Manifest Destiny - Research Paper Example

MANIFEST DESTINY: THE FORCIBLE REMOVAL OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND THE CONFISCATION OF MEXICAN LAND Introduction In the 19th century, Manifest Destiny was the American belief that the United States was destined to expand extensively across the North American continent, from the Atlantic seaboard to the Pacific Ocean. The ideology and practice of Manifest Destiny which included expansionism based on nationalism, “influenced United States Policy particularly in the last six decades of the nineteenth century” (Mountjoy 2009: 13). This justified the forcible removal of American Indians, the annexation of Mexican land, and the war with Mexico in the 1840s. The term Manifest Destiny integrated the nationalist concepts of Anglo-Saxon superiority with capitalist expansion of territory, “ideas which had deep roots in American political culture” (Nevins 2002: 17). On the other hand, Caldwell (2006) identifies the roots of manifest destiny in religion, the providentially sanctioned Christian destiny territorial conquest going back as far as the Crusades, and “a God-given right to any land occupied by non-Christian peoples” (p.84). The extensive American efforts at expansion included in addition to the Louisiana Purchase and the acquisition of the lands of the Mexican cession, internal expansion as American settlers moved westward during the California gold rush (Joy, 2003) Thesis Statement: The purpose of this paper is to investigate the concept of Manifest Destiny in 19th century American history, and its role in America’s rise from a colony to a super power. Further, the extent to which manifest destiny was reflected in domestic policy by the country’s government will be identified. The forcible removal of American Indians, attempts to civilize them, and Americans’ seizing of Mexican land, and waging war on Mexico will be discussed. The underlying roots of European racism and imperialism fuelling manifest destiny will be examined. Manifest Destiny and Westward Expansion in America From the 14th century to as late as the 1840s, Europeans fled to the New World of America in search of religious freedom and a new life. There was westward expansion in the 19th century because the population density in the industrial towns in the east was increasing tremendously by growing numbers of Europeans who entered America at the eastern seaboard. Moreover, the gold rush in the western region particularly in California, as well as news of fertile soil and plentiful opportunities were powerful motivators to move westwards. Consequently, the Americans found it necessary to spread westward in search of new land to cultivate, to build on, and new livelihood to undertake. This westward expansion was termed as manifest destiny by Anglos were the whites arriving in California from the eastern towns in the 19th century. Through close association and marriage allegiance with the California elite the white settlers acquired great wealth and political power (Mountjoy 2009). Notions of national superiority form a significant reason for the concept of Manifest Destiny to take shape and to promote westward expansion towards new opportunities. According to Caldwell (2006) the reasons for America’s notions of superiority include myths of the unique regenerative power of the new land of America that the Europeans made their home; from Americans’ self developed visions of being the people chosen by God to utilize the abundance of natural resources; of being given the mission to spread civilization in underdeveloped areas, and of being granted the high destiny of spreading westward for achieving profit and prosperity. Americans’ sense of supremacy is also rooted in their ability to succeed as immigrants through self-sufficiency, confidence, self-reliance; their realization of the abundance of natural wealth in the land; and their view of the universality of American ideology. Expansionist Theory, Racism and Imperialism in Manifest Destiny American Indians who were the original natives of the land were marginalized and every attempt was made to drive them away from fertile regions to remote arid areas, to kill them in mass exterminations when they resisted American confiscation of their land, and to civilize them for use as slaves and workers (Baumgardner 2005). Although a self-concept of racial superiority underscored the injustice meted out to the native Americans, America rationalized its imperialist exploits by stating that they were bringing civilization to uncivilized populations and places; and also took recourse to the Bible in explaining that it was their duty to redeem waste places. Thus, Americans based their self-given rights to expel native Americans from their territories, “on the native population’s failure to cultivate and improve these lands as God had commanded (Caldwell 2006: 103). It was a