GCOS is a system that comprises the climate-relevant components
of many contributing observing systems and networks. Its mission is to
help ensure that these contributing systems, taken as a whole, provide
the comprehensive information on the global climate system
that is required by users, including individuals, national and
international organizations, institutions and agencies. The programme
promotes the sustained provision and availability of reliable physical,
chemical and biological observations and data records for the total
climate system - across the atmospheric, oceanic and terrestrial
domains, including the hydrological cycle, the carbon cycle and the cryosphere.
Structure
The primary observing systems contributing to the GCOS are the WMO Integrated Global Observing System (WIGOS), the Global Cryosphere Watch (GCW), and the World Hydrological Cycle Observing System (WHYCOS), and the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission-led Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS).
A number of other domain-based and cross-domain research and
operational observing systems also provide important contributions and
encompass both in-situ and satellite observations. GCOS is both
supported by and supports the international scientific and technical
community, and the World Climate Research Programme
(WCRP) co-sponsors the expert panels set up by GCOS for the
atmospheric, oceanic and terrestrial domains. The composite observing
system designated by GCOS serves as the climate-observation component of
the broader Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS), and at the same time a number of specific observing-system initiatives of GEOSS contribute to the GCOS.
GCOS has identified 50 essential climate variables (ECVs) considered to be feasible for global climate observation and to have a high impact on the requirements of the UNFCCC
and other stakeholders. There is a strong need for sustained
observation of these ECVs, as the observations are needed for the
generation and updating of global climate products and derived
information. GCOS and its partners are developing ways of improving the
generation and supply of data products relating to the ECVs.
Expert panels
Three expert panels have been established by the GCOS Steering Committee to define the observations needed in each of the main global domains – atmosphere,
oceans, and land – to prepare specific programme elements and to make
recommendations for implementation. GCOS is both supported by and
supports the international scientific community, and therefore the three
expert panels are co-sponsored by the World Climate Research Programme
(WCRP). The Atmospheric, Ocean, and Terrestrial Observation Panel for
Climate gather scientific and technical experts in the respective areas
to generate inputs from these fields to the climate observing community.
Those expert panels report to the GCOS Steering Committee, and have
been established to define the observations needed in each of the main
global domains to prepare scientific programme-elements and to make
recommendations for implementation.
Atmospheric Observation Panel for Climate (AOPC)
AOPC was established in recognition of the need for specific
scientific and technical input concerning atmospheric observations for
climate. Its aim is to ensure the quality, long-term homogeneity and
continuity of data needed. AOPC supports and is supported by the WMO
Integrated Global Observing System (WIGOS).
Key activities of AOPC are:
Assessing the current state of the atmospheric component of the
global observing system for climate and identify its gaps and
adequacies;
Securing the implementation of designated GCOS Networks and promote
the establishment and enhancement of new and current systems to provide
long-term and consistent data and information for Essential Climate
Variables, such as earth radiation budget, surface radiation, greenhouse gases, water vapour, clouds and aerosols;
Liaising with relevant research, operational and end-user bodies in
order to determine and maintain the requirements for data to monitor,
understand and predict the dynamical, physical and chemical state of the
atmosphere and its interface on seasonal and multi-decadal time scales,
on both global and regional levels;
Promoting the transfer and accessibility to the user community, as
well as the rehabilitation of historical observational and proxy climate
data sets.
Ocean Observations Panel for Climate (OOPC)
OOPC, co-sponsored by GOOS, as well as GCOS and WCRP, is a
scientific and technical advisory group charged with making
recommendations for a sustained global ocean observing system for
climate in support of the goals of its sponsors. This includes
recommendations for phased implementation. The Panel also aids in the
development of strategies for evaluation and evolution of the system and
of its recommendations, and supports global ocean observing activities
by interested parties through liaison and advocacy for the agreed
observing plans.
OOPC recognizes the need for sustainable ocean observations,
and the increased need to connect to societal issues in the coastal
zone. OOPC's role has evolved to oversee the ocean component of the
GCOS, and the physical variables for GOOS, while defining long-term
observing requirements for climate research of WCRP.
Key activities of OOPC are:
Providing advice on scientific and technical requirements to the Joint WMO-IOC Technical Commission on Oceanography and Marine Meteorology (JCOMM), which is responsible for the coordination and implementation of platform-based observing system components;
Coordinate ocean observing networks that contribute to ocean ECVs by encouraging GOOS Regional Alliances (GRAs) and national commitments to global observing networks, and promoting common best practices and observing standards;
Reviewing and prioritizing requirements for sustained ocean observations of the physical Essential Ocean Variables
(EOVs), and ocean ECVs, to engage the broad stakeholder community, to
assess the readiness of observing technologies and adequacy of present
global key variable observations, and to provide a source of technical
advice on the development of national coastal and ocean observing
requirements and observing system implementation plans.
Terrestrial Observation Panel for Climate (TOPC)
TOPC was set up to develop a balanced and integrated system of-in situ and satellite observations of the terrestrial ecosystem.
The Panel focuses on the identification of terrestrial observation
requirements, assisting the establishment of observing networks for
climate, providing guidance on observation standards and norms,
facilitating access to climate data and information and its
assimilation, and promoting climate studies and assessments.
Key activities of TOPC are:
Identification of measurable terrestrial (biosphere, cryosphere, and hydrosphere)
properties and key variables (ECVs) that control the physical,
biological and chemical processes affecting climate, and are indicators
of climate change;
Coordination of activities with other global observing system panels
and task groups to ensure the consistency of requirements with the
overall programmes;
Assessing and monitoring the adequacy of terrestrial observing networks such as the Global Terrestrial Networks (GTNs), and promoting their integration and development to measure and exchange climate data and information;
Identification of gaps in present observing systems and designs to ensure long-term monitoring of terrestrial ECVs.
Networks
One of the first tasks of the GCOS programme was to define a subset of the World Weather Watch (WWW) stations appropriate for basic climate monitoring. The subset of
roughly 1000 baseline surface stations became the GCOS Surface Network
(GSN), while a subset of 150 upper air stations was designated as the GCOS Upper-Air Network (GUAN). These were built on existing WMO classifications and became the initial
baseline components of the atmospheric networks. Considerations for
selection of GSN included spatial distribution, length and quality of
record, long-term commitment, and degree of urbanization. Similar
considerations were used for GUAN. Designation of these networks
benefited both the GCOS and the National Meteorological and Hydrological
Services (NMHS). For NMHSs, designation of a station as part of the
global climate network helped sustain support for these sites with
long-term records. The networks provided the foundation for the Regional
Basic Climatological Network, which provides far greater spatial detail on the variability of climate.
