The Benevolence of the Manifest Destiny

[unionblue]

From A Speech in New Orleans, Louisiana, made to Mexican War veterans, March 7, 1876.

"...Thus far my friends, I have but briefly sketched some of your military glory; I now come to grander achievements. In possession of the Capital of the country (Mexico), the question was what would Americans do,--would they hold possession, and claim the country as their own conquest? Would they claim these people as subjects by ordeal of battle? No, no, not so. It is my pride as an American to remember that you made a treaty of peace, and took not one rod of land by conquest. By that treaty of peace you withdrew from the Capital, you surrendered the territory that you held by military possession, and the territory you acquired by treaty you paid for with your money. Never did any country present a grander moral spectacle according to my estimate than ours did on that occasion; nor did our soldiers less exemplify those noble attributes. Wherever our troops marched, all the rights of property were respected, never was any non-combatant disturbed. The troops never did take anything from them without just compensation. In the villages we passed through we got what we required and paid for it at the market price of the country. These are some of the moral elements. Let us pass to the material results. A material result of the war with Mexico was the acquisition by purchase of that great land of California, a land of promise and of golden fulfilment. Not only has the gold of California been poured into your treasury as a material result of this war, but exploration and development of the whole territory lying between the Mississippi Valley and the Pacific Coast is a consequence of the acquisition. It has thus made us one of the greatest contributors in the world in adding to its specie. Nevada certainly, and perhaps Idaho, produces more silver than the famous land of Peru, and if our country has not specie sufficient to redeem all the greenbacks afloat, that is one of the results which I may not ascribe to the war with Mexico. Then there was another material result, the necessity of connecting by railroads the country already occupied with that which had been recently acquired, led to the surveys and construction; and another, we hope, is soon to be built to connect your city of New Orleans with the Pacific Coast. These are some of the material results which have followed from the war with Mexico; nor are they all, for the progress in Texas is fairly ascribable to the same cause, and the raiolroad I spoke of being built will be the means of still further developing the vast resources of that State, and New Orleans may become in commerce what her natural position fairly ascribes to her. Then, my friends, this progress in and beyond the Valley of the Mississippi is opening up other vast resources which again are connected with the material results of the war with Mexico.

When all these railroads are completed, stretching across the continent, the quickest line of commerce will be across the Territory of the United States, and the Mississippi Valley will be the Central Station. Yours is a mission not to propagandize, or by force to extend your Empire. The diversity of the climate of your valley, the different lights and shadows of its mountain borders on the East and on the West proclaim for you a cosmopolitan future, and the great and varied productions of your country announce your permanent policy to be that of peace and trade with the nations. Yours is a higher mission than political propagandism or territorial conquest. It is to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to shelter the homeless, and to offer a field of profitable labor to every energetic, industrious wanderer of the Caucasian race. To one born in the Mississippi Valley, after the acquisition of Louisiana had given unity to the commercial and political relations of the inhabitants of the wide spread territory, it was natural if he grew up with wishes expanded as his native valley. Happy is it for him if the experience of age enables him to weave a garland of hope around the anticipations of youth, to see manufacturing cities surpassing the wealth of Tyre and Sidon, and granaries by the side of which the world supplying the stores of the Pharaohs would seem diminutive. At no distant day, your city, situated at the point where ocean and river meet, where the productions of all the country drained by the Mississippi find the best route to the markets of Southern and Central America, as well as of Western Europe, should, may we not say must, become one of the principal commercial centers of the world. You have only to be true to yourselves to command that which by the endowment of nature, fairly belongs to you. And in your progress to power, in the midst of your achieved prosperity, let us ask that you remember the part of your soldiers in Mexico. But brilliant as were the deeds performed, important as were the results which followed directly and indirectly, and just as your claim may be on the gratitude of the present and future generations of the veterans and representatives of the army in Mexico, I would say they have a glory surpassing all which was acquired on the field of battle. They came from a foreign war waged against a people of different origin, language and habits. They came from a conquered country where corporations and individuals possessed much personal and portable wealth. They came with hands empty of plunder, they came with hearts free from the stain of injustice or cruelty to the helpless, they left behind them no widow of a non-combatant husband slain on the family hearth, they left no orphans destitute because of the destruction or appropriation of their property by the invading army. They came back poorer than they went, except in that which is the true soldier's treasure---honor, HONOR...."

