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. It was mainly the people in the north that opposed territorial expansion. This was because northerners saw how unmoral expansion could be. They also had no need for the newly acquired lands and feared that further acquisition of land would only strengthen the west; this is why opponents of expansion got so upset when the United States considered annexing Texas. William Plumer, a Federalist, said, “Admit this western world into the union, and you destroy with a single operation the whole weight and importance of the eastern states.”(Document A). People against territorial expansion realized that by annexing Texas, the western territory would grow, have a larger population, and would t... ... middle of paper ... ...luenced by supporters of territorial expansion can be seen id document i. Henry David Thoreau wrote that the government is a tool for the people to act through. However, only a select few had chosen to use the government as a tool, and therefore they got what they wanted, a war with Mexico over territorial expansion. The majority of people though, didn’t want or support a war with Mexico over territorial expansion. In conclusion, in the eighteen hundreds, many people debated over whether territorial expansion was good or bad. Debates between the supporters and opposers created tension in the nation and enforced sectionalism. Although, typically, everybody is supposed to have the same say in government, it can be clearly seen during this time period that the supporters of territorial expansion had a greater influence on the policies created by the federal government.
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.
From the years 1800-1850 the nation was full of battles and prosperity. Territorial expansion was a cause in most of the battles, but also gained prosperity for the nation. There were many impacts on national unity between those time periods, but the main impact was territorial expansion. This is true because of the Louisiana Purchase, the purchase of Oregon territory, and the Mexican War.
Many people were in favor of U.S expansion around the world. There are three men though that are in favor of the expansion but had created arguments to back themselves up. Frederick Jackson Turner’s most famous argument was on devoted to the American Revolution, it was about the frontier or “Old West” in America. Turner was not one for war but sometimes he would write about war. He argued a few points in his work, The Frontier in American History. The first point that he argued was that a violent frontier was established from Georgia to New England as a result of the wars with France. He then made a point about the self-sufficient society that had also ben established on the frontier that was much different from the rest of society. Then he
Expansion of a nation was nothing new in terms of history. The fighting, buying and selling of land in North America was a common event during the 1800s. The United States had started expanding in 1803 with President Thomas Jefferson’s purchase of the Louisiana Territory whose borders where not clearly defined. After the War of 1812 with the British, the northern border of this territory was defined at the 49th parallel. Then in 1819, Spain sold its claim to Florida to the United States. The United States wanted to continue to expand itself westward to the Pacific Ocean, a territory then owned by Mexico. The acquirement of this territory occurred after the Mexican War. How the territory was acquired by the United States is the topic in question.
United States expansionism in the late nineteenth-century and early twentieth-century is both a continuation and a departure of past United States expansionism. Expansionism in the United States has occurred for many reasons. Power (from land), religion, economics, and the ideas of imperialism and manifest destiny are just a few reasons why the U.S. decided to expand time and again throughout the course of its 231 year history. Expansionism has evolved throughout the years as the inhabitants of the country have progressed both socially (the Second Great Awakening, the women's suffrage movement, the populist party and the early 19th and 20th century social reformers) and economically (factories, better farms, more jobs, etc.) Expansion changed from non-interference policies to the democratic control of the government as the United States grew in both size and population. Through the use of the documents and events during two major-expansion time periods (1776-1880) and 1880-1914), I will display both the continuation and departure trends of United States expansionism.
Expansionism in the late 19th/ Early 20th century Expansionism in America during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century shared many similarities and differences to that of previous American expansionist ideals. In both cases of American expansionism, the Americans believed that we must expand our borders in order to keep the country running upright. Also, the Americans believed that the United States was the strongest of nations, and that they could take any land they pleased. This is shown in the "manifest destiny" of the 1840's and the "Darwinism" of the late 1800's and early 1900's. Apart from the similarities, there were also several differences that included the American attempt to stretch their empire across the seas and into other parts of the world.
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...
Opposition to Texas' admission to the United States was particularly strong in the North during this period. If a challenge to the constitutionality of the move could have been made successfully at that time, there is little doubt that the leaders of the opposition would have instituted such a suit in the Supreme Court.
For many year, the American boundaries expanded as people moved, at the governments urging, westward for new economic opportunities and later imperialist expansion was no different. While many factors contributed, economic possibility was a driving factor in the expansionist aspirations. The U.S., along with countries like Britain
In the early nineteenth century, most Northerners and Southerners agreed entirely that Americans should settle Western territories, and that it was God’s plan, or their “manifest destiny.” Northerners and Southerners who moved west were in search of a better life and personal economic gain; were they had failed before in the east, they believed they would do better in the west. The Panic of 1837 was a motivation to head
Initially, Polk succeeded in joining differing views of public opinion behind expansion. Polk and his followers argued that national expansion was in the interest of northern working-class voters. By encouraging ...
The United States saw its territory more than double in the first three decades of the 19th century. Bursting with nationalist fervor, an insatiable desire for more land, and a rapidly increasing population, the western frontiers of the United States would not remain east of the Mississippi. The eventual spread of the American nation beyond the Mississippi into Native and French land, referred to as “Manifest Destiny” by John O’Sullivan, was rationalized as a realization of their God given duty. The Louisiana Purchase set the precedent for unrestricted westward expansion in America, and allowed for others to follow in his footsteps. Characterized by racist overtones, a lack of the “consent of the governed, and ethnic cleansing, there is no valid distinction between this American continental expansion and the international expansion sought by Europe in the late 19th and 20th centuries, and is clearly imperialist in nature.
As the United States grew in power, so did her ideas of expansion. The foreign powers were beginning to move out of their continents and seek land in other countries. The United States soon followed. They followed in their founder’s footsteps and tried to occupy lands in the far seas. However, in the beginning, this need for more land was called Manifest Destiny. This idea claimed that God was forcing them to occupy the new western lands. The expansionism that occurred in the late 1800’s was not a result of Manifest Destiny, and thus this "new" idea of expansionism was different from the expansionism ideas of early America. For the most part, the United States’ need for more land was primarily to keep other nations (mainly European powers) out of the western hemisphere. However the United States began to see reason behind change towards the "new" expansionistic ideas.
The United States, as a young nation, had the desire to expand westward and become a true continental United States that stretched from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Various factors, strategic and economic, contributed to the desire to expand westward. According to John O’Sullivan, as cited by Hestedt in Manifest Destiny 2004; "the U.S. had manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence to the free development of our yearly multiplying millions" (¶2). As Americans ventured westward to settle the frontier, their inherent superior beliefs, culture and the principles of democracy accompanied them. America’s ruthless ambition to fulfill its manifest destiny had a profound impact on the nation’s economy, social systems and foreign and domestic policies; westward expansion was a tumultuous period in American History that included periods of conflict with the Native Americans and Hispanics and increased in sectionalism that created the backdrop for the Civil War.
In spite of the prominence of the states in everyday life, the most demanding public policy questions former to the American Civil War involved discussions over the possibility of national power with most Americans believing it should remain partial. Yet federalism was still the center of political arguments. The Constitution did not report if states did nor did not reserve any remaining sovereignty in the powers given to the national government. The fact that the states were much more capable in accomplishing governmental purposes adequately t...