Manifest Destiny: Destined to Repeat?

Regrettably, it is a common tendency for people to forget events in the past. It is also a habit of our modern civilization to disregard or ignore concepts and events due to their antiquity. Maybe this is because we think of ourselves as have “risen above” a disagreeable history and conquered an old vice from those “times of yore”. And, as a result, we no longer need to pay attention to those certain ideas or events. The danger of this proclivity is that we might let history repeat itself and therefore allow those undesirable actions to manifest in a modern context. To make this point clear, we can study the concept in our American history that was the driving force behind westward expansion in the late 19^th century. That inspiration was called our country’s “Manifest Destiny” and its application in our nation’s history dramatically and directly shaped the America we know today. We can learn from studying the countless letters, discourses, and newspapers from the time, that this concept caused wars, included ideas about racial pre-eminence, and had deep religious ties. It became a creed to those individuals of the 1800’s that supported it, and it has become a preferably avoided topic in today’s conversations.

 Wikipedia, the modern-day source for information[1], defines “Manifest Destiny” as “the 19th century American belief that the United States was destined to expand across the continent[2]”. Although that statement is true, the concept of Manifest Destiny included much more than that initial, basic observation. For example, in the book, Give Me Liberty: An American History, which is a more extensive source of historical facts, author Eric Foner writes that Manifest Destiny included “the nation’s mission to extend the area of freedom” (Foner, 290). That is to say, expansion in the name of freedom, a virtue America fought for in the Revolutionary War of 1776. In addition, Foner gives examples of periods when Americans were willing to take up arms, not only in the defense of liberty, but also in its forcible advancement. “Those who stood in the way of expansion…were by definition obstacles to freedom” (Foner, 290).  The immediate need for expansion was very real to citizens of the older states. “With population rising and the price of land rising dramatically” the idea of a vast expanse of prime, inexpensive farm land gave hope to those struggling in the cities (Foner, 291). Manifest Destiny gave them a driving force that would support them with armies and foreign polices to ensure their hold on the new land.  We can readily access sources from the period that openly discuss the reasoning behind Manifest Destiny.

One such source is the man who, according to some, coined the phrase “manifest destiny” in his newsletter, The United States Democratic Review. John O’Sullivan used his influential writings to support the annexation of Texas and acquirement of Oregon in the latter part of the 19^th century. His works are emotional and full of national pride, confident in the belief that God ordained and saw to the creation of this new country.  His 1839 article, The Great Nation of Futurity, incurs a strong sense of patriotism and pride in the idea that America’s “annals describe no scenes of horrid carnage” (O’Sullivan, 427). Therefore, with a “clear conscience unsullied by the past” and with the “truths of God on our minds, beneficent objects in our hearts”, American could go forth and complete its mission: “to establish on earth the moral dignity and salvation of man” (O’Sullivan, 427). Readers of O’Sullivan could rest in the knowledge that our mission to expand the area of freedom and become “a city on a hill” was our purpose from the very beginning. Sadly, the zeal and fervor that drove the supporters of Manifest Destiny proved to be disastrous for the thousands of people living in the West who were deemed unfit for American citizenry. (Foner 406, 407)

A modern historian who has written about the religious aspect of Manifest Destiny is Professor Donald M. Scott.  In his paper, The Religious Origins of Manifest Destiny, Professor Scott is able to view the history since 1839 and use that context to frame the idea of Manifest Destiny in such a way that the reader can easily identify elements of the idea cropping up in our modern times. The purpose of his article is to make clear that “Manifest Destiny was not simply a cloak for American Imperialism and justification of America’s territorial ambitions” (Scott, 1). Instead, he traces the long history of a “special and unique American Destiny” from the European explorers on their “divinely appointed mission to spread Christianity [in] the New World” to the “sense of American uniqueness and mission” in John F. Kennedy’s inaugural speech[3] (Scott, 1). He shows that religion and “Divine Will” played a key part in motivating early colonists, westward settlers and modern-day leaders. This is interesting because, instead of Manifest Destiny “falling into disuse after the mid-19th century”[4], Scott shows that the idea has continued to shape foreign policy well in the 21^st century.

