Manifest destiny facts for kids
Manifest Destiny was a strong belief in the United States during the 1800s. It was the idea that American settlers were meant to expand and settle across North America, from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. People who believed in Manifest Destiny thought this expansion was obvious ("manifest") and part of America's special future ("destiny").
This idea was linked to beliefs that American culture was unique and superior. It also suggested that the United States had a mission to spread its democratic government and way of life. Manifest Destiny became one of the earliest examples of American imperialism, which is when a country extends its power and influence over other areas.
Historian William Earl Weeks explained three main parts of this belief:
- Americans believed the United States had special moral values.
- They felt it was their mission to improve the world by spreading their form of government and the "American way of life."
- They had faith that God had chosen the nation to succeed in this mission.
However, Manifest Destiny also caused many disagreements in politics. A big conflict was about whether new states and territories would allow slavery. The idea is also connected to European settlers moving onto lands belonging to Native American tribes. It also led to the United States taking over lands west of its borders at the time. The concept became a major topic in the 1844 United States presidential election, and the phrase "Manifest Destiny" became widely known that year.
Democrats used Manifest Destiny to support the Oregon boundary dispute in 1846 and the annexation of Texas in 1845, which became a slave state. This eventually led to the Mexican–American War in 1846. Many members of the Whig Party and important Republicans, like Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant, disagreed with Manifest Destiny and opposed these actions. By 1843, former U.S. president John Quincy Adams, who had once supported the ideas behind Manifest Destiny, changed his mind. He spoke out against expansion because it meant slavery would spread to Texas. Ulysses S. Grant served in the Mexican–American War but later called it "one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation."
After the American Civil War, the U.S. bought Alaska in 1867. In the 1890s, Republican president William McKinley annexed Hawaii, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, and American Samoa. The Spanish–American War in 1898 was controversial, and the idea of imperialism became a big issue in the 1900 United States presidential election. Historian Daniel Walker Howe noted that "American imperialism did not represent an American consensus; it provoked bitter dissent within the national polity."
Contents
What Was Manifest Destiny?
Manifest Destiny was not a strict set of rules or a specific government policy. Instead, it was a strong feeling and a general idea that guided many Americans in the 1800s. It expressed a deep belief in the rightness and value of expanding the country. This idea fit well with other popular beliefs of the time, such as American exceptionalism (the idea that America was special) and Romantic nationalism (a strong sense of national pride and identity).
Leaders like Andrew Jackson often spoke about "extending the area of freedom." This showed how people connected America's potential greatness, its growing sense of national identity, and its expansion. However, different people had different ideas about what Manifest Destiny truly meant. Some focused on expanding into new lands, while others saw it as a call for America to be a good example to the world. Because there was no single, clear definition, these different views about America's future were never fully settled.
Where Did the Idea Come From?
Most historians believe that newspaper editor John L. O'Sullivan first used the term "Manifest Destiny" in 1845. However, some historians suggest that journalist Jane Cazneau might have written the unsigned article where it first appeared.
O'Sullivan was a strong supporter of Jacksonian democracy. In 1839, he wrote an article that didn't use the exact term "Manifest Destiny" but spoke of a "divine destiny" for the United States. He believed this destiny was based on values like equality and freedom, aiming "to establish on earth the moral dignity and salvation of man." At first, this destiny wasn't just about taking more land. O'Sullivan imagined a "Union of many Republics" sharing these values.
Six years later, in 1845, O'Sullivan used the phrase Manifest Destiny in an essay called "Annexation." In this article, he urged the U.S. to annex the Republic of Texas. He argued it was "our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions." Despite opposition, Texas was annexed in 1845. O'Sullivan's first use of the phrase didn't get much attention.
His second use of the phrase became very important. On December 27, 1845, in his newspaper, the New York Morning News, O'Sullivan wrote about the Oregon boundary dispute with Britain. He argued that the United States had the right to claim "the whole of Oregon":
And that claim is by the right of our manifest destiny to overspread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federated self-government entrusted to us.
O'Sullivan believed that God had given the United States a mission to spread republican democracy. He thought that because the British government would not spread democracy, their claims to the territory should be ignored. O'Sullivan saw Manifest Destiny as a moral ideal that was more important than other concerns.
