and diplomat George Bancroft when he said: "The acquisition of
California by ourselves is the decisive point in the perfect
establishment of the Union." Now the nation rested on a "foundation
that cannot be moved," he continued. In his inaugural address, Polk
laid out further benefits:
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 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?
Advocates of fulfilling the nation's Manifest Destiny
argued that critics' concerns that expansion would weaken the union by
stretching it too far had not been borne out. Polk asserted that the
addition of new territories had in fact bolstered the Union:
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.
Other advocates simply subscribed to the romantic notion of moving west
to establish new lives on the frontier. The very idea of Manifest Destiny
encouraged men and women to dream about boundless opportunity,
supporters said. Senator James Semple (D, Illinois), in debate in the
House over Oregon, noted that in 1843, as many as 1,500 settlers
traveled to Oregon "to reclaim this vast wilderness, and to unite, by
civilization and human intercourse, the shores of the Pacific with the
great West of the Union." Indeed, proponents pointed out, Manifest Destiny inspired pioneers to transform plains and fertile valleys into farms and small towns, helping to build up the nation.
The government not only had a divine right to expand its influence,
supporters said, it also had a duty to incorporate territories to
protect those American citizens who had settled there. Semple asserted
that such expansion expressed the will of the nation to expand. "It is
impossible for [the government] to overlook the expression of public
opinion on this point, so emphatically and universally pronounced. How
was it to act? Was it to allow Great Britain to exercise jurisdiction
over its citizens?" he asked.
Whatever their reasons for seeking expansion, proponents of Manifest Destiny
defended the government's right to acquire new territories, even though
the Constitution did not specifically give it the authority to do so.
Supporters were sometimes labeled as "loose constructionists," because
they interpreted the Constitution "loosely" or broadly enough to say
that, under it, land acquisition was an implied power of the federal
Overall, for supporters of Manifest Destiny,
all factors indicated that the U.S. should push westward. Buchanan
perhaps best summed up the national mood regarding expansion when he
stated: "Prevent the American people from crossing the Rocky Mountains?
You might as well command Niagara not to flow. We must fulfill our destiny."
Critics of Manifest Destiny
rejected the idea that it was God's will or even a good thing for the
country to expand when it resulted in warfare and the subjugation and
mistreatment of native peoples. Expansio