Sunday, September 30, 2012

Who is "destined?"

Manifest destiny is a fascinating concept, particularly due to ownership.  The idea of destiny certainly has a religious connotation, but the American concept of manifest destiny went far beyond that.  Is there a common thread in these articles in terms of ownership?  How do the authors of the pro-manifest destiny pieces justify their right to expand westward?  Additionally, how do the critical pieces (i.e. British cartoons), argue against these principles?

Finally, why was Mexico so crucial?  How does it connect to our conversations about slavery?

I know this was a long reading assignment...thanks for bearing with me.

11 comments:

  1. Supporters of westward expansion and the annexation of Texas seemed to view those areas as places that belonged in America. In the inauguration piece, Polk said that America was simply reclaiming what was once her's which I'm not sure if this is true, but if it is, I think it's very similar to Jews' claim to Israel. If that's the case, then America does not really have any right to Texas because just because something was once your's, it does not mean you have the right to for the rest of its existence. My favorite piece was probably the one supporting the acquisition of Oregon, even if it meant war with Britain. It is bit reckless though to think you can approach relations with Britain the same way as Mexico.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Pro-manifest destiny speakers advocate for a greater America which can be achieved by expanding westward. Polk claims the annexation of Texas as a "peaceful acquisition of territory" that would "diminish chances of war". In addition, Polk claims that new territory would expand the economy by opening up new markets in fertile territory. Also in "newspaper man declares manifest destiny", the writer persuades others to expand by stating that it did not have to do anything with slavery, and getting over that controversy by acting with patriotism can be beneficial in expanding the country. I think the British cartoons are making fun of the "young" Americans who don't really know what they are doing. In the British view of Oregon, the american man is portrayed as a scrawny, greedy slave owner who is trying to stand up to the powerful British but clearly has no chance. The role of Mexico is a little confusing and unclear to me, but I assume that whether or not they support slavery is critical to US expansion, especially in Texas. If Mexico deems Texas as slave territory or the opposite, it is crucial as to how which half of the US (slave vs nonslave) will have an advantage on their side.

    ReplyDelete
  3. These pieces all boil down to the same concept; Americans have the natural right to claim the rest of the land. There are some opinions that i dont agree with, but i do agree with the claim that Americans had the right of Oregon, even though Britian was willing to go to war for it. The Americans believed they they settled America first and greeted a good government, so they should be entitled to the rest of the land. Mexico is a weird subject. Texas was once part of the US, so that just shows that if u have something, it might not always be yours.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think that all of these articles come down to the same basic argument. And it's that if we want America to excell and thrive as a country, we must expand west. I personally agree to think that England has no right to take Oregon. We settled here first so I think that we should be entitled to it. And I think that these article alone made that fairly clear. The authors justify their opinions by sort of giving their audience a sence of nationalism. They say that if we want our country to succeed we must branch out. I liked the British cartoon about the Oregon controversy. I liked this because it suggests that America is just starting out, and they are weak. England looks down at America as if they still have power and ruling over us. On the topic of Mexico, I agree with Nicki, I think this was so crucial because it was sort of the tipping point for slavery. If Mexico was for slavery, the south had the advantage. If Mexico was against it, the north had the advantage.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This Idea of "Manifest Destiny" is basically America's excuse to "bully" every other country out of what the leaders of America saw as their land. The piece about the acquisition of Oregon just goes to show how far that America was willing to go to get that land, "... should bring war on us, let war come!" this statement shows the american sprit of shoot first and ask questions later mentality of that time. Another idea that is common through out the articles is the fact that america needs the west to keep up with the rest of world, specifically texas in these articles. It is also said the Polk Article that texas would hurt the U.S more if it wasn't annexed into the union. Polk says that if texas were to become independent or allied with another, stronger country that it would cause wars thought the time texas was under foreign control and that the imports and exports would drag down relations with texas.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Manifest Destiny was the belief of Americans that the United States was destined to expand west. The "common thread" in these articles is that with expanding westward, America will thrive as a country, and it has the right to do so. In "A British View of the Oregon Controvery" cartoon, the American seems to represent a southerner who is somewhat ignorant to the big picture, and how powerful England actually is (which is depictured in the cartoon itself). Regarding Mexico, the US expansion is dependent on their support or opposition to slavery, since Texas was part of Mexico. The south could have an advantage with a pro-slavery Mexico, whereas the north would if Mexico opposed it. It's kind of a tricky topic.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The supporters of the „manifest destiny“ claimed that it was the United States natural right to expand westward and that it was necessary and inevitable. They said that Texas would originally be an secession of America, and that would be the reason that an Annexation would be completely rightful and for the best because the population of Texas felt connected with America.
    Besides, they say that the population of the states would increase so fast that it would be rightful to extend westwards.
    Mexico which Texas used to be a part of, believed that it's population was more shaped by the Spanish occupants. There were not happy about the idea that I'd shall belong to the states.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The Americans believed that they had the right to expand west and take the land as their own. They attempt to justify it by saying that it would help them to thrive. The British cartoon portrays America is the sense that they are almost a rebel teenager. They have gained freedom from their father (England, as shown in the cartoon), and now are set on claiming all land around them for themselves. The Americans, however, believed that they could do as they wish with this freedom. I agree with Emma and David in terms of the impact of Mexico on the Civil War. Whether or not they supported slavery would help to tip the scale in favour of either the North or South.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Manifest Destiny is very similar to the ideal of English monarchy's "divine right as kings". There is a common theme throughout anything regarding manifest destiny; America is the chosen Union, and should constantly be expanding, because it is God's will. America is self applying a "divine right" to expand westward. In the people's eyes, this gave America a reason "under God" for westward expansion and stealing the land of various Native American tribes, with the logic that they are not the chosen people, their land should be ours. The British cartoons on the matter seem to be poking fun at the small-mindedness of the Southerner. With Mexican uncertainty, without Texas being annexed into the Union, it would do damage to the union. Because Texas was a part of Mexico, Texas followed Mexican law only, and participate in war as part of Mexico.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Much like the comparison Abdoulaye made, the West is to early America as Israel was to the early Jews. Polk made the argument that was a war deterrent, when in fact the U.S. was willing to go to war with Britain over Oregon. Another testament to Americans devotion and belief that was bordering on the ridiculous. The war with Mexico was argued to not be about slavery but the expansion of the United states. Although it is easy to tell slavery played a role hence the battle of the Alamo, and the disagreements between Mexican slavery laws and the American view of slaves and slavery itself. The British saw it as a bunch of slavery supporting, war starting savages trying forcefully expanding west even if meant trying to wipe out the native people and go to war with Britain.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I found the saying about Manifest Destiny to be extremely fascinating, just because the feeling that god is in my faver whatever i want are born to be taken by me and whatever i do represent the holy god. If i am an american at the time, of course i would find such a perfect cover for the sanctification of my desire. Also, america like a pre-adult who want to get rid of the shadow of their parents, really want to expend it's own soil.
    Just imagine the excitation to conquer the lush land of unknown and make it yours till the side of the ocean, what a epic moment to devoted to. For Mexicans, just because they realized that us has such an desire to the soil of the Texas, which belongs to Mexico at the time; made them mad and catalysis the hostility to the america.

    ReplyDelete