Post three responses to the following prompt: The desire for expansion into the west/southwest completely disregarded any possible consequences that would stem from actually acquiring the land.
Be clear in your stance, and use the days you have to come up with a good response.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
60 comments:
American westward expansion possessed an irresponsible air of disregard for the consequences that would result from actually acquiring the land. Americans did not consider how those already living on land in the west, such as Native Americans and Mexicans, would have to react to US expansion. Fundamental questions were not addressed. For example, where would the current non-US residents on westward land move to? Or would those residents become US citizens? Furthermore, Americans were not prepared for the hostile responses received from countries such as Mexico and Great Britain when Americans started to annex land (Texas) or claim land (Oregon).
While a few politicians such as Henry Clay feared expansion into the West and Southwest, they made up the minority. Most of the American population, spurred by the concept of “Manifest Destiny”, was enthusiastic to expand the nation’s borders, and fulfill the nation’s destiny. The effect of the Manifest Destiny was amplified by the penny papers, which were able to spread this idea throughout the nation. The few politicians who did initially have doubts about expansion correctly feared that territorial expansion would reopen the debate slavery. A majority of the people in the young America were ignorant of the negative effects expansion into the West and Southwest, which included a war with Mexico, tension with Great Britain, and the rebirth of the controversial issue of slavery.
In the 1840’s expansionists pushed the United States into a war with Mexico. By admitting Texas statehood, the United States broke the fragile relationship that restrained America and Mexico from war. In 1845, Mexico broke diplomatic relations with Washington. The eventual war with Mexico drained American resources, becoming a source of countless causalities and great expense. While the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo granted the United States California and New Mexico, it caused a rift in our young nation. Westerners and Northerners felt they had been cheated and that Polk’s policies favored the Southwest. This created a tense political climate in which the issue of slavery would lead to the eventual Civil War.
As the manifest destiny “fever” spread through the nation coupled with the market revolution, advancements in transportation, and nationalism, Polk campaigned “Fifty-four forty or fight” in reference expansion of the United States into British territory. By the time Polk took office, he recognized that the US was in no position for yet another war with England. The president reluctantly backed out of his demand for all of the Oregon Territory, thus disappointing expansionist Democrats. He negotiated with Britain, obtaining a boundary at the 49th parallel, where it remains to this day.
American desire to expand into the western and southern areas of the continent disregarded the possible consequences that would stem from aquiring this land. Because of the constant presence of Americans on foreign land, there was a rise in tension from Mexicans in Mexico and the British in Oregon against the American population. They should have realized that they were encroaching on the lands of others and to become prepared for the reactions of the other nations when they annexed and claimed their lands. Yet, the people continued wars to ensue because of the conflict between countries.
One major reason for the American necessity for new land was the manifest destiny. This related to the growing pride in the United States as well as the idea that to ensure a prosperous future for America required the expansion of the nation. Racial undertones also explained the reason for the Manifest Destiny. This was because Americans believed that their race was superior and the Mexicans and Native Americans were not fit for this community. The people disagreed though on the extent to expansion. Some had limited goals for territorial expansion while other wanted to create an "empire of liberty", extending into Mexico, Canada, the Caribbean, Pacific Islands. They even wanted to extend into other portions of the globe.
Tension in Mexico and the war that followed was caused by the Americans in Texas. Because Mexico wanted to strengthen its economy as well as create a buffer zone between the Native Americans that would turn militant and Mexico, they invited American settlers into Texas. The fertile soil attracted many cotton planters from the South, including their slaves. Mexico's plan to have these people loyal citizens failed when they still wanted to maintain some ties to America. Slavery was illegal in Texas yet Americans did not want Texas because it would alter the balance between free and slave states. Americans rebelled and caused a war to ensue between the Mexicans and US and America was able to attain Texas.
American expansion was a semi-shifty undertaking in which politicians completely disregarded prior claims to land for the purpose of annexation. Mexico had claims to Texas and allowed American citizens to take up residence there. Sooner of later there were more Americans than Mexicans and they staged a rebellion.America acquired Oregon through the same questionable means. War with great Britain threatened so a treaty allowed the US to annex oregon after occupying it despite British claims.
Also, as well as claims had by other countries, Native Americans had been living there for years and years. But due to Manifest Destiny, Americans believed it was their right to spread modernism and civilization through the North American continent. This all completely disregarded the inherent right to Native Americans had to their land. Americans annexed land in the United States by force without regard for the people already living there.
