ap/ib american history mr. blackmonteachers.dadeschools.net/dblackmon/apibushistory...m. one measure...

AP/IB American History Mr. Blackmon

Manifest Destiny

I. John Tyler as PresidentA. Ardent and doctrinaire States' Rights man

1. Believed that the President should defer to Congress on foreign policy2. Having succeeded to the presidency upon Harrison's death, Tyler had a

very weak political power base.B. Quarrel with Henry Clay

1. Clay resented being passed over for the Presidency2. A new bank bill was passed, but Tyler, although a Whig, vetoed it as a

violation of states' rights.a. The veto led to the resignation of the entire cabinet except for

Daniel Webster (who was engaged in negotiations)C. Legislation

1. Pre-emption Bill 1841a. This is really a Jacksonian bill, since it legalized the rights of

squatters to occupy unsurveyed land and to buy it at $1.25 / acreb. An amendment voided the bill if the tariff rose to over 20%

2. Distribution Acta. Distributed money from land sales to states (a ploy to justify higher

tariffs)b. Please bear in mind that, in this era, federal revenue comes chiefly

from land sales and then the tariff. Excise taxes brought in verylittle income.

c. Tyler vetoed a tariff of over 20% and the Distribution Act wasrepealed in consequence.

3. Tariff of 1842 returned rates to the level of 1832.4. Despite having a Whig in the White House, the Whigs are getting little

benefit from this since Tyler is also a States' Rights man, and properlybelongs in the Democratic Party.

D. Webster-Ashburton Treaty1. Helped to settle several issues2. Maine-New Brunswick boundary dispute3. Aroostook War in 1838 between US and Canadian lumberjacks and

timber4. Problems over the slave trade

a. Great Britain had abolished the slave trade in 1806, had signedtreaties with European nations outlawing the slave tradeinternationally, and actively attempted to interdict the trade.

b. Great Britain abolished slavery itself in its colonies in 1834c. The Caroline affair 1837, when slaves revolted, took over the

vessel, and sought shelter in a British port. The British refused toextradite them.

AP/IB American History Mr. BlackmonManifest Destiny

d. The Creole affair 1841 when the US protested the search of a USvessel.(1) Officially, the US government was just as opposed to the

slave trade as Great Britain was; slaving was defined in USlaw as piracy, and was a hanging offense.

(2) The US protest overlooked the fact that the Creole was aslaver.

(3) The US protest is a compound of acute sensitivity at Britainstopping a US vessel for any reason and the opposition ofSoutherners in the administration (who wielded a lot ofinfluence) to interference in the slave trade.

(4) The ugly head of slavery and sectionalism is beginning torear itself up. Slavery will begin to distort national issuesand policies from this moment on, as we shall see.

5. Lord Ashburton's missiona. Britain needed a territorial concession in order to build a military

road.b. Webster was eager to ease the friction and was willing to

compromise.c. A map drawn by Ben Franklin demonstrated that the land in

dispute did, in fact, belong to Canada. Unfortunately for theBritish, they had lost their copy. Webster had a copy (Franklin'sautograph) but felt no need to tell the British that.

d. Webster conceded the land along the New Brunswick border.e. Britain ceded land in what is now Michigan. This turned out to

include some fabulously wealthy iron ore deposits.f. There was an agreement for Anglo-American cooperation to

interdict the slave trade.(1) The US did in fact send squadrons to block the trade.

However, Congress was always miserly about paying for it. They had little real effect.

(2) The major loophole--of slaving vessels hiding behind anAmerican flag--remained until Abraham Lincoln becamePresident.

(3) Lincoln had little attention to give to ending the slave trade(he had other things on his mind) but he gave the Britishpermission to stop and search suspected slavers flying UScolors. The Royal Navy then strangled the Atlantic Slavetrade.

g. Great Britain increasingly needed the import of US food.h. The US badly needed British capital to pay for our development.

II. Texas


A. Stephen F. Austin1. Moses Austin asked the Spanish government for permission to bring

American settlers into Texas.2. The Spaniards finally gave permission. By then, however, Mexico had

achieved independence. Austin set out to gain permission from Mexico. By the time that was granted, Moses was dead, and so Stephen, his son,led the first settlers.

