different times been made to the enlargement of our boundaries. These objections were earnestly urged when we
acquired Louisiana. Experience has shown that they were not well founded. The title of numerous Indian tribes to
vast tracts of country has been extinguished; new States have been admitted into the Union; new Territories have
been created and our jurisdiction and laws extended over them. As our population has expanded, the Union has
been cemented and strengthened. AS our boundaries have been enlarged and our agricultural population has been
spread over a large surface, our federative system has acquired additional strength and security. It may well be
doubted whether it would not be in greater danger of overthrow if our present population were confined to the
comparatively narrow limits of the original thirteen States than it is now that they are sparsely settled over a more
expanded territory. It is confidently believed that our system may be safely extended to the utmost bounds of our
territorial limits, and that as it shall be extended the bonds of our Union, so far from being weakened, will become
stronger.
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. Is there one among our
citizens who would not prefer perpetual peace with Texas to occasional wars, which so often occur between
bordering independent nations? Is there one who would not prefer free intercourse with her to high duties on all
our products and manufactures which enter her ports or cross her frontiers? Is there one who would not prefer an
unrestricted communication with her citizens to the frontier obstructions which must occur if she remains out of
the Union? Whatever is good or evil in the local institutions of Texas will remain her own whether annexed to the
United States or not. None of the present States will be responsible for them any more than they are for the local
institutions of each other. They have confederated together for certain specified objects. Upon the same principle
that they would refuse to form a perpetual union with Texas because of her local institutions our forefathers would
have been prevented from forming our present Union. Perceiving no valid objection to the measure and many
reasons for its adoption vitally affecting the peace, the safety, and the prosperity of both countries, I shall on the
broad principle which formed the basis and produced the adoption of our Constitution, and not in any narrow
spirit of sectional policy, endeavor by all Constitutional, honorable, and appropriate means to consummate the
expressed will of the people and Government of the United States by the reannexation of Texas to our Union at
the earliest practicable period.
Nor will it become in a less degree my duty to assert and maintain by all Constitutional means the right of
the United States to that portion of our territory which lies beyond the Rocky Mountains. 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. But eighty years ago our population was confined on the west by the
ridge of the Alleghanies. Within that period--within the lifetime, I might say, of some of my hearers--our people,
increasing to many millions, have filled the eastern valley of the Mississippi, adventurously ascended the
Missouri to its headsprings, and are already engaged in establishing the blessings of self-government in valleys of
which the rivers flow to the Pacific. The world beholds the peaceful triumphs of the industry of our emigrants. To
us belongs the duty of protecting them adequately wherever they may be upon our soil. The jurisdiction of our
laws and the benefits of our republican institutions should be extended over them in the distant regions which they
have selected for their homes. The increasing facilities of intercourse will easily bring the States, of which the
formation in that part of our territory can not be long delayed, within the sphere of our federative Union. In the
meantime every obligation imposed by treaty or conventional stipulations should be sacredly respected.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Excerpt from Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny)
Historian William E. Weeks has noted that three key themes were usually touched upon by advocates of manifest
destiny:
1.
2.
the virtue of the American people and their institutions;
the mission to spread these institutions, thereby redeeming and remaking the world in the image of the
United States;
3.
the destiny under God to do this work.[20]
The origin of the first theme, later known as American Exceptionalism, was often traced to America's Puritan
heritage, particularly John Winthrop's famous "City upon a Hill" sermon of 1630, in which he called for the
establishment of a virtuous community that would be a shining example to the Old World.[21] In his influential
1776 pamphlet Common Sense, Thomas Paine echoed this notion, arguing that the American Revolution provided
an opportunity to create a new, better society:
We have it in our power to begin the world over again. A situation, similar to the present, hath not happened since
the days of Noah until now. The birthday of a new world is at hand...
