Crisis and Expansion - Essay Example

Download file to see previous pages Critics have argued that the Manifest Destiny was a disputed concept that many famous Americans such as Ulysses S. Grant, Abraham Lincoln, as well as a majority of the Whigs rebuffed it. American expansionism did not signify an American consensus, but it aggravated bitter dispute in the national polity. Countrywide, perhaps most Democrats, people endorsed the Manifest Destiny, but a majority of the Whigs strongly rejected it. Manifest Destiny offered the rhetorical tone for the biggest acquisition of United States territory (Adams 35). It was utilized by Democrats in the mid-1800s to defend the Mexican war, and it was also applied to split the Oregon with Britain. However, the Manifest Destiny always crawled along due to its internal restrictions, as well as the issue of slavery. It never turned into a nationwide priority (Adams 35). By 1843, John Quincy Adams, formerly a key ally, had changed his view and rejected the Manifest Destiny since it meant the extension of slavery in Texas (Greenberg 97).
From the onset of the Manifest Destiny—huge in the plan, in its sense of continentalism—is had a small number of supporters (Greenberg 98). It missed sectional, national or party following proportionate with its size. The basis was it did not echo the nationwide spirit (Greenberg 98). The idea that it reflected nationalism is supported by little evidence. The Manifest Destiny was, at all times, a very general idea instead of a precise policy (Adams 35). There was never any principle describing the manifest destiny. Nonspecific but intensely felt, the manifest destiny was a feeling of certainty in the decency and value of imperialism, which complemented other accepted thoughts of that period, including Romantic nationalism and American exceptionalism (Greenberg 98). Andrew Jackson, who talked of expanding the field of freedom, characterized the conflation of Americas likely greatness, the country’s ...Download file to see next pagesRead More