Manifest Destiny
John L. O’Sullivan
1839
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 starstudded heavens, and its congregation an Union of many Republics, comprising hundreds of happy
1
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&#146s
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?
Questions:
1. Why does O’Sullivan feel we are unlike any people or nation that has existed to date?
2. Why does O’Sullivan feel the United States is destined for better deeds than the monarchies and
aristocracies of European history?
3. What does O’Sullivan feel is the destiny of the United States? And, who or what does he believe
ordained that destiny?
2
First Inaugural Address
James Knox 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.
3
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.
Questions:
1. How does Polk believe foreign powers should view the annexation of Texas by the United States?
2. What dangers does Polk see in not annexing Texas? Why does he view annexation as a necessity?
3. What are Polk’s opinion regarding the Oregon Territory?
4
Speech on the Mexican-American War
Henry Clay
1847
The day is dark and gloomy, unsettled and uncertain, like the condition of our country, in regard to the
unnatural war with Mexico. The public mind is agitated and anxious, and is filled with serious
apprehensions as to its indefinite continuance, and especially as to the consequences which its
termination may bring forth, menacing the harmony, if not the existence, of our Union.
… How did we unhappily get involved in this war? It was predicted as the consequence of the
annexation of Texas to the United States. If we had not Texas, we should have no war. The people were
told that if that event happened, war would ensue. They were told that the war between Texas and
Mexico had not been terminated by a treaty of peace; that Mexico still claimed Texas as a revolted
province: and that, if we received Texas in our Union, we took along with her, the war existing between
her and Mexico. And the Minister of Mexico [Juan N. Almonte] formally announced to the Government
at Washington, that his nation would consider the annexation of Texas to the United States as producing
a state of war. But all this was denied by the partisans of annexation. They insisted we should have no
war, and even imputed to those who foretold it, sinister motives for their groundless prediction.
But, notwithstanding a state of virtual war necessarily resulted from the fact of annexation of one of the
belligerents to the United States, actual hostilities might have been probably averted by prudence,
moderation and wise statesmanship. If General Taylor had been permitted to remain, where his own
good sense prompted him to believe he ought to remain, at the point of Corpus Christi; and, if a
negotiation had been opened with Mexico, in a true spirit of amity and conciliation, war possibly might
have been prevented. But, instead of this pacific and moderate course, whilst Mr. Slidell was bending his
way to Mexico with his diplomatic credentials, General Taylor was ordered to transport his cannon, and
to plant them, in a warlike attitude, opposite to Matamoras, on the east bank of the Rio Bravo; within
the very disputed territory, the adjustment of which was to be the object of Mr. Slidell’s mission. What
else could have transpired but a conflict of arms?
… Among the resolutions, which it is my intention to present for your consideration, at the conclusion of
this address, one proposes, in your behalf and mine, to disavow, in the most positive manner, any
desire, on our part, to acquire any foreign territory whatever, for the purpose of introducing slavery into
it. I do not know that any citizen of the United States entertains such a wish. But such a motive has been
often imputed to the slave States, and I therefore think it necessary to notice it on this occasion. My
opinions on the subject of slavery are well known. They have the merit, if it be one, of consistency,
uniformity, and long duration. I have ever regarded slavery as a great evil, a wrong, for the present, I
fear, an irremediable wrong to its unfortunate victims. I should rejoice if not a single slave breathed the
air or was within the limits of our country. But here they are, to be dealt with as well as we can, with a
due consideration of all circumstances affecting the security, safety and happiness of both races. Every
State has the supreme, uncontrolled and exclusive power to decide for itself whether slavery shall cease
or continue within its limits, without any exterior intervention from any quarter. In States, where the
slaves outnumber the whites, as is the case with several, the blacks could not be emancipated and
5
invested with all the rights of freemen, without becoming the governing race in those States. Collisions
and conflicts, between the two races, would be inevitable, and, after shocking scenes of rapine and
carnage, the extinction or expulsion of the blacks would certainly take place. In the State of Kentucky,
near fifty years ago, I thought the proportion of slaves, in comparison with the whites, was so
inconsiderable that we might safely adopt a system of gradual emancipation that would ultimately
eradicate this evil in our State. That system was totally different from the immediate abolition of slavery
for which the party of the Abolitionists of the present day contend. Whether they have intended it or
not, it is my calm and deliberate belief, that they have done incalculable mischief even to the very cause
which they have espoused, to say nothing of the discord which has been produced between different
parts of the Union. According to the system, we attempted, near the close of the last century, all slaves
in being were to remain such, but, all who might be born subsequent to a specified day, were to become
free at the age of twenty-eight, and, during their service, were to be taught to read, write, and cypher.