Initially, O'Sullivan didn't think Manifest Destiny meant taking land by force. He believed that the United States would expand naturally, without the government or military needing to get involved. He thought Americans would move to new areas, set up democratic governments, and then ask to join the United States, just as Texas had done. He was critical of the Mexican–American War in 1846, even though he later believed its outcome would benefit both countries.
Ironically, O'Sullivan's term became popular after critics of the Polk administration used it. These critics, often from the Whig Party, argued that those who supported conquest were betraying the Constitution. On January 3, 1846, Representative Robert Charles Winthrop used the term in Congress. He suggested that supporters of Manifest Destiny were using "Divine Providence" to justify actions driven by national pride and self-interest. Despite this criticism, those who favored expansion embraced the phrase, and it quickly became widely used.
Themes and Influences
Historian Frederick Merk wrote in 1963 that Manifest Destiny came from "a sense of mission to redeem the Old World by high example." This meant building a new, better society in America. Merk also noted that Manifest Destiny was a much-debated idea within the nation. He said it "lacked national, sectional, or party following commensurate with its magnitude."
Some people believed that Americans of European descent were naturally superior. They thought this group was "destined to bring good government, commercial prosperity and Christianity to the American continents and the world." Author Reginald Horsman wrote in 1981 that this view also suggested that other groups of people were less capable or would eventually disappear as American society grew. This idea was used to justify the enslavement of African Americans and the removal of Native Americans.
The idea of American exceptionalism, that America was special, often came from its Puritan history. For example, John Winthrop's "City upon a Hill" sermon in 1630 called for a virtuous community that would be an example to the world. In 1776, Thomas Paine wrote in Common Sense that the American Revolution was a chance to create a new, better society:
We have it in our power to begin the world over again. A situation, similar to the present, hath not happened since the days of Noah until now. The birthday of a new world is at hand...
Many Americans agreed with Paine. They believed that the United States' goodness came from its unique experiment in freedom and democracy. Thomas Jefferson wrote that it was natural for the American population to grow and spread across the continent. He even suggested that the annexation of Cuba would be a very important addition to the U.S. system of states. Americans felt they had an obligation to the world to expand and protect these beliefs.
President Abraham Lincoln also spoke about America's mission. In 1862, he described the United States as "the last, best hope of Earth." In his Gettysburg Address, Lincoln saw the American Civil War as a fight to see if a nation with democratic ideals could survive. Historian Robert Johannsen called this "the most enduring statement of America's Manifest Destiny and mission."
The belief that God had a direct role in founding the United States was also important. Political scientist Clinton Rossiter described this view as believing that God chose certain people to come from the old nations of Europe. He said that by giving them grace, God also gave them a special responsibility. Americans thought they were chosen not only to manage the North American continent but also to "spread abroad the fundamental principles stated in the Bill of Rights." This often meant that neighboring colonial lands and countries were seen as obstacles to God's plan for the United States.
Historian John Mack Faragher noted the political differences between the Democratic Party and the Whig Party. Most Democrats strongly supported expansion. Many Whigs, especially in the North, were against it. Whigs liked the changes brought by industrialization but wanted strong government policies to guide growth within the country's existing borders. They worried that expansion would bring up the difficult issue of extending slavery into new territories. Many Democrats, however, feared industrialization. For them, the solution to the nation's problems was to continue Thomas Jefferson's idea of farming new lands to balance industrial growth.
Some Native American writers have connected Manifest Destiny to older ideas from the 15th century called the Doctrine of Christian Discovery. This doctrine allowed European nations to claim lands of non-Christian peoples. These writers argue that Manifest Destiny was inspired by this earlier European colonization. It was used to excuse U.S. actions against Native American nations.
Historian Dorceta Taylor points out that "Minorities are not usually chronicled as explorers or environmental activists." However, historical records show that people of color were important in westward expansion. They were part of expeditions, lived and worked on the frontier, founded towns, and were educators and business owners.
The desire to trade with China and other Asian countries also fueled expansion. Americans saw westward contact with Asia as fulfilling old hopes of finding new routes to Asia. They also saw the Pacific Ocean as a calmer area for the new nation to expand its influence, compared to the Atlantic, which was often involved in Old World conflicts.
