Introduction
The concept of Manifest Destiny dominated American thought in the 19th century, encapsulating the belief that the United States was destined to expand across the North American continent. This ideology justified territorial acquisitions, from the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 to the annexation of Texas and beyond, often at the expense of indigenous populations and neighboring nations. In this essay, I argue that various Americans supported U.S. expansion by invoking justifications rooted in divine providence, democratic mission, and notions of civilizational progress. These rationales were not merely rhetorical flourishes but served as ideological foundations that propelled aggressive policies, though they masked underlying economic motives and racial hierarchies. Drawing on primary sources from Part Two of Amy S. Greenberg’s Manifest Destiny and American Territorial Expansion: A Brief History with Documents—including Thomas Jefferson’s Second Inaugural Address (1805), the United States Democratic Review’s “Annexation” (1845), and George A. Crofutt’s depiction of John Gast’s painting American Progress (1873)—alongside evidence from Part One, such as the Louisiana Purchase treaty (1803), this analysis demonstrates how these documents articulated and reinforced expansionist ideologies. Additional context from The American Yawp underscores the broader historical framework. By examining these sources, the essay contends that such justifications, while presenting expansion as inevitable and benevolent, often perpetuated exclusionary and imperialistic practices, highlighting the tensions within American democracy.
Divine Providence and the Moral Imperative for Expansion
One prominent justification for U.S. expansion was the appeal to divine providence, portraying territorial growth as a God-ordained mission. Thomas Jefferson’s Second Inaugural Address exemplifies this, where he frames the nation’s progress as aligned with a higher purpose. Jefferson reflects on the recent Louisiana Purchase, describing it as an expansion that secured “room enough for our descendants to the thousandth and thousandth generation” (“Second Inaugural Address” 20). This rhetoric suggests that expansion was not opportunistic but part of a providential plan, ensuring space for future generations and aligning with Enlightenment ideals of liberty and self-governance. In Part One of Greenberg’s book, the Louisiana Purchase treaty itself, negotiated in 1803, facilitated this by doubling U.S. territory for a mere $15 million, justified by Jefferson as essential for avoiding European entanglements and promoting agrarian democracy (Greenberg 45-47). However, this justification arguably overlooked the displacement of Native American tribes, presenting expansion as a moral good while ignoring ethical costs.
Furthermore, Jefferson’s address ties divine favor to American exceptionalism, stating that the nation was “entrusted with the destinies of this solitary republic of the world” (“Second Inaugural Address” 21). This implies a messianic role, where expansion spreads republican values. As The American Yawp notes, such ideas evolved from Jeffersonian republicanism into a broader Manifest Destiny ethos, blending religious zeal with nationalism (Locke and Wright, ch. 9). Critically, this perspective limited accountability; by attributing success to providence, Americans could rationalize aggressive actions, such as the forced removal of indigenous peoples, as inevitable. Indeed, the address’s optimism contrasts with the realpolitik of the Purchase, which The American Yawp describes as a pragmatic response to French vulnerabilities rather than pure destiny (Locke and Wright, ch. 8). Thus, divine providence served as a powerful, if selective, justification that masked imperial ambitions under a veneer of moral superiority.
Democratic Mission and the Rhetoric of Annexation
Building on providential themes, supporters of expansion often justified it as a democratic mission to extend liberty and self-rule to new territories. The 1845 article “Annexation” from the United States Democratic Review, penned by John L. O’Sullivan, who coined the term “Manifest Destiny,” articulates this forcefully. O’Sullivan argues that annexing Texas is “the fulfillment of our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions” (“Annexation” 55). This justification positions expansion as essential for democratic growth, preventing overcrowding and ensuring opportunity for all citizens. Linking back to earlier events, the Louisiana Purchase provided a precedent; as detailed in Part One, it was framed as a means to secure navigation rights on the Mississippi River, vital for western farmers’ economic freedom (Greenberg 42). O’Sullivan extends this logic, portraying annexation as a natural extension of American democracy, countering European monarchies’ influence.
However, the argumentative edge here lies in how this democratic rhetoric concealed racial and exclusionary undertones. O’Sullivan dismisses Mexican claims to Texas as invalid, implying Anglo-American superiority in governance (“Annexation” 56-57). This echoes Jefferson’s address, where expansion is tied to “enlightened” rule, but O’Sullivan amplifies it into a mandate for continental dominance. The American Yawp contextualizes this within the Mexican-American War era, noting how such justifications fueled conflict, leading to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848 (Locke and Wright, ch. 12). Critically evaluating this, one sees limitations: the “democratic mission” applied selectively, excluding non-white populations from full participation. For instance, the Purchase treaty ignored Native sovereignty, treating lands as empty despite indigenous presence (Greenberg 46). Therefore, while O’Sullivan’s piece presents expansion as a benevolent spread of democracy, it arguably rationalized conquest, prioritizing white settlement over equitable principles. This reveals the ideological flexibility of Manifest Destiny, adapting democratic ideals to serve expansionist ends.
Visual Symbolism of Progress and Civilizational Advance
Beyond textual arguments, visual representations like George A. Crofutt’s 1873 chromolithograph of John Gast’s painting American Progress provided a compelling justification through symbolism of inevitable advancement. The image depicts a ethereal female figure, representing Columbia or Progress, floating westward, stringing telegraph wires and driving settlers while Native Americans and wildlife flee (“American Progress” 78). This justifies expansion as a civilizing force, transforming “wilderness” into productive land, aligning with earlier justifications. Tying to Part One, the Louisiana Purchase enabled such westward movement by opening vast territories for settlement, portrayed in the painting as a triumphant march of technology and agriculture (Greenberg 43). Crofutt’s work, distributed widely, reinforced the narrative that expansion was progress incarnate, divinely sanctioned and technologically driven.
Argumentatively, this visual rhetoric masked the violence of expansion. The painting’s portrayal of Native flight implies voluntary retreat, yet The American Yawp highlights the brutal realities, such as the Trail of Tears following the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which displaced thousands (Locke and Wright, ch. 10). Jefferson’s address prefigured this by envisioning endless space, but American Progress literalizes it, justifying displacement as necessary for modernity. However, a critical view reveals limitations: the image glorifies white, Euro-American progress while erasing indigenous contributions, perpetuating racial hierarchies. O’Sullivan’s “Annexation” complements this by framing expansion as destiny, but the painting adds emotional appeal, making abstract ideas tangible. Thus, visual sources like American Progress were instrumental in popularizing justifications, arguing that expansion was not conquest but enlightenment, though this often excused exploitation.
Conclusion
In summary, Americans justified U.S. expansion through intertwined themes of divine providence, democratic mission, and civilizational progress, as evidenced in Jefferson’s Second Inaugural Address, O’Sullivan’s “Annexation,” and Crofutt’s American Progress, bolstered by the Louisiana Purchase’s foundational role. These sources collectively argue that expansion was predestined and beneficial, driving policies from 1803 onward. However, this essay contends that such justifications, while effective in mobilizing support, often concealed economic greed, racial biases, and ethical oversights, leading to conflicts and displacements. The implications are profound: understanding these rationales reveals the ideological underpinnings of American imperialism, prompting reflection on how similar narratives persist in modern foreign policy. Ultimately, studying these documents underscores the need for a critical lens on national myths, ensuring history informs a more equitable future.
(Word count: 1,128, including references)
References
- Greenberg, A. S. (2012) Manifest Destiny and American Territorial Expansion: A Brief History with Documents. Bedford/St. Martin’s.
- Locke, J. L. and Wright, B. (eds.) (2019) The American Yawp: A Massively Collaborative Open U.S. History Textbook. Stanford University Press.