Part of a speech by Jefferson Davis, from the book, Jefferson Davis, The Essential Writings, edited by William J. Cooper, Jr.

Unionblue

[bill_torrens]

Dear Ole,

Thank you very much for your post addressed to me, which I read with interest.

Bill

[Hunter_Killer]

Originally Posted by ole

Somewhere in your mind he crossed a line which only you can define. I've spent personal time with Shane and can enthusiastically state that I haven't found that "mean bone" that you are objecting to. He speaks his mind. Apparently, occasionally, some of it unintentionally crosses someone else's line.

Indeed, the same is true for me. Shane and I have spent plenty of time together, and I must agree with you entirely. He is an extremely nice fellow. Might be that you and I are more used to his manner of speech and take it with rather large portions of salt because I honestly don't see the affront here. He said what he meant, and something entirely different is being read into it.

Anyway, I think I have something useful to contribute. Since Unionblue has introduced a quote, I believe it is fair to introduce my own. Please note that even though this was not said by me, it is entirely my stance on the War. This should explain why I think that it was not Manifest Destiny that drove the Union, but something entirely different.

"It was very much discussed whether the South would carry out its threat to secede and set up a separate government, the cornerstone of which should be, protection to the “Divine” institution of slavery. For there were people who believed in the “divinity” of human slavery, as there are now people who believe Mormonism and Polygamy to be ordained by the Most High. We forgive them for entertaining such notions, but forbid their practice. It was generally believed that there would be a flurry; that some of the extreme Southern States would go so far as to pass ordinances of secession. But the common impression was that this step was so plainly suicidal for the South, that the movement would not spread over much of the territory and would not last long.

Doubtless the founders of our government, the majority of them at least, regarded the confederation of the colonies as an experiment. Each colony considered itself a separate government; that the confederation was for mutual protection against a foreign foe, and the prevention of strife and war among themselves. If there had been a desire on the part of any single State to withdraw from the compact at any time while the number of States was limited to the original thirteen, I do not suppose there would have been any to contest the right, no matter how much the determination might have been regretted. The problem changed on the ratification of the Constitution by all the colonies; it changed still more when amendments were added; and if the right of any one State to withdraw continued to exist at all after the ratification of the Constitution, it certainly ceased on the formation of new States, at least so far as the new States themselves were concerned. It was never possessed at all by Florida or the States west of the Mississippi, all of which were purchased by the treasury of the entire nation. Texas and the territory brought into the Union in consequence of annexation, were purchased with both blood and treasure; and Texas, with a domain greater than that of any European state except Russia, was permitted to retain as state property all the public lands within its borders. It would have been ingratitude and injustice of the most flagrant sort for this State to withdraw from the Union after all that had been spent and done to introduce her; yet, if separation had actually occurred, Texas must necessarily have gone with the South, both on account of her institutions and her geographical position. Secession was illogical as well as impracticable; it was revolution.

Now, the right of revolution is an inherent one. When people are oppressed by their government, it is a natural right they enjoy to relieve themselves of the oppression, if they are strong enough, either by withdrawal from it, or by overthrowing it and substituting a government more acceptable. But any people or part of a people who resort to this remedy, stake their lives, their property, and every claim for protection given by citizenship on the issue. Victory, or the conditions imposed by the conqueror must be the result.