Debates Over Manifest Destiny
The Louisiana Purchase in 1803 doubled the size of the United States. This event set the stage for the country's expansion across the continent. Many people began to see this as the start of a new mission from God. They believed that if the United States succeeded as a "shining city upon a hill," people in other countries would want to create their own democratic republics.
However, not all Americans or their leaders believed that the United States was a divinely favored nation, or that it should expand. For example, many Whigs opposed territorial expansion. They disagreed with the Democratic claim that the U.S. was destined to be a virtuous example to the world and had a divine duty to spread its political system and way of life across North America. Many Whigs "were fearful of spreading out too widely" and preferred to keep national authority focused in a smaller area. In July 1848, Alexander Stephens criticized President Polk's expansionist ideas as "mendacious" (dishonest).
In the mid-1800s, expansion, especially southward toward Cuba, also faced opposition from Americans who wanted to end slavery. As more territory was added to the United States, "extending the area of freedom" for Southerners often meant extending slavery. This is why slavery became a central issue in the country's continental expansion before the Civil War.
Before and during the Civil War, both sides claimed that America's destiny belonged to them. Abraham Lincoln opposed anti-immigrant ideas and the imperialism of Manifest Destiny. He saw them as unjust and unreasonable. He disagreed with the Mexican War and believed these forms of patriotism threatened the bonds of liberty and union. Lincoln's "Eulogy to Henry Clay" in 1852 shows his thoughtful patriotism.
Ulysses S. Grant served in the war with Mexico and later wrote:
I was bitterly opposed to the measure [to annex Texas], and to this day regard the war [with Mexico] which resulted as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory... The Southern rebellion was largely the outgrowth of the Mexican war. Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions. We got our punishment in the most sanguinary and expensive war of modern times.
Expanding Across North America
The phrase "Manifest Destiny" is most often linked to the territorial expansion of the United States from 1803 to 1900. Many historians focus on Manifest Destiny as the driving force behind America's expansion across North America, from the Louisiana Purchase to the acquisition of Alaska in 1867. This period is sometimes called the "age of Manifest Destiny." During this time, the United States expanded to the Pacific Ocean, largely creating the borders of the continental United States we know today. In the 1890s, the United States also expanded into the Pacific with the annexation of Hawaii, the Philippines, Guam, and American Samoa.
The War of 1812 and Native American Lands
One goal of the War of 1812 was to threaten to annex the British colony of Lower Canada. This was meant to pressure the British to stop supporting various Native American tribes in the region. However, American forces faced defeats in 1812. American victories in 1813 at the Battle of Lake Erie and the Battle of the Thames ended the Native American raids.
To end the war, American diplomats negotiated the Treaty of Ghent in 1814 with Britain. They rejected a British plan to create a Native American state in U.S. territory. The American diplomats explained their policy toward acquiring Native American lands:
The United States, while intending never to acquire lands from the Indians otherwise than peaceably, and with their free consent, are fully determined, in that manner, progressively, and in proportion as their growing population may require, to reclaim from the state of nature, and to bring into cultivation every portion of the territory contained within their acknowledged boundaries. In thus providing for the support of millions of civilized beings, they will not violate any dictate of justice or of humanity; for they will not only give to the few thousand savages scattered over that territory an ample equivalent for any right they may surrender, but will always leave them the possession of lands more than they can cultivate, and more than adequate to their subsistence, comfort, and enjoyment, by cultivation. If this be a spirit of aggrandizement, the undersigned are prepared to admit, in that sense, its existence; but they must deny that it affords the slightest proof of an intention not to respect the boundaries between them and European nations, or of a desire to encroach upon the territories of Great Britain... They will not suppose that that Government will avow, as the basis of their policy towards the United States a system of arresting their natural growth within their own territories, for the sake of preserving a perpetual desert for savages.
A British negotiator, Henry Goulburn, was surprised by this stance. He noted that Americans seemed determined to take Native American lands.
Continental Expansion
The belief that the United States would eventually cover all of North America was called "continentalism". John Quincy Adams was an early supporter of this idea. He played a key role in U.S. expansion between 1803 and the 1840s. In 1811, Adams wrote that he believed "The whole continent of North America appears to be destined by Divine Providence to be peopled by one nation." He thought this would bring peace and prosperity.
