American History

From the beginning of the Union, there was a strong imperative to extend US territory across the whole of the North American continent, later described as manifest destiny. Subsequently, this would be seen as early American imperialism, raising the question whether US expansion was really any different from how other nations extended their territories. An examination of how the US expanded, initially within the American continent, then overseas, shows that manifest destiny was little more than a pseudonym for imperial expansion. Yet the notion was rooted in a deeply held conviction that the US was different from other nations, formed by values of human dignity, worth, freedom and democracy. It would not trample on other peoples freedoms or become involved in foreign entanglements. When and if it intervened in other nations affairs, its intent would be benign. An examination of US expansion and foreign interventions shows a different story. So, too, does an examination of national origins, which was less unified, noble and moral than the standard version portrays. On the other hand, the existence of the notion of manifest destiny meant that some people could and can hold the US to account against its own highest ideals. Without this notion, as the worlds most powerful nation, US action in the world could be even more negative than that of other nations, rather than, in all probability, neither better nor worse than that of other powerful states.

Origin of the Notion
Andrew Jackson referred to America as manifestly called by the Almighty to a destiny which Greece and Rome, in the days of their pride, might have envied.  America had a special, God-given mission, supposedly to spread democracy and freedom. Americas manifest destiny was to overspread the continent allotted by Providence. John OSullivan coined the specific term in 1839 to express the idea that extending the Republic across the continent constructed a Temple  dedicated to the Worship of the Most High and established Peace and good will amongst men (cited by Thornton).  In fact, although not used as a term until the Spanish-Mexican War, a notion that the US was special and different dates from the founding fathers. They wanted to distance the new republic from Europes squabbles and conflicts. Many had fled religious persecution in Europe, so did not want their new state to repeat Europes mistakes. Washington and others, including Jefferson, spoke of avoiding foreign entanglements.  However, expansion within the continent was thought acceptable, since it did not involve any foreign states.

Some saw the War of 1812 as an opportunity to annex Canada. This was not a foreign entanglement because it involved securing the USs own borders. It led to Britain recognizing the US diplomatically. Following this war, most Americans took it as axiomatic that they would not interfere in other nations affairs as long as they did not interfere in the US.  This was formalized in the Monroe Doctrine of 1832, which limited European and American ventures to their respective hemispheres.  The popular policy of expanding US territory westward, however, was not regarded as involving foreign entanglements although treaties made with Indian nations recognized their sovereignty. These nations were seen as within the USs sphere of influence, rather than outside. Expansion west was not regarded as imperialism other nations were imperialist. Other nations lacked the USs high moral commitment to human dignity, freedom and democracy. Other nations acquired territory for self-interest. Expansion across the continent was in the name of freedom and democracy, not to subject other people to exploitation and rule by a foreign king.

Expansion as Imperialism
This was never officially called imperialism but it can be argued that it shared many characteristics of imperial expansion. Imperialism takes territory away from people who posses it, almost always without their consent. Imperial powers may impose their will on other states, or intervene in other ways to exert influence, even if they do not exercise complete sovereignty. Beginning with expansion across the continent, imperial episodes include the Louisiana Purchase (1803), the annexation of Texas (1845) and of territory between there and California, admitted as a state in 1850. Before the annexation of Texas, President Polk spoke of how expansion west had become unstoppable, who can arrest the torrent that will pour onward to the West he asked, The road to California will be open to us he continued Who will stay the march of our western people  When Texas, California and Hawaii were acquired, references to manifest destiny were prolific. There was also a myth that US expansion was qualitatively different from how other nations gained territory. Supposedly the US did so without conquest.  Acquiring Texas, however, involved a war with Mexico, a foreign state. Hawaii was a sovereign Kingdom. No one consulted the residents of Louisiana when France sold and the USA bought that territory. Indigenous people, too, were rarely consulted. When treaties were made, they were often broken. In 1847-8, after the Mexican-American war over Texas, some expansionists wanted to take all Mexico, to give the US even more of the Pacific coast.

Other Manifestations of Imperial Power
Was sending Commodore Perry to open up trade with Japan (1854) an imperial act, or another expression of manifest destiny The US believed it had the right to trade with Japan, even though Japan preferred remain isolation. Instead of respecting Japans wishes, a treaty was imposed by what was called gun-boat-diplomacy. The Commodore landed marines to secure a coaling concession from the ruler of Naha on Okinawa at gunpoint and also demonstrated in the Bonin islands  to secure commerce.  In China and elsewhere, the US acquired trading concessions and other privileges that actually compromised the sovereignty of the state. Chinese believed that foreign powers were running their country and that their destiny was out of their hands. Zinn identifies a series of US actions overseas that look very much like foreign intervention from self-interest with little of no benign intent. For example, in 1852-53, US marines were present at Buenos Aires during a revolution in Brazil to protect American interests. They were also sent to Nicaragua (1853) to protect American lives and interests during a political disturbance. The following year, the American Minister to Montevido suffered an insult and marines were sent to avenge this, destroying a town.  The list of actions overseas to protect US interests or to secure commercial treaties continues. It is difficult to identify how these actions were beneficial to the countries where intervention occurred.