In the case of the war between the States it would have been the exact truth if the South had said, “We do not want to live with you Northern people any longer; we know our institution of slavery is obnoxious to you, and, as you are growing numerically stronger than we, it may at some time in the future be endangered. So long as you permitted us to control the government, and with the aid of a few friends at the North to enact laws constituting your section a guard against the escape of our property, we were willing to live with you. You have been submissive to our rule heretofore; but it looks now as if you did not intend to continue so, and we will remain in the Union no longer.” Instead of this the seceding States cried lustily, “Let us alone; you have no constitutional power to interfere with us.” Newspapers and people at the North reiterated the cry. Individuals might ignore the constitution; but the Nation itself must not only obey it, but must enforce the strictest construction of that instrument; the construction put upon it by the Southerners themselves. The fact is the constitution did not apply to any such contingency as the one existing from 1861 to 1865. Its framers never dreamed of such a contingency occurring. If they had foreseen it, the probabilities are they would have sanctioned the right of a State or States to withdraw rather than that there should be war between brothers.

The framers were wise in their generation and wanted to do the very best possible to secure their own liberty and independence, and that also of their descendants to the latest days. It is preposterous to suppose that the people of one generation can lay down the best and only rules of government for all who are to come after them, and under unforeseen contingencies. At the time of the framing of our constitution the only physical forces that had been subdued and made to serve man and do his labor, were the currents in the streams and in the air we breathe. Rude machinery, propelled by water power, had been invented; sails to propel ships upon the waters had been set to catch the passing breeze but the application of stream to propel vessels against both wind and current, and machinery to do all manner of work had not been thought of. The instantaneous transmission of messages around the world by means of electricity would probably at that day have been attributed to witchcraft or a league with the Devil. Immaterial circumstances had changed as greatly as material ones. We could not and ought not to be rigidly bound by the rules laid down under circumstances so different for emergencies so utterly unanticipated. The fathers themselves would have been the first to declare that their prerogatives were not irrevocable. They would surely have resisted secession could they have lived to see the shape it assumed."

Ulysses S. Grant, Chapter 16: Discussing Secession, Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant.

[sgtcsa]

Gentlemen,
Let me add this:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Indeed, the same is true for me. Shane and I have spent plenty of time together, and I must agree with you entirely. He is an extremely nice fellow. Might be that you and I are more used to his manner of speech and take it with rather large portions of salt because I honestly don't see the affront here. He said what he meant, and something entirely different is being read into it."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This...................is exactly what I was trying to convey. Perhaps something else was read into it, but as you know your partner much better, then I can see how this could have occured. The written word is a great form of communication, however, it still lacks something. You may write something on paper, or type it, and yet, with that very same sentence, can SAY it, in many differnent tones, thus, creating an intirely different climate altogether. And, making the chances for a misunderstanding, a very distinct possibility. Yep, it may be a pure way of communicating, but it does have some disadvantages at times.

Regards,
SgtCSA

[unionblue]

Dawna,

To try and get back on subject a bit, if there was such a push on by Northern Capitalists and religious fanatics to push the concept of a Manifest Destiny at the expense of the citizens of Mexico, Indian tribes, etc., at the expense of the South and a future plot for an imperialistic thrust aimed that region, the why did the Whig Party have the cry of "No Territory!" at the start of, and during the Mexican War?

From the book, The Road to Disunion, by William H. Freehling:

"Those who claim history would have happened another way, with sufficient Northerners accepting [President] Tyler's treaty (The Annexation of Texas) without sufficient Southern shoving are ignoring the history of this question. Northern Whigs had for years been warning that this monstrous Slavepower land-grab was coming. Northern Democrats had for years been evading the taint of a Slavepower expansion that was likely to produce a war against Mexico and still more annexations of formerly Mexican territory. Just what massive northern power block was now going to turn against its traditions because a despised President ordered an about-face--unless some massive southern power bloc compelled such a turnaround?