Adams helped make this idea a reality. He helped create the Treaty of 1818, which set the border between British North America and the United States up to the Rocky Mountains. He also negotiated the Transcontinental Treaty in 1819, which gave Florida to the U.S. and extended the U.S. border to the Pacific Ocean. Adams also created the Monroe Doctrine in 1823. This doctrine warned Europe that the Western Hemisphere was no longer open for new European colonies.
The Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny were closely related. Historian Walter McDougall called Manifest Destiny a natural result of the Monroe Doctrine. This is because expansion was seen as necessary to enforce the doctrine and prevent European powers from gaining more influence in North America.
Transcontinental Railroad
Manifest Destiny was important in building the transcontinental railroad. Images like John Gast's American Progress often show trains moving west. These railroads helped the U.S. gain control over the continent much faster. Historian Boyd Cothran noted that modern transportation and using many natural resources led to taking over Native American land and resources.
The Oregon Country Dispute
Manifest Destiny played a big role in the Oregon boundary dispute between the United States and Britain. The Anglo-American Convention of 1818 allowed both countries to occupy the Oregon Country. In the 1840s, thousands of Americans moved there using the Oregon Trail. The British rejected a U.S. proposal to divide the region along the 49th parallel. Instead, they suggested a border farther south, along the Columbia River. This would have made much of what is now Washington part of British colonies.
Supporters of Manifest Destiny protested. They called for the U.S. to annex the entire Oregon Country up to the Alaska line. Presidential candidate Polk used this popular demand to his advantage. Democrats called for the annexation of "All Oregon" in the 1844 U.S. presidential election.
As president, Polk sought a compromise. He offered again to divide the territory along the 49th parallel. When the British refused, American expansionists used slogans like "The whole of Oregon or none" and "Fifty-four forty or fight." When Polk moved to end the joint occupation agreement, the British finally agreed in early 1846 to divide the region along the 49th parallel. This left the lower Columbia basin as part of the United States. The Oregon Treaty of 1846 officially settled the dispute. Polk's administration convinced Congress to approve the treaty because the United States was about to start the Mexican–American War. Fighting both Britain and Mexico would have been difficult.
Texas and the War with Mexico
.jpg)
Manifest Destiny was very important in the expansion of Texas and America's relationship with Mexico. In 1836, the Republic of Texas declared independence from Mexico. After the Texas Revolution, Texas wanted to join the United States as a new state. This was seen as an ideal way for expansion to happen: new democratic states would ask to join the U.S., rather than the U.S. forcing its government on people. However, the annexation of Texas was criticized by those against slavery because it would add another slave state to the Union. Presidents Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren declined Texas's offer partly because the slavery issue threatened to divide the Democratic Party.
Before the 1844 election, Whig candidate Henry Clay and the expected Democratic candidate, Van Buren, both said they opposed annexing Texas. They hoped to avoid making it a campaign issue. This led to the Democrats choosing Polk, who supported annexation, instead of Van Buren. Polk connected the Texas annexation question with the Oregon dispute. This offered a compromise on expansion for different regions of the country. (Northerners who wanted expansion were more interested in Oregon, while Southerners focused on Texas.) Although Polk won by a very small margin, he acted as if his victory meant the public strongly supported expansion.
The "All of Mexico" Debate
After Polk's election, but before he took office, Congress approved the annexation of Texas. Polk then moved to occupy a part of Texas that had declared independence from Mexico in 1836 but was still claimed by Mexico. This led to the Mexican–American War starting on April 24, 1846. As American forces won battles, by the summer of 1847, some people called for the annexation of "All Mexico." They argued that bringing Mexico into the Union was the best way to ensure future peace in the region.
This idea was controversial for two reasons. First, some who supported Manifest Destiny, like O'Sullivan, believed that the U.S. should not force its laws on people against their will. Annexing all of Mexico would go against this principle. Second, annexing Mexico was controversial because it would mean giving U.S. citizenship to millions of Mexicans. These people had diverse backgrounds and were mostly Roman Catholic.
Senator John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, who had supported the annexation of Texas, opposed annexing Mexico. He also disagreed with the "mission" aspect of Manifest Destiny for reasons related to race and culture. He explained his views in a speech to Congress on January 4, 1848. Calhoun believed that the Mexican population, being largely of mixed heritage and Catholic, would not fit into American society as he envisioned it. He argued that the U.S. government was meant for a specific group of people and that trying to force American ideas on everyone was a mistake.