On another note,the only American expansion that was done by honorable means was the Louisiana Purchase. All other expansion during this time period was in violation of prior land claims.
I think it was, as Kyle said, shifty, for Americans to expand in the way that they did. They firmly believed that they were superior to all other races and therefore had the right to spread their influence. That sounds kind of like Nazism to me.
The whole purpose of the "manifest destiny" thing was to justify expansionism. To say that God is ordaining you the power to claim land is kind of bizarre, in my opinion.
So to answer the question, America's expansion westward did show a lack of regard for the consequences that would follow. Their whole mindset addressed the 'now' and not the 'later' of expansion.
It can be seen on multiple occasions examples of how the Americans forgot why they came to America in the first place. Every last one of the Americans was at a time, immigrants. They came seeking freedom from oppression and seeking opportunity. Then, during the revolutionary time, they desired a nation free from unfair rule. Now, during this time period when most Americans were vying for westward expansion, the same could be seen. The struggles of the people from the lands they were attempting to take over were completely ignored, and they completely disregarded the strong possibility, and actuality, that there would be some sort of revolt or uprising. Americans became so greedy and hungry for land speculation that they did not care to look into the future and see the inevitable problems that would arise. It seems that our nation may never learn...
I think Kyle brought up a good point with the Louisiana Purchase. That portion of land really does seem to be the only portion of expansion that was honorably obtained. But even there, there were still countless problems that stemmed from the Native American "problem." The population couldn't just be happy with what they had. They constantly needed more and pushed the Indians out at any expense. If there were such problems that resulted from rightfully acquiring land, then it is no wonder that there would be even bigger and more drastic problems with the land we really didn't have a right taking. Ignorance to the problems that arose could not be claimed, for the Americans had just previously been witness to the dire consequences that could follow expansion. This just further proves that the consequences were disregarded.
yeah i also agree that the Louisiana Purchase was the most legitimate method of expansion. Paying for land with money seems more honorable than paying for it with bloodshed.
Also, does anyone else find it ironic how Mexico invited American settlers into the territories of Texas and New Mexico to help further developement, and we ended up taking their land away from them instead?
It just seems sneaky. It'd be like if I invited a guest to stay at my house to help me pay my rent, but then they multiplied and kicked me out on the street.
In response to Kyle's second comment, I have to express my full and complete agreement. Annexing western land demonstrated a complete disregard for the Native Americans who possessed an inherent right to the land.
But more importantly, pushing Native American's off western land was coupled with the problem that we had already pushed Eastern Native American tribes west. This means that first of all, there was twice the Native American Population in the west, and second off all we were taking away that western land. There was no regard for where all the Native Americans would now live.
In response to Danielle I do see the irony in inviting Americans to settle Texas and subsequently having those Americans cede from Mexico. It seems rather unfair for the Mexicans who lost territory and it demonstrated a lack of foresight on the Americans who did not realize that extreme tension with Mexico would result.
Haha good analogy, Danielle. And to add to that, you would most definately sue said houseguest. While the scorned land owners could not sue, per say, they could certainly attempt to fight back.
I think it is also important to point out that not everyone desired and strived for expansion. The Whigs, in fact, were very cautious about westward expansion and were fearful that territorial growth would produce instability. This is probably partly due to the status of the Democrats as working-class men, rather than the wealthy aristocratic status of the Whigs. The Democrats would have benefitted from the cheap land and promise of more oppurtunity more so than the Whigs.
The general feeling here is that America did disregard the possible consequences of expanding westward. As Ritu said there were those few who were not in favor of this expansion, but we must be judged upon our final actions. Americans continued their disrespect for the Native Americans, but this is no shock. To me it is more important that the United States disregarded the claims of Mexico. Mexico is a foreign state that, whether you agree with the treatment of Indians or not, has a legitimate government that can declare war. By annexing Texas we took an unnecessary risk of war, no matter how weak Mexico may have been. Risking war with a neighboring country is a good choice in zero circumstances.
Furthermore, were the internal issues that could potentially arise. Everyone who was involved with the government knew that slave and non-slave states were tied with even representation in Congress. By annexing another state, there was sure to be debate over whether or not this new state should be allowed states not. Hindsight tells us that a war would eventually break out, but at the time they still should have been aware of the potential for this issue.