Recognizing that a balance has to be struck between standards and
completeness of ground-based measurement, the GCOS programme recognized
a hierarchy of observational networks and systems, comprising
comprehensive, baseline and reference networks based on assumptions of
spatial sampling needs.
An example of a particularly successful step forward in
implementing a global observing system for climate is the initiation of a
reference network for upper-air observations - the GCOS Reference
Upper-Air Network (GRUAN). The network is the prototype of a hybrid observing system, combining
operational upper-air measurement sites with research sites and
providing high-quality reference data for atmospheric profiles. GRUAN
sites are undertaking high-quality atmospheric profile measurements that
will help understand trends in upper-air ECVs, assist in investigating
processes in the upper-troposphere and lower stratosphere, and provide
data for calibrating satellite measurements and validating independent
climate analyses and models. At GRUAN sites, the principles of quality,
traceability and complete error characterization have been heeded, for
at least part of the observing programme. The network is planned to grow
over its initial size of 15 stations in coming years; introducing
climate quality standards to a larger number of sites.
American Progress (1872) by John Gast is an allegorical representation of the modernization of the new west. Columbia,
a personification of the United States, is shown leading civilization
westward with the American settlers. She is shown bringing light from
east to west, stringing telegraph wire, holding a school book, and
highlighting different stages of economic activity and evolving forms of
transportation. On the left, Indigenous Americans are displaced from their ancestral homeland.
The concept of manifest destiny was used by Democrats to justify the 1846 Oregon boundary dispute and the 1845 annexation of Texas as a slave state, culminating in the 1846 Mexican–American War. In contrast, the large majority of Whigs and prominent Republicans (such as Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant) rejected the concept and campaigned against these actions.By 1843, former U.S. president John Quincy Adams, originally a major supporter of the concept underlying manifest destiny, had changed his mind and repudiated expansionism because it meant the expansion of slavery in Texas. Ulysses S. Grant served in and condemned the Mexican–American War,
declaring it "one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a
weaker nation".
There was never a set of principles defining manifest destiny; it was
always a general idea rather than a specific policy made with a motto.
Ill-defined but keenly felt, manifest destiny was an expression of
conviction in the morality and value of expansionism that complemented
other popular ideas of the era, including American exceptionalism and Romantic nationalism. Andrew Jackson,
who spoke of "extending the area of freedom", typified the conflation
of America's potential greatness, the nation's budding sense of Romantic
self-identity, and its expansion.
Yet Jackson was not the only president to elaborate on the
principles underlying manifest destiny. Owing in part to the lack of a
definitive narrative outlining its rationale, proponents offered
divergent or seemingly conflicting viewpoints. While many writers
focused primarily upon American expansionism, be it into Mexico or across the Pacific,
others saw the term as a call to example. Without an agreed-upon
interpretation, much less an elaborated political philosophy, these
conflicting views of America's destiny were never resolved. This variety
of possible meanings was summed up by Ernest Lee Tuveson: "A vast
complex of ideas, policies, and actions is comprehended under the phrase
'Manifest Destiny'. They are not, as we should expect, all compatible,
nor do they come from any one source."
Etymology
Most historians credit the conservative newspaper editor and future propagandist for the Confederacy, John O'Sullivan, with coining the term manifest destiny in 1845. However, other historians suggest the unsigned editorial titled
"Annexation" in which it first appeared was written by journalist and
annexation advocate Jane Cazneau.
John L. O'Sullivan,
sketched in 1874, was an influential columnist as a young man, but he
is now generally remembered only for his use of the phrase "manifest
destiny" to advocate the annexation of Texas and Oregon.
O'Sullivan was an influential advocate for Jacksonian democracy, described by Julian Hawthorne as "always full of grand and world-embracing schemes". O'Sullivan wrote an article in 1839 that, while not using the term
"manifest destiny", did predict a "divine destiny" for the United States
based upon values such as equality, rights of conscience, and personal
enfranchisement "to establish on earth the moral dignity and salvation
of man". This destiny was not explicitly territorial, but O'Sullivan predicted
that the United States would be one of a "Union of many Republics"
sharing those values.
Six years later, in 1845, O'Sullivan wrote another essay titled "Annexation" in the Democratic Review, in which he first used the phrase manifest destiny. In this article, he urged the U.S. to annex the Republic of Texas, not only because Texas desired this, but because it was "our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions". Overcoming Whig opposition, Democrats annexed Texas in 1845. O'Sullivan's first usage of the phrase "manifest destiny" attracted little attention.
O'Sullivan's second use of the phrase became extremely influential. On December 27, 1845, in his newspaper the New York Morning News, O'Sullivan addressed the ongoing boundary dispute with Britain. O'Sullivan argued that the United States had the right to claim "the whole of Oregon":
And that claim is by the right of our manifest destiny to
overspread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence
has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and
federated self-government entrusted to us.
That is, O'Sullivan believed that Providence had given the United States a mission to spread republican democracy ("the great experiment of liberty"). Because the British government
would not spread democracy, thought O'Sullivan, British claims to the
territory should be overruled. O'Sullivan believed that manifest destiny
was a moral ideal (a "higher law") that superseded other
considerations.
O'Sullivan's original conception of manifest destiny was not a
call for territorial expansion by force. He believed that the expansion
of the United States would happen without the direction of the U.S. government
or the involvement of the military. After Americans immigrated to new
regions, they would set up new democratic governments, and then seek
admission to the United States, as Texas had done. In 1845, O'Sullivan
predicted that California would follow this pattern next, and that even Canada would eventually request annexation as well. He was critical of the Mexican–American War in 1846, although he came to believe that the outcome would be beneficial to both countries.
Ironically, O'Sullivan's term became popular only after it was criticized by Whig opponents of the Polk administration.
Whigs denounced manifest destiny, arguing, "that the designers and
supporters of schemes of conquest, to be carried on by this government,
are engaged in treason to our Constitution and Declaration of Rights,
giving aid and comfort to the enemies of republicanism, in that they are
advocating and preaching the doctrine of the right of conquest". On January 3, 1846, in a speech Representative Robert Winthrop used the term for the first time in Congress stating:
There
is one element in our title [to Oregon], however, which I confess that I
have not named, and to which I may not have done entire justice. I mean
that new revelation of right which has been designated as the right of
our manifest destiny to spread over this whole continent. It has been
openly avowed in a leading Administration journal that this, after all,
is our best and strongest title-one so clear, so pre-eminent, and so
indisputable, that if Great Britain had all our other titles in addition
to her own, they would weigh nothing against it. The right of our
manifest destiny! There is a right for a new chapter in the law of
nations; or rather, in the special laws of our own country; for I
suppose the right of a manifest destiny to spread will not be admitted
to exist in any nation except the universal Yankee nation!" Winthrop was the first in a long line of critics who suggested that
advocates of manifest destiny were citing "Divine Providence" for
justification of actions that were motivated by chauvinism
and self-interest. Despite this criticism, expansionists embraced the
phrase, which caught on so quickly that its origin was soon forgotten.