3. Austin's settlement was established in 1821.4. Why did the Mexicans ever agree to let the Americans in?

a. This is an important question, since Mexican permission made USannexation of Texas inevitable.

b. The reason for this is population density. Northern Mexico wassparsely settled, and the internal convulsions tearing Mexico apartprecluded any movement of settlers into Texas, California, NewMexico, or Arizona.

c. The American frontiersman was restless, land hungry, ambitious,and aggressive. He saw land available and set out to take it.

d. This movement was not planned or directed from Washington, orany other central location. It is a genuine grass roots movementwest.

e. The frontiersmen settled farther and farther west, and eventuallyexpected the land of their birth to catch up to them. When theydemanded government, they expected the democratic governmentof the US. In fact, they would tolerate no other government.

f. These people were hard, resilient, self-sufficient, resentful of alldistant authority, unruly and individualistic in the extreme.

g. It was inevitable that these people clashed with the Mexicangovernment. There were differences of language, religion, andculture. Conflict would occur even with good will on both sides. In a period of restless movement in the US and revolutionaryturmoil in Mexico, goodwill was likely to be in short supply--atleast between Texas and Mexico City.

h. The reasons for the Spanish and then Mexican agreement were theComanche and Apache Indians.

i. Man for man, no deadlier fighter (their name means "enemy" and isnot the Apache name for themselves; their own name means "thepeople;") existed in North America than the Apache. Their skill,ferocity, endurance, cunning, and ability to survive under brutalconditions is astounding. I cannot cover the history of the Apachein this small space. I do not wish to either cover up the brutality ofwar with the Apache nor to cover up the atrocities committed bywhites against them. In the last analysis, their history is a


genuinely tragic one of a brave and proud people being subjugatedby overwhelming force. There were, in fact, very few of them. The great Mimbreño leader, Victorio, probably had no more than150 warriors at his disposal (he also had to take all his women andchildren with him, feeding and protecting them constantly.)

j. The Apache were perpetually at enmity with the Mexicans. Theirdepredations were very serious.

k. The Comanche were even more formidable. Much morenumerous, fully adapted to the horse (the Apache were not). Thefinest horsemen of the plains, and exceedingly wealthy inhorseflesh, the Comanche were the dominant tribe of the southernplains. Only the Sioux, the most numerous tribe of the northernplains, could rival them. The two more or less left each otheralone.

l. Armed with a powerful compound bow, and possessed ofastonishing mobility and knowledge of the land, Comanche raideddeep into Mexico, penetrating as far as Yucatan.

m. One measure of how deadly they were is their utter defeat of theLipan Apache in Texas and driving the remainder into the mostbarren lands available. Anyone who can defeat the Apache is apretty serious opponent.

n. Together, these two opponents kept the population down not onlyin what is now the US but also northern Mexico.

o. Americans were good Indian fighters. The Mexicans hoped forrelief.

p. In this respect, it worked. The Comanche made a treaty with theSpanish (before the garrisons left) that specifically excludedTexans. The Comanche enjoyed fighting Texans. Texansresponded in kind. Descendants of men who fought the Iroquois,Shawnee and Creek turned their energies to the Comanche. It wasimplacable.

5. By 1830, there were 20,000 white Texans, mostly Southerners, with 2,000slaves and only a few thousand Mexican. (this is not proper terminology;the native Mexican population was Texan, too; I am arbitrarily calling thewhite US Texans "Texans" and the Mexican Texans "Mexicans.")

B. John Quincy Adams offered to buy TexasC. Andrew Jackson offered to buy TexasD. Mexico became alarmed at the flood of immigrants and tried to close the barn

door--too late.,1. Slavery was outlawed in Mexico; the government emphasized that slaves

were not to be brought into Texas or held.2. Further immigration by Americans was banned (a useless provision; the


frontier was wide open)3. Heavy duties were placed on American goods4. Troops were sent to enforce national authority.5. Antonio López de Santa Anna, the new dictator of Mexico (unfortunately

for Mexico, he will be dictator off and on for quite some time; this man isa disaster for his country) repudiated the promise of separate statehood forTexas (which might have delayed rebellion in Texas) and also abolishedthe Mexican federal system.a. Federalism versus centralism is a major theme in Latin American

history. Santa Anna is not overly concerned with Texas per se. Itis worth noting, however, that a country as large andgeographically diverse as Mexico cannot effectively be governedcentrally without a very good transportation system, which did notexist. Santa Anna was trying to achieve something that wasfundamentally not possible.

E. Texas War of Independence1. Fighting broke out between settlers and soldiers in 1835.

a. It should be noted that the rebels were not exclusively Americans. Native Mexicans supported independence as well. The Americanswere most prominent due to numbers and general belligerency.