This debate highlighted a contradiction within Manifest Destiny. On one hand, some beliefs within Manifest Destiny suggested that Mexicans, as non-whites, would threaten American identity and were not suitable to become Americans. On the other hand, the "mission" part of Manifest Destiny suggested that Mexicans would be improved by joining American democracy. These debates showed how beliefs about who "belonged" in America could both support and oppose expansion.
The controversy eventually ended with the Mexican Cession. This added the territories of Alta California and Nuevo México to the United States. These areas were less populated than the rest of Mexico. Like the "All Oregon" movement, the "All Mexico" movement quickly faded.
Historian Frederick Merk argued in 1963 that the failure of the "All Oregon" and "All Mexico" movements showed that Manifest Destiny was not as popular as many historians had thought. Merk wrote that while the belief in spreading democracy was central to American history, aggressive "continentalism" was supported by only a minority of Americans, mostly Democrats. Some Democrats also opposed it.
These events related to the Mexican–American War affected people living in the Southern Plains. A study by David Beyreis showed that the idea of Manifest Destiny was not universally popular and did not always benefit Americans.
Filibustering Expeditions
After the Mexican–American War ended in 1848, disagreements over the expansion of slavery made further annexation by conquest too divisive for official government policy. However, some individuals and groups still tried to expand U.S. territory through unauthorized military expeditions, known as "filibustering." The term "filibuster" originally came from a Dutch word for buccaneers (pirates) in the West Indies.
Some leaders, like Governor John Quitman of Mississippi, even secretly supported these efforts. Critics, like Sarah P. Remond, argued that these actions were linked to the desire to expand slavery and showed problems within the American government. The Wilmot Proviso and later discussions about "Slave Power" showed how much Manifest Destiny had become part of the conflict between the North and South.
Without official government support, the most extreme supporters of Manifest Destiny turned to these military expeditions. These operations were often romanticized in the United States. The Democratic Party's national platform even supported William Walker's filibustering in Nicaragua. Wealthy American expansionists funded many expeditions, usually from cities like New Orleans, New York, and San Francisco. The main targets were countries in Latin America. William Walker tried to separate Mexican states, and Narciso López tried to take Cuba from Spain.
The United States had long been interested in acquiring Cuba from the declining Spanish Empire. President Polk offered to buy Cuba from Spain in 1848 for $100 million. Spain refused to sell. Filibustering continued to be a major concern for presidents after Polk. When Franklin Pierce became president in 1852, a filibustering effort by John A. Quitman to acquire Cuba received some support. Pierce later renewed the offer to buy the island for $130 million. However, when the public learned of the Ostend Manifesto in 1854, which suggested the U.S. could seize Cuba by force, the effort to acquire the island largely failed. The public now strongly linked expansion with slavery, and Manifest Destiny lost much of its widespread support.
Filibusters like William Walker continued their efforts in the late 1850s but had little success. Expansionism was one of the many issues that contributed to the coming of the Civil War. Northerners and Southerners began to define Manifest Destiny in different ways, which weakened national unity. According to Frederick Merk, "The doctrine of Manifest Destiny, which in the 1840s had seemed Heaven-sent, proved to have been a bomb wrapped up in idealism."
The Homestead Act
The Homestead Act of 1862 encouraged 600,000 families to settle the West. It offered them land (usually 160 acres) for almost free. Over 123 years, more than 270 million acres were settled, which is 10% of the land in the U.S. Settlers had to live on and improve the land for five years. Before the American Civil War, Southern leaders opposed the Homestead Acts because they feared it would lead to more free states and territories. After Southern senators and representatives left Congress at the start of the war, the Homestead Act was passed.
However, the Homestead Act often led to the forced removal of Native American communities from their lands. Some Native American nations tried to protect their lands by making agreements with the Confederacy during the Civil War. After the war, the U.S. Army fought against Native American groups who lived on lands that the government claimed through treaties. Settlers often followed, taking possession of the land for farms and mining. Sometimes, settlers moved onto Native American lands even before the Army arrived, causing more conflict. Government officials often believed that if settlers moved close to Native American lands, it meant the Native people would need to be moved.