fact that although the Filipinos were skilled cultivators of the soil, they did not make complete use of the islands’ extensive natural resources, beyond the agricultural requirements. Expansionist theory states that Americans imposed their supremacy over the region because they considered it their duty to unlock the world’s resources. This theory justifies and explains European colonization in various parts of the world, and does not include fairness or justice towards those subjugated or forcefully evicted from their own land. Anglos believed in the racial ideology surrounding miscegenation or mixture of races, consequently denigrating Mexicans as a mixed and therefore inferior people. Further, Mexican racialization was based on ideologies of Anglo-Saxon superiority against Mexicans. In the Anglos’ viewpoint, according to the laws of nature, non-white races would cease to exist and give way before a stronger civilization. Through a scientific study of race, the “volatile ideology of white superiority supposedly rooted in nature and revealed through physical differences” (Haney-Lopez 2004: 61) resulted in Anglos conceptualizing Mexicans as a people doomed to defeat. In the mid-1800s as Anglos pushed westwards into California the three closely related racial ideologies they believed in were: the consequences of racial mixing, a conviction that race made people inferior, and a view of themselves as specifically superior because of their race. The darker skinned, poorer Mexicans who were a hybrid of Anglo, Indian, Spanish and African blood suffered more on account of Anglo antipathy to their impure status, as compared to their lighter skinned and wealthier countrymen who were racialized as close to white (Haney-Lopez 2004). Based on their racial attitudes, Anglos took ownership of land belonging to Mexicans by force or fraud. Moreover, “the new urban economy of the late nineteenth century afforded them few opportunities” (Carrigan 2004: 419) due to which most had no recourse other than to take up poorly paid manual labour. This combination of economic discrimination and racial prejudice led to Mexicans living in their own ethnic neighbourhood or barrios amidst poverty, crime and disease. The spatial separation between Mexicans and Anglos created greater cultural and relational distances, with the groups speaking different languages and observing different religions. America’s Domestic and Foreign Policy Supporting Manifest Destiny Encompassing partisan and sectional divisions, Whigs, Democrats, Southerners as well as Northerners expressed their solidarity with the concept of Manifest Destiny, state Johannsen and Belohlavek (1997). “In the first decade of the nineteenth century, the United States greatly extended its territorial holdings through the Louisiana purchase” (Mountjoy 2009: 35). Only 16 years later, the newly formed nation added Florida to its domain, removing the threat of a foreign power from a southern part of the continental eastern seaboard. After the war of 1812, the United States and Great Britain frequently shared fairly similar policy aims, which led to British Canada being a relatively friendly and nondangerous neighbor of America to the north. Next, America focused on the land adjoining the Missippi river. To promote increased settlement in those regions, the federal government developed policies with regard to slavery and American Indians. Although America had vast land holdings which were still not occupied by settlers, the country still viewed opportunities beyond its borders. Rather than be limited to the north American continent, “American policy makers dreamed of taking on a new role in which the United States served as a force in the Western Hemisphere” (Mountjoy 2009: 36). The United States was developing as a nation, and its domestic and foreign policies supported the American vision of expansion. Domestic policies also took into account the highly contentious issue of slavery which was causing an increasing split between the north and south. The formulation of these policies impacted the political climate, from which emerged the expansionist actions of the 1840s. The Missouri Compromise stated the slave states and the free states in the Senate. The compromise was considered by many to settle the slavery issue on which the north and south were in conflict. However, the issue arose again with the United States’ acquisition of additional western lands. The increasing spirit of Manifest Destiny led to greater territorial expansion, which in turn raised the issue of slavery to greater importance. This continously increasing problem “eventually led to the calamitous and divisive Civil War” (Mountjoy 2009: 37). The Monroe Policy, a cornerstone of American foreign policy formulated in the 1820s was a significant factor contributing to the success of America’s manifest destiny in the 1840s. The policy facilitated the