America, for the most part, disregarded the consequences of expanding west. The annexation of Texas was a hot topic at the election of 1844. The Dems supported it while the Whigs opposed it. Although it was a close election between the two parties, James Polk, a Democrat, won. The fact that Polk won shows that Americans cared more about spreading "the benefits of American civilization" than a potential war with Mexico. After all, a war would be no big deal, since Mexico had just fought a war with Spain, was economically weak and had yet to achieve national stability.
About what Chris said, the slavery issue definitely was a huge consequence of expansion. Adding a new state was already an arduous process, but then having to decide if it would be a free state or a slave state made the process even more dramatic. Adding a state that would tip the balance in congress and the electoral collage was a pretty big deal. If the expansionists knew about the conflict that would break out, maybe they wouldn't have been so gung-ho about expansion.
First off, I would rather describe American westward expansion as "SKETCHY" than as "shifty," as Kyle described it. With this in mind, the desire for westward expansion did disregard any possible consequences that would stem from the acquisition of land. America was infatuated with the Manifest Destiny idea, that prompted expansion all the way to the Pacific Ocean. The United States was similar to a child, in that it believed they could take what they wanted without consequence. This was true with the annexation of Texas. American settlers abused the permission by the Mexican government to settle in Texas. Danielle had a good analogy! When these settlers demanded protection, the army and other militias went into Mexican territory (Texas) and assisted American settlers. They did so without any regard for future international issues.
Concerning expansion in general, I think the right of any country to acquire more land is always questionable. Kyle, you said that the Louisiana Purchase was the only honorable acquisition of land. Well during Jefferson's presidency, many people thought the Purchase was unconstitutional. More land at that time meant more power, so westward expansion of the United States meant that the US wanted to become more powerful, something European countries were against.
As for the Native Americans, United States already pushed them out of the way to form the original colonies. I'm sure the mentality at the time was, "We've already pushed them this far. A little more won't hurt." So yes, what we did disregarded the rights of the Native Americans, but in a way, everything we did, from the 13 colonies on out, disregarded them, because we were not supposed to be in North America in the first place.
After the annexation of Texas and admittance to the Union, slavery became the largest internal conflict stemming from Texas. Texas was well south of the line noted in the Missouri Compromise that decided slave vs. free state. It was clear to America that Texas would be a slave state, which prompted great opposition from the North. The Southern states pushed strongly because they would receive more seats in the Senate that voted pro-slavery. Texas, eventually and not surprisingly, became a slave state.
The one area where America showed some restraint was with the Oregon Territory. This area was annexed to the United States from the Adams-Onis Treaty, that also gave us Florida. There was a small American population living there, but a large British, and some Spanish and Russian settlers. Due the large distance between Oregon and the rest of America, expansion there took longer. President James Polk promised this territory in his inaugural speech, yet was restricted by potential war with Britain over Oregon. Here, America showed some restraint and fully understood the consequences. Eventually, Britain pulled out because they were far remoevd from their land in eastern Canada. As a result, the United States achieved its goal of Manifest Destiny; spreading from the Atlantic to Pacific Oceans.
About Mexico inviting settlers to their land, that obviously did not go as the Mexicans planned. The whole point of that arrangement was to recruit more citizens, Mexican citizens, who were Roman Catholic, in order to strengthen Mexico's borders and build a stronger country. In a way, it was probably an appeasement policy. The Mexicans probably figured that if Americans, as well as other settlers, were offered huge sums of land, the US would have no reason to take over. After all, most of the settlers were American, so most of the land in Mexico would belong to them anyways. The Mexicans probably didn't think twice about what would happen if the Americans didn't follow the policy, which is what ended up happening. The argument of "Manifest Destiny" was too great, so in the end, the Americans still took over.
The excitement over manifest destiny in the United States seemed to overshadow the consequences that could result from taking land in the West and Southwest. The idea of manifest destiny was that moving West was actually Americans' purpose and responsibility. However, the early settlers chose to ignore the Native Americans and Mexicans who were already living on the land, thus creating more argument over what should happen to them.