The Homestead Act also led to environmental degradation. While it helped settle and farm the land, it did not always protect the land. Continuous plowing made the soil vulnerable to erosion and wind, and it removed nutrients. This deforestation and erosion played a key role in the Dust Bowl in the 1930s. Intense logging reduced many forests, and hunting harmed many native animal populations, including the bison, whose numbers dropped to only a few hundred.
Beyond the Continent: Overseas Expansion
After the Civil War, the term Manifest Destiny saw a brief return. Protestant missionary Josiah Strong, in his popular 1885 book Our Country, argued that America had a great future because it had perfected civil liberty and "a pure spiritual Christianity." He believed America should be saved "for the world's sake."
In the 1892 U.S. presidential election, the Republican Party platform stated: "We reaffirm our approval of the Monroe doctrine and believe in the achievement of the manifest destiny of the Republic in its broadest sense." What "manifest destiny" meant in this context was not clearly defined, especially since the Republicans lost that election.
In the 1896 election, the Republicans won the White House and held it for the next 16 years. During this time, Manifest Destiny was used to support overseas expansion. There was a debate then, and still is today, about whether this type of expansion was consistent with the continental expansion of the 1840s.
For example, when President William McKinley supported the annexation of the Republic of Hawaii in 1898, he said that "We need Hawaii just as much and a good deal more than we did California. It is manifest destiny." However, former President Grover Cleveland, a Democrat who had stopped the annexation of Hawaii during his time in office, wrote that McKinley's action was a "perversion of our national destiny." Historians continue to debate this. Some see the American acquisition of other Pacific islands in the 1890s as an extension of Manifest Destiny across the Pacific. Others view it as a different kind of expansion, more like imperialism.
The Spanish-American War and New Territories
In 1898, the United States got involved in the Cuban rebellion and started the Spanish–American War to remove Spain from the region. Under the Treaty of Paris, Spain gave up control over Cuba and ceded the Philippine Islands, Puerto Rico, and Guam to the United States. The U.S. paid Spain $20 million for the Philippines. This treaty was very controversial. William Jennings Bryan criticized it and tried to make it a main issue in the 1900 United States presidential election, but he lost to McKinley.
The Teller Amendment, passed by the U.S. Senate before the war, declared Cuba "free and independent." This prevented the U.S. from annexing the island. The Platt Amendment (1902) later made Cuba a virtual protectorate of the United States, meaning the U.S. had significant control over its affairs.
American Samoa
The United States, German Empire, and United Kingdom signed the Tripartite Convention of 1899 at the end of the Second Samoan Civil War. This agreement divided the Samoan archipelago into a German colony and the U.S. territory now called American Samoa. The United States annexed Tutuila in 1900, Manu'a in 1904, and Swains Island in 1925.
The eastern Samoan islands became a territory of the United States. The western islands became German Samoa. The U.S. Navy took control of eastern Samoa and expanded the existing coaling station at Pago Pago Bay into a full naval station. The Navy secured agreements from local leaders to cede Tutuila in 1900 and Manu'a in 1904 to the U.S. government. On July 17, 1911, the U.S. Naval Station Tutuila was officially renamed American Samoa.
Insular Cases
The acquisition of Hawaii, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, and American Samoa marked a new period in U.S. history. Traditionally, territories were acquired with the goal of becoming new states, equal to existing ones. However, these islands were acquired more like colonies than future states. This process was supported by a series of Supreme Court decisions known as the Insular Cases. The Court ruled that full constitutional rights did not automatically extend to all areas under American control. The Philippines became independent in 1946, and Hawaii became a state in 1959. However, Puerto Rico, Guam, and American Samoa remain territories.
According to Frederick Merk, these colonial acquisitions were a departure from the original idea of Manifest Destiny. He argued that Manifest Destiny had always included the principle that people not ready for statehood should not be annexed. This principle was abandoned with the imperialism of 1899.
Impact on Native Americans
Manifest Destiny had very serious consequences for Native Americans. The expansion of the United States across the continent meant taking over and annexing Native American lands. This often led to conflicts and wars with many Native American groups, resulting in Indian removal. The United States continued the European practice of recognizing only limited land rights for Native peoples.