Historian Frederick Merk
wrote in 1963 that the concept of manifest destiny was born out of "a
sense of mission to redeem the Old World by high example ... generated
by the potentialities of a new earth for building a new heaven". Merk
also states that manifest destiny was a heavily contested concept within
the nation:
From the outset Manifest Destiny—vast in program, in its sense of continentalism—was
slight in support. It lacked national, sectional, or party following
commensurate with its magnitude. The reason was it did not reflect the
national spirit. The thesis that it embodied nationalism, found in much
historical writing, is backed by little real supporting evidence.
A possible influence is racial predominance, namely the idea that the
American Anglo-Saxon race was "separate, innately superior" and
"destined to bring good government, commercial prosperity and
Christianity to the American continents and the world". Author Reginald
Horsman wrote in 1981 that this view also held that "inferior races were
doomed to subordinate status or extinction" and that this was used to
justify "the enslavement of the blacks and the expulsion and possible
extermination of the Indians".
The origin of the first theme, later known as American exceptionalism, was often traced to America's Puritan heritage, particularly John Winthrop's famous "City upon a Hill" sermon of 1630, in which he called for the establishment of a virtuous community that would be a shining example to the Old World. In his influential 1776 pamphlet Common Sense, Thomas Paine echoed this notion, arguing that the American Revolution provided an opportunity to create a new, better society:
We have it in our power to begin the world over again. A
situation, similar to the present, hath not happened since the days of
Noah until now. The birthday of a new world is at hand...
Many Americans agreed with Paine, and came to believe that the United
States' virtue was a result of its special experiment in freedom and
democracy. Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to James Monroe,
wrote, "it is impossible not to look forward to distant times when our
rapid multiplication will expand itself beyond those limits, and cover
the whole northern, if not the southern continent." In an 1823 letter to
Monroe, Jefferson
described the potential annexation of Cuba as “the most interesting
addition which could ever be made to our system of states." To Americans in the decades that followed their proclaimed freedom for
mankind, embodied in the Declaration of Independence, could only be
described as the inauguration of "a new time scale" because the world
would look back and define history as events that took place before, and
after, the Declaration of Independence. It followed that Americans owed
to the world an obligation to expand and preserve these beliefs.
The second theme's origination is less precise. A popular
expression of America's mission was elaborated by President Abraham
Lincoln's description in his December 1, 1862, message to Congress. He
described the United States as "the last, best hope of Earth". The
"mission" of the United States was further elaborated during Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, in which he interpreted the American Civil War
as a struggle to determine if any nation with democratic ideals could
survive; this has been called by historian Robert Johannsen "the most
enduring statement of America's Manifest Destiny and mission".
The third theme can be viewed as a natural outgrowth of the
belief that God had a direct influence in the foundation and further
actions of the United States. Political scientist and historian Clinton Rossiter
described this view as summing "that God, at the proper stage in the
march of history, called forth certain hardy souls from the old and
privilege-ridden nations ... and that in bestowing his grace He also
bestowed a peculiar responsibility". Americans presupposed that they
were not only divinely elected to maintain the North American continent,
but also to "spread abroad the fundamental principles stated in the
Bill of Rights". In many cases, this meant neighboring colonial holdings and countries
were seen as obstacles rather than the destiny God had provided the
United States.
Most Democrats were wholehearted
supporters of expansion, whereas many Whigs (especially in the North)
were opposed. Whigs welcomed most of the changes wrought by
industrialization but advocated strong government policies that would
guide growth and development within the country's existing boundaries;
they feared (correctly) that expansion raised a contentious issue, the
extension of slavery to the territories. On the other hand, many
Democrats feared industrialization the Whigs welcomed... For many
Democrats, the answer to the nation's social ills was to continue to
follow Thomas Jefferson's vision of establishing agriculture in the new
territories to counterbalance industrialization.
Two Native American writers have recently tried to link some of the
themes of manifest destiny to the original ideology of the 15th-century
decree of the Doctrine of Christian Discovery. Nick Estes (a Lakota) links the 15th-century Catholic doctrine of
distinguishing Christians from non-Christians in the expansion of
European nations. Estes and international jurist Tonya Gonnella Frichner (of the Onondaga Nation) further link the doctrine of discovery to Johnson v. McIntosh
and frame their arguments on the correlation between manifest destiny
and Doctrine of Christian Discovery by using the statement made by Chief
Justice John Marshall
during the case, as he "spelled out the rights of the United states to
Indigenous lands" and drew upon the Doctrine of Christian Discovery for
his statement. Marshall ruled that "indigenous peoples possess 'occupancy' rights,
meaning their lands could be taken by the powers of 'discovery'". Frichner explains that "The newly formed United States needed to
manufacture an American Indian political identity and concept of Indian
land that would open the way for united states and westward colonial
expansion." In this way, manifest destiny was inspired by the original European
colonization of the Americas, and it excuses U.S. violence against
Indigenous Nations.
According to historian Dorceta Taylor:
"Minorities are not usually chronicled as explorers or environmental
activists, yet the historical records show that they were a part of
expeditions, resided and worked on the frontier, founded towns, and were
educators and entrepreneurs. In short, people of color were very
important actors in westward expansion."
The desire for trade with China and other Asian countries was
another ground for expansionism, with Americans seeing prospects of
westward contact with Asia as fulfilling long-held Western hopes of
finding new routes to Asia, and perceiving the Pacific as less unruly
and dominated by Old World conflicts than the Atlantic and therefore a
more inviting area for the new nation to expand its influence in.
Debate over Manifest destiny
With the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, which doubled the size of the United States, Thomas Jefferson set the stage for the continental expansion of the United States. Many began to see this as the beginning of a new providential mission: If the United States was successful as a "shining city upon a hill", people in other countries would seek to establish their own democratic republics. Not all Americans or their political leaders believed that the United
States was a divinely favored nation, or thought that it ought to
expand. For example, many Whigs
opposed territorial expansion based on the Democratic claim that the
United States was destined to serve as a virtuous example to the rest of
the world, and also had a divine obligation to spread its superordinate
political system and a way of life throughout North American continent.
Many in the Whig party "were fearful of spreading out too widely", and
they "adhered to the concentration of national authority in a limited
area". In July 1848, Alexander Stephens denounced President Polk's expansionist interpretation of America's future as "mendacious".