Assuredly, neither Northern nor Southern Whigs were going to march behind John Tyler. For a quarter-century, John Quincy Adam's Yankee faction had been attacking the Slavepower's three-fifths clause as despots' need and democracy's shame. For a decade, Northern Whigs had warned that Texas would be the Slavepower's next outsized demand after the [congressional] gag rule. For three years, Whigs northern and southern had loathed Tyler as slayer of their popular mandate. Almost all Whigs were predictably at Tyler's throat from the minute he announced the treaty, which was two weeks before Calhoun's Pakenham Letter was published (A letter from England's minister to the United States where he stated that England was "constantly exerting herself to procure the general abolition of slavery throughout the world" and that he had urged Mexico to link Texa's independence and emancipation. This resulted in making pro-slavery elements in the United States urge for the annexation of Texas for fear of 'foregin interference'.)

For purposes of clarity, the Gag Rule and Texas controversies have here been separately analyzed. But the artificial segmentation hinders understanding of Northern Whigs integrated perception: both slavery issues triumphed in Congress because the Slavepower enslaved the Democratic Party and thus the not-so-democratic republic. Artificially segregating Whigs response to gag and Texas crises also hinders awareness that the two issues came to climax at the same time. The same Congress of 1844-5 which abolished the gag rule admitted Texas.

Another long-related issue, the three-fifths clause, was simultaneously inspiring its greatest Northern Whig resistance since the Missouri Controversy. In March 1843, the Massachusetts legislature proposed amending the United States Constitution to delete the three-fifths clause. On December 21, 1843, John Quincy Adams presented the proposed amendment to the national House of Representatives. Adams became chairman of the committee selected to consider the proposal. When he could not prevail in the committee's deliberations, Adams joined with Ohio's Joshua Giddings in issuing a dissenting report.

A policy awarding tyrants estra representatives for owning slaves, charged the two Yankees, violated "the first and vital principles of republican popular representations." The South's swollen power led to disproportionate numbers of Southerners in the House, the White House, the Supreme Court. The Slavepower's undemocratic power led to undemocratic gag rules. Now Southerners would annex Texas, a huge slave area. The Slavepower would then use its swollen power to drive the United States into a war with Mexico to secure still more slave states. The Slavepower would emerge too gigantic for mere democrats to control.

"The treaty for the anexation of Texas," Adams soon added in his diary, "was this day sent in to the Senate and with it went the freedom of the human race." This "mad project," warned the editor of the Boston Atlas, will be resisted "with pen, with tongue, with every nerve and muscle of our body," aye "with the last drop of blood."

Dawna, you begin to see by the above where I have my doubts that the North was pushing for more territory. In fact, it seems that most of the North was pushing very hard NOT to annex Texas, or any other territory, at all.

In fact, when the war began here is who was pushing to keep territory and who was against keeping conquered land:

"While Whigs were thus uncomfortably impicated in the Democracy's war, they felt comfortably patriotic in advocating that conquered territory be returned. Democrats usually urged that Mexican land be kept, to pay costs of repelling Mexican 'invasion.' Whigs usually answered that whoever had invaded first, American armies were now invading Mexico. Some Whigs motto was clear-cut: NO TERRITORY.

No Territory was the most promising strategy the National Whig Party ever deployed on a slavery issue. No Territory meant no Union-straining crisis, for no territorial slavery controversy could occur unless territory was aquired. No Territory meant also no resumption of the party-straining Texas issue, where Northern Whigs had unyieldingly opposed territory for the Slavepower and Southern Whigs had accordingly to choose between losing their party or losing the Deep South.

No Territory furthermore enabled the party's two wings to espouse the same policy for opposite reasons. Northern Whigs argued that non-annexation of Mexican territory stopped slave extensions, for the Mexican tropics were historically and climatically fit for slave labor. Southern Whigs argued that No Territory stopped free labor extension, for much of Mexico was too arid for slave labor and the South lacked enough slaves to settle the rest. Behold the Whig Party, for once united on a slave policy--because for once agreed on how to say no to territory rather than yes or no to slavery."

Again, Dawna, I am confused by the idea that theory of Manifest Destiny and the conquest of territory was solely a Northern one, whether they be Capitalists or religious fanatics. Based on the above conclusions by Professor Freehling, there was much political motive NOT to take any territory, to include Texas. Most in the North, especially Northern Whigs, believed that such a move would provoke a war that they did not want. Southern Whigs wanted no territory because it would finally put the slavery issue on the back burner.

