The Pros And Cons Of The Manifest Destiny

1247 Words 5 Pages
During the nineteenth century the United States believed that they had to fulfill a call from god which demanded them to spread west socially, politically and economically. This was later known as the Manifest Destiny which brought the United States a huge amount of territorial growth for the nation. However, many people did not approve of the Manifest Destiny. Like many other people the Native Americans believed it was just a way for the United States to spread slavery and some democrats like Fisher Ames believed that expansion in The United States will not “even maintain forms; and as to principles, the otters would as soon obey and give them effect”(Greenberg 55). Democrats believed the Manifest Destiny would lead to the end of the United …show more content…
According to David M. Fletcher in his article Manifest Destiny he states that the Manifest Destiny “was a justification, in that they wanted territory and needed an excuse or justification for a push into territory that they did not control”. With this quote David justifies my argument which states that the United States used the Manifest Destiny as an excuse to expand. One example that could be used to justify my argument is the purchase of the Louisiana territory. In 1803 during Thomas Jefferson’s presidency, he himself decided to purchase the Louisiana territory for fifteen million dollars from France which doubled the size of the American territory at the time. However, he did not do the purchase of the territory under the right constitutional rights which eventually ended up bringing him problems abroad and at home. Thomas Jefferson justified the purchase of the Louisiana territory by explaining that it was important because it secured access to the mouth of the Mississippi River. Another example could be the dispute that the Native Americans had with Andrew Jackson over the Indian Removal Act. The Indian Removal Act was passed by Andrew Jackson in 1830 due to the dispute between the Cherokee nation and Georgia. Whites believed that the Indians were not using their land properly and they believed that they could make …show more content…
Many people did not agree with the Manifest Destiny because they believed that it will encourage slavery. For example Mary Seacole was a journalist who expressed her views of race and slavery in her autobiography in 1857. She explains how many people ran away from the South because of the issue of slavery and she also explains the treatment of slaves. In 1880 the autobiography of Jane Swisshelm is published in which she reveals her reasons on why she is going against the Mexican War. One of her main arguments that she argues is that in her belief “every man who went to the war, or induced others to go, [she] held as the principal in the whole list of crimes of which slavery was the synonym of” (Greenberg 106). Jane argued that every person who went to war was encouraging slavery which in her opinion was one of the consequences of the Manifest Destiny. However, there was also a lot of people that wanted to expand territories because of slavery. A great example can be the Southerners. In Sam W. Haynes Article titled Manifest Destiny he illustrates how the Southerners “were anxious to enlarge the slave empire [and] were among the most ardent champions of the crusade for more territory”. With this quote Sam W. Haynes tells us how Southerners were very encouraged for the Manifest destiny due to the fact that it will expand

Related Documents