The United States, as a nation, has always been based on freedom. Freedom of choice, freedom of religion, of assembly, and the freedom to live happily as a citizen of a free nation. In the nineteenth century, it seemed that the freedom that many citizens held dear to their hearts as well as their pocketbooks, the freedom to own slaves, was being threatened by those who believed that the practice was morally wrong. The conflicts between the North and South were many, eventually leading to a bloody civil war that would take countless American lives, but the inevitability of this conflict was lost on many who lived during the period, mostly because they were focused on the everyday lives that they led instead of the larger picture, as well as …show more content…
In Thomas Hietala’s book, Manifest Design: American Exceptionalism and Empire, the majority of the narrative tells of debate over the annexation of Texas and the various points of view that politicians had on the subject. Overall, the arguments for and against the annexation of Texas were social as well as economic, especially following the Missouri Compromise of 1820 which would allow Texas to become a slave state unless action was taken to counteract that …show more content…
Only a decade before civil war would break out was the third and last of the great “compromises” that lawmakers would attempt to bring back the nation teetering on the edge of oblivion. After victory against Mexico, and the Treaty of Guadeloupe-Hidalgo was signed, the United States gained a large amount of new territory, the largest that had been acquired since the Louisiana Purchase. As the vast majority of this territory came in below the line set forth by the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the disagreements between Northern abolitionists and those who would fight to the death, and inevitably would, to preserve slavery and their way of life in the South. Such compromise brought together the great political minds of a generation: Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun – who would die and be buried before the final vote would even take place, and Daniel Webster. It was by no means a perfect compromise, with both sides disagreeing with at least one point, but the main points would bring all together in order to stop the nation from plunging into Civil War, though that seemed inevitable. In this compromise, Clay brought eight resolutions from what he believed the issues were that were within the federal government’s authority to decide upon:
The United States of America was founded on the basis that we should be a free and independent country from Great Britain and its empire. Rather than simply being a part of its empire, America wanted to become its own country to fend for itself. Great Britain, after the American Revolution, realized that maybe it was the best idea to let America set off and accomplish their own endeavors. After America gained its independence from Great Britain, the Manifest Destiny became a popular idea to follow; it was God’s will for America to expand their land to the West Coast. However, after this was accomplished, Imperialism came about a short time period later. Imperialism is much like the Manifest Destiny, but in a more greedy way. Imperialism is most definitely glorified to seem like a favor America is doing—by becoming an empire—and taking these smaller nations and countries ‘under their wing’ to nurture them and teach them the ways of being a ‘civilized’ person. However, what is the reason for Imperialism being brought about? After claiming from the East to West coast in America, why would they need to expand their area further—other than ‘teaching’ right from wrong to the ‘uncivilized’ people of the world? America’s Manifest Destiny era and America’s Imperialism era definitely have similarities, such as their apparent motives or rewards, but they also have their differences, like their underlying motives and purposes.
When we see Texas, we remember today mainly for its BBQ, Football and Black Gold, Texas tea. However, there is much more than just the usual itineraries that we find in most other states as well. Molly Ivins in her essay “Is Texas America” categorically states that, “Here's the deal on Texas. It's big. So big there's about five distinct and different places here, separated from one another geologically, topographically, botanically, ethnically, culturally and climatically” (Ivins). This is a true belief from Molly Ivins of how huge Texas was and how the demographics changed in each geographical location in Texas. The population of Texas and the demographics are two essential factors that include many important parameters in deciding the history of any state. The presence of many ethnic groups further adds to the diversification of
James K. Polk was one of many that felt extremely strong about Texas joining the Union. Silbey uses direct quotes from politicians gives a deeper outlook into Texas annexation. “That there is a large majority who would be glad to see Texas, in some way or another, united to this country, there can be no doubt.” (Silbey 81) Shortly after this widespread idea of Texas joining the country Congress was overwhelmed with bills to make Texas’s entry accomplished.
On June 23, 1845, the Republic of Texas was annexed to the U.S. as a slave state. Foley notes "the annexation of Texas as a slave state…became the great white hope of northern expansionists anxious to emancipate the nation from blacks, who, it was hoped, would find a home among the kindred population of 'colored races' in Mexico."(20) But rather than uniting as kindred races, discord between poor whites, African Americans and Mexicans resulted from competition for farmland as either tenant farmers or sharecroppers.
Henry Clay, one of America’s greatest legislators and orators, lived from 1777 to 1852. In his lifespan, Henry was a very successful attorney, a well respected farmer, a horse race enthusiast, and a “Great Compromiser”. The name “Great Compromiser” comes from the fact that Clay was very good at negotiation. With this skill at hand, Henry was able to avoid the Civil War until it could not be adverted.