Submitted for your consideration,
Unionblue

Unionblue

[dawna]

Originally Posted by unionblue

Again, Dawna, I am confused by the idea that theory of Manifest Destiny and the conquest of territory was solely a Northern one, whether they be Capitalists or religious fanatics. Based on the above conclusions by Professor Freehling, there was much political motive NOT to take any territory, to include Texas. Most in the North, especially Northern Whigs, believed that such a move would provoke a war that they did not want. Southern Whigs wanted no territory because it would finally put the slavery issue on the back burner.

Neil:

I apologize for not responding to your postings sooner, but recent severe thunderstorms in my area rendered my computer unconscious, and left me looking much like the Bride of Frankenstein.

I would like to repeat what I have consistently said all along; that the concept of the Manifest Destiny was practiced by all of the United States.

Manifest Destiny was a term used in the 1840s to justify the United States' westward expansion into such areas as Texas, Oregon and California. There was a widely held underlying belief that Americans, the chosen people, had a divinely inspired mission to spread the fruits of their democracy to the less fortunate (usually meaning Native Americans and other non-Europeans).

The idea of an almost religious manifest destiny was a common staple in the speeches and newspaper articles of the time. Most of the exponents of expansion were Democrats, but some Whigs (and later Republicans) were also supporters.

Manifest destiny was later applied to American interests in the Caribbean and the Pacific, sharing much with the practice of imperialism. Critics, both at that time and today, saw the manifest destiny rationale as a thinly veiled attempt to put an acceptable face on taking lands from other peoples. Motives were often described as well-intentioned efforts to improve the lot of backward masses, but in truth the motivators were greed and control. (U.S. History)

The early theological arguments in favour of expansion were taken from the gospel of Matthew and again used by pilgram leaders such as John Winthrop: "Men shall say of succeeding plantacions: the Lord make it like that of New England: for wee must Consider that wee shall be as a Citty upon a Hill, the eies of all people upon us." And two hundred years later, after the war against Mexico, Herman Melville echoed the justification for expansion by this statement: "We Americans are the peculiar, chosen people—the Israel of our time; we bear the ark of the liberties of the world.... God has predestined ... the rest of the nations must be in our rear."

It's interesting to note that John O'Sullivan's religious motives were not enough in 1845, and he added the very powerful tool of patriotic duty to his definition of Manifest Destiny:

"Why, were other reasoning wanting, in favour of now elevating this question of the reception of Texas into the Union, out of the lower region of our past party dissensions, up to its proper level of a high and broad nationality, it surely is to be found, found abundantly, in the manner in which other nations have undertaken to intrude themselves into it, between us and the proper parties to the case, in a spirit of hostile interference against us, for the avowed object of thwarting our policy and hampering our power, limiting our greatness and checking the fulfillment of our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions."

I would like to suggest that you may be overlooking one very important aspect of Northern Whig opposition to the annexation of Texas, and that is market competition - products from Texas would be in direct competition for markets already established in the east. And I have to wonder why most volunteers in the fight against Mexico came from the West, if the Southern purpose was to gain yet another slave state.

Placards in New York bore the slogan "Mexico or Death" and many newspapers in the North stated that the war would benefit the Mexican people by bringing them "the blessings of democracy and liberty." A small but visible group, including Abraham Lincoln, denounced the war, but most Whigs supported the Mexican War - two of the leading American generals (Zachary Taylor and Winfield Scott) were both Whigs.

Public support for the war began to erode when newspapers wrote articles regarding disease and illnesses that plagued the U.S. army; and when they learned of the brutality against Mexican civilians. Lt. George G. Meade reported that "citizens in Matmoros were robbed, cattle were stolen, and innocent civilians killed for no other object than amusement." General Winfield Scott wrote that, "If only a tenth of the horror stories were true, it was enough to make Heaven weep and every American of Christian morals blush for this country."