The U.S. government, following a policy largely developed by Henry Knox, the first Secretary of War, aimed to expand westward by buying Native American land through treaties. Only the federal government could buy Indian lands, and this was done through agreements with tribal leaders. It was often debated whether a tribe had a clear decision-making structure to make such treaties. The national policy was for Native Americans to join American society and become "civilized." This meant stopping wars with neighboring tribes or raids on white settlers, and shifting from hunting to farming and ranching. Supporters of these "civilization programs" believed that settling Native tribes would greatly reduce the amount of land they needed, making more land available for white American homesteaders.
Thomas Jefferson believed that while Native Americans were intellectually equal to whites, they had to adopt white ways of life or they would inevitably be pushed aside. Historian Jeffrey Ostler notes that Jefferson eventually supported the idea of removing Indigenous people if assimilation wasn't possible. Jefferson was deeply involved in Indian affairs throughout his career. He used his knowledge of how Virginia governments had historically taken Indian land titles to help with the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. He also helped lay the groundwork for policies that moved Native American tribes further and further into smaller reservation territories.
The idea of "Indian removal" gained support within the context of Manifest Destiny. With Jefferson as a key political voice, many believed that Native Americans would be better off moving away from white settlers. This removal effort became official policy when Andrew Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act in 1830. In his First Annual Message to Congress in 1829, Jackson suggested setting aside a large area west of the Mississippi River for Native American tribes. He believed they could have their own governments there, protected by the U.S., and learn "the arts of civilization."
After many Indigenous Peoples were forced to move, Americans increasingly believed that Native American ways of life would eventually disappear as the United States expanded. As historian Reginald Horsman argued in his study Race and Manifest Destiny, ideas about race became more common during this era. Americans increasingly believed that Native American ways of life would "fade away." For example, historian Francis Parkman wrote in his 1851 book The Conspiracy of Pontiac that after the French defeat in the French and Indian War, Native Americans were "destined to melt and vanish before the advancing waves of Anglo-American power."
What Happened Next?
The belief in an American mission to promote and defend democracy around the world, as championed by Jefferson, Lincoln, and others, continues to influence American political ideas.
After the early 1900s, the phrase Manifest Destiny was used less often. Territorial expansion was no longer promoted as America's "destiny." Under President Theodore Roosevelt, the United States' role in the Western Hemisphere was defined by the 1904 Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. This policy stated that the U.S. would act as an "international police power" to protect American interests. Roosevelt's corollary specifically rejected territorial expansion. While Manifest Destiny had once been seen as necessary to enforce the Monroe Doctrine, now interventionism became a core value linked to the doctrine.
President Woodrow Wilson continued the policy of intervention in the Americas. He also tried to redefine Manifest Destiny and America's "mission" on a broader, worldwide scale. Wilson led the United States into World War I with the argument that "The world must be made safe for democracy." In his 1920 message to Congress after the war, Wilson stated:
... I think we all realize that the day has come when Democracy is being put upon its final test. The Old World is just now suffering from a wanton rejection of the principle of democracy and a substitution of the principle of autocracy as asserted in the name, but without the authority and sanction, of the multitude. This is the time of all others when Democracy should prove its purity and its spiritual power to prevail. It is surely the manifest destiny of the United States to lead in the attempt to make this spirit prevail.
This was the only time a president used the phrase "Manifest Destiny" in his annual address. Wilson's version of Manifest Destiny rejected expansionism and supported self-determination. It emphasized that the United States had a mission to be a world leader for democracy. This U.S. vision of itself as the leader of the "Free World" grew stronger after World War II, though it was rarely called "Manifest Destiny."
Today, "Manifest Destiny" is sometimes used by critics of U.S. foreign policy to describe interventions in the Middle East and other places. In this usage, "Manifest Destiny" is seen as the underlying reason for what some call "American imperialism". A more positive term used by scholars is "nation building." State Department official Karin Von Hippel noted that the U.S. has "been involved in nation-building and promoting democracy since the middle of the 19th century and 'Manifest Destiny'."
Important Ideas to Remember
Critics have called Manifest Destiny an idea used to justify taking land and causing harm to Indigenous peoples. They argue it led to the forceful displacement of Native Americans by settlers to expand the country.
Some critics at the time also doubted whether the country could successfully govern such a large area.
See also
In Spanish: Doctrina del destino manifiesto para niños
- American frontier
- Christian mission
- Civilizing mission
- Young America movement
- List of United States invasions of Latin American countries