This set the stage for future US actions, especially in the Cold War. For example, the 1953 coup in Iran, when a democratically elected Prime Minister was overthrown, accused of communist sympathy. In his place, a tyrant was restored to power because he was pro-Western.  Instead of spreading democracy and helping people gain freedom, the US has often allied itself with repressive regimes, either because they supply oil or opposed communism.

American Imperialism, Manifest Destiny and the Spanish-American War
The notion took root that Americas hemisphere did not end at the Pacific but continued across the seas.  When Hawaii was annexed in 1898, President Mckinley described this as an expression of Americas manifest destiny.  The famous American writer, Whit Waltman was a strong supporter of the notion that American had a special mission in the world, writing

In a few years the dominion-heart of America will be far inland, toward the West. Our future national capital may not be where the present one is. It is possible, nay likely, that in less than fifty years, it will migrate a thousand or two miles stretching  west and north , including Canada and regions  toward the Pacific, (destined to the mastership of that sea and its countless  islands)

The Spanish-American War of April to August 1898 towards the very end of the nineteenth century sparked debate about whether the USs acquisition of overseas territory differed from what was commonly called imperialism but was another expression of manifest destiny. Supporters claimed that the USs aim was not to acquire an empire or to exploit and oppress other people but to help them gain freedom. This, of course, was the same argument that had justified expansion west. Now that the original thirteen colonies had expanded across the Continental USA, supposedly spreading freedom and democracy, her mission in the world was to continue this task globally. As a result of the Spanish-American war, America did gain overseas territory.

The Treaty of Paris (December 10, 1898) ceded Guam, Puerto Rico and the Philippines to the US and gave the US the right to intervene in Cuba to keep the peace and to protect democracy. Annexation of the Philippines attracted the most controversy, partly due to its size but also because the Filipinos themselves thought that independence would follow liberation from Spain. They immediately elected their own President. A was followed against the occupying American troops. From early 1899 until 1913, a conflict waged in the islands as US troops battled Filipino nationalists, called insurgents for control of the islands Supporters of annexation not only thought this wholly consistent with Americas manifest destiny but they saw no reason why the US should ever surrender control. For millions of Americas, this was not what manifest destiny meant. America was meant to be nobler, better than this.
Supporting permanent annexation, Senator Alfred J Beveridge declared that the Philippines were ours forever.  As territory belonging to the US the Constitution regarded this as permanent.  We will not renounce our part in the mission of our race, trustee under God, of the civilization of the world  God  has marked us out as His chosen people henceforth to lead in the regeneration of the world, he continued.  Others argued that even though America was governing other peoples territory she only intended to do so until they were ready to rule themselves, which they were not yet able to do. This is the same notion that informed the League of Nations system of Mandates after World War I. Thus, American expansion across the world was not to selfishly dominate others but to extend the principles and spirit of the Constitution, an expression of her manifest destiny. Founders of the American Anti-Imperialism League disagreed.  Mark Twain was Vice-President 1898 until his death (1905).  The League roundly condemned annexation not so much because they denied that America might have a role to spread democracy but because they feared that America intended to keep the territory and to this start an empire. The League stated

We hold that the policy known as imperialism is hostile to liberty  an evil from which it has been our glory to be free. We regret that it is necessary in the land of  HYPERLINK httpwww.newworldencyclopedia.orgentryGeorge_Washington o George Washington Washington and  HYPERLINK httpwww.newworldencyclopedia.orgentryAbraham_Lincoln o Abraham Lincoln Lincoln to reaffirm that all men of whatever race or color are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We maintain that governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed. We insist that the subjugation of any people is criminal aggression and open disloyalty to the distinctive principles of our government.