A group of enlisted Irish-Catholic Americans, shocked by the desecration of Catholic churches, deserted to the Mexican side, formed the San Patricio Battalion, and fought against the American army. At Churubusco, 65 members of the battalion (which also consisted of foreign nationals resident in Mexico) were captured. Fifty were executed and 11 others were punished with fifty lashes apiece and the letter D (for deserter) branded on their cheeks.

"Most of our few warriors left from the Big Hole had been swept as leaves before the storm....A young warrior, wounded, lay on a buffalo robe dying without complaint. Children crying with cold. No fire. There could be no light. Everywhere the crying, the death wail....I felt the coming end. All for which we had suffered lost! Thoughts came of the Wallowa where I grew up. Of my own country when only Indians were there. Of tipis along the bending river. Of the blue, clear lake, wide meadows with horse and cattle herds. From the mountain forests, voices seemed calling. I felt as dreaming. Not my living self." ~Yellow Wolf~

"There was a time when our people covered the land as the waves of a wind-ruffled sea cover its shell-paved floor, but that time is long since passed away with the greatness of tribes that are now but a mournful memory." ~Chief Seattle~ (1854)

Again Neil, I propose to you that the "theory of Manifest Destiny and the conquest of territory" was embraced by all of the United States.

Dawna

[unionblue]

Dawna,

I stand corrected in that I now understand that you say that the concept of Manifest Destiny was embraced by all of the United States.

I must now disagree with your conclusion.

Per my research, especially with the book The Road to DisUnion, I find that not all of the United States did support the concept of Manifest Destiny, the war with Mexico or the idea of gaining more and new territory. As to the percise percentage of the American population who did or did not, I cannot at this time determine.

But what I have found is that there was a huge concern, by both wings of the Whig party, as you saw in my post #000, wanted nothing to do with the addition of new territory, Manifest or otherwise. In fact, there was some concern over the idea the governing such a huge area of new land would be impossible.

Our we sure we are not just accepting old 'tried and true' views from earlier histories assumptions and conclusions? Might I suggest that you check out the book, The Road to Disunion by William Freehling and see if any of the material, footnotes, research, might change your feelings on this matter? While the man is hard to get through at times, it makes for some very interesting reading of the pre-Civil War period.

I was especially fascinated by Sam Houston's political manuvering to overcome anti-annexation feelings in the US, by toying with both the Mexican and British governments with the proposed idea to return Texas to Mexico or make it an emancipated territory and independent republic under British influence & protection from Mexico.

While I do not dispute that there were elements of the US population that espoused Manifest Destiny, nor the cruel results to the plains Indians due to westward expansion, this historical period may have not had the total backing nor the historical 'weight' as previously indicated.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[dawna]

Originally Posted by unionblue

While I do not dispute that there were elements of the US population that espoused Manifest Destiny, nor the cruel results to the plains Indians due to westward expansion, this historical period may have not not had the total backing nor the historical 'weight' as previously indicated.

Neil:

In my books, the suffering, death, and extermination of thousands and thousands of people (who were the original occupants of America) is far beyond the description of "cruel." But since President Polk more than doubled the size of the United States during his four year term in office, it would seem that a sufficient number of people supported the concept of Manifest Destiny.

"As to the percise percentage of the American population who did or did not, I cannot at this time determine." It would appear that President Polk's legacy is his devotion to the Manifest Destiny, but it would be interesting to know when national and religious objectives became undermined by personal ambition and greed.

I think I'll leave that one for the Capitalists.

Dawna

"Men talk about Bible miracles because there is no miracle in their lives. Cease to gnaw that crust. There is ripe fruit over your head." ~Thoreau~

[unionblue]

Dawna,

It would be nice to leave it so, at the Capitalist door, but the recorded history of it does not make it so simple, especially when given some more detail.

As to degrees of 'cruel' and which is worse, suffice it to say cruel is cruel, one death is a tragedy and thousands of them are no less tragic.

