TAP Chapter 17: Manifest Destiny and Westward Migration
Essential Questions:
Where do we see evidence of Americans embracing “manifest destiny” during the 19th Century?
Do American exceptionalism and manifest destiny live on today in American diplomacy?
What does the “provocation” of the Mexican-American War reveal about the American approach to
expansion?
Why did the Mexican cession pose a crippling problem for America?
Presidential Politics of the Expansion Era
After Andrew Jackson’s second presidential term, Martin Van Buren won the election of 1836. His
administration was marred by economic difficulties caused by Jackson’s financial strategies and
insistence on the Specie Circular, and he battled the fallout of the Panic of 1837 early in his term.
Following his difficult term, William Henry Harrison, hero of the War of 1812, a famous rugged
outdoorsman, and a member of the Whig party, won the election of 1840 on the deliberately
constructed campaign slogan, “Tippecanoe and Tyler, too!” that appealed to American public
embracing democratic, rather than aristocratic, values. Harrison only served a month before dying
in office, and his vice president, John Tyler, became president. Although Tyler was a Whig, his party
grew enraged at his failure to support the party’s platform (their support of a new national bank
and a protective tariff) and they called him a Democrat in Whig clothing. James K. Polk, a classic
Jacksonian Democrat focused on western expansion, followed Tyler in 1844, and he was
responsible for the annexation of Oregon and the Mexican-American war, which led to territory
gains in the West. The election of 1848 resulted in a win for Zachary Taylor, a Mexican-American
war hero, and a win for the Whigs.
“Gone to Texas”
Mexico had become independent from Spain in 1821, and under the leadership of Stephen Austin,
thousands of Americans had immigrated to Texas. Ignoring decrees from the Mexican government,
Texans refused to free their slaves following Mexico’s abolition of slavery. Following a rebellion in
1835 and the famous showdown at the Alamo, Texas proclaimed her independence from Mexico in
1836. The citizens of Texas, many of whom were American slave owners who had emigrated in
search of fertile land and who had established large ranches, had long desired to become part of the
United States. The issue had first presented itself during Andrew Jackson’s administration, but he
tabled the issue, fearing the conflict that was sure to erupt over the issue of slavery. Between 1836
and 1844, Texas existed in limbo-land, as Mexico refused to officially recognize Texan
independence. Sensing British interest in Texas, American politicians finally embraced in the issue
during the campaign of 1844. Pro-expansion Democrats advocated for annexation while antislavery and anti-expansion Whigs protested, but Tyler finally succeeded in bringing Texas into the
union in 1845.
Oregon
Just as Texas beckoned to Southerners, expansion-minded Americans equally coveted the Oregon
territory. At various times, the Oregon territory had been claimed by the U.S., Spain, Russia, and
England. By 1844, only America and England claimed the territory, and each nation had citizens
inhabiting the land under a “joint occupation” agreement. The Oregon issue, like Texas, became
prominent during the election of 1844, when expansion-minded democrats declared “All of Oregon
or None.” James Polk won the presidency in 1844, on a platform that emphasized two main points:
acquiring the Oregon territory from the British, and pushing west to extend slavery. He popularized
slogans such as "The Whole of Oregon or None!" and "Fifty-Four Forty or Fight!" Finally, nervous
that America was willing to fight a war over the land, the British acquiesced and the border was set
at the 49th parallel in the Oregon Treaty of 1846.
Manifest Destiny
As Congress agreed to annex Texas and the Oregon territory, a journalist named John O’Sullivan
wrote the following:
“And that claim is by the right of our manifest destiny to overspread and to possess the whole of the
continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and
federated self-government entrusted to us.”
With this quotation, he coined the famous term that described the sentiment of the expansionist
era, encapsulating the American belief that God had given America the mission to spread
democracy throughout the Americas, and that such a mission was the destiny of the nation. Ten
years earlier, French sociologist Alexis de Tocqueville had made a similar observation about
Americans in his 1835 book, Democracy in America. He noted that Americans passionately
believed in the extraordinary nature of their nation and democratic mission, a concept he called
“American exceptionalism.”
Do American exceptionalism and manifest destiny live on today in American diplomacy?
The Mexican-American War (1846-1848)
Just like Texas and Oregon, Polk and the expansionists had their eyes set on California, which was
owned by Mexico. Polk also harbored concerns about America’s claims to Texas, as Mexico still
viewed Texas as a Mexican territory in rebellion, and to complicate the situation, the Southern
boundary of Texas was in dispute. Polk offered to purchase California, but the Mexican president
refused. Polk, eager to force Mexico into engagement, sent a war message to Congress, but it wasn’t
until Mexican troops crossed the disputed boundary of the Rio Grande that he was able to claim
that Mexican troops had shed American blood on American soil and forced a war declaration, even
though it required a bit of fabrication on his part.
What does this “provocation” of war reveal about the American approach to expansion?
General Zachary Taylor led the American charge to the Mexican city of Buena Vista, which was
followed by General Winfield Scott’s charge toward Mexico City. As soon as Scott reached Mexico
City, Polk began peace negotiations, which resulted in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848.
According to the treaty, America gained Texas and all of the land west to California (about half of
Mexico’s land claims), in exchange for about $18 million. Despite the remarkable territorial gains of
the war (called the Mexican Cession), the new land posed a challenge that would deadlock
Congress for months: the question of slavery in the new and hotly coveted Western land. Indeed,
the issue of slavery in the newly-acquired territory would divide the country for years. David
Wilmot, a Congressman from Pennsylvania, proposed that slavery be banned in land acquired from
the Mexican War. The plan, called the Wilmot Proviso, was given to Congress in August 1846. It
never passed the Senate, but passed the House. It was taken out of the War Appropriations bill in
order for Senate to pass the actual bill and was abandoned in favor of the Compromise of 1850.
Why did the Mexican cession pose a crippling problem for America?