The US governed the Philippines until the end of World War II. This was a shorter period than Britain ruled India or the Dutch Indonesia. However, the USs record of setting up enduring and strong democratic foundations was no better in the Philippines than the records of other imperial nations elsewhere. After their departure, Filipinos endured years of dictatorship (1965-86) under Ferdinand Marcos. On the other hand, after US intervention in Japan following World War II, a sound democratic system was established and the US withdrew much more quickly. The question remains, did the US intervene internationally at the end of the nineteenth century and afterward to promote freedom and spread democracy, or to promote her own economic and strategic interests Debate about whether US overseas involvement is somehow exceptional, different from that of imperialist powers or motivated by similar interests continues to this day. Is manifest destiny a national conceit Or, does the US really hold itself to higher moral standards than other nations

Is Manifest Destiny a National Conceit
This examination of US action in the world and of expansion across the American Continent suggests that peoples rights were often trampled. Many Native Americans lost land in the expansion process many were moved from ancestral land to other locations. The notion of manifest destiny can be seen as a conceit. It expressed a romantic, idealized concept of American history. In this view, America was different. She began with the high sentiment of the Declaration of Independence, led by high-minded, moral, gifted, exceptional men. They rose up against British oppression. They won the revolutionary war, establishing a Union that would never oppress anyone. Everyones dignity and worth would be respected. This version of US history speaks of a nation bound together by common ideals, by shared commitments and interests. Zinn describes this history as a giant web of nationhood pretending to a common interest.  This is the history in which government wants people to believe. He claims that from the beginning, the reality was different. When the Pilgrims came to New England they were coming not to vacant land but to territory inhabited by Indians. However, in their view, the Indians had not subdued the land so had only a natural and not a civil right to own the land. The land was declared legally a vacuum which could therefore be claimed. No respect here for peoples universal rights, freedoms and dignity.

Zinn says that people should not accept the memory of states as their own. The history of the US presented as the history of a family is that of solidarity, common interests, high ideals and heroic acts. The founding fathers are taken to represent the nation as a whole and are portrayed as almost beyond criticism. The real history of the nations, he says, is one of conquest, violence, hunger and exploitation. McDonald has de-mythologized the story of how the US was founded. The Revolutionary War was not fought with a single goal, he says. Some had a single state in mind to replace the 13 colonies. All did want to end British colonial rule but many fought to free their own states different colonies  supported the revolution in pursuit of different goals, all local and few-high minded.  Zinn remarks how memory of the founding fathers exalts their status they may have had occasional conflicts and quarrels but are represented as standing for a single national interest.  Zinn and McDonald challenge this memory, describing the fathers as a cantankerous lot who fought one another, in unseemly fashion, for power and wealth.  This contradicts the single nation under God view of US history, of which the notion of manifest destiny is very much a product.

The first attempt to create a Constitution, the Articles of Confederation (1777), failed due to lack of a common goal. Some wanted the states to be stronger, the central government weak. The central government was set up without power to raise taxes or an army. What followed was a period when the future of the Union was at stake. Delegates to Congress were sent by state legislatures, not directly elected by the people. Congress had so little power that states saw little need to send their delegates. Congress could hardly function in these circumstances and at times laced a quorum. During 1785, there were never more than seven states represented.   States taxed goods from other states. There was no common currency. Some states thought their interests lay in independence, not in membership of the Union. This is somewhat different from the story of single-minded devotion to the common interest.

The second attempt at creating a Constitution (1787) is also glossed over in the single nation under God version of US history. The same rival interests clashed at the 1887 Constitutional Convention that had clashed since the Revolutionary War. Some wanted strong states (anti-federalists). Some (federalists) wanted strong central government. Even the accepted version of events speaks of compromise between these two sides, usually praising the Convention for managing to more or less satisfy both parties. A good argument can be made for this in some areas, such as the right of the federal government to raise an army while the states retained the right to maintain militia. However, the most contentious issue of all was slavery. On this, the accepted version takes the view that agreement was not possible because the South (slave-owning states) would have seceded were slavery abolished. The Northern states had already taken steps to phase slavery out. In this view, the founding fathers could not have done anything about slavery even though they understood that it conflicted with the ideological assumptions of the Revolution without causing conflict.  Detailed analysis of the Conventions proceedings shows that when abolition was tabled and discussed, it could have succeeded. Nash denies that the threat of Southern secession was genuine or that the Northern states would have been all that concerned, despite the single nation under God ideal that dominates historical memory.  In fact, women, slaves, Native Americans and others, left out of the one-nation, had to struggle for inclusion against much opposition over many years.

Conclusion
There is actually no reason why the US should not have a special mission to spread democracy. If US interventions overseas promote peace and good will, extends freedom and democracy, the original idea behind the concept of manifest destiny, the US can properly claim to act differently from states that only ever act to further self-interest. Manifest Destiny can be a standard America uses to judge and evaluate its international interventions as well as how it treats its own people, regardless of race and gender. When slaves were finally freed and women enfranchised, the US lived up to its ideals of freedom and equality. In Afghanistan and Iraq, the question is whether the US is really spreading freedom and democracy, or acting in pure self-interest.