Rich with exotic scenes and characters, the westward expansion of the United States has long intrigued the storyteller. Often, inspired by this setting, he has chosen to write of gunfights and Indian raids, or of idealistic pioneers battling nature on the frontier’s edge. But there exists a far darker epic of the high plains and the dry deserts: that of a nation whose drastic expansion rent it apart. The grandiose and decisive policies of American presidents Thomas Jefferson and James Polk saw the vast expanses west of the Mississippi River absorbed into the Union, extending the nation west to the Pacific and south to Mexico. Suddenly enlarged, the United States found itself beset by social, economic, and moral quandaries pertaining to the administration of its newfound territories. Unable to resolve these disputes, the nation split into factions formed along preexisting regional and political divides, which led ultimately to the violent and brutal bloodbath of civil war. The roots of this disastrous internecine conflict originated in the expansionistic strategies of both Jefferson and Polk, clearly indicting their actions as damaging to the nation they governed. While their means of land acquisition differed, both Jefferson and Polk emphasized American expansion during their presidencies, obtaining extensive swathes of North American territory. In 1803, Jefferson’s administration finalized an agreement with France to purchase the Louisiana Territory, a large portion of central North America stretching from the Mississippi River to the Rocky Mountains. Thirty years later, this region contained several states and territories, and pioneers forged even further west, seeking new homes in the distant frontier. Obstacles remai... ... middle of paper ... ...r the relaxation of tensions; within six years, eleven Southern states seceded from the Union, threatened by the election of an antislavery Northerner to the presidency. Upon the heels of secession came the red rivers of civil war. Had Thomas Jefferson and James K. Polk exercised greater moderation in their attainment of western territory, the polarization of American North and South need not have been as drastic as it proved. Forcing the hotly contentious issue of slavery to the forefront, sudden westward expansion reshaped American sociopolitical dynamics, carving a deep philosophical chasm between the North and South. As the existence of such a divide equated to the decomposition of both regions’ economies, the war of ideas waged in broadsheets and in the halls of Congress gave way to a war fought with bayonets, on the plains of Kansas and, later, in the East.
During the years surrounding James K. Polk's presidency, the United States of America grew economically, socially, and most noticeably geographically. In this time period, the western boundaries of the Untied States would be expanded all the way to the Pacific Ocean. Many Americans in the 19th century believed that the acquisition of this territory to the west was their right and embraced the concept of "Manifest Destiny". This concept was the belief that America should stretch from sea to shining sea and it was all but inevitable. Under the cover of "Manifest Destiny", President Polk imposed his views of an aggressive imperialistic nation. Imperialism is the practice of extending the power and dominion of a nation by direct territorial acquisitions over others, and clearly America took much of this land by force rather than peaceful negotiations with other nations. Polk acquired three huge areas of land to include: the Republic of Texas, the Oregon Territory, and the states of California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico under the Mexican Cession.
During the early to mid eighteen hundreds, there was great unrest across the country over territorial expansion. Half of the nation believed that it would be beneficial to the country if we expanded, while the other half were firmly opposed to expansion. Within the century, the United States managed to claim Texas, California, and the majority of Indian-owned lands. Opinions on this expansion were mixed around the country. Polls taken during the time period show that the majority of the south and west supported expansion, while northerns were opposed to it. (Document B) This was because the northerners had different values and beliefs than the southerners of westerners. Both the opponents and supporters of territorial expansion during the time period between 1800 and 1855, had a tremendous influence on shaping federal government policy. However, it can be argued that the supporters of territorial expansion had the largest impact. They were able to sway the federal government to create policies and new laws that were in favor of supporter’s beliefs.
The civil war, a devastating conflict amongst the American North and South in the mid to late 1800s, was caused by growing tension between the opposing sides for many reasons but also because of territorial expansion of America. In determining the impact of territorial expansion in the mid 1800’s on the sectionalism that led to the civil war, one would first have to look at the tactics for territorial expansion in America. Americans began to entertain the idea of heading west in the early 1800’s, which then brought forth the acts and events of the United States spreading its boundaries from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Historical events involving the expansion of America such as Manifest Destiny, the War with Mexico, and popular sovereignty in the west, all contributed to the growing tension between the North and the South, ultimately starting the Civil War.
