to expand westward.
refers to a concept often used to explain or justify American
expansion, especially in the decades preceding the Civil War (1861-65)
and again in the late 19th century. While debate over expansion goes
back to the beginnings of American expansion in the late 18th century,
the phrase "Manifest Destiny" did not come into vogue until the 1840s. The phrase was coined by the editor of the United States Magazine and Democratic Review, John O'Sullivan.
In an article written in support of U.S. annexation of Texas, O'Sullivan referred to the "manifest destiny"
of the United States to "overspread the continent allotted by
Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying
millions." (Texas was then functioning as an independent nation. Many
Texans favored annexation, but the territory was also claimed by
Mexico.) In other words, O'Sullivan thought it was "manifest,"
or evident, that the United States was destined by God to spread its
rule across the continent. (While he gave a religious dimension to the
idea, he might instead have said that it was simply right, or natural
for America to spread across the continent.) [See John O'Sullivan Calls for the Annexation of Texas (primary document)]
The notion of Manifest Destiny
explained the mindset of many expansionist policy makers of the time,
who sought to push the nation's borders further west. Political leaders
such as President James K. Polk (D, 1845-49), Representative James
Buchanan (D, Pennsylvania) and Senator Stephen A. Douglas (D, Illinois)
used it to justify efforts to acquire the Oregon Territory, California
and the vast Mexican lands in the Southwest.
that Americans were divinely ordained to stretch across the continent
also likely motivated many pioneers to migrate west. In any case, the
belief was partly rooted in a kind of "romanticism" of the time—an
optimistic faith in human nature and progress toward a better society
and the achievement of great dreams. The idea of Manifest Destiny
was also grounded in part in a belief that American political and
social institutions and American culture, particularly that of white
America, were superior to the institutions and cultures of other
nations and peoples. [See Historian Turner on 'The West and American Ideals' (Excerpt) (primary document)]
But in order for Americans to keep going west, lands had to be acquired
through negotiation or war. It was also accepted by many that huge
numbers of Indians could be uprooted to make room for settlers and a
transcontinental railroad to link east and west. In addition, struggles
over which new territories should be free and which should be open for
slavery helped to fuel the Civil War.
By the late 1840s, the quest for Manifest Destiny
had led Polk to threaten war with Britain over Oregon. It also led him
to wage war with Mexico in 1846. As a result of negotiations with
Britain and military victory over Mexico, the U.S. completed its
westward expansion. Its landmass, which had already almost doubled with
the purchase of the Louisiana territory in 1803, now grew by more than
one-third with the acquisition of the Oregon Territory, California,
Texas and the New Mexico and Utah territories.
As the notion of Manifest Destiny
played out the country grew by leaps and bounds, and Americans settled
the vast western regions of the continent. In this vein, a Philadelphia
newspaper proclaimed the United States to be a nation rightfully
bounded on the "East by sunrise, West by sunset, North by the Arctic
Expedition, and South as far as we darn please." But expansion was not
unanimously hailed; there were many critics who argued against what
they saw as imperialist expansion, and who warned that Manifest Destiny had a darker side, such as the forced relocation of Indians to make way for white settlers.
Did the U.S. have a "manifest destiny"
to expand its borders to stretch from ocean to ocean? Or was the
concept simply an excuse for an unjust "land grab" of territory that
rightfully belonged to others?
Supporters of Manifest Destiny
used two main arguments. Some advocates 