Can an idea as old as Manifest Destiny, with such strong ties to religion and a belief in divinely appointed destiny, still be driving actions of our leaders today?  Could a history of blind ambition and actions, without a thought to consequences, be repeating itself? In 2003, President Bush, in his State of the Union Address said this; “Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world; it is God's gift to humanity.”[5] This is a statement John O’Sullivan would have supported. O’Sullivan might have also written in the Democratic Review to support the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and invasion of Iraq in 2003, all in the name of our divinely appointed mission to extend freedom and of America’s “responsibility to history […] to rid the world of evil.” [6] President Bush’s personal beliefs strongly influenced America’s direction just as Manifest Destiny directly influenced America’s growth and legacy in the 19^th century.

 John O’Sullivan’s article, The Great Nation of Futurity, states that we Americans “have no interest in the scenes of antiquity, only as lessons of avoidance of nearly all their examples” (O’Sullivan, 427). This is quite an accurate statement, but only up to a certain point. Our interest should most certainly be in the study of history and the causes of certain events, not only for use as “lessons of avoidance” but as a way to right our wrongs and create new, justly admirable, policies that future generations could truly respect. We must not neglect the study and modern application of history (in this case, the cause and effect of Manifest Destiny) otherwise we are doomed to repeat the darker parts of our past. Chief Justice Earl Warren, in his eulogy given at John F. Kennedy’s funeral, said this; “The only thing we learn from history is that we do not learn. But surely we can learn if we have the will to do so.”[7] That “will” he mentioned, can come from a desire to move our country toward a future that history will value and respect.

---

[1] This phrase is meant to be “tongue-in-cheek”, a phrase that was also coined in the 19^th century by Richard Harris Barham in his 1842 story, The Black Mousquetaire: A Legend of France

[2] Merk, Frederick. "Manifest Destiny." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 27 Oct. 2011. .

[3] Rather interestingly, Scott points out that it was during the height of the Cold War that America added “Under God” to the pledge of Allegiance (Scott,1). Possibly to affirm that our cause was the righteous one and America had “Divine Will” to back it up.

[4]  Merk, Frederick. "Manifest Destiny." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 27 Oct. 2011. .

[5] "GPO Access Online Resources: A-Z Resource List." INDEX. U.S. Government Printing Office, 28 Jan. 2003. Web. 28 Oct. 2011. .

[6] "The Avalon Project : President's Remarks at National Day of Prayer and Remembrance 1:00 P.M. EDT; September 14, 2001." Avalon Project - Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy. Lillian Goldman Law Library, 14 Sept. 2001. Web. 28 Oct. 2011. .

[7] "Eulogies to the Late President Kennedy” John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum. Web. 28 Oct. 2011. .

Was the American Revolution Actually Revolutionary?

 Could our American Revolution still be called “radical” if blood had not been shed or houses burned? And if that had been the reality, could the years of 1775-76 still be called a “revolution”? The answers to these questions can come from looking at the context of the war, the events leading up to it, and at what “type” of radicalism the Revolution embodied. Over the years, a great number of articles, books, and essays have been written about the degree of radicalism apparent during those events of the late 18^th century. All of these ideas were made possible by the careful study of the hundreds of letters, essays, and records made during those tumultuous times in America’s history and it is only through careful study that we can determine if the Revolution was a revolution at all. 