A Nation built on the backs of farmers is what he truly believed in and he believed the Louisiana Purchase would ultimately meet this goal, Jefferson stated that “If we can settle happily the difficulties of the Mississippi, I think we may promise ourselves smooth seas during our time.” (Carnes, Garraty p.g 181). Another great moral dilemma Thomas Jefferson faced was the great opposition towards the Louisiana Purchase among the people and congressmen. For Northerners the idea of spending fifteen million dollars on what one Federalist described as a “Gallo-Hispano-Indian” collection of “savages and adventures” (Carnes, Garraty p.g. 181) would not only be unconstitutional due to the lack of power assigned to do so, but would only really benefit the southern and western people due to most of the land being in that region. These ideas of who would be benefiting most lead to the idea of whether this land would become one mass state or several groups of states. People were also concerned because of the possible upsetting of the balance between slave states and non-slave states. This vast land scared and excited most Americans and Senators alike and posed another potential problem for if Americans were to migrate to these lands so distant and
The acquisition of the Louisiana territory by Thomas Jefferson from the French in 1803, was too good a deal to pass up. Primarily interested in the strategic port city of New Orleans, and unrestricted use of the Mississippi River for trade, when offered the entirety of the territory by Napoleon, Jefferson saw an opportunity for the expansion of his “empire of liberty”. However, this treaty, made official on July 4th, 1803, which would give to the United States 828,000 square miles of new land, and cost 15 million dollars (almost doubling the federal spending of that year), would push the boundaries of the constitution. Given only six months to ratify the treaty, Jefferson knew that it would be impossible to pass an amendment to the Constitution in time, that would allow the purchase. He himself remarked, “The ge...
The turmoil between the North and South about slavery brought many issues to light. People from their respective regions would argue whether it was a moral institution and that no matter what, a decision on the topic had to be made that would bring the country to an agreement once and for all. This paper discusses the irrepressible conflict William H. Seward mentions, several politician’s different views on why they could or could not co-exist, and also discusses the possible war as a result.
In the year of 1803, America’s territory was expanded by nearly double its original size. Such an acquisition turned out to be very beneficial, but much like a rose, such a feat did come with its thorns. The Louisiana Purchase posed several moral dilemmas for President Thomas Jefferson, but overall the advantages outweighed the disadvantages. The weakened country of Spain returned the Louisiana Purchase back to France, which at this time was led by Napoleon Bonaparte. Purchasing this land would protect the United States’ ability to ensure the ownership and use of the vital port of New Orleans. This buy also proved to be beneficial in that it not only prevented a war between America and France but also eliminated France’s presence as an enemy in North America. The Louisiana Purchase perhaps opened the idea of ‘Manifest Destiny’ to the United States and its citizens. With all of these advantages, the end certainly justifies the means.
The Louisiana Purchase was the largest land transaction for the United States, and the most important event of President Jefferson's presidency. Jefferson arranged to purchase the land for $11,250,000 from Napoleon in 1803. This land area lay between the Mississippi River and the Rocky Mountains, stretching from the Gulf of Mexico to the Canadian border. The purchase of this land greatly increased the economic resources of the United States, and proved Jefferson had expansionist dreams by doubling the size of the United States. Jefferson believed that the republic must be controlled by ambitious, independent, property-holding farmers, who would form the incorruptible bedrock of democracy (LaFeber 179). In order to complete his vision the country needed more land.
The author’s main theme of the chapter “Jackson’s Frontier—and Turner’s” seems to be theories on the creation and expansion of American development. The main person discussed in this chapter is Fredrick Jackson Turner, a historian from the University of Wisconsin. Turner presented a thesis titled “The Significance of the Frontier in American History” at the World’s Columbian Exposition and in the Johns Hopkins University seminar room in 1893. The central focus of his thesis was that “the existence of an area of free land, its continuous recession, and the advance of American settlement westward, explain American development” (130). This thesis sparked years of scholarship and historical debate after being examined under critical scrutiny. Before
The presidential elections of 1860 was one of the nation’s most memorable one. The north and the south sections of country had a completely different vision of how they envision their home land. What made this worst was that their view was completely opposite of each other. The north, mostly republican supporters, want America to be free; free of slaves and free from bondages. While on the other hand, the south supporters, mostly democratic states, wanted slavery in the country, because this is what they earned their daily living and profit from.