In the mid‑19th century, expansionism, especially southward
toward Cuba, also faced opposition from those Americans who were trying
to abolish slavery. As more territory was added to the United States in
the following decades, "extending the area of freedom" in the minds of
Southerners also meant extending the institution of slavery. That is why
slavery became one of the central issues in the continental expansion
of the United States before the Civil War.
Before and during the Civil War, both sides claimed that America's destiny was rightfully their own. Abraham Lincoln opposed anti-immigrant nativism, and the imperialism of manifest destiny as both unjust and unreasonable. He objected to the Mexican war and believed each of these disordered
forms of patriotism threatened the inseparable moral and fraternal bonds
of liberty and union that he sought to perpetuate through a patriotic
love of country guided by wisdom and critical self-awareness. Lincoln's "Eulogy to Henry Clay", June 6, 1852, provides the most cogent expression of his reflective patriotism.
I was bitterly opposed to the measure [to annex Texas],
and to this day regard the war [with Mexico] which resulted as one of
the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was
an instance of a republic following the bad example of European
monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire
additional territory... The Southern rebellion was largely the outgrowth
of the Mexican war. Nations, like individuals, are punished for their
transgressions. We got our punishment in the most sanguinary and
expensive war of modern times.
John Quincy Adams, painted above in 1816 by Charles Robert Leslie,
was an early proponent of continentalism. Late in life, he came to
regret his role in helping U.S. slavery to expand, and became a leading
opponent of the annexation of Texas.
Some scholars limit the "manifest destiny" period to solely North American continental expansion from the Louisiana Purchase to the acquisition of Alaska in 1867, sometimes called the "age of manifest destiny". During this time, the United States expanded to the Pacific Ocean—"from
sea to shining sea"—largely defining the borders of the continental United States as they are today. In the 1890s, the United States expanded into Polynesia and Asia with the annexation of the Republic of Hawaii, the Philippines, Guam, and American Samoa.
One of the goals of the War of 1812 was to threaten to annex the British colony of Lower Canada as a bargaining chip to force the British to abandon support for the various Native American tribes residing there. The result of this overoptimism was a series of defeats in 1812 in part due to the wide use of poorly trained state militias rather than regular troops. The American victories at the Battle of Lake Erie and the Battle of the Thames in 1813 ended the Indian raids and removed the main reason for threatening annexation. To end the War of 1812, John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay and Albert Gallatin (former treasury secretary and a leading expert on Indians) and the other American diplomats negotiated the Treaty of Ghent in 1814 with Britain. They rejected the British plan to set up an Indian state in U.S. territory south of the Great Lakes. They explained the American policy toward acquisition of Indian lands:
The United States, while intending
never to acquire lands from the Indians otherwise than peaceably, and
with their free consent, are fully determined, in that manner,
progressively, and in proportion as their growing population may
require, to reclaim from the state of nature, and to bring into
cultivation every portion of the territory contained within their
acknowledged boundaries. In thus providing for the support of millions
of civilized beings, they will not violate any dictate of justice or of
humanity; for they will not only give to the few thousand savages
scattered over that territory an ample equivalent for any right they may
surrender, but will always leave them the possession of lands more than
they can cultivate, and more than adequate to their subsistence,
comfort, and enjoyment, by cultivation. If this be a spirit of
aggrandizement, the undersigned are prepared to admit, in that sense,
its existence; but they must deny that it affords the slightest proof of
an intention not to respect the boundaries between them and European
nations, or of a desire to encroach upon the territories of Great
Britain... They will not suppose that that Government will avow, as the
basis of their policy towards the United States a system of arresting
their natural growth within their own territories, for the sake of
preserving a perpetual desert for savages.
A shocked Henry Goulburn,
one of the British negotiators at Ghent, remarked, after coming to
understand the American position on taking the Indians' land:
Till I came here, I had no idea of
the fixed determination which there is in the heart of every American to
extirpate the Indians and appropriate their territory.
Continentalism
The 19th-century belief that the United States would eventually encompass all of North America is known as "continentalism". An early proponent of this idea, John Quincy Adams became a leading figure in U.S. expansion between the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 and the Polk administration in the 1840s. In 1811, Adams wrote to his father:
The whole continent of North America appears to be destined by Divine Providence to be peopled by one nation,
speaking one language, professing one general system of religious and
political principles, and accustomed to one general tenor of social
usages and customs. For the common happiness of them all, for their
peace and prosperity, I believe it is indispensable that they should be
associated in one federal Union.
Adams did much to further this idea. He orchestrated the Treaty of 1818, which established the border between British North America and the United States as far west as the Rocky Mountains, and provided for the joint occupation of the region known in American history as the Oregon Country and in British and Canadian history as the New Caledonia and Columbia Districts. He negotiated the Transcontinental Treaty in 1819, transferring Florida
from Spain to the United States and extending the U.S. border with
Spanish Mexico all the way to the Pacific Ocean. And he formulated the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, which warned Europe that the Western Hemisphere was no longer open for European colonization.
The Monroe Doctrine and "manifest destiny" formed a closely
related nexus of principles: historian Walter McDougall calls manifest
destiny a corollary of the Monroe Doctrine, because while the Monroe
Doctrine did not specify expansion, expansion was necessary in order to
enforce the doctrine. Concerns in the United States that European powers
were seeking to acquire colonies or greater influence in North America
led to calls for expansion in order to prevent this. In his influential
1935 study of manifest destiny, done in conjunction with the Walter Hines Page School of International Relations, Albert Weinberg wrote: "the expansionism of the [1830s] arose as a
defensive effort to forestall the encroachment of Europe in North
America".
Transcontinental railroad
Manifest destiny played an important role in the development of the transcontinental railroad. The transcontinental railroad system is often used in manifest destiny imagery like John Gast's painting, American Progress, where multiple locomotives are seen traveling west. According to academic Dina Gilio-Whitaker, "the transcontinental railroads not only enabled [U.S. control over the continent] but also accelerated it exponentially." Historian Boyd Cothran says that "modern transportation development and
abundant resource exploitation gave rise to an appropriation of
indigenous land, [and] resources."
All Oregon
Manifest destiny played its most important role in the Oregon boundary dispute between the United States and Britain, when the phrase "manifest destiny" originated. The Anglo-American Convention of 1818 had provided for the joint occupation of the Oregon Country, and thousands of Americans migrated there in the 1840s over the Oregon Trail. The British rejected a proposal by U.S. President John Tyler (in office 1841–1845) to divide the region along the 49th parallel, and instead proposed a boundary line farther south, along the Columbia River, which would have made most of what later became the state of Washington part of their colonies in North America. Advocates of manifest destiny protested and called for the annexation of the entire Oregon Country up to the Alaska line (54°40ʹ N).