2. The Alamo (Feb. 13-Mar. 6, 1836a. If I get started on the Alamo, you will be here a while.b. I have always regarded, and continue to regard (in the face of

revisionists) the Alamo as an epic story of courage and dedication.c. The 187 man garrison was led by James Bowie, William Barrett

Travis, and Davy Crockett. Two of these men were living legendsof the Southwestern frontier.

d. Their purpose was to delay Santa Anna's army in its advanceagainst Sam Houston, who was trying to organize an army.

e. The defenders were outnumbered at least 10:1. There isuncertainty as to how large an army Santa Anna had. (Garraty 289lists 6,000) He seems to have started with a hard professional core(I believe it to have been 2,000 men) and recruited on the way(another 5,000 unwilling men, I believe. This is open to debate.

f. What is forgotten (or not widely known) is that the siege was neverair tight. Men rode out several times. Once messenger rode outand then back in just to die there. The defenders were skilledfrontiersmen; any of them had a very good chance of escape anytime they chose to do so. Travis offered them the chance--hewanted no one there who was not willing to be there. No one hadillusions as to their fate or the outcome of the battle. Santa Annahad promised to kill them all. All but one man crossed the line


Travis drew in the dust (yes, he really did that; Travis wasflamboyant). Bowie, who was badly injured and couldn't walk,asked to be carried over the line.

g. Crockett's diary reveals a lot of concern about liberty and theAmerican concept of freedom. Certainly, he had nothing at stakedirectly in Texas at all.

h. Why did these men stand and fight? I believe that they fought forfreedom and self-government. Modern revisionists do not believethat to be a cause worth fighting for, and so do not believe that menin the past could or would fight and die for such a reason. Theyknow little about the American frontiersman. Liberty and self-government were intensely personal and fiercely guarded;frontiersmen were overwhelmingly patriot in the RevolutionaryWar for precisely the same reasons.

i. Incidentally, the flag flown over the fort was the Mexican flag, andthe constitution they defended was the liberal constitution of 1824,which Santa Anna had abrogated.

j. The fighting during the assault is perhaps the most savage fight inNorth American history, as measured by the percentage ofcasualties.(1) Movies tend to make the Mexican soldiers look like

klutzes. They weren't. Only tough, brave troops could havecontinued an assault in the face of that rifle fire. Onceinside, they were probably blood and fear crazed. Thedefenders were determined to kill as many of their enemiesas they could.

(2) All 187 defenders were killed. A handful of prisonerswere executed.

(3) Mexican losses were appalling. Tindall and Shi list 1,544dead. This is also debated, but there were too many to buryproperly or to count properly. Alcalde Francisco Ruiz, whowas responsible for separating Mexican from Texan dead,placed the Mexican dead at about 1,600 (this does notinclude wounded). Santa Anna's personal secretary told theAmerican Dr. Sutherland, after San Jacinto and in SantaAnna's presence, that the army had had 5,000 men to beginthe siege and lost 1,544 dead, the flower of the army. TheTolucca battalion was cited as having lost 700 of 830 menkilled. (by the way, in military terminology, a "casualty" isdead, wounded, or missing. Normally, a ratio of dead towounded would be 1:3 or 1:4. The ratio of dead towounded at the Alamo is shocking.) Sutherland also


reported a terrible death toll from Mexican wounded amonth later, owing to Santa Anna's indifference to givinghis own men medical care. He reported that 300 or 400 haddied of wounds.

(4) Santa Anna's army fought miserably at San Jacinto; inessence, they ran away in panic. This is far from theirbehavior at the Alamo. Why the difference? I believe thatthe answer is that Santa Anna blunted his instrument: themen who died at the Alamo were his elite, veteran troops,leaving the ill-trained and unwilling conscripts. No armycan lose 35% dead unscathed. That at least, is my theory.

3. Goliada. A worse atrocity than the Alamo was the massacre at Goliad. The

Texan garrison surrendered to the Mexicans, but were massacred incold blood. (I am looking for a number; I remember 400, but Idon't trust that memory. It was substantially larger than the Alamogarrison.)

b. The Alamo and Goliad resulted in fanatical Texan resistance.4. Texas declared its independence on March 3, 1836.5. Sam Houston surprised and routed Santa Anna's army at San Jacinto on

April 21, 1836. Santa Anna was captured, and forced to acknowledgeTexas' independence.a. Mexico repudiated this acknowledgement, and continued to regard

Texas as Mexican soil. They did not, however, attempt toreconquer Texas. The next ten years were marked by sporadicbloodshed and atrocities.