acquisition of vast territories. The Monroe Doctrine was formulated to counter the threat to American expansionism by European maneuverings for acquisition of territory on the north American continent. The Doctrine allowed the governments of the newly independent nations in Central and South America to be independent and sort things out themselves, which was “an extension of the American ideal of self-determination” (Mountjoy 2009: 39). The United States did not agree to a joint declaration with Europe, and did not make a joint declaration with Great Britain separately who gave their support to the Monroe Doctrine. Great Britain had sought a disavowal of any future acquisitions in north America by both countries in a joint declaration with America. The Monroe Doctrine brought an end to the age of European colonization of the Americas. Forcible Removal of American Indians Based on Governmental Policy The American Indian Removal policy of the American government was significant in its consequences. Patriotic nationalism generated expectations of America’s further expansion and increasing rise to greatness. The nationalist vision had a limitation in that the concept of Manifest Destiny did not include the participation of non-whites in American expansion. The compulsory migration of about 1,25,000 American Indians from the American south-east to lands west of the Mississippi embodied the paradox of Manifest Destiny. “The nationalist dream allowed some people to fulfill their destinies while destroying the dreams of others” (Mountjoy 2009: 39). The Articles of Confederation, the country’s first Constitution supported the government in forcible removal of native Indians from their homelands. With the increasing demand for cotton, the land that the natives occupied was seized and encroached upon by the Americans. Mountjoy (2009: 40) reiterates that “Indian relocation was driven by private greed for American Indian lands”. State governments and President Andrew Jackson who passed the Indian Removal Act in 1830, supported the policy of relocation of the American Indians. From 1831-1838 this policy resulted in the migration that is termed as the Trail of Tears, and the establishment of Indian territory in present-day Oklahoma. Many Indians suffered or lost their lives on the way due to disease, exposure and starvation. Since American cravings for desirable land continued to grow, the relocation of Indian tribes such as Chocktaw Indians in 1831, the Seminole Indians in 1832, the Creek in 1834, the Chickasaw in 1837, and the Cherokee in 1838 besides others, only temporarily stalled further seizure of more land. Various land policies such as those under the Articles of Confederation, the Ordinance of 1785, the North-West Ordinance of 1787, and the land policy in the United States Constitution further reinforced the legal entitlement of land for the settlers. The Constitution “promised equal representation and full rights as U.S. citizens to the residents” (Mountjoy 2009: 46) of future new states that would be developed from land as yet unclaimed, thus permitting future states to help rule the federal government. After the era of forcible eviction to remote and inhospitable terrrains, in later years native American Indians were segregated and restricted to areas demarcated as Reservations; and were not provided with legal entitlement to land that originally belonged to them. Political Superiority of the Anglos in America Founded on notions of Anglo-Saxon political superiority, the United States waged war on Mexico from 1846 to 1848. A study of this war clearly reveals that the United States of America is an ordinary country with national ambitions “and typically violent expansionist methods” (Rodrigues 2007: 1). However, most American historians of war do not express this interpretation, focusing on the war process itself and its aftermath. The specific and enormous contradictions are not revealed, which attests to the continued power of American exceptionalism. The U.S. built up its nationalist reasons for war based on self-defense and justified it by its moral obligations, and as a necessity in its role as a guiding light for freedom. The dubious war, an aggression that was inprovoked was in shown to be in compliance with the United States’ exceptionalist belief. The veneer could not hide the greed and violence, “perhaps not the redeeming enterprise of a republic dedicated to the advancement of democracy and freedom” (Rodrigues 2007: 1). The Americanization of California resulted in the largest proportion of native-born Americans being the most adversely affected, leading to a decimation of their indigenous population due to a combination of starvation, diseases and military attacks. The Mexicans were integrated into American society in a subordinate position, to become increasingly alienized and steeped in poverty (Nevins 2002). The Role of