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 contradictions between slavery and freedom are very apparent throughout history. America started out with the intentions of becoming separate and equal. To become this kind of nation they needed a crop that would give them something to trade with the other countries. The most obvious choice was tobacco and to produce this demanding crop they used a lot of slave labor. Morgan states 'To a very large degree it may be said that Americans bought their independence with slave labor (122).' America was so obsessed with being free and equal it looks like they would go to any length to obtain it. Another example would be certain slave owners. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington all owned slaves. This is interesting especially with Jefferson who had a major role in republican liberty. Another contradictory point made by Morgan is how England which prides itself in the l...
The late 1800’s was a watershed moment for the United States, during which time the Industrial Revolution and the desire for expansion brought about through Manifest Destiny, began to run parallel. Following the end of the Spanish-American war, the United States found itself with a wealth of new territory ceded to it from the dying Spanish empire. The issue of what to do with these new lands became a source of debate all the way up to the U.S. Congress. Men like Albert J. Beveridge, a Senator from Indiana, advocated the annexation, but not necessarily the incorporation of these new l...
Narrative History of Texas Annexation, Secession, and Readmission to the Union. Texans voted in favor of annexation to the United States in the first election following independence in 1836. However, throughout the Republic period (1836-1845) no treaty of annexation negotiated between the Republic and the United States was ratified by both nations. When all attempts to arrive at a formal annexation treaty failed, the United States Congress passed--after much debate and only a simple majority--a Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States. Under these terms, Texas would keep both its public lands and its public debt, it would have the power to divide into four additional states "of convenient size" in the future if it so desired, and it would deliver all military, postal, and customs facilities and authority to the United States government.
The Manifest Destiny was a progressive movement starting in the 1840's. John O'Sullivan, a democratic leader, named the movement in 1845. Manifest Destiny meant that westward expansion was America's destiny. The land that was added to the U.S. after 1840 (the start of Manifest Destiny) includes The Texas Annexation (1845), The Oregon Country (1846), The Mexican Cession (1848), The Gadsden Purchase (1853), Alaska (1867), and Hawaii (1898). Although this movement would take several years to accomplish fully, things started changing before we knew it. New technology took off right away!
Freedom has been discussed and debated for a while now and yet no one can completely agree that it exists. Since the Civil, War America has been conditioned to be divided politically. The conflict over the meaning of freedom continues to exist from the civil war, throughout the sixties and in the present. The Civil War was fought over the question of what freedom means in America. The issue was in the open for all to see: slavery. Human slavery was the shameless face of the idea of freedom. The cultural war in the sixties was once more about the question of what freedom is and what it means to Americans. No slaves. Instead, in the sixties and seventies four main issues dominated the struggle for racial equality: opposition to discriminatory immigration controls; the fight against racist attacks; the struggle for equality in the workplace; and, most explosively, the issue of police brutality. For more than two centuries, Americans demanded successive expansions of freedom; progressive freedom. Americans wanted freedom that grants expansions of voting rights, civil rights, education, public health, scientific knowledge and protections from fear.
Politics in America from 1846 to 1861 have been remembered mainly for being strongly influenced by slavery. It was the hot topic of the time. Abolitionism was on the rise while Americans who were proslavery stood by their beliefs. With the compromise of 1850 declaring Free states, the division of the north and south, incidents such as bleeding Kansas, the Dred Scott case, and the election of 1860, it was clear that American Politics were all about slavery.
On the first day of class, I wasn’t so sure what the term “American Exceptionalism” meant, but by the end I have figured it out. American Exceptionalism is the notion that America is uniquely different from the other nations. The reason America is “uniquely different” from the other nations is because, the world expects America to lead, have values, pursue freedom, be diverse and open, and also practice democracy. Being a democratic nation makes us the city upon the hill. America is like a big brother, other nations look to us for help, guidance, and prosperity. The values and beliefs about politics and the government shape our American culture. The stress on a distinct national identity is appropriate within an increasingly diverse nation state and ever globalizing world. I agree upon this statement, because America deserves to be known as the “it” nation. America is more accepting, we are like a melting pot of different cultures and ethnicities.
So a major reason for Texas to be annexed into the United States was that the overwhelming majority of the population was former Americans. From the very time of winning independence, annexation of Texas to the United States was at the top of the list of things to do. But as soon as the Texas minister was sent to Washington to negotiate for an annexation, the Martin Van Buren administration said that the proposition could not be entertained. The reasons given were constitutional scruples and fear of war with Mexico. The real reason behind Washington’s excuses is slavery....
American exceptionalism is a term suggesting that America was the best or superior; it was a term saying that it was different than any other place. Winthrop talks about the city upon the hill, which suggests America being a model or setting an example for other countries. We were supposed to be a beacon of liberty and freedom. During the founding of America, America was different than any other place. At its founding America was exceptional because it was different in the way people interacted with each other, different in the way the government worked, and different in its aspirations. The ideology of America has changed making it where America is no longer exceptional.