Secondly, expansion westward to an extent can also be attributed to a legitimate need for more space, whether that be space for white settlers to live in, or an area to expand into to increase economic growth. Certainly, there were calls for expansion into the fertile west to increase plantations and the economic growth of the US, which its stability was largely dependent on, but this also meant an expansion of the slave trade and the potential of admission of new slave states. In the case of Texas, John O'Sullivan's coinage of the term 'Manifest Destiny' was published largely as a response to the resistance to its annexation in December 1845. Economic reasons were often used as a justification for the desire to expand, despite Texas declaring its independence. In this case, 'Manifest Destiny' was invoked largely by Southerners who hoped the inclusion of Texas as a slave state would give them 'disproportionate political strength' in the government. Again, rooted in the justification of 'Manifest Destiny' was a hidden agenda of maintaining the political and racial hierarchy and the economic benefits that they reaped from this through the slave trade.
Furthermore, during the 19th century, mass immigration from Europe, as well as increasing population growth and economic downturn within the republic itself could be used to argue that the US naturally necessitated more land. In this way, it is arguable that a need for more land can explain the push toward the West, and it could also be argued that 'Manifest Destiny' can help explain this as an inevitable expansion. However, while 'Manifest Destiny' can explain the desire for expansion, given that Westward expansion would mean occupying land belonging to Indian peoples, it is evident that the very concept of 'Manifest Destiny' was blatantly predicated on the idea of a racial hierarchy and the importance of Euro-American settlers' livelihoods over those of Indian peoples. During the 1793 Sixteen Indian Nations Council, representatives of the Indian Nations asked Washington's representatives to give the money they were offering Indian peoples to relocate to the poor white settlers to relocate instead, however, Washington's representatives refused to consider this alternative, which indicates racial hierarchy as a motivation behind the action. Expansion Westwards can not convincingly be described as inevitable - as Meyers argues, until the 19th century, the government had largely cooperated with most Indian Peoples, the 1790 Indian Trade and Intercourse Act had attempted to maintain peace, and the agreement of treaties and purchase of land implies that Indian Nations were 'implicitly recognized' as sovereign, implying there must have been a further justification behind the change in treatment.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
An additional point to consider is that it is too simplistic to consider only how white Americans affected Indian Nations and expansion. There were 'gradations of relations' in which black and enslaved people had largely different motivations for settling on Indian lands than many European and Euro-American settlers, whether that be out of force to work on a plantation in these areas, or fleeing to new grounds. Likewise, certain poor white settlers did not have the money to live elsewhere. It is thus important to consider how necessity played a role in the uprooting of Indian peoples to some extent, rather than simply the concept of 'Manifest Destiny' and an inevitable divine right to the land. However, in the case of many enslaved or black 'settlers', this was not an action taken out of their own choice. Quite often their settlement was 'predicated on Indian removal' and out of force from the effects of the slave trade, and thus can likewise be explained by, and attributed to, reasons related to ideas of racial superiority.
Lastly, drawing on the previous point and the complexities of the situation, the concept of 'Manifest Destiny' can be useful in explaining the justifications behind certain policies, but it should not be understood as a consensus. While in 1844, Samuel Eliot Morison argued there was growing interested in westward expansion and 'Manifest Destiny', which may be somewhat accurate in that O'Sullivan's coinage may have been based on general sentiments at the time, it would be equally fair to say that not all Americans shared the desire of territorial expansion. By 1856 there was still a division in the public on how the concept was being used, especially in terms of the Mexican-American War, in which only a portion of the public 'approved' of involvement. Rather, while there may not have been consensus on expansion, the common idea pinning together these views is the use of white racial superiority as a way to justify the maltreatment of Indian peoples. As Baigell puts forward - even those who were less aggressive in terms of territorial expansion still assumed that white Euro-Americans had been 'chosen' by God and thus were special, and could act in ways that 'transcended laws'. The Whig party, for example, did not want to expand into new territories but still believed in a 'divine mission' to set a 'democratic example' and to civilize. Fisher Ames, a US representative from Massachusetts wrote a letter against Thomas Jefferson's purchase of Louisiana in 1803, placing the purchase in a racial context. The motivation behind was highly racially based. It coincided with the fact that much of the territory was under the control of Indian peoples who were deemed as less civilized and inferior, as evident in the word choice of calling such peoples 'savages', and implying that assimilating them into the US would not bring 'glory' to the republic. Thus, this shows how a focus specifically on the aspect of racial beliefs can be more enlightening than the wider concept of 'Manifest Destiny itself, given that racial superiority lay at the very heart of its core idea that God chose the white settlers to expand and control North America.
Stuck on your essay?