To start off, I want to quickly respond to Joanna and Kyle's discussion -- I think Joanna is right in saying that any country looking to acquire lots of land is questionable, even the Louisiana Purchase. As well, history only proves that acquiring too much land rapidly has negative consequences. Like we learned in MEH, how many countries and leaders (ex: Napoleon) "stretched" their empires and collapsed in the end due to the size of it? Many. So...
Clearly manifest destiny was overrated. Americans from politicians to ordinary men and women were oblivious to the consequences of moving West at such as fast pace. The desire WAS disregarded if not even seen. During Jackson's presidency, the government was selling Western land and receiving (in return) state bank notes that weren't worth more than the credit of the bank that issued them. In response, Jackson issued specie circular which said that payment of any land had to be in gold or silver or backed by either one. The result was only a financial panic which was inherited by Van Buren. During his presidency, there was a depression which included failed businesses, unemployment, land prices plummeted, etc. This really effected the image of the Democrats.
Overall, this single example of rapidly buying Western land shows how all Americans, rich to poor, politicians to ordinaries, were oblivious to the economic consequence their foolish actions.
I would have to say that US expansion did ignore the consequences that would come with aquiring land. The US taking western land would mean taking the land of local Mexican natives and Indian tribes. Even if the US did successfully annex the land much to the disdain of the natives, there would be inevitable tension between the natives and the US citizens since the US believed that races not of European descent were "lesser races" which were "incapable to participating as equals in the American republican system." The US did not plan to respect the rights of the natives and was only focusing on the expansion of the country.
There was hardly any forethought in the U.S.’s decision to expand into the west and southwest. The Manifest Destiny played a big part in the lack of acknowledging potential consequences. It held the idea that it was America’s destiny to acquire land. Another idea it mentioned was the justification for expansion. It claimed that America could ethically conquer native lands because the American race was superior. As the penny press helped to spread the ideas of the Manifest Destiny, people became blinded by desire and felt America was entitled to expand. Because of this, they did not take the time to think of the consequences associated with expansion.
On a second thought, I want to build off of what Alexa posted, which I think opens a door to thinking about the humanitarian views of Americans.
Alexa said, "The US did not plan to respect the rights of the natives and was only focusing on the expansion of the country." The Constitution included the equality of all people -- and though this issue has been brought up before many times, what about the rights of Natives and the Mexicans?
I feel like the Americans are falling under the category, "ambition of the ambitious." They disregarded the consequences that would come in acquiring/annexing land which included bad relations. Did they consider that the Natives and/or Mexicans would respond back with the possibility of war?
Basically, the Americans were contradicting themselves, and only thought in consideration of themselves, neglecting the quality of life for others. And this wasn't the only time it happened. Remember the Indian Act and Trail of Tears? This only supports pretty much everyone's belief that the desire for expansion disregarded consequences AND the lives of the people they were taking land from.
After settlers took Mexico's offer of land in the Southwest, they rebeled and became the Republic of Texas before later being annexed by the United States. Texas presented a powerful internal conflict because many of its settlers had slaves. Bringing Texas into the United States would tip the balance of power between slave states and non-slave states. Texas did become a slave state after its annexation.
The zealous American that wanted to expand into the West and Southwest undeniably ignored the possible consequences that would arise from actually acquiring the land. Americans were not concerned about the people already living on the western lands and essentially bulldozed through them. Because of the American belief that Mexicans and Native Americans were unfit to be part of the "American" Society, Americans treated those people harshly. Even though previous presidents promised that the settlers would never move to the west of the Mississippi river, the Americans eventually did. With the Mexicans, people like Stephen F. Austin created centers of powers and fought rebelliously over Texan lands. Their selfish migration eventually creates tension between America and both Mexico and Great Britain.
The Oregon Territory was disputed between the United States and Great Britain. Unlike the weaker Mexico who had just come out of a revolution from Spain, Great Britain could not be kicked out of their land as easily. However as more American settlers moved West they came into contact with other European groups. This did not slow the increase in American settlers as their numbers grew from 400 to over 5000 in the span of 3 years. Eventually, Great Britain seceded all of the Oregon Territory to the United States and the goal of manifest destiny was accomplished. This westward expansion provided mainly positive results for the United States.
A few examples of the U.S. disregarding consequences include the expansion into Texas and Oregon, which caused issues with international relations. Of course when the American intermediaries tried to revolt and gain Texan independence, the Mexican government felt offended and threatened. This led to violence when the Mexican army got involved. Although eventually a treaty was signed giving Texas independence, there were still tensions between the U.S. and Mexico. The U.S. had completely disregarded issues they might encounter with Mexico when it originally set out to gain land.