Continentalism[edit]
The 19th-century belief that the United States would eventually encompass all of North America is known as
"continentalism".[40] An early proponent of this idea was John Quincy Adams, a leading figure in U.S. expansion
between the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 and the Polk administration in the 1840s. In 1811, Adams wrote to his
father:
The whole continent of North America appears to be destined by Divine Providence to be peopled by one nation,
speaking one language, professing one general system of religious and political principles, and accustomed to one
general tenor of social usages and customs. For the common happiness of them all, for their peace and prosperity,
I believe it is indispensable that they should be associated in one federal Union.[41]
Adams did much to further this idea. He orchestrated the Treaty of 1818, which established the United StatesCanada border as far west as the Rocky Mountains, and provided for the joint occupation of the region known in
American history as the Oregon Country and in British and Canadian history as the New Caledonia and Columbia
Districts. He negotiated the Transcontinental Treaty in 1819, purchasing Florida from Spain and extending the
U.S. border with Spanish Mexico all the way to the Pacific Ocean. And he formulated the Monroe Doctrine of
1823, which warned Europe that the Western Hemisphere was no longer open for European colonization.
The Monroe Doctrine and manifest destiny were closely related ideas: historian Walter McDougall calls manifest
destiny a corollary of the Monroe Doctrine, because while the Monroe Doctrine did not specify expansion,
expansion was necessary in order to enforce the Doctrine. Concerns in the United States that European powers
(especially Great Britain) were seeking to acquire colonies or greater influence in North America led to calls for
expansion in order to prevent this. In his influential 1935 study of manifest destiny, Albert Weinberg wrote that
"the expansionism of the [1830s] arose as a defensive effort to forestall the encroachment of Europe in North
America".[42]
All Oregon[edit]
Manifest destiny played its most important role in, and was coined during the course of, the Oregon boundary
dispute with Britain. The Anglo-American Convention of 1818 had provided for the joint occupation of the
Oregon Country, and thousands of Americans migrated there in the 1840s over the Oregon Trail. The British
rejected a proposal by President John Tyler to divide the region along the 49th parallel, and instead proposed a
boundary line farther south along the Columbia River, which would have made what is now the state of
Washington part of British North America. Advocates of manifest destiny protested and called for the annexation
of the entire Oregon Country up to the Alaska line (54°40ʹ N). Presidential candidate James K. Polk used this
popular outcry to his advantage, and the Democrats called for the annexation of "All Oregon" in the 1844
U.S. Presidential election.
As president, however, Polk sought compromise and renewed the earlier offer to divide the territory in half along
the 49th parallel, to the dismay of the most ardent advocates of manifest destiny. When the British refused the
offer, American expansionists responded with slogans such as "The Whole of Oregon or None!" and "Fifty-Four
Forty or Fight!", referring to the northern border of the region. (The latter slogan is often mistakenly described as
having been a part of the 1844 presidential campaign.) When Polk moved to terminate the joint occupation
agreement, the British finally agreed to divide the region along the 49th parallel in early 1846, keeping the lower
Columbia basin as part of the United States, and the dispute was settled by the Oregon Treaty of 1846, which the
administration was able to sell to congress because the United States was about to begin the Mexican-American
war, and the president and others argued it would be foolish to also fight the British Empire.
American westward expansion is idealized in Emanuel Leutze's famous painting Westward the Course of Empire
Takes Its Way (1861). The title of the painting, from a 1726 poem by Bishop Berkeley, was a phrase often quoted
in the era of manifest destiny, expressing a widely held belief that civilization had steadily moved westward
throughout history. (more)
Despite the earlier clamor for "All Oregon", the treaty was popular in the United States and was easily ratified by
the Senate. The most fervent advocates of manifest destiny had not prevailed along the northern border because,
according to Reginald Stuart, "the compass of manifest destiny pointed west and southwest, not north, despite the
use of the term 'continentalism'."[43]
Mexico and Texas[edit]
Manifest destiny played an important role in the expansion of Texas and American relationship with Mexico. In
1836, the Republic of Texas declared independence from Mexico and, after the Texas Revolution, sought to join
the United States as a new state. This was an idealized process of expansion which had been advocated from
Jefferson to O'Sullivan: newly democratic and independent states would request entry into the United States,
rather than the United States extending its government over people who did not want it. The annexation of Texas
was controversial as it would add another slave state to the Union. Presidents Andrew Jackson and Martin Van
Buren declined Texas's offer to join the United States in part because the slavery issue threatened to divide the
Democratic Party.
