Friday, September 27, 2013

Who is destined?

Manifest destiny is a fascinating concept, particularly due to ownership.  The idea of destiny certainly has a religious connotation, but the American concept of manifest destiny went far beyond that.  Is there a common thread in these articles in terms of ownership?  How do the authors of the pro-manifest destiny pieces justify their right to expand westward?  Additionally, how do the critical pieces (i.e. British cartoons), argue against these principles? 

Finally, why was Mexico so crucial?  How does it connect to our conversations about slavery?

14 comments:

  1. manifest destiny was without a doubt the belief of moving westward in the United States. All of these articles talk about the benefits the country would get if it moved west. But what caught my eye was in the cartoon "A British View of the Oregon Controvery" had 2 men a Giant British guy and to me a tiny southerner from America. This cartoon showed how the United States was not as powerful at the time and how England was very. But with the expansion west would give alot of power with more land and that would lead to more resources.

    ReplyDelete

  2. Pro-Manifest Destiny people certainly did have a lot of common thread. Pro-Manifest Destiny people, such as President Polk, believed that since Texas was once there territory, it should be there's fore them since war would be caused if Texas allied with other nations. Plus, it justifies the annexation of Texas by saying that it is good for both Texas and the United States because not only would peace would be kept among the nations, but also texas would be benefited to have strong protection arms of the United States government, fertile soil and have Texas speedily developed. However, some had different views compared to the people who were Pro-Manifest. For instance, "A British View of the Oregon Controversy", "A British View of the Mexican War", views America as arrogant, unsophisticated, belicose and imperialistic. Mexico was important for the United States because not only did they gain imperial territories with great divesity of materials, but also they gained a reputation among the world as a strong nation. The annexation of Texas and part of Mexico is very significant in out conversation about slavery because even though it brought very many advantages to America, it brought up slavery issues.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I feel that everyone figured that expanding westward would give them more power, weather or not the country wanted the land for the same reasons. it seemed as if they all wanted it to make themselves more powerful, because just like chandler said, i thought the cartoon for "a british view of the orageon controversy" was the British making fun of how small we were as a country and how ridiculous we looked trying to act all tough. Texas however, did seem to act as its own country even though it was apart of america,or americas land. which seemed to also cause quite a bit of controversey later on.

    ReplyDelete
  4. All of these articles spoke about the positives that would come from the country moving west. Some of those positives of Texas becoming part of the united states were that Texas would have the US's military protecting (since it would be part of the union), if Texas were to allocate with another country, it would cause conflict, and that both Texas and the US would benefit from the Annexation. The US wanted more power and expanding west was a way they could do that. Mexico was important as a reflection of what the US was capable of. It is relevant to slavery because the annexation of Texas caused an uprising of questions about slavery. Britain seemed to have a negative view of the United States, comparing it to themselves as weaker and less sophisticated. This view amplified the US need for Mexico.

    ReplyDelete
  5. For starters, I didn't really understand these articles. But from what I do understand, the country wanted to move west to expand their territory, and Texas was the territory of interest. There were some arguments on whether or not Texas would be a slave state.In the cartoon, the British obviously viewed the Americans negatively. England was anti-slavery, but not all of America was, so that explains the whip in the pocket. Once the United Sates annexed Texas, they didn't seem so weak anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  6. After reading these articles I can agree with Gwen and Chandler that manifest destiny was about moving west. It was the belief that people who were settling in the colonies were destined to move out west. I think that Mexico was so crucial because it is close to texas, and people who would be living in mexico might get made into slaves because of how close they are to texas, which was now considered a slave state. Mexico was also crucial because it was another country. The Manifest Destiny did not only want the settlers to expand across america out west, but to also expand across the Americas continents. The authors of these articles justify their rights to expand by giving these speeches. In Edward Hannegans speech he gets his point across and demands certain things to happen such as the annexation of the Republic of Texas and the acquisition of oregon. The British cartoon shows many things. It clearly shows that Britain thinks of themselves as "larger" because the british character in the cartoon was drawn larger than the character for america. This argues against what the authors of those articles say because the authors believe that they should expand west, but the pictures are saying that the British don't believe that they should "disobey their fathers".