Presidential candidate Polk used this popular outcry to his advantage,
and the Democrats called for the annexation of "All Oregon" in the 1844 U.S. presidential election.
As president, Polk sought compromise and renewed the earlier offer to
divide the territory in half along the 49th parallel, to the dismay of
the most ardent advocates of manifest destiny. When the British refused
the offer, American expansionists responded with slogans such as "The
whole of Oregon or none" and "Fifty-four forty or fight", referring to
the northern border of the region. (The latter slogan is often
mistakenly described as having been a part of the 1844 presidential
campaign.) When Polk moved to terminate the joint occupation agreement, the
British finally agreed in early 1846 to divide the region along the 49th
parallel, leaving the lower Columbia basin as part of the United
States. In order to ensure that Britain retained all of Vancouver Island
and the southern Gulf Islands, however, it was agreed that the border
would swing south around that area. The Oregon Treaty
of 1846 formally settled the dispute; Polk's administration succeeded
in selling the treaty to Congress because the United States was about to
begin the Mexican–American War, and the president and others argued it would be foolish to also fight the British Empire.
Despite the earlier clamor for "All Oregon", the Oregon Treaty
was popular in the United States and was easily ratified by the Senate.
The most fervent advocates of manifest destiny had not prevailed along
the northern border because, according to Reginald Stuart, "the compass of manifest destiny pointed west and southwest, not north, despite the use of the term 'continentalism'".
In 1869, American historian Frances Fuller Victor published Manifest Destiny in the West in the Overland Monthly,
arguing that the efforts of early American fur traders and missionaries
presaged American control of Oregon. She concluded the article as
follows:
It was an oversight on the part of
the United States, the giving up the island of Quadra and Vancouver, on
the settlement of the boundary question. Yet, "what is to be, will be",
as some realist has it; and we look for the restoration of that
picturesque and rocky atom of our former territory as inevitable.
Manifest destiny played an important role in the expansion of Texas and American relationship with Mexico. In 1836, the Republic of Texasdeclared independence from Mexico and, after the Texas Revolution,
sought to join the United States as a new state. This was an idealized
process of expansion that had been advocated from Jefferson to
O'Sullivan: newly democratic and independent states would request entry
into the United States, rather than the United States extending its
government over people who did not want it. The annexation of Texas
was attacked by anti-slavery spokesmen because it would add another
slave state to the Union. Presidents Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren
declined Texas's offer to join the United States in part because the
slavery issue threatened to divide the Democratic Party.
Before the election of 1844, Whig candidate Henry Clay and the
presumed Democratic candidate, former president, Van Buren, both
declared themselves opposed to the annexation of Texas, each hoping to
keep the troublesome topic from becoming a campaign issue. This
unexpectedly led to Van Buren being dropped by the Democrats in favor of
Polk, who favored annexation. Polk tied the Texas annexation question
with the Oregon dispute, thus providing a sort of regional compromise on
expansion. (Expansionists in the North were more inclined to promote
the occupation of Oregon, while Southern expansionists focused primarily
on the annexation of Texas.) Although elected by a very slim margin,
Polk proceeded as if his victory had been a mandate for expansion.
After the election of Polk, but before he took office, Congress
approved the annexation of Texas. Polk moved to occupy a portion of
Texas that had declared independence from Mexico
in 1836, but was still claimed by Mexico. This paved the way for the
outbreak of the Mexican–American War on April 24, 1846. With American
successes on the battlefield, by the summer of 1847, there were calls
for the annexation of "All Mexico", particularly among Eastern
Democrats, who argued that bringing Mexico into the Union was the best
way to ensure future peace in the region.
This was a controversial proposition for two reasons. First,
idealistic advocates of manifest destiny like O'Sullivan had always
maintained that the laws of the United States should not be imposed on
people against their will. The annexation of "All Mexico" would be a
violation of this principle. And secondly, the annexation of Mexico was
controversial because it would mean extending U.S. citizenship to
millions of Mexicans, who belonged to a racially mixed population and
adhered primarily to Roman Catholicism. Senator John C. Calhoun
of South Carolina, who had approved of the annexation of Texas, was
opposed to the annexation of Mexico, as well as the "mission" aspect of
manifest destiny, for racial reasons. He made these views clear in a speech to Congress on January 4, 1848:
We have never dreamt of incorporating into our Union any
but the Caucasian race—the free white race. To incorporate Mexico, would
be the very first instance of the kind, of incorporating an Indian
race; for more than half of the Mexicans are Indians, and the other is
composed chiefly of mixed tribes. I protest against such a union as
that! Ours, sir, is the Government of a white race.... We are anxious to
force free government on all; and I see that it has been urged ... that
it is the mission of this country to spread civil and religious liberty
over all the world, and especially over this continent. It is a great
mistake.
This debate brought to the forefront one of the contradictions of
manifest destiny: on the one hand, while identitarian ideas inherent in
manifest destiny suggested that Mexicans, as non-whites, would present a
threat to white racial integrity and thus were not qualified to become
Americans, the "mission" component of manifest destiny suggested that
Mexicans would be improved (or "regenerated", as it was then described)
by bringing them into American democracy. Identitarianism was used to
promote manifest destiny, but, as in the case of Calhoun and the
resistance to the "All Mexico" movement, identitarianism was also used
to oppose manifest destiny. Conversely, proponents of annexation of "All Mexico" regarded it as an anti-slavery measure.
Historian Frederick Merk, in Manifest Destiny and Mission in American History: A Reinterpretation
(1963), argued that the failure of the "All Oregon" and "All Mexico"
movements indicates that manifest destiny had not been as popular as
historians have traditionally portrayed it to have been. Merk wrote
that, while belief in the beneficent mission of democracy was central to
American history, aggressive "continentalism" were aberrations
supported by only a minority of Americans, all of them Democrats. Some
Democrats were also opposed; the Democrats of Louisiana opposed
annexation of Mexico, while those in Mississippi supported it.
These events related to the Mexican–American War and had an
effect on the American people living in the Southern Plains at the time.
A case study by David Beyreis depicts these effects through the
operations of a fur trading and Indian trading business named Bent, St.
Vrain and Company during the period. The telling of this company shows
that the idea of Manifest Destiny was not unanimously loved by all
Americans and did not always benefit Americans. The case study goes on
to show that this company could have ceased to exist in the name of
territorial expansion.