In attempting to expand, the U.S. came into conflict with Great Britain over the Oregon country. The U.S. became more interested in Oregon to counter Catholic presence, to escape endemics, and to economically prosper. Although there had been joint occupation in Oregon, tensions began to increase. They almost escalated to the point of war. An additional issue with expanding into Oregon was Indian resistance. None of these issues were predicted before the U.S. ambitiously decided to gain territory.
As we all know, the Democrats favored expansion when the Whigs opposed it because they thought it would produce instability and would hinder the unity of the nation. In a sense, the Whigs had more of a vision of the future. Expanding would be hard to maintain unity.
Then, the idea of 'manifest destiny' came up, meaning "obvious or undeniable fate". This served as the justification for acquiring the land. O'Sullivan claimed that it was the nations "manifest destiny to overspread and 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.
Americans used manifest destiny as a scapegoat for the reason they were trying to acquire the land. No, they did not fully plan out the consequences that would result from their actions. Americans will always be Americans, What can I say? (: .
After winning ‘independence’ from Mexico, Texas decided to join the union of the United States, mainly to be protected from Mexico. Again, Southerners and Democrats supported this because they looked forward to the land that Texas provided (more slave states out of the Texas territory) Whigs and Northerners generally feared this because they thought the addition of another slave state would place an imbalance in the unity of the states.
Many people from both sides feared that Texas’s annexation would start a War with Mexico. They were CORRECT. Despite this warning, the Tyler decided to ignore the signs of war, and signed a treaty of annexation with Texas in April of 1844. However, the Senate (mostly Whigs) overthrew Tyler’s proposed treaty. Polk, a man who supported expansion, took presidency. His election suggested that the Americans were saying that they were now pro-expansion. Not thinking of the consequences, Congress passed annexation of Texas. And Texas became the 28th state.
A few weeks after the annexation of Texas, the tension between Mexico increased drastically and Mexico decided to break off all diplomatic relationships with the United States. (This was the first step to war) Even if the United States could persuade Mexico to accept annexation, the dispute of the border was a tremendous issue. Americans claimed that the Rio Grande was the border, as Mexico claimed that it was the Nueces River.
This was not even the problem. Americans did not see how this issue dimished the relationship with Mexico. On top of wanting Texas, Polk and many other Democrats that were pro-expansion wanted much more form Meico. Polk dreamed of acquiring the inter territory from Texas to the Pacific Ocean. Polk then sent out troops that crossed the Nueces and set up camp near the Rio Grande. This in Mexico’s mind was an INVASION OF TERRITORY. Mexican troops engaged in a miniature battle with American troops. Many citizens disapproved war, but Congress declared war on May 13th of 1846.
US expansion created multiple complications unforseen by the US that created tension and split the country. The question of whether or not Texas should be absorbed into the Union split the country. On one side, people did not want to annex Texas out of fear that it would spark a war against Mexico and that Texas would become a slave state, spreading slavery. On the other side, people wanted to annex Texas for trade, farming, expanding US borders, belief in Manifest Destiny, and stopping European efforts to weaken the US.
After Texas was annexed, further territory and border disputes caused what anti-expansionalists feared, a war. Although the Mexican War of the mid 1840s ended with the Treaty of Guadalupe in 1848, some expansionalists demanded annexation of all of Mexico while anti-slavery advocates saw the rapid expansion as a conspiracy to spread slavery.
I agree with John's comment on the issue of slavery between North and South states after Texas was annexed. Because many of settlers who moved to Texas for the available land suitable for growing cotton, they brought with them slaves to help their fields. Also, numerous that moved into Texas came from Southern states, so slavery was not an issue to them. The scale would definitely be tipped as Texas became a slave state.
All in all, the US (expansionalists) did not take the time to predict possible problems that expanding could bring. It was obvious that the natives of the region would not like their land to be forcibly taken especially by some nation that didn't respect them or their culture. Expansionalists kept pushing for the annexation of new territory under the justification of Manifest Destiny and the "superiority of the American race," the desire to evangelize and spread American culture(in the case of Oregon especially,) to spread slavery and to set up business, namely cotton plantations, there. They failed to realize that annexation of new territory was not a simple or easy affair and continued to demand new lands be forcibly taken without regards to the possible effects of both their country or the natives who lived in the territory.
