The period between 1800 and 1855 marked an era of expansion in American history including the Louisiana purchase, Mexican acquisition, California, Oregon, and development of the Midwest. This era, however, coexisted with a constant state of conflict and mixed feelings about slavery, reformation of society, and rapidly changing political stances. Most opposition and conflict was hinged at areas and topics the country had not decided to explore until then, including federalist opposition to the Louisiana purchase, northern support of the War of 1812, forced Indian removals of the 1830s, spirits of nationalism that extended to the West, and expansion of American values to areas including the Mexican Cession, Oregon, and Cuba. This divide between
…show more content…
Jefferson, having been a strict constitutionalist, had broke away from his ideology. The constitution was devoid of any knowledge of expansion, pitting the federalists against him. Federalists were not keen about paying France, their enemy, as they had favored British relations. James Elliott stated, “By the treaty we acquire territory; therefore the treaty was unconstitutional.” In addition was the risk of losing prominence in the existing states. William Plumer of New Hampshire stated, “Admit this western world into the union, and you destroy with a single operation the whole weight and importance of the eastern states.” Federalists believed in a centralized government and territories would create more opposition to their political party. In addition, it would undercut the state 's votes and usurp political ideology put in place. Jefferson enforced a precedent for claiming land with means other than war and …show more content…
John C Calhoun claimed, “None but people advanced to a very high state of moral and intellectual improvement...maintaining free government...good fortune of forming a constitution capable of endurance.” This foreshadowed the conflict with natives arising from expansion to the west. Indians were massacred by the hundreds and their villages and territories were be in sold off at an alarming rate. They were forced to conform with a society that view them as inferiors. Policies were created to promote democracy, and yet the supporters of expansion were ready to promote a form of tyranny over weakened groups for self benefit. Such was the case with the Ostend Manifesto as well. The US believed in inflicting their policy elsewhere and as stated they, “would justify an individual in tearing down the burning house of a neighbor if there were no other means of preventing the flames from destroying his own home.” This flame was threatening an ideal democratic government and the US was trying to spread the ideals to other areas including South America and Cuba. Eventually, federal policy reflected both of these view, allowing Americans to spread their ideas of democracy by forcefully teaching them to inferior groups of
Jefferson, having been a strict constitutionalist, had broke away from his ideology. The constitution was devoid of any knowledge of expansion, pitting the federalists against him. Federalists were not keen about paying France, their enemy, as they had favored British relations. James Elliott stated, “By the treaty we acquire territory; therefore the treaty was unconstitutional.” In addition was the risk of losing prominence in the existing states. William Plumer of New Hampshire stated, “Admit this western world into the union, and you destroy with a single operation the whole weight and importance of the eastern states.” Federalists believed in a centralized government and territories would create more opposition to their political party. In addition, it would undercut the state 's votes and usurp political ideology put in place. Jefferson enforced a precedent for claiming land with means other than war and …show more content…
John C Calhoun claimed, “None but people advanced to a very high state of moral and intellectual improvement...maintaining free government...good fortune of forming a constitution capable of endurance.” This foreshadowed the conflict with natives arising from expansion to the west. Indians were massacred by the hundreds and their villages and territories were be in sold off at an alarming rate. They were forced to conform with a society that view them as inferiors. Policies were created to promote democracy, and yet the supporters of expansion were ready to promote a form of tyranny over weakened groups for self benefit. Such was the case with the Ostend Manifesto as well. The US believed in inflicting their policy elsewhere and as stated they, “would justify an individual in tearing down the burning house of a neighbor if there were no other means of preventing the flames from destroying his own home.” This flame was threatening an ideal democratic government and the US was trying to spread the ideals to other areas including South America and Cuba. Eventually, federal policy reflected both of these view, allowing Americans to spread their ideas of democracy by forcefully teaching them to inferior groups of