The Louisiana Purchase was a land deal in 1803 made between France and the United States that resulted in America expanding further into the New World and doubling their land size. This real estate deal resulted in the mass acquisition of land made under Jefferson’s presidency and later fueled Polk into wanting to expand further through the mid-19th-century idea of Manifest Destiny. This idea, made by John L. O 'Sullivan, was that it is America’s god-given right to expand from the Pacific to the Atlantic Ocean. The synthesis of the Louisiana Purchase and the later idea of Manifest Destiny helped spur many debates over newly gained territories through territorial expansion. These debates arose from issues on whether or not land from the Louisiana
…show more content…
The annexation of Texas was seemed to be unanimous for the people in the Union as it would lay an American foundation, but it was not for the purpose of slavery extension (doc 3). The author’s purpose in writing this was to persuade readers that the occupation of new land is for the benefit of uniting the Union and not for extending slavery. The author’s point of view is from the Democratic review and most Democrats during this era believed in expansionism and extending slavery. This would impact the author to believe that expansionism is for the best as the nation would get more land and unite over this, and territorial expansion number one reason is not for slavery extension. Document 7 contradicts this document as it believes that territorial expansion and the land gained from Mexico is to increase the slave power in the South (doc 7). The author’s purpose in writing was to persuade other politicians that the present war with Mexico will give the nation new land which will increase the slave power in the nation. The author’s point of view is an abolitionist named Charles Sumner, who strongly believed in civil rights and anti-slavery. This view impacts the author to believe in a threat of new territory gained as a way to expand slavery, which is what the author would not want. Sumner’s view is significant as it …show more content…
The creator O’Sullivan and President Polk both saw Manifest Destiny as a way to unify the nation by making America bigger and therefore stronger. This ended up not being the result as expansionism led to the inevitable debate over slavery between the North and a division between Democrats who wanted slavery extension, and Republican and Whigs who wanted no more extension of slavery. The synthesis of the Manifest Destiny and territorial divide during the antebellum era and the annexation of Hawaii later in 1898 both had goals of creating nationalism and national unity while Hawaii also did not result in any sectional divide like Manifest Destiny did. The idea of expanding from Manifest Destiny later shed light on America expanding globally in the late 19th century like it did with Hawaii, and with no large sectional division over slavery like during the antebellum era, annexing Hawaii was a way for America to truly spread nationalism and resulted in unifying the
The annexation of Texas was seemed to be unanimous for the people in the Union as it would lay an American foundation, but it was not for the purpose of slavery extension (doc 3). The author’s purpose in writing this was to persuade readers that the occupation of new land is for the benefit of uniting the Union and not for extending slavery. The author’s point of view is from the Democratic review and most Democrats during this era believed in expansionism and extending slavery. This would impact the author to believe that expansionism is for the best as the nation would get more land and unite over this, and territorial expansion number one reason is not for slavery extension. Document 7 contradicts this document as it believes that territorial expansion and the land gained from Mexico is to increase the slave power in the South (doc 7). The author’s purpose in writing was to persuade other politicians that the present war with Mexico will give the nation new land which will increase the slave power in the nation. The author’s point of view is an abolitionist named Charles Sumner, who strongly believed in civil rights and anti-slavery. This view impacts the author to believe in a threat of new territory gained as a way to expand slavery, which is what the author would not want. Sumner’s view is significant as it …show more content…
The creator O’Sullivan and President Polk both saw Manifest Destiny as a way to unify the nation by making America bigger and therefore stronger. This ended up not being the result as expansionism led to the inevitable debate over slavery between the North and a division between Democrats who wanted slavery extension, and Republican and Whigs who wanted no more extension of slavery. The synthesis of the Manifest Destiny and territorial divide during the antebellum era and the annexation of Hawaii later in 1898 both had goals of creating nationalism and national unity while Hawaii also did not result in any sectional divide like Manifest Destiny did. The idea of expanding from Manifest Destiny later shed light on America expanding globally in the late 19th century like it did with Hawaii, and with no large sectional division over slavery like during the antebellum era, annexing Hawaii was a way for America to truly spread nationalism and resulted in unifying the