Manifest Destiny: The Philosophy That Created A Nation

By Michael T. Lubragge
Introduction
This paper takes a philosophical view of the Manifest Destiny phenomenon and attempts to provide logical
evidence that Manifest Destiny can be argued as the sole reason for why America itself has a history. Few
Americans had ever assumed that the boundaries of the United States would stand forever unchanged. Manifest
Destiny was the driving force responsible for changing the face of American history. It was the philosophy that
created a nation.

Manifest Destiny -- The Intangible Of American History

American history was built on a chronological record of significant events, each event having a cause and
subsequent effect on another event. Historical events are presented in history as being tangible, being tied to a
date, or an exact happening. Manifest Destiny on the other hand, is a phenomenon. It can not be tied to a date,
event or even a specific period of time. Manifest Destiny existed and still exists as the philosophy that embraces
American history as a whole. Manifest Destiny is an intangible ideology that created American history. In its
simplest form, Manifest Destiny can be defined as, "A Movement." More specifically, it would be the
systematic body of concepts and beliefs that powered American life and American culture.

Coining the Phrase

In 1845, a democratic leader and influential editor by the name of John L. O'Sullivan gave the movement its
name. In an attempt to explain America's thirst for expansion, and to present a defense for America's claim to
new territories he wrote:
".... the right of our manifest destiny to over spread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence
has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federaltive development of self
government entrusted to us. It is right such as that of the tree to the space of air and the earth suitable for the
full expansion of its principle and destiny of growth." (Brinkley 352)
Manifest Destiny became the rallying cry throughout America. The notion of Manifest Destiny was publicized
in the papers and was advertise and argued by politicians throughout the nation. The idea of Manifest Destiny
Doctrine became the torch, that lit the way for American expansion.

A Movement As Old As America Itself

Although the movement was named in 1845, the philosophy behind Manifest Destiny always existed
throughout American History. For example, in 1818 Andrew Jackson, while taking a broad interpretation of
vague instructions from President Monroe, led military forces into the Floridas during the Florida crisis. In a
systematic and ruthless way, he punished the Seminal Indians for taking up arms with the Spanish, destroyed
Spanish forces, and captured several cities and forts. (Demkin, Chapter 8). Americans who had moral
reservations about the rough tactics of Jackson, soothed their consciences with a familiar, but not yet named
philosophy. Their reasoning, the Floridas were part of American territory; therefore, destiny intended that
America should have them.

The reason why Americans where in Florida in the first place, is yet another example of Manifest Destiny. The
people of the deep South, wanting more fertile land, exercise what they considered to be their right. The planter
class, without any political approval or permission, just took over and started settling and planting the Florida
territories. This move was an example of the arrogance that the Americans had towards expansion. Americans
believed that they had a right to any land they wanted.

First used in 1845, the term Manifest Destiny conveyed the idea that the rightful destiny of the US included
imperialistic expansion. This idea certainly contributed to several wars. For example, in 1846 the United States
declared war on Mexico and proceeded to win much of what is now the Southwestern United States. The war
with Mexico was just one out of a series of aggressive acts that can be tied to America's Manifest Destiny.
Manifest Destiny emerged naturally and inevitability out of fundamental want and need to explore and conquer
new lands and establish new borders. With this growth came moral, cultural, social ideological and economical
differences between people, states and countries. Were these differences not the reasons why America fought
for their independence in the Revolutionary War? Were these differences not the primary cause for the
American Civil War?

The idea of Manifest Destiny is as old as America itself. The philosophy sailed with Christopher Columbus
across the Atlantic. It resided in the spirits of the Jamestown colonist and it landed at Plymouth Rock with the
Pilgrims. It also traveled with the fire and brimstone preachers during the Great Awakening and built the first
national road. Throughout history there are numerous examples of Manifest Destiny. However, in early
American history, synonyms were used to explain the not yet named Phenomenon. American history books are
filled with words such as, Explorers, Frontier, Territories, Expansionism, Settlers, Idealism, Sectionalism and
Immigration. Without Manifest Destiny, phrases and terms such as "Beyond the Great American Desert," "The
North West Passage," and "The Oregon Trail", would be just empty examples of white man's travels.

A Disputed Philosophy
Much of the talk about Manifest Destiny had many people suggesting that America should assume the role as a
world power. James Monroe in 1822 echoed this idea in his famous Monroe Doctrine when he warned Europe
and the rest of the world to "Stay out of the Western Hemisphere" (Demkin Chapter 8).

In the months following the Spanish-American War, the idea of expansionism grew stronger across the United
States. In Congress, legislators called for the annexation of all Spanish territories. Some newspapers even
suggested the annexation of Spain itself. Expansionists such as Roosevelt, former President Harrison, and
Captain Mahan argued for creating an American empire. However, others, including Grover Cleveland, Andrew
Carnegie, and Mark Twain, opposed these ideas.