Filibusterism
After the Mexican–American War ended in 1848, disagreements over the
expansion of slavery made further annexation by conquest too divisive to
be official government policy. Some, such as John Quitman,
Governor of Mississippi, offered what public support they could. In one
memorable case, Quitman simply explained that the state of Mississippi
had "lost" its state arsenal, which began showing up in the hands of
filibusters. Yet these isolated cases only solidified opposition in the
North as many Northerners were increasingly opposed to what they
believed to be efforts by Southern slave owners—and their friends in the
North—to expand slavery through filibustering. Sarah P. Remond on January 24, 1859, delivered an impassioned speech at Warrington, England,
that the connection between filibustering and slave power was clear
proof of "the mass of corruption that underlay the whole system of
American government". The Wilmot Proviso and the continued "Slave Power" narratives thereafter, indicated the degree to which manifest destiny had become part of the sectional controversy.
Without official government support, the most radical advocates of manifest destiny increasingly turned to military filibustering. Originally filibuster had come from the Dutch vrijbuiter
and referred to buccaneers in the West Indies that preyed on Spanish
commerce. While there had been some filibustering expeditions into
Canada in the late 1830s, only by mid-century did filibuster become a
definitive term. By then, declared the New-York Daily Times
"the fever of Fillibusterism is on our country. Her pulse beats like a
hammer at the wrist, and there's a very high color on her face." Millard Fillmore's second annual message to Congress, submitted in
December 1851, gave double the amount of space to filibustering
activities than the brewing sectional conflict. The eagerness of the
filibusters, and the public to support them, had an international hue.
Clay's son, a diplomat in Portugal, reported that the invasion created a
sensation in Lisbon.
Filibuster William Walker, who launched several expeditions to Mexico and Central America, ruled Nicaragua, and was captured by the Royal Navy before being executed in Honduras by the Honduran government.
Although they were illegal, filibustering operations in the late
1840s and early 1850s were romanticized in the United States. The
Democratic Party's national platform included a plank that specifically
endorsed William Walker's filibustering in Nicaragua.
Wealthy American expansionists financed dozens of expeditions, usually
based out of New Orleans, New York, and San Francisco. The primary
target of manifest destiny's filibusters was Latin America but there
were isolated incidents elsewhere. Mexico was a favorite target of
organizations devoted to filibustering, like the Knights of the Golden Circle. William Walker got his start as a filibuster in an ill-advised attempt
to separate the Mexican states Sonora and Baja California. Narciso López, a near second in fame and success, spent his efforts trying to secure Cuba from the Spanish Empire.
The United States had long been interested in acquiring Cuba from
the declining Spanish Empire. As with Texas, Oregon, and California,
American policy makers were concerned that Cuba would fall into British
hands, which, according to the thinking of the Monroe Doctrine, would
constitute a threat to the interests of the United States. Prompted by
O'Sullivan, President Polk offered to buy Cuba from Spain in 1848 for
$100 million. Polk feared that filibustering would hurt his effort to
buy the island, and so he informed the Spanish of an attempt by the
Cuban filibuster López to seize Cuba by force and annex it to the United
States, foiling the plot. Spain declined to sell the island, which
ended Polk's efforts to acquire Cuba. O'Sullivan eventually landed in
legal trouble.
Filibustering continued to be a major concern for presidents after Polk. Whigs presidents Zachary Taylor and Millard Fillmore tried to suppress the expeditions. When the Democrats recaptured the White House in 1852 with the election of Franklin Pierce, a filibustering effort by John A. Quitman
to acquire Cuba received the tentative support of the president. Pierce
backed off and instead renewed the offer to buy the island, this time
for $130 million. When the public learned of the Ostend Manifesto
in 1854, which argued that the United States could seize Cuba by force
if Spain refused to sell, this effectively killed the effort to acquire
the island. The public now linked expansion with slavery; if manifest
destiny had once enjoyed widespread popular approval, this was no longer
true.
Filibusters like William Walker continued to garner headlines in the late 1850s but to little effect. Expansionism was among the various issues that played a role
in the coming of the war. With the divisive question of the expansion
of slavery, Northerners and Southerners, in effect, were coming to
define manifest destiny in different ways, undermining nationalism as a
unifying force. According to Frederick Merk, "The doctrine of Manifest
Destiny, which in the 1840s had seemed Heaven-sent, proved to have been a
bomb wrapped up in idealism."
The filibusterism of the era even opened itself up to some
mockery among the headlines. In 1854, a San Francisco newspaper
published a satirical poem called "Filibustering Ethics". This poem
features two characters, Captain Robb and Farmer Cobb. Captain Robb
makes claim to Farmer Cobb's land arguing that Robb deserves the land
because he is Anglo-Saxon, has weapons to "blow out" Cobb's brains, and
nobody has heard of Cobb, so what right does Cobb have to claim the
land. Cobb argues that Robb doesn't need his land because Robb already
has more land than he knows what to do with. Due to threats of violence,
Cobb surrenders his land and leaves grumbling that "might should be the rule of right among enlightened nations."
Norwegian settlers in North Dakota in front of their homestead, a sod hut
The Homestead Act of 1862 encouraged 600,000 families to settle the
West by giving them land (usually 160 acres) almost free. Over the
course of 123 years, 200 million claims were made and over 270 million
acres were settled, accounting for 10% of the land in the U.S. They had to live on and improve the land for five years. Before the American Civil War, Southern leaders opposed the Homestead Acts because they feared it would lead to more free states and free territories. After the mass resignation of Southern senators and representatives at
the beginning of the war, Congress was subsequently able to pass the
Homestead Act.
In some areas, the Homestead Act resulted in the direct removal of Indigenous communities. According to American historian Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, all five nations of the "Five Civilized Tribes"
signed treaties with the Confederacy and initially supported them in
hopes of dividing and weakening the U.S. so that they could remain on
their land. The United States Army, led by prominent Civil War generals such as
William Tecumseh Sherman, Philip Sheridan, and George Armstrong Custer,
waged wars on "non-treaty Indians" who continued to live on land that
had already been ceded to the U.S. through treaty. Homesteaders and other settlers soon followed and took possession of
the land for farms and mining. Occasionally, white settlers would move
ahead of the U.S. Army, into land that had not yet been settled by the
United States, causing conflict with the Native people who still resided
there. According to Anglo-American historian Julius Wilm, while the
U.S. government did not approve of settlers moving ahead of the Army, Indian Affairs
officials did believe "the move of frontier whites into the proximity
of contested territory—be they homesteaders or parties interested in
other pursuits—necessitated the removal of Indigenous nations."
According to historian Hannah Anderson, the Homestead Act also led to environmental degradation.