Two articles in particular, published 30 years apart, conclude with a radical view of the war for independence and both end in marked favor of using “revolutionary” to describe the American war for independence. Peter Marshall cleverly ends his 54 page article, Radicals, Conservatives and the American Revolution, by saying, “It is my guess that, after the work is done, we shall still have an American Revolution on our hands” (Marshal, 54). The work he is describing is the need to study and understand the “changes that occurred in the previous thirty years” leading up to the war in 1775 (Marshall, 54). Marshall’s excellent essay pits historians against historians and orthodoxy against new ideas by detailing many different notions about the Revolution. He cites many well-known, and rarely debated, figure heads of Revolutionary antiquity and invites the reader to join “the stimulating debate on the causes and nature of the Revolution” (Marshal, 1). By identifying the apparent causes of the revolution (economic, political, social, etc.), a better understanding of the revolution and its radicalism can be reached.  His paper identifies a plethora of arguments surrounding a conservative, liberal and/or radical view of the revolution, all which have come from analyzing these changes. One of the theories he distinguishes is a purely political interpretation, in which, “no major economic or social tensions are admitted to exist” (Marshall, 46). This theory stands in opposition to the account of the events in the history book, Give Me Liberty!: An American History, written by Eric Foner. Foner’s chapter on the Revolution describes the “violent social turmoil” (Foner, 156) in the colonies that began long before 1775. This turmoil included riots (149,150,159), boycotts (155, 158), and a unified public outcry (162). Marshall realizes that the “Revolution was limited, according to its recent interpreters, not only in its consequences, but also in its immediate scope” (Marshall, 46). This observation, which is something Eric Foner could approve of, is that the events studied could be precieved as much more violent and radical then previously supposed. This type of conclusion would lead to a very radical view of the Revolution. Marshall then points out an economically based theory (a facet of the revolution I suspect he agrees with) that states; “The destruction of the seaports, the continual process of inflation that marked Continental finance, provide additional factors of economic disorder” (Marshall, 49). He sums up this description by saying, “…it seem[s] certain that that conditions favored, even compelled, extensive social and economic change”(Marshall, 49). It appears that Marshall wants to point out that the radicalism of the revolution is measured by the amount of change brought, not just by the amount of property destroyed or lives lost.[1]

This is a statement that Gordon Wood could accept. Wood, a renowned historian, argues that America did indeed experience a dramatic social transformation in his article, The Radicalism of the American Revolution. He writes that the intense transformation meets the prerequisites of a “revolution”. He talks about the need for context when determining the radicalism of the Revolution. Many of the theories that compare the American Revolution to other revolutions in history conclude, due to a lack of  “social misery or economic deprivation suffered, or by the number of people killed or number of manor houses burned” (Wood, 2), that our Revolution was anything but radical. This conservative view of the Revolution tends to drive the reader towards a separate line of conclusions. For example, Wood points out that a strictly conservative, politically based view makes us “…think of the American revolution as having no social character [and] as having virtually nothing to do with the society.” He then points out the modern significance of this by adding that if the Revolution had nothing to do with society then it would have “…no social causes and no social consequences” (Wood, 1). Throughout his essay, he calls on the reader to fight the modern inclination of Americans to think of our earlier revolutionaries, like Washington, Jerfferson and Adams, as “too stuffy, too solemn, too cautious, [or] too much the gentleman” (Wood, 1) to be involved in a “revolution”, and a radical one at that.  Wood concludes that, as hinted at by the title of his article, the American Revolution was indeed radical.

  In his 1818 letter to Baltimore publisher Hezekiah Niles, John Adams makes very clear statements concerning the Revolution and about the American war for independence. He begins his letter by pointing out a difference between the war and the revolution. “The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people, a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations”.[2] This sentiment declares that the American Revolution did not start with the first shots being fired in 1775, but that it was a steady transformation in the hearts and minds of the people in the colonies. He goes on to add, “This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and

---

[1] Marshall protects his use of the term “radical” by quoting scholar Miss Cecelia Kenyon. Kenyon “suggests the term ‘radical’ and ‘conservative’ have caused much confusion and should be used with great care…” (qtd. in Marshall, 56). In the end, she too concludes that the Revolution “…was still a revolution and it was radical”, while also pointing out that it was “…a limited revolution and it was primarily a political movement [with] social and economic repercussions…” (qtd. In Marshal,56)

[2] Adams, John. Letter to Hezekiah Nile. 13 Feb. 1818. TeachingAmericanHistory.org -- Free Seminars and Summer Institutes for Social Studies Teachers. Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs at Ashland University. Web. 07 Oct. 2011.