Manifest Destiny became a disputed philosophy. The following are two examples of the different views of the
American people. This is evidence of the opposing attitudes towards the Manifest Destiny ideology. In a 1837
letter to Henry Clay, William E. Channing wrote:

"Did this county know itself, or were it disposed to profit by self-knowledge, it would feel the necessity of laying
an immediate curb on its passion for extended territory.... We are a restless people, prone to encroachment,
impatient of the ordinary laws of progress... We boast of our rapid growth, forgetting that, throughout nature,
noble growths are slow..... It is full time that we should lay on ourselves serious, resolute restraint. Possessed
of a domain, vast enough for the growth of ages, it is time for us to stop in the career of acquisition and
conquest. Already endangered by our greatness, we cannot advance without imminent peril to our institutions,
union, prosperity, virtue, and peace..... It is sometimes said, that nations are swayed by laws, as unfailing as
those which govern matter; that they have their destinies; that their character and position carry them forward
irresistibly to their goal;....
that ... the Indians have melted before the white man, and the mixed, degraded race of Mexico must melt before
the Anglo-Saxon. Away with this vile sophistry! There is no necessity for crime. There is no fate to justify
rapacious nations, any more than to justify gamblers and robbers, in plunder. We boast of the progress of
society, and this progress consists in the substitution of reason and moral principle for the sway of brute
force....We talk of accomplishing our destiny. So did the late conqueror of Europe (Napoleon) ; and destiny
consigned him to a lonely rock in the ocean, the prey of ambition which destroyed no peace but his own." (Blum
276)

As an example of the opposing attitude and the attitude that was voiced by the majority of Americans at the
time, the following article appeared in the Democratic Review in 1845.

"Texas has been absorbed into the Union in the inevitable fulfillment of the general law which is rolling our
population westward.... It was disintegrated form Mexico in the natural course of events, by a process perfectly
legitimate on its own part, blameless on ours.... (its) incorporation into the Union was not only inevitable, but
the most natural, right and proper thing in the world.... California will, probably, next fall away
from...Mexico.... Imbecile and distracted, Mexico never can exert any real governmental authority over such a
country.... The Anglo-Saxon foot is already on its borders. Already the advance guard of the irresistible army of
Anglo-Saxon emigration has begun to pour down upon it armed with the plow and the rifle, and markings its
trail with schools and colleges, courts and representative halls, mills and meeting houses. A population will
soon be in actual occupation of California, over which it will be idle for Mexico to dream of dominion... All this
without agency of our government, without responsibility of our people- -in natural flow of events, the
spontaneous working of principles, and the adaptation of the tendencies and wants of the human race to the
elemental circumstances in the midst of which they find themselves placed." (Blum 277)
 The Monroe Doctrine (1823)
The Monroe Doctrine was expressed during President Monroe's seventh annual message to Congress,
December 2, 1823:

. . . At the proposal of the Russian Imperial Government, made through the minister of the Emperor residing
here, a full power and instructions have been transmitted to the minister of the United States at St. Petersburg to
arrange by amicable negotiation the respective rights and interests of the two nations on the northwest coast of
this continent. A similar proposal has been made by His Imperial Majesty to the Government of Great Britain,
which has likewise been acceded to. The Government of the United States has been desirous by this friendly
proceeding of manifesting the great value which they have invariably attached to the friendship of the Emperor
and their solicitude to cultivate the best understanding with his Government. In the discussions to which this
interest has given rise and in the arrangements by which they may terminate the occasion has been judged
proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the
American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are
henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any
European powers. . .

It was stated at the commencement of the last session that a great effort was
then making in Spain and Portugal to improve the condition of the people of
those countries, and that it appeared to be conducted with extraordinary
moderation. It need scarcely be remarked that the results have been so far
very different from what was then anticipated. Of events in that quarter of
the globe, with which we have so much intercourse and from which we
derive our origin, we have always been anxious and interested spectators.
The citizens of the United States cherish sentiments the most friendly in
favor of the liberty and happiness of their fellow-men on that side of the
Atlantic. In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor
does it comport with our policy to do so. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we
resent injuries or make preparation for our defense. With the movements in this hemisphere we are of necessity
more immediately connected, and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers.
The political system of the allied powers is essentially different in this respect from that of America. This
difference proceeds from that which exists in their respective Governments; and to the defense of our own,
which has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and matured by the wisdom of their most
enlightened citizens, and under which we have enjoyed unexampled felicity, this whole nation is devoted. We
owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to
declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this
hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European
power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the Governments who have declared their
independence and maintain it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles,
acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any
other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly
disposition toward the United States. In the war between those new Governments and Spain we declared our
neutrality at the time of their recognition, and to this we have adhered, and shall continue to adhere, provided no
change shall occur which, in the judgement of the competent authorities of this Government, shall make a
corresponding change on the part of the United States indispensable to their security.

The late events in Spain and Portugal shew that Europe is still unsettled. Of this important fact no stronger proof
can be adduced than that the allied powers should have thought it proper, on any principle satisfactory to
themselves, to have interposed by force in the internal concerns of Spain. To what extent such interposition may
be carried, on the same principle, is a question in which all independent powers whose governments differ from
theirs are interested, even those most remote, and surely none of them more so than the United States. Our
policy in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that
quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of
its powers; to consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly
relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy, meeting in all instances the
just claims of every power, submitting to injuries from none. But in regard to those continents circumstances are
eminently and conspicuously different. It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political
system to any portion of either continent without endangering our peace and happiness; nor can anyone believe
that our southern brethren, if left to themselves, would adopt it of their own accord. It is equally impossible,
therefore, that we should behold such interposition in any form with indifference. If we look to the comparative
strength and resources of Spain and those new Governments, and their distance from each other, it must be
obvious that she can never subdue them. It is still the true policy of the United States to leave the parties to
themselves, in hope that other powers will pursue the same course. . . .