While it succeeded in settling and farming the land, the Act failed to
preserve the land. Continuous plowing of the topsoil made the soil
vulnerable to erosion and wind, as well as stripping the nutrients from
the ground. This deforestation and erosion would play a key role in the Dust Bowl
in the 1930s. Intense logging caused a decrease in much of the forests
and hunting harmed many of the native animal populations, including the
bison, whose population was reduced to a few hundreds.
In 1859, Reuben Davis,
a member of the House of Representatives from Mississippi, articulated
one of the most expansive visions of manifest destiny on record:
We may expand so as to include the whole world. Mexico,
Central America, South America, Cuba, the West India Islands, and even
England and France [we] might annex without inconvenience... allowing
them with their local Legislatures to regulate their local affairs in
their own way. And this, Sir, is the mission of this Republic and its
ultimate destiny.
As the Civil War faded into history, the term manifest destiny experienced a brief revival. Protestant missionary Josiah Strong, in his best-seller of 1885, Our Country,
argued that the future was devolved upon America since it had perfected
the ideals of civil liberty, "a pure spiritual Christianity", and
concluded, "My plea is not, Save America for America's sake, but, Save
America for the world's sake."
In the 1892 U.S. presidential election, the Republican Party platform proclaimed: "We reaffirm our approval of the Monroe doctrine and believe in the achievement of the manifest destiny of the Republic in its broadest sense." What was meant by "manifest destiny" in this context was not clearly
defined, particularly since the Republicans lost the election.
In the 1896 election,
the Republicans recaptured the White House and held on to it for the
next 16 years. During that time, manifest destiny was cited to promote overseas expansion.
Whether this version of manifest destiny was consistent with the
continental expansionism of the 1840s was debated at the time, and long
afterwards.
For example, when President William McKinley advocated annexation of the Republic of Hawaii
in 1898, he said that "We need Hawaii just as much and a good deal more
than we did California. It is manifest destiny." On the other hand,
former President Grover Cleveland,
a Democrat who had blocked the annexation of Hawaii during his
administration, wrote that McKinley's annexation of the territory was a
"perversion of our national destiny". Historians continued that debate;
some have interpreted American acquisition of other Pacific island
groups in the 1890s as an extension of manifest destiny across the
Pacific Ocean. Others have regarded it as the antithesis of manifest
destiny and merely imperialism.
A cartoon of Uncle Sam
seated in restaurant looking at the bill of fare containing "Cuba
steak", "Porto Rico pig", the "Philippine Islands" and the "Sandwich
Islands" (Hawaii)
In 1898, the United States intervened in the Cuban insurrection and launched the Spanish–American War to force Spain out. According to the terms of the Treaty of Paris, Spain relinquished sovereignty over Cuba and ceded the Philippine Islands, Puerto Rico, and Guam
to the United States. The terms of cession for the Philippines involved
a payment of the sum of $20 million by the United States to Spain. The
treaty was highly contentious and denounced by William Jennings Bryan, who tried to make it a central issue in the 1900 election, which he lost to McKinley.
The Teller Amendment,
passed unanimously by the U.S. Senate before the war, which proclaimed
Cuba "free and independent", forestalled annexation of the island. The Platt Amendment (1902) then established Cuba as a virtual protectorate of the United States.
The eastern Samoan islands became a territory of the United States.[109] The western islands, by far the greater landmass, became known as German Samoa,
after Britain gave up all claims to Samoa and in return accepted the
termination of German rights in Tonga and certain areas in the Solomon Islands and West Africa. Forerunners to the Tripartite Convention of 1899 were the Washington Conference of 1887, the Treaty of Berlin of 1889, and the Anglo-German Agreement on Samoa of 1899.
On July 17, 1911, the U.S. Naval Station Tutuila, which was composed of Tutuila, Aunuʻu and Manuʻa, was officially renamed American Samoa. People of Manuʻa had been unhappy since they were left out of the name "Naval Station Tutuila". In May 1911, Governor William Michael Crose
authored a letter to the Secretary of the Navy conveying the sentiments
of Manuʻa. The department responded that the people should choose a
name for their new territory. The traditional leaders chose "American
Samoa", and, on July 7, 1911, the solicitor general of the Navy authorized the governor to proclaim it as the name for the new territory.
The acquisition of Hawaii, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, and American Samoa
marked a new chapter in U.S. history. Traditionally, territories were
acquired by the United States for the purpose of becoming new states on
equal footing with already existing states. These islands were acquired
as colonies rather than prospective states. The process was validated by
the Insular Cases. The Supreme Court ruled that full constitutional rights did not automatically extend to all areas under American control. The Philippines became independent in 1946 and Hawaii became a state in 1959, but Puerto Rico, Guam, and American Samoa remain territories.
According to Frederick Merk, these colonial acquisitions marked a
break from the original intention of manifest destiny. Previously,
"Manifest Destiny had contained a principle so fundamental that a
Calhoun and an O'Sullivan could agree on it—that a people not capable of
rising to statehood should never be annexed. That was the principle
thrown overboard by the imperialism of 1899." Albert J. Beveridge
maintained the contrary at his September 25, 1900, speech in the
Auditorium, at Chicago. He declared that the current desire for Cuba and
the other acquired territories was identical to the views expressed by
Washington, Jefferson and Marshall. Moreover, "the sovereignty of the
Stars and Stripes can be nothing but a blessing to any people and to any
land." The nascent revolutionary government, desirous of independence, resisted the United States in the Philippine–American War in 1899; it won no support from any government anywhere and collapsed when its leader was captured. William Jennings Bryan denounced the war and any form of future overseas expansion, writing, "'Destiny' is not as manifest as it was a few weeks ago."
20th-century reforms
In 1917, all Puerto Ricans were made full American citizens via the Jones Act,
which also provided for a popularly elected legislature and a bill of
rights, and authorized the election of a Resident Commissioner who has a
voice (but no vote) in Congress. In 1934, the Tydings–McDuffie Act put the Philippines on a path to independence, which was realized in 1946 with the Treaty of Manila. The Guam Organic Act of 1950 established Guam alongside Puerto Rico as an unincorporated unorganized territory of the United States, provided for the structure of the island's civilian government, and granted the people U.S. citizenship.
Manifest destiny had serious consequences for Native Americans, since
continental expansion implicitly meant the occupation and annexation of
Native American land. This ultimately led to confrontations and wars
with several groups of native peoples via Indian removal.The United States continued the European practice of recognizing only limited land rights of Indigenous peoples. In a policy formulated largely by Henry Knox, Secretary of War
in the Washington Administration, the U.S. government sought to expand
into the west through the purchase of Native American land in treaties.
