To what extent did Manifest Destiny and territorial expansion unite or divide the United States from 1830 to 1860.
Although the prospect of western expansion influenced a variety of factors that united America, certain issues centered around Manifest Destiny created an extreme divide in the political and social landscape of America, forcing the country into war. Manifest destiny itself, or the ‘god given’ right to expansion and relocation, was, in whole, was one of America’s largest gains in land area since its founding. This type of expansion as a whole was beneficial in uniting some Americans in their views and beliefs like religion, economy, trade and development. That being said, certain issues where there was not full agreement among the people. Most noteabily slavery, outweightd the uniting factors to send the country into what would be one of the most fatal civil wars in the history of the world.
Manifest destiny’s land acquisition and migration westward, although beneficial in the short term, led the country into a divide around political beliefs, sending the country into war. This divide was somewhat foreshadowed by William Ellery Channing, an abolitionist writing on his opposition to annex Texas: “The country has no right to adopt a policy, however gainfull, which, as it may foresee, will determine it to a career of war” (Document 2). Here, Channing is speaking to a purpose of foreshadowing and warning. He recognizes how annexing texas, while giving the country more land, would create an imbalance between primarily the south and north, and in congress, even with the acquisition of Oregon. Channing also spoke to the Mexican- American war, which, although was fought with an American victory, was an issue he was present as well. This Document and opinion shows how, although there were contradicting views, among the people: a successful short term gain vs. a plague of a longer-term divide. This historical period shows connections similar to that of the previous era of European colonization, where land, resources and economic development came back into the forefront of America.
Congresional choices like the 36:30 line, created a polarizing issue among Americans, adding more gas to an already burning flame of issues, like slavery, which outweighted any uniting factors, sending the country into war. An US magenese editorial from 1847 again speaks to the Louisana Compermise line, and how that socalled ‘unlawfull action’, created an arbitraty border, forcing polarisation, and foreshadowing an issue far greater than that of land gains.: “When new states come into the union, they are controlled by the constitution only; and that instrament permits slavery in all of the states that are parties to it, how can Congrss prevent it?”. When looking at the point of view of this document, it is revealed how slavery, although controversial, was not the real reason for a eventuial civil war, as both the north and south had, and still did support slavery in the majority. The issue was really congress, creating what the Magazine refers to as an “arbitrary border”, essentially forcing the country into what differences did exist. This document was not written in a ultra-neoclassical point of view, it was written in a bipartisan, overarching point of view, which ultimately dios provide a better narrative for this time period. This 3630 line, although singular, realtors in large to the early european colonization of the united states, where tribes and cities and eventual states really has polarizing opinions on many topics, just like this time period. That argumentation forced many wars, similar to the one that was seen in 1861.
Although the 1830-60 time period was one where past executive function came to light, some congressional members saw the divide, recognized the problem, and made an attempt to keep America from the civil war. Senator corwin, in his speech to congress, states that “…cannot forbear to notice it. It meets you at every step you take; it threatens you”…”Slavery in the north and south”. Here, it is important to talk about this excerpt from an historical context. America was reaching a breaking point in the 1850’s, afterall, it was less than a decade later where we finally found out where that point was. But senator Cowrin, like the minority of congress, where not for nor agnest slavery, they where not nesserailly concerned with the Mexican american war and admitance of texas into the union as an issue of fighting, good or bad. Senator corwin was ultimately recognising a self, created divide congress put on the America’s, that of the 3630 line. Views like this, although not perfect, illustrate foreshadowing like that of the drafters of the Articles of Confederation, who, although the documents were ineffective, recognized that failure and used it to influence the Constitution, which came into question during manifest destiny.
Overall, Manifest Destiny was great for some of America in a lot of ways. For one, it further industry, industry that was so crucial for america during the Industrial revolution along the black belt. This industry eventually grew north to create interstate trade routes like never before, and that ideal was seen just as equal for manifest destiny, with the atlantic ports foreshadowing a slew of possissiblity. Secondly, manifest destiny united people around religion, after all, this was a ‘god given’ right to expand. Additionally, manifest destiny created a universal feeling of American National Identity for some, with the prospect of growth prevalent. Yet, for all that good, there was a black cloud over all this, one that divided the country more than any other issue could resolve. As stated by then-senator summer stated: “The unconstitutional line diving america” (7).