    ReplyDelete
  7. Manifest Destiny really seemed like an excuse for expanding west. One of the only real reasons was money. The Pacific ports would allow for trade with Asian countries, and Texas would allow for fertile land for farming. Another important reason was the expansion of slavery. The Southerners wanted to expand slavery onto Texas, and they knew that the North would only go along with it if they added the free state of Oregon as well. However, the Southern states immediately changed their mind about Oregon after they had acquired Texas.
    The Pro-Manifest Destiny authors justified expansion by saying that the Mexican government was too weak to govern its entire country, and the the Northern territories were practically independent, especially with all of the Americans emigrating into the those territories. Also, President Polk used the excuse that Mexico had killed 26 Americans as an excuse to go to war. Though the death of a few people, who I believe were on Mexican land, is hardly grounds for invading a country and taking half of its land.
    The British cartoons showed that they hardly took the US seriously in its efforts to expand. They barely thought of us as a country let alone an opponent for their North American holdings.
    Mexico was very important because the territories that we gained there were mostly South of the Mason-Dixon line, so the Southerners figured that they should become slave states even though the North was trying to contain slavery to its current boundaries.

    ReplyDelete
  8. in most of these readings, the different authors such as Polk, sat and also try to persuade readers that the annexation of Texas to the Unites States will do only good to everyone because Texas will be strengthened by a whole nation, particularly in question of defenses since the American army was very powerful. But also, Polk said it will be a preventor of war and it will help the American economicy because there will be more land. Mexico is therefore important in this decision not only for this but also because it's another country. It has to do with our conversations I belive because slavery is then poured into the new state of Texas.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Overall, I agree with Phoebe because I didn't really understand these articles. Although the main idea of manifest destiny was clear that expanding west will bring the country more power, land, resources and money. The south wanted to gain texas because they wanted to expand slavery. I personally think that one of the reasons why the south really wanted texas was because Texas was so big that it would be almost impossible to end slavery there. The Pro-Manifest authors just seemed to be making up excuses as to why they need to expand south. They were concerned with money and not losing power over the North as well. I think that the reason of the US going to war with Mexico was for a not valid reason. Just telling a lie to the people that they have an unstable government and can harm the Americans seems like an abuse of US power.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Through these articles i read, it is pretty obvious that U.S. thinks that Taxes belongs to them and so does other western territories. The use of "manifest destiny" seems more like a pretense for U.S. take over the land than U.S. deserves these lands. Nevertheless, it is plausible for U.S. to want the western territory. They could benefit in many perspectives from this annexation, such as agriculture and slavery. Across the atlantic ocean, U.K, who was a greater power at the time, mocked U.S.'s expansion. In these Britishes' eyes, U.S. is not even a significant threat. However, soon, U.S. would change Britian's mind.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Americans used the term manifest destiny to wanted to expand west, to annexatize texas, to have a war with Mexico. All these idea of expanding west were seen very immature by the British. American even thought that the British and French could do it why couldn't we? In the cartoon of "the lady of liberty" criticize, and have an american lady in the picture sitting there smoking marijuana and have the dreams of having a war with Mexico and expand slavery, or stealing ideas from the fat man which I think is British. In reality, she has her foot stepped on George Washington's head. No matter how insane this is to the British, Americans would get this done.

    ReplyDelete
  12. After reading these articles I got the feeling that most people in America really did want to move westward and to obtain more lands. They felt as this : more lands would equal more power. "Manifest Destiny" plays on this idea of destiny being the guide to the future. The United States power at that time wasn't even to its point, and they knew is which was illustrated by the picture of a huge British man and small Southener. In the case of Texas, the people of the United States used this idea to excuse taking Texas and gaining more [prestige for themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  13. manifest destiny had a combination of religious enlightenment and some weird sense of entitlement. Americans saw themselves as destined people who will spread across the continent and connect coast to coast. people believed that they were spreading knowledge and faith to a forsaken and dark land. they were destined to enrich the new lands with intellectual advances and farm work.

    ReplyDelete
  14. this topic has many parallels to divine right in european monarchies. It's interesting that country who was founded on doing away with these exact types of ideologies was so quick to accept the argument that it was destiny that decided who the land belonged to. If it is density, where in a "that was destiny" story does destiny tell you that you have to do something because it's your destiny. Think of it rather as a timeline that already exist that people naturally fall on and there's a way it's planned out and expected to occur. Destiny is just a word people use to make their lives feel more whole like religion

    ReplyDelete