Only the federal government could purchase Indian lands, and this was
done through treaties with tribal leaders. Whether a tribe actually had a
decision-making structure capable of making a treaty was a
controversial issue. The national policy was for the Indians to join
American society and become "civilized", which meant no more wars with
neighboring tribes or raids on white settlers or travelers, and a shift
from hunting to farming and ranching. Advocates of civilization programs
believed that the process of settling native tribes would greatly
reduce the amount of land needed by the Native Americans, making more
land available for homesteading by white Americans. Thomas Jefferson believed that, while the Indigenous people of America were intellectual equals to whites, they had to assimilate to and live like the whites or inevitably be pushed aside by them.
According to historian Jeffrey Ostler, Jefferson advocated for
the extermination of Indigenous people once he believed assimilation was
no longer possible.
On February 27, 1803, Jefferson wrote in a letter to William Henry Harrison:
"but
this letter being unofficial, & private, I may with safety give you
a more extensive view of our policy respecting the Indians... Our
system is to live in perpetual peace with the Indians, to cultivate an
affectionate attachment from them, by everything just & liberal
which we can do for them within the bounds of reason, and by giving them
effectual protection against wrongs from our own people. The decrease
of game rendering their subsistence by hunting insufficient, we wish to
draw them to agriculture, to spinning & weaving... when they
withdraw themselves to the culture of a small piece of land, they will
perceive how useless to them are their extensive forests, and will be
willing to pare them off from time to time in exchange for necessaries
for their farms & families. At our trading houses too we mean to
sell so low as merely to repay us cost and charges so as neither to
lessen or enlarge our capital. this is what private traders cannot do,
for they must gain; they will consequently retire from the competition,
& we shall thus get clear of this pest without giving offence or
umbrage to the Indians. in this way our settlements will gradually
circumbscribe & approach the Indians, & they will in time either
incorporate with us as citizens of the U.S. or remove beyond the
Mississippi."
Noted
by Law Scholar and professor Robert J. Miller, Thomas Jefferson
"Understood and utilized the Doctrine of Discovery [aka Manifest
destiny] through his political careers and was heavily involved in using
the Doctrine against Indian tribes." Jefferson was "often immersed in Indian affairs through his legal and
political careers" and "was also well acquainted with the process
Virginia governments had historically used to extinguish Indian [land]
titles". Jefferson used this knowledge to make the Louisiana purchase in 1803,
aided in the construction of the Indian Removal Policy, and laid the
ground work for removing Native American tribes further and further into
eventual small reservation territories. The idea of "Indian removal" gained traction in the context of manifest
destiny and, with Jefferson as one of the main political voices on the
subject, accumulated advocates who believed that American Indians would
be better off moving away from white settlers. The removal effort was further solidified through policy by Andrew Jackson when he signed the Indian Removal Act in 1830. In his First Annual Message to Congress in 1829, Jackson stated with regard to removal:
I suggest for your consideration the propriety of setting apart an
ample district west of the Mississippi, and without the limits of any
state or territory now formed, to be guaranteed to the Indian tribes as
long as they shall occupy it, each tribe having a distinct control over
the portion designated for its use. There they may be secured in the
enjoyment of governments of their own choice, subject to no other
control from the United States than such as may be necessary to preserve
peace on the frontier and between the several tribes. There the
benevolent may endeavor to teach them the arts of civilization, and, by
promoting union and harmony among them, to raise up an interesting
commonwealth, destined to perpetuate the race and to attest the humanity
and justice of this government."
Following the forced removal of many Indigenous Peoples, Americans
increasingly believed that Native American ways of life would eventually
disappear as the United States expanded. Humanitarian advocates of removal believed that American Indians would
be better off moving away from whites. As historian Reginald Horsman
argued in his influential study Race and Manifest Destiny, racial
rhetoric increased during the era of manifest destiny. Americans
increasingly believed that Native American ways of life would "fade
away" as the United States expanded. As an example, this idea was
reflected in the work of one of America's first great historians, Francis Parkman, whose landmark book The Conspiracy of Pontiac was published in 1851. Parkman wrote that after the French defeat in the French and Indian War,
Indians were "destined to melt and vanish before the advancing waves of
Anglo-American power, which now rolled westward unchecked and
unopposed". Parkman emphasized that the collapse of Indian power in the
late 18th century had been swift and was a past event.
Legacy and consequences
The belief in an American mission to promote and defend democracy throughout the world, as expounded by Jefferson and his "Empire of Liberty", and continued by Lincoln, Wilson and George W. Bush, continues to have an influence on American political ideology. Under Douglas MacArthur, the Americans "were imbued with a sense of manifest destiny," says historian John Dower.
After the turn of the 19th century to the 20th century, the phrase manifest destiny declined in usage, as territorial expansion ceased to be promoted as being a part of America's "destiny". Under President Theodore Roosevelt, the role of the United States in the New World was defined, in the 1904 Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine,
as being an "international police power" to secure American interests
in the Western Hemisphere. Roosevelt's corollary contained an explicit
rejection of territorial expansion. In the past, manifest destiny had
been seen as necessary to enforce the Monroe Doctrine in the Western
Hemisphere, but now expansionism had been replaced by interventionism as a core value associated with the doctrine.
President Wilson continued the policy of interventionism in the Americas,
and attempted to redefine both manifest destiny and America's "mission"
on a broader, worldwide scale. Wilson led the United States into World War I
with the argument that "The world must be made safe for democracy." In
his 1920 message to Congress after the war, Wilson stated:
... I think we all realize that the day has come when
Democracy is being put upon its final test. The Old World is just now
suffering from a wanton rejection of the principle of democracy and a
substitution of the principle of autocracy as asserted in the name, but
without the authority and sanction, of the multitude. This is the time
of all others when Democracy should prove its purity and its spiritual
power to prevail. It is surely the manifest destiny of the United States
to lead in the attempt to make this spirit prevail.
This was the only time a president had used the phrase "manifest
destiny" in his annual address. Wilson's version of manifest destiny was
a rejection of expansionism and an endorsement (in principle) of self-determination,
emphasizing that the United States had a mission to be a world leader
for the cause of democracy. This U.S. vision of itself as the leader of
the "Free World" would grow stronger in the 20th century after the end of World War II, although rarely would it be described as "manifest destiny", as Wilson had done.
"Manifest destiny" is sometimes used by critics of U.S. foreign policy to characterize interventions in the Middle East and elsewhere. In this usage, "manifest destiny" is interpreted as the underlying cause of what is denounced by some as "American imperialism".
A more positive-sounding phrase devised by scholars at the end of the
20th century is "nation building", and State Department official Karin
Von Hippel notes that the U.S. has "been involved in nation-building and
promoting democracy since the middle of the 19th century and 'Manifest
Destiny'".
.jpg)
.jpg)