Before the election of 1844, Whig candidate Henry Clay and the presumed Democratic candidate, former
President Van Buren, both declared themselves opposed to the annexation of Texas, each hoping to keep the
troublesome topic from becoming a campaign issue. This unexpectedly led to Van Buren being dropped by the
Democrats in favor of Polk, who favored annexation. Polk tied the Texas annexation question with the Oregon
dispute, thus providing a sort of regional compromise on expansion. (Expansionists in the North were more
inclined to promote the occupation of Oregon, while Southern expansionists focused primarily on the annexation
of Texas.) Although elected by a very slim margin, Polk proceeded as if his victory had been a mandate for
expansion.
All Mexico[edit]
After the election of Polk, but before he took office, Congress approved the annexation of Texas. Polk moved to
occupy a portion of Texas which had declared independence from Mexico in 1836, but was still claimed by
Mexico. This paved the way for the outbreak of the Mexican-American War on April 24, 1846. With American
successes on the battlefield, by the summer of 1847 there were calls for the annexation of "All Mexico",
particularly among Eastern Democrats, who argued that bringing Mexico into the Union was the best way to
ensure future peace in the region.[44]
This was a controversial proposition for two reasons. First, idealistic advocates of manifest destiny like John L.
O'Sullivan had always maintained that the laws of the United States should not be imposed on people against their
will. The annexation of "All Mexico" would be a violation of this principle. And secondly, the annexation of
Mexico was controversial because it would mean extending U.S. citizenship to millions of Mexicans. Senator
John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, who had approved of the annexation of Texas, was opposed to the annexation
of Mexico, as well as the "mission" aspect of manifest destiny, for racial reasons. He made these views clear in a
speech to Congress on January 4, 1848:
We have never dreamt of incorporating into our Union any but the Caucasian race—the free white race. To
incorporate Mexico, would be the very first instance of the kind, of incorporating an Indian race; for more than
half of the Mexicans are Indians, and the other is composed chiefly of mixed tribes. I protest against such a union
as that! Ours, sir, is the Government of a white race.... We are anxious to force free government on all; and I see
that it has been urged ... that it is the mission of this country to spread civil and religious liberty over all the world,
and especially over this continent. It is a great mistake.[45]
This debate brought to the forefront one of the contradictions of manifest destiny: on the one hand, while
identitarian ideas inherent in manifest destiny suggested that Mexicans, as non-whites, would present a threat to
white racial integrity and thus were not qualified to become Americans, the "mission" component of manifest
destiny suggested that Mexicans would be improved (or "regenerated", as it was then described) by bringing them
into American democracy. Identitarianism was used to promote manifest destiny, but, as in the case of Calhoun
and the resistance to the "All Mexico" movement, identitarianism was also used to oppose manifest destiny.[46]
Conversely, proponents of annexation of "All Mexico" regarded it as an anti-slavery measure.[47]
The controversy was eventually ended by the Mexican Cession, which added the territories of Alta California and
Nuevo México to the United States, both more sparsely populated than the rest of Mexico. Like the All Oregon
movement, the All Mexico movement quickly abated. Historian Frederick Merk, in Manifest Destiny and Mission
in American History: A Reinterpretation (1963), argued that the failure of the All Oregon and All Mexico
movements indicates that manifest destiny had not been as popular as historians have traditionally portrayed it to
have been. Merk wrote that, while belief in the beneficent mission of democracy was central to American history,
aggressive "continentalism" were aberrations supported by only a very small (but influential) minority of
Americans. Merk's interpretation is probably still a minority opinion; scholars generally see manifest destiny, at
least in the 1840s, as a popular belief among Democrats and an unpopular one among Whigs.
Next page: Westward Course of Empire Takes its Way painting by Emanuel Leutze