An Ideal or a Justification?

A Conversation With David M. Pletcher Indiana University

What were the driving forces behind the United tates! "uest for Manifest Destiny during the #$th century?
%he ter& 'Manifest Destiny' was( in )art( an e*)ression of a genuine ideal on the )art of A&ericans. +ut it was also a ,ustification( in that they wanted territory and needed an e*cuse or ,ustification for a )ush into territory that they did not control. %he idea of Manifest Destiny was foreshadowed by so&e of the writings during the revolutionary ti&es( with the desire for Canada in the )eriod between the A&erican War for Inde)endence and the War of #-#.. It rationali/ed the 0ouisiana Purchase and United tates! su))ort for %e*as inde)endence and anne*ation. More broadly stated( Manifest Destiny was a conviction that 1od intended 2orth A&erica to be under the control of A&ericans. It!s a 3ind of early )ro,ection of Anglo4 a*on su)re&acy and there!s a racist ele&ent to it. +ut there was also an idealistic ele&ent. It was very hard to &easure the two( since it would differ fro& )erson to )erson. If you as3ed a )erson to define Manifest Destiny( he &ight tell you it is an ideal( or he &ight say( 'Well( we want the land and this is the easiest way to ,ustify our ta3ing it.'

5ow were the United tates! actions to fulfill its )erceived Manifest Destiny viewed by outside nations?
%he attitude of 6uro)eans and other observers was one not of fear of the United tates( but a co&bination of lac3 of res)ect and a conviction that

2 A&ericans were essentially hy)ocrites to tal3 about ideals then ai& at e*)anding their land holdings. %his conviction develo)ed( in )art( out of A&erican )ro)aganda and )ublicity. %he A&ericans did a great deal of tal3ing and writing about liberty( but at the sa&e ti&e( they e*)anded the idea of Manifest Destiny. It was their destiny to e*)and across 2orth A&erica. %he )eo)le )oised in the way of that e*)ansion( were aware of this( es)ecially the Me*icans. Me*icans were torn between two conflicting attitudes about the United tates. 7ne was an attitude of ad&iration( the other was an attitude of fear that the A&ericans would try to detach border territories fro& Me*ico!s lands. Many Me*icans wanted to i&itate the United tates44its )ros)erity( the develo)&ent of its econo&y and its agriculture. +ut they wanted to do so without losing land in the )rocess.

Were Me*ico!s fears about the United tates ,ustified?

Well( the events of the #-89s and !:9s would suggest that their fears were ,ustified. 7ne &ust ta3e into consideration the fact that the %e*ans( by revolting against Me*ico( were doing )ractically the sa&e thing that the Me*icans the&selves had done when they revolted against )ain. o the argu&ents Me*ico used to )rotest %e*as! right to revolt were a bit hollow. %e*ans were well aware of this( so they )aid little attention to what the Me*icans said.

Who were the )eo)le and what were the forces behind U. . o))osition to western e*)ansion and the fulfill&ent of Manifest Destiny?
6*)ansion was always a very divisive issue that )rovo3ed as &uch o))osition as su))ort in so&e )arts of the country. At first( the o))osition to

3 e*)ansion ca&e fro& those who believed that the United tates could not succeed as an e*)eri&ent in self4govern&ent if it grew too large. %his beca&e a )olitical )osition of the Whig Party during the #-:9s and was one of the bases for their o))osition to the war with Me*ico. %here were &any citi/ens who felt that a de&ocracy li3e the United tates could succeed only if it were relatively s&all and close to the )eo)le. In a sense( this was a Jeffersonian ideal. %here were others who saw )ossibilities for greatness on the )art of the United tates in growth and econo&ic develo)&ent. %his was( in so&e degree( the 5a&iltonian ideal and those who su))orted it stood behind e*)ansion of the United tates( es)ecially in the West( and the e*)ansion of A&erican co&&erce. At first( basis for o))osition to U. . e*)ansion was a feeling that it would contribute to the downfall of the nation. 0ater( the 2ortheast and 6ast Coast felt they would lose )ower if the United tates ad&itted &ore states in to the Union. ;inally( the abolitionists in the 2orth were afraid that the con"uest of Me*ico would lead to the incor)oration of &ore slave territory into the United tates. During the course of the conflict with Me*ico( the o))osition to the war beca&e focused u)on the abolitionists &ove&ent and o))osition to the e*)ansion of slavery. %here was( of course( so&e sy&)athy with the Me*icans and so&e )acifist o))osition to the war itself as the casualty lists grew longer. +ut the abolitionist &ove&ent beca&e a &eans of focusing this o))osition into a )owerful )olitical &ove&ent that President Pol3 had to )ay attention to.

4 %e*as anne*ation see&ed to be a )art of the natural e*)ansion of the United tates 44 a logical se"uel to the 0ouisiana Purchase. It beca&e &ore controversial( however( )artly because of Me*ican o))osition to the anne*ation and )artly because of the conviction in the 2orth that %e*as re)resented an e*)ansion of slavery. John <uincy Ada&s( a &e&ber of the 5ouse of =e)resentatives( even thought of the )ush for %e*as anne*ation as a slaveholder!s cons)iracy( although I thin3 historians have convincingly )roven that there was no cons)iracy.