The U.S. failed to prevent internal issues when acquiring land. There were controversies that arose as a result of expansion including about the infamous issue, slavery. Many northerners opposed annexing Texas since it would become a slave state. Similarly, others recognized that the south would gain more votes in Congress, which they passionately tried to avoid. Jackson realized that these effects of expansion could threaten the stability of the union so did not support gaining Texas. However, he ultimately did not prevent these issues from resurfacing. During James Polk’s presidency sectional differences became threatening. Antislavery advocates were “charging that the idea of acquiring Mexico was part of a southern scheme to extend slavery to new realms.” When expanding, the U.S. even disregarded possible negative consequences it could have on internal stability.
Tried to post this before but it wouldn't work for some reason:
American expansion showed no regard for any of the people currently living on or owning the land which was taken. The very name of "manifest destiny" shows this irresponsibility. The idea that just because land is there it belongs to the U.S. shows a kind of arrogance seldom seen. Obviously our neighbors in mexico did not share the same unbridled enthusiasm for the United States grabbing ever bit of land with a favorable attribute.
Having taken one side of the argument let me now join the other. Many previous posts mention how the American's unjustly stole the Naitive American's land and threw them out. However Naitive American's were fighting one another for land far before European settlers landed upon this continent's shores. For example the Shawnee and Iroquois fought over land in 1672. They also famously reffered to bagataway, or lacrosse, as the little brother of war, thus showing that they did engage in such uncivil behavior. By saying this I am by no means condoning the actions of the government, but I am saying that the allusions to Hitler may be a bit strong.
Because of the expansionist Manifest Destiny, multiples issues arose between Mexico and the United States. This eagerness to move westward allowed someone like Polk to become President. A man, who sympathized with the expansionists, and eventually went to war with Mexico over border disputes.He justified it by saying that an American unit was attacked, but he would have requested a declaration of war even without it. The Americans blindly invaded lands that did not belong to them and claimed it for the Union. Even when warned by anti-expansionists about the possible war, settlers continued to drive through. As a result, Texas was annexed as a slave state, tensions arose between Britain and US, and California along with Mexican territory was secured.
As for Ritu's commment regarding Clay being one of the only politicians to go against expansion, this can't be seen as any kind of surprise. Throughout the course of history mankind has acted according to whatever is best for itself. By this I mean that at heart most people are just looking out for themselves. A modern day illustration of this is the ridiculously high number of special intrest groups in the country today. Back then was no different, most people saw the expansionist movement as an oppurtunity and politicians knew that in order to get re-elected they would have to agree with them, regardless of their own personal beliefs.
The peoples' eagerness to expand because of the Manifest Destiny hype definately caused them to act without thinking. Immigration to Oregon, California, and Texas resulted in unexpected, although easily foreseen if anyone had bothered to consider them, consequences that divided the country and hurt foreign relations. The northern states were paranoid that annexation of Texas would shift the power in favour of the slave states and the southern states were gung-ho for expansion for the same reason. This rift between the regions awakened the conflicts that had been dormant until now. America's relationships with England and Mexico became hostile, aggressive and basically rude. The way the US pushed into Mexico's territory and bullied them around was pretty disrespectful to say the least. And the same goes for our behaviour in Oregon.
The desire for expansion of more territory west and southwest of the United States clearly disregarded the consequences that would come with such an ambitious and controversial aquirement. Ambition overrode reasonable thought; the desire to gain more land squashed the fear of starting war with other nations, ones that had just been settled such as the British, and neighboring countries such as Mexico. National security took a backseat to expansion of unknown territories.
When the idea of manifest destiny reached many Americans, they failed to think of any of the consequences that it could bring. They wanted to expand all the way across the land so they did not think about the people already living on the land there (the Native Americans and the Mexicans). They also didn't think about the consequences in the area of slavery, and how the expansion would change the debate about slavery. The American people wanted expansion so badly that they failed to see all of the bad consequences that could come with it and were lead by most politicians.