Thus, instead of being thrown upon the community, ignorant and unprepared, as would be the case by
immediate emancipation, they would have entered upon the possession of their freedom, capable, in
some degree, of enjoying it. After a hard struggle, the system was defeated, and I regret it extremely, as,
if it had been then adopted, our State would be now nearly rid of that reproach.
… It is a philanthropic and consoling reflection that the moral and physical condition of the African race
in the United States, even in a State of slavery, is far better than it would have been if their ancestors
had never been brought from their native land. And if it should be the decree of the Great Ruler of the
Universe that their descendants shall be made instruments in His hands in the establishment of
Civilization and the Christian Religion throughout Africa, our regrets on account of the original wrong,
will be greatly mitigated.
It may be argued, that, in admitting the injustice of slavery, I admit the necessity of an instantaneous
reparation of that injustice. Unfortunately, however, it is not always safe, practicable or possible, in the
great movements of States and public affairs of nations, to remedy or repair the infliction of previous
injustice. In the inception of it, we may oppose and denounce it, by our most strenuous exertions, but,
after its consummation, there is often no other alternative left us but to deplore its perpetration, and to
acquiesce as the only alternative, in its existence, as a less evil that the frightful consequences which
might ensue from the vain endeavor to repair it. Slavery is one of those unfortunate instances. The evil
of it was inflicted upon us, by the parent country of Great Britain, against all the entreaties and
remonstrances of the colonies. And here it is among us, and we must dispose of it, as best we can under
all the circumstances which surround us. It continued, by the importation of slaves from Africa, in spite
of Colonial resistance, for a period of more than a century and a half, and it may require an equal or
longer lapse of time before our country is entirely rid of the evil. And, in the meantime, moderation,
prudence and discretion among ourselves, and the blessings of Providence may be all necessary to
accomplish our ultimate deliverance from it. Examples of similar infliction of irreparable national evil
and injustice might be multiplied to an indefinite extent. The case of the annexation of Texas to the
United States is a recent and obvious one where, if it were wrong, it cannot now be repaired. Texas is
now an integral part of our Union, with its own voluntary consent. Many of us opposed the annexation
with honest zeal and most earnest exertions. But who would now think of perpetrating the folly of
6
casting Texas out of the confederacy and throwing her back upon her own independence, or into the
arms of Mexico? Who would now seek to divorce her from this Union?
… But I forbear, I will no longer trespass upon your patience or further tax my own voice, impaired by a
speech of more than three hours duration, which professional duty required me to make only a few days
ago. If I have been at all successful in the exposition of the views and opinions which I entertain I have
shown—
1st. That the present war was brought about by the annexation of Texas and the subsequent order of
the President, without the previous consent and authority of Congress.
2d. That the President, being unenlightened and uninstructed, by any public declaration of Congress, as
to objects for which it ought to be prosecuted, in the conduct of it is, necessarily, left to his own sense of
what the national interests and honor may require.
3d. That the whole war making power of the nation, as to motives, causes and objects, is confided by
the constitution to the discretion and judgment of Congress.
4th. That it is, therefore, the right of Congress, at the commencement or during the progress of any war,
to declare for what objects and purposes the war ought to be waged and prosecuted.
5th. That it is the right and duty of Congress to announce to the nation for what objects the present war
shall be longer continued; that it is the duty of the President, in the exercise of all his official functions,
to conform to and carry out this declared will of Congress, by the exercise, if necessary, of all the high
powers with which he is clothed; and that, if he fail or refuse to do so, it becomes the imperative duty of
Congress to arrest the further progress of the war by the most effectual means in its power.
Let Congress announce to the nation the objects for which this war shall be further protracted and
public suspense and public inquietude will no longer remain. If it is to be a war of conquest of all, or any
part of Mexico, let the people know it, and they will be no longer agitated by a dark and uncertain
future. But, although I might have foreborne to express any opinion whatever as to purposes and
objects for which the war should be continued, I have not thought proper to conceal my opinions,
whether worth anything or not, from the public examination. Accordingly I have stated.
6th. That it seems to me that it is the duty of our country, as well on the score of moderation and
magnanimity, as with the view of avoiding discord and discontent at home, to abstain from seeking to
conquer and annex to the United States Mexico or any part of it; and, especially, to disabuse the public
mind in any quarter of the Union of the impression, if it anywhere exists, that a desire for such a
conquest, is cherished for the purpose of propagating or extending slavery.
7
Questions:
1. What event does Clay believe to be the cause of the war with Mexico?
2. Regarding causes or motivation behind the war, what does Clay disavow?
3. Did Clay believe the annexation of Texas was wrong? Explain.
4. What specific part does Clay attribute to Polk as a contributing factor to the war with Mexico?
5. Is Clay in favor of the annexation of Mexican territories or the extension of slavery into territories
beyond the United States?
8