The expansion of the west happened in a lot of places west of the Mississippi. One of the most important setting was the Louisiana Purchase which was bought in 1803, the 828,000 square miles of land nearly doubled the size of the U...
Before Thomas Jefferson ever entered the presidency, he believed in the “Empire of Liberty.” He wrote in a letter to a friend that “Our confederacy must be viewed as the nest from which all America, North or South, is to be peopled.” His motives for the intense eye on American expansion were greatness for his country, as well as for himself. He was disgusted with the idea of North America being divided into nation-states like Europe. His goal was for the ideals of the American Revolution to spread over the whole continent. He passed and helped pass some of the legislation that helped early America expand. He co-authored the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which allowed for states to be made from the territory east of the Mississippi and north of the Ohio River. Jefferson’s desire for exploring the lands west of the Mississippi had been around for fifty years. Jefferson’s father was a member of the Loyal Land Company. After American Independence, there were four plans to explore the west; Jefferson was behind three of those plans. The Louisiana Purchase divided the political country, before and after the actual purchase. I intend to show these sides by examining documents from Jefferson, his colleagues, and the opposition to the Purchase, as well as international deterrents to the Purchase.
Over the years, the idea of the western frontier of American history has been unjustly and falsely romanticized by the movie, novel, and television industries. People now believe the west to have been populated by gun-slinging cowboys wearing ten gallon hats who rode off on capricious, idealistic adventures. Not only is this perception of the west far from the truth, but no mention of the atrocities of Indian massacre, avarice, and ill-advised, often deceptive, government programs is even present in the average citizen’s understanding of the frontier. This misunderstanding of the west is epitomized by the statement, “Frederick Jackson Turner’s frontier thesis was as real as the myth of the west. The development of the west was, in fact, A Century of Dishonor.” The frontier thesis, which Turner proposed in 1893 at the World’s Columbian Exposition, viewed the frontier as the sole preserver of the American psyche of democracy and republicanism by compelling Americans to conquer and to settle new areas. This thesis gives a somewhat quixotic explanation of expansion, as opposed to Helen Hunt Jackson’s book, A Century of Dishonor, which truly portrays the settlement of the west as a pattern of cruelty and conceit. Thus, the frontier thesis, offered first in The Significance of the Frontier in American History, is, in fact, false, like the myth of the west. Many historians, however, have attempted to debunk the mythology of the west. Specifically, these historians have refuted the common beliefs that cattle ranging was accepted as legal by the government, that the said business was profitable, that cattle herders were completely independent from any outside influence, and that anyone could become a cattle herder.
The American Civil War was the bloodiest military conflict in American history leaving over 500 thousand dead and over 300 thousand wounded (Roark 543-543). One might ask, what caused such internal tension within the most powerful nation in the world? During the nineteenth century, America was an infant nation, but toppling the entire world with its social, political, and economic innovations. In addition, immigrants were migrating from their native land to live the American dream (Roark 405-407). Meanwhile, hundreds of thousand African slaves were being traded in the domestic slave trade throughout the American south. Separated from their family, living in inhumane conditions, and working countless hours for days straight, the issue of slavery was the core of the Civil War (Roark 493-494). The North’s growing dissent for slavery and the South’s dependence on slavery is the reason why the Civil War was an inevitable conflict. Throughout this essay we will discuss the issue of slavery, states’ rights, American expansion into western territories, economic differences and its effect on the inevitable Civil War.
Roark, J.L., Johnson, M.P., Cohen, P.C., Stage, S., Lawson, A., Hartmann, S.M. (2009). The american promise: A history of the united states (4th ed.), The New West and Free North 1840-1860, The slave south, 1820-1860, The house divided 1846-1861 (Vol. 1, pp. 279-354).