Manifest destiny continues to be an essential part of American history, especially in the 1840s. The ideology emerged as the foundation to ascertain the need to expand to the west and the need for territory dominance. Arguably, manifest destiny contributed to the belief in the superiority of the Anglo-Saxon race and the need for American exceptions from other nations. The inspiration for the ideology was the need for America to exude individualism and the focus on dominance across the Pacific region. As a term coined by Join O’Sullivan, it did not center on a single policy but emphasized the need for westward expansion and territorial control. Further, the interplay of proponents and opponents of the ideology translated into multiple frameworks for examining the term. Hence, an in-depth assessment of the concept and arguments for or against its prevalence should highlight the influence of manifest destiny.
Concept of Manifest Destiny
Multiple perspectives form the basis for defining the concept of manifest destiny, which was coined in the early 1840s. The concept was essential for driving territorial expansion in the 19th century and borrowed extensively from religion, society, and stereotypes among the settlers (Locke et al., 2013). Arguably, for the Puritans, the emphasis that God destined the US to become a global leader was apparent. Divine intervention was the basis for the US to assert its dominion and ensure that it became the religious monitor (Locke et al., 2013). Within the political circles, manifest destiny was recognized as the recognition of the potential for the US to be the source and overseer of the spread of democracy across the North American Continent. In the August issue of 1845, the term manifest destiny took up a popular view in the analysis of the Annexation of Texas and the role of the US in overspreading the continent (Locke et al., 2013). The acceptance of providence as the influential component accepting the expansionist ideology was evident. Hence, the prospect of expansion, dominance, and providence was the basis for manifest destiny, which played a crucial role in the nation’s growth (Locke et al., 2013). Nonetheless, diversity in ideology was evident in the analysis of manifest destiny, with proponents and opponents declaring their perspectives.
Arguments by Supporters and Opponents of the Doctrine
Growth of the Nation
Proponents of manifest destiny recognized that it would be the ideology that would influence the growth of a powerful nation. Emphasis on the nation’s expansion would depend on a policy persuading the leadership to ascertain dominance (Locke et al., 2013). For example, the recognition of the Oregon territory as a new frontier that the US would assert its control was evident in the development of the concept of manifest dominance (Locke et al., 2013). The term would be the foundation for the expansionist ideologies that would reshape the nation’s growth. Hence the proponents acknowledge that manifest destiny was viable since it emphasized the US being allotted by providence and divine intervention that would translate into a successful movement westwards.
Doctrine and Growth of Mistreatment of the Locals
Nonetheless, opponents of manifest destiny acknowledged that reference to religion was not a viable approach to the justification of the expansion of the nation. Territorial expansion meant further slavery and barbarism toward the Native Americans (Locke et al., 2013). Critical to the divergent views was the emphasis that manifest destiny was a product of chauvinism, self-interest, and greed among the top leadership. Hence, the nation’s expansion would not lead to the opening of new avenues of freedom (Locke et al., 2013). Manifest destiny was deemed as the foundation for increasing oppression.
Curtailing the Dominance of European Colonialists
However, proponents of manifest destiny emphasized that expansion would favor the US. Most importantly, through expansion, America would curtail European colonialists’ dominance and influence across the region (Locke et al., 2013). Halting the colonization efforts would be the US taking up a central position as a united country that could assert its authority in the region. Under the James Polk administration, the popularity of manifest destiny was apparent through the focus on territorial growth (Locke et al., 2013). Thus, the proponents of manifest destiny emphasized that its launch would lead to the independence and growth of vast nations.
Manifest Destiny and Barbarism
Nonetheless, opponents acknowledge that the ideology would be the basis of genocide and mistreatment of the people deemed inferior. From the natives to the enslaved Africans, the opponents of manifest destiny emphasized that it would be used as a justification to eradicate the less desirable individuals in the US (Locke et al., 2013). The development of racist ideologies among the puritans was apparent, leading to divisive nations shaped by the mistreatment of people. For example, manifest destiny emphasized civilizing the local people (Locke et al., 2013). However, the activities to transform the people centered on the relocation of Native Americans, mass killings, and continued engagement in slavery. Hence, the opponents emphasized that manifest destiny would stall expansion due to ongoing wars with the local people.
Manifest Destiny and Liberty
On the other hand, proponents of manifest destiny emphasized that it would be the foundation for spreading liberty and self-government in the nation (Locke et al., 2013). The divine attribute of the ideology called for the need to displace the “uncivilized” and non-Christian people who did not use the land bestowed upon them wisely. Arguably, the God-given land required development and ensuring productivity. Consequently, the need for dislocation and focus on exceptionalism in the promotion of a new nation would be through the doctrine.
Manifest Destiny and Divisions
Nevertheless, the opponents of the ideology acknowledge that the extension of divisive policies would prevail. From Texas’s annexation to the war with Mexico, the manifest ideology was a justification that led to the extension of enmity (Locke et al., 2013). The deaths of many within the warring sides with the misconception about manifest destiny were apparent. Sentiments of the leaders on the need for expansion were deemed controversial and geared at vested interests.
Conclusion
Manifest destiny was an essential ideology that led to diverse perspectives on its influence on the expansionist activities of the US. Based on the need for expansion of the nation, divine intervention, and race-centric perspectives, manifest ideology set the standards for the justification of diverse activities to grow the nation. Consequently, through the doctrine, America became engaged in westward expansion and misconceptions about race superiority and the divine part of the nation’s territorial gain.
References
Locks, C., Mergel, S., Roseman, P., Spike, T., & Lasseter, M. (2013). History in the Making: A History of the People of the United States of America to 1877. SAGE
write