Manifest Destiny in America’s Rise to a Super Power American patriotism grew with throwing off the colonial rule of Great Britain consolidated by the civil war of 1861-1865, by preventing the secession of the southern states, and was “fostered by an extraordinary territorial expansion across the American continent” (Anderson 2000: 14), characterised as the “manifest destiny” of the United States. Immense economic growth in the 19th century, and enormous influx of Europeans reinforced the establishment of the United States as a great power. Thus, the early history of the continent has resulted in an exceptional self-confidence, the creation of a strong set of national sentiments, the adoption of national symbols by most Americans, and the rejection as well as acceptance of multiculturalism in contemporary American society. With historic roots going back to the birth of the Republic, their struggles and successes as immigrants, and convictions regarding their manifest destiny, the people of America believe themselves to be superior as compared to the rest of the world. It is America’s destiny to be the first among nations, to exemplify the superiority of the American way of doing things, and to assume world leadership. The explanation for the rise of the greatest power and the most successful society ever known includes “free institutions, free enterprise, individualism, tolerance of diversity or multiculturalism, separation of the churches and the state whilst adhering to Christian religious values” (Anderson 2000: 15). Thus, America’s development into a super power has its origins in population growth by the immigrant Europeans many of whose manifest destiny was westward expansion, and the new land of opportunities helping to increase America’s economic might as well as provide empowerment through progress. Conclusion This paper has highlighted the phenomenon of manifest destiny and westward expansion in America during the 19th century. The evidence indicates that the expansionist theory, the inherent racism and imperialism that underscored manifest destiny, and the movement westwards along with the forcible removal of American Indians from their land, are based on domestic and foreign policies of the government. Further, the political superiority of the immigrant Anglos who migrated westwards manifested not only in their decimation of the native-born American Indians, but also in their seizing of land belonging to Mexicans and waging war on Mexico. The Mexicans were marginalized and discriminated against in all spheres. Among the reasons justifying America’s war on Mexico was its self-proclaimed role as a mediator with moral obligations to help the people of Mexico maximize the potential of their land. Further, America considered itself to be a guiding light for freedom in regions where its help was required, and also that it had to operate in self-defense against Mexican mixed race which could adversely integrate with the pure race of the whites. The role of manifest destiny in America’s rise to becoming a super power was analysed. It is clear that as a result of America’s self-conceptualization of divine chosenness for high destiny, westward expansion, extensive economic growth, the continent’s abundance, isolation and uniqueness, the nationalism felt by Americans is of a particularly strong and unique variety. American feelings of supremacy are justified in contemporary United States’ sustained position as a world leader and super power. However, the continued paradoxical practise of racial discrimination while supporting liberty and equality for all has to be ended, towards achieving an equitable society. Bibliography Anderson, M. (2000). States and nationalism in Europe since 1945. London: Routledge. Baumgardner, F.H. (2005). Killing for land in early California: Indian blood at Round Valley. The United States of America: Algora Publishing. Caldwell, W.W. (2006). American narcissism: The myth of national superiority. New York: Algora Publishing. Carrigan, W.D. (2003). The lynching of persons of Mexican origin or descent in the United States, 1848-1928. Journal of Social History, 37 (2): pp.411-438. Haney-Lopez, I. (2004). Racism on trial: The Chicano fight for justice. The United States of America: Harvard University Press. Johannsen, R.W. & Belohlavek, J.M. (1997). Manifest destiny and empire: American antebellum expansionism. Texas: Texas A & M University Press. Joy, M.S. (2003). American expansionism, 1783-1860: A manifest destiny? London: Pearson/ Longman Publishers. Mountjoy, S. (2009). Manifest destiny: Westward expansion. The United Kingdom: Infobase Publishing. Nevins, J. (2002). Operation gatekeeper: The rise of the “Illegal Alien” and the making of the U.S.-Mexico boundary. New York: Routledge. Rodrigues, J.J. (2007). The U.S. Mexican war in James Lowell’s the Biglow Papers. The Arizona Quarterly, 63 (3): pp.1-33. Read More