Another situation America played a dangerous game in was the land claim of Oregon. There was another prominent tenant there, Great Britain. This should be a major concern because we as a country have already fought two wars with them in less than 100 years. Following the presidencies of Andrew Jackson and Martin 'Van Ruin' our economy was weak. America was in no position to fight a war with Mexico, let alone the strongest country in the world. Luckily, we escaped a major military conflict because our country would have been in serious danger. This move, however, still put American people in serious jeopardy.
Chris, I couldn't agree more. Claiming Oregon but the United States in jeopardy with the British, again. After just claiming independece from them, it wasnt such a smart idea to take even more land from them. Luckily for us the British didnt feel the need to keep the land because it was so far removed from them, and did not start or declare war with us, but even the idea of such an action against the British was foolish and dangerous for the welfare and survival of the United States.
In regard to the annexation of Texas, the United States at first didn't want Texas to become part of the United States, and recognized that potential consequences such as war with their Mexican neighbors could take place, and that the issue about slave states would become a large topic of discussion as to what would happen in regard to Texas. But, after Texas became a republic and basicaly stole their indepence from Mexico, the republic knocked on America's doors until accepted. So, in this case, the United States recognized the potential consequences that indeed took place such as the cut off of diplomatic relations with Mexico, hence not going into the situaiton with their eyes closed.
I agree with Chelsea that the situation with Texas was one in which Americans recognized the consequences. The potential threat of war with Mexico if Texas was allowed to join the Unites States was something that Americans for a long time weren't willing to risk. They were defiantly thinking about the risk of expanding in that case. Maybe this is because the threat of war was more apparent in this case than in other ones. Texas wanted the benefits that came with being a state in America, mainly the security. They knew that they would face attacks from Mexico. Americans also knew this and that is a reason that they wouldn't allow Texas to be part of the States for so long.
For many years, and this example evidence in itself, the Americans have been selfish and "nosy." Like Alicja said, the Americans have always been present in foreign lands. In this case, Mexico was the "victim" of American selfishness. With the Texas annexation, the US claimed the borders went to the Rio Grande River whereas the Mexicans claimed their border went to the Neuces River. Of course, both countries would fight over this, but if America would have stayed to its righteous land and not let manifest destiny and expansionist desires, this consequence of selfishness would not have occurred.
Americans in general also did not regard any possible consequences that would stem from expansion west/southwest. They did not think about the influence they would have on the Mexicans or the Native Americans living on the land, just about how themselves could prosper.
"Manifest Destiny" caught on fast to justify expansionism. It said that the American race was superior over the Mexicans and the Indians. This just sounds like nonsense, and this lack of racial equality and tolerance was awful. It has even carried over to today, and our feeling of superiority is a reason that many countries don't like us.
If Americans stopped being so high-and-mighty and greedy, they could have seen that their expansion could hurt the Mexican people and the Native Americans with no where to go. However, their desire disregarded any of these consequences which led to hostility with the Mexicans in Texas and British in Oregon.
I completely agree with both Alex and Chris. It is no surprise that we treated the Native Americans terribly. We had already pushed Eastern Native American tribes west off their rightful territory. Now, where would they go now?
Probably more importantly, though, was that we risked a war for our greed. We disregarded the possibility of losing to Mexico and the possibility of a war waging with Great Britain, the most powerful country in the world. Although we won the war with Mexico because of our weaponry and good generals, it was a risk that was not necessary yet. The whole idea of expansion spread quickly and was underdeveloped and impulsive. If the Americans had been more patient, they could have avoided the thousands of American deaths in the war with Mexico and attempted to talk things through. The desire to expand led to irresponsibility of the Americans because they did not regard the consequences of war.
Any possible consequences that would stem from acquiring the southwest land was put aside and disregarded when Polk's greediness took over. We often see examples of greediness for land and power blinding clear threats from our actions. Polk, the President of the US at the time, was so caught up in his election, promising the people Oregon and Texas, and driven by the slogan "fifty four forty or fight!" However,once he took office, he realized that America could not wage war with Britain, who they had joint occupation of Oregon with. He also realized that "fifty four forty" was an impossible boundary that would never be met and compromised at forty-nine. People were obviously let down that the promises were not fulfilled. After the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, Polk pushed to take all of Mexico which revealed his true greed and further ruined his reputation. The annexation of the southwest also re-opened sectional debate and the controversial issue of slavery. Polk's desire for expansion completely disregarded any possible consequences and lead to the demise of his reputation and the return of the slavery dispute.
Post a Comment