As for Presidents Tyler and Polk, let's make sure we understand how many people supported their efforts to acquire territory and how many were taken along for the 'ride.' I already feel that I have presented enough evidence to show that not ALL Americans subscribed to the theory of Manifest Destiny.

As you say, President Polk seems to have devoted himself to Manifest Destiny, but I seem to remember a Congressman from Illinois who got himself noticed by opposing the President Polk's devotion. Others also declared this a wicked war and actively participated in efforts to limit the amount of Mexican territory taken by conquest. There was an all-Mexico faction that tried mightly to have its way, only to be denied at the efforts of those who were against such a measure.

So where are we in this discussion? To we have any documented proof of blantant Capitalists from the North pushing this Manifest Destiny for greed and profit during the annexation of Texas and the war with Mexico? That all Americans were for this Destiny?

Or do we have Southern interests pushing mightly for the taking of territory for the purpose of securing more slave territory? Interesting, no?

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[dawna]

Originally Posted by unionblue

Or do we have Southern interests pushing mightly for the taking of territory for the purpose of securing more slave territory? Interesting, no?

Neil:

Yes, it is very interesting.

"As for Presidents Tyler and Polk, let's make sure we understand how many people supported their efforts to acquire territory and how many were taken along for the 'ride.' I already feel that I have presented enough evidence to show that not ALL Americans subscribed to the theory of Manifest Destiny."

And I have agreed that not all Americans supported the theory of Manifest Destiny, but those who didn't were in the minority. I have also agreed that there were those who opposed the Mexican War - Posting #66: "A small but visible group, including Abraham Lincoln, denounced the war, but most Whigs supported the Mexican War - two of the leading American generals (Zachary Taylor and Winfield Scott) were both Whigs."

But during President Polk's presidential campaign, he was quite vocal regarding his enthusiasm for westward expansion, and the annexation of Texas and Oregon; so it would seem that the majority of American people agreed and elected Mr. Polk on these issues alone.

There is no doubt that the controversy over slavery further fueled westward expansionism, since both the North and South wanted the U.S. to admit new states that supported its sections' particular interests. But it must be remembered that in 1845 slaves were considered property, and the Southerner's interest in Texas was no different then the Northern expansionists who adamantly defended their own areas of concern, and benefits. Again, if slavery was the foremost concern of Southern people, why were the majority of the voluteers who fought against Mexico from the western states?

Vicksburg Daily Whig, 1860: "New York City, like a mighty queen of commerce, sits proudly upon her island throne sparkling in jewels, and waving an undisputed commercial scepter over the South. By means of her railways and navigable streams, she sends out her long arms to the extreme South; and with avidity rarely equaled, grasps our gains and transfers them to herself—taxing us at every step and depleting us as extensively as possible without actually destroying us."

"While we bestow our earnest disapprobation on the system of slavery, let us not flatter ourselves that we are in reality any better than our brethren of the South.... they tell us that Northern ships and Northern capital have been engaged in this wicked business; and the reproach is true. Several fortunes in this city have been made by the sale of Negro blood." (An Appeal in Favour of That Class of Americans Called Africans : Lydia Maria Child)

"All the profitable branches of freighting, brokering, selling, banking, insurance, etc., that grow out of the Southern product, are enjoyed in New York." (Southern Wealth and Northern Profits: Thomas Prentice Kettell)

"It was no accident that the men who obtained Civil War government contracts - -Jacob Dold, Philip D. Armour, Nelson Morris were to emerge by 1865 as the packers of modern-day capitalist enterprise." The Triumph of American Capitalism: L.M. Hacker

Most countries have the "urge" to acquire more land and power, but the American appetite was to say the least...excessive. And if expansion was such an unambiguous, divinely inspired ideal, then I have to wonder why opposition presented itself at almost every expansionist milestone, including aboriginal removal and the U.S. government land sales policy.

Dawna

"What is a weed? A plant whose virtues have never been discovered." ~Emerson~