6. Houston was elected the first President of the Lone Star Republic.a. A plebescite overwhelmingly requested annexation by the United

States.7. Andrew Jackson (to whom Sam Houston was as close as a natural son)

very much desired the annexation on strategic grounds, but he wascautious on the issue (unlike his basic personality).a. He foresaw that annexation would mean war with Mexico.b. He foresaw that annexation would stir up the slavery controversy,

which he regarded as a red herring used by his political enemies tobreak the Union.

c. Jackson recommended that annexation be put off.8. Texas therefore had no choice but to seek assistance elsewhere. The

logical choices were France, and especially, Great Britain.a. The British were attracted by Texas cotton.b. Texas offered no tariff barriers, in contrast wit the US.c. Texas offered favorable terms for investment.


d. Texas also entered into serious negotiations for the emancipationof their slaves.(1) The British government were determinedly anti-slave, and

were seriously pursuing schemes for compensatedemancipation, paid for by the British taxpayer (the numberof slaves was small enough to make this feasible.)

9. Tyler's Cabinet became alarmed at the negotiations with Britain.a. Southern fire-eaters feared British domination of Texas, the

emancipation of Texas' slaves, and the block of all hopes of futureexpansion of slavery. To men like John C. Calhoun, if slaverycould not grow, then it would surely die. Furthermore, a haven forrunaways could not, in their mind, be tolerated.

b. A patriotic surge swept not only the South and Southwest, but alsothe Northwest.

c. Secretary of State Abel P. Upshur (no friend to abolitionists!!)was killed in an accident. Tyler named John C. Calhoun to theposition.

d. Calhoun's open identification of Texas with slavery, combinedwith really inept negotiations (that is, if he did not want war) costannexation its northeastern support.

e. The Whig Henry Clay (a slave-holder) and the Democrat MartinVan Buren (who was opposed to slavery) both opposed annexationbecause they did not want war with Mexico.

III. The Northwest: California and OregonA. California

1. Like Texas, California was sparsely settled.2. 21 Catholic missions dominated life3. There were a handful of American settlers in the 1830's

B. Oregon1. Our claim to Oregon rested upon Capt. Robert Gray in 1792 and upon the

Lewis and Clark Expedition.2. John Jacob Astor's Rocky Mountain Fur Company was established in

1811 on the Columbia River.3. Missionaries to the Indians began to arrive in the 1830's:

a. Marcus and Narcissa Whitman (Presbyterian)b. Jason Lee (Methodist)c. Pierre de Smet

4. There was British activity farther north with John McLaughlin as theagent for the Hudson's Bay Company.

5. Reports of the rich land by missionaries set off a population migrationalong the Oregon Trail.a. Again, I want to stress that this is a genuine grass roots movement,


without any central organization.b. It is my belief that, however interesting the ideology of Manifest

Destiny might be, it is distinctly less important than the simple factof land hunger. I tend to see the debates of a Jackson, a Benton, aWebster, an O'Sullivan, a Calhoun, a Thoreau, a Clay as somewhatbeside the point. I do not think any force on earth could haveprevented American settlers from seizing the available land, otherthan a substantial population already in occupation. The outcomeof the debates was really pre-determined (which Calhoun, at least,certainly understood).

6. By 1845, there were 5,000 Americans living south of the Columbia River,and they were demanding the extension of the US government to includethem by annexation.

IV. An Interpretation of Manifest DestinyA. Manifest Destiny is getting a lot of attention now, since it fits in so nicely with

politically correct, revisionist historians' preconceptions and enables one to writeessays in which Americans can beat their breasts and exclaim mea culpa! meaculpa! It also permits one to draw parallels with later expansion, for somewhatsimilar reasons and with somewhat less validity.

B. Please do not anyone write an essay on the outbreak of the Mexican Warwithout mentioning Manifest Destiny.1. In its broadest sense, Manifest Destiny is the underlying cause of the

Mexican War and the subsequent Mexican Cession.C. Albert K. Weinberg provided an interesting discussion of the ideology of

expansion in a book published in 1935, at a time when ideology was relativelymore important but racism relatively less important. Partly because he takes adifferent approach from the current fad, I include a discussion of his analysis.(Another reason is that, in reviewing the debates, I think he is quite sound.)1. Causation in history is usually multiplex. Weinberg's vision does not

necessarily negate the vision of revisionists. I believe that there is a highdegree of compatibility. Here, the difference between one school andanother is more one of emphasis.

2. Weinberg believed that the "Roaring Forties" saw the welding of twoideals together, which gave a new integration of the nationalconsciousness. (507)

3. One ideal was Territorial Expansion4. The second ideal was Democracy, thought of as a complex of

individualistic values.5. The slogan for the era became the "extension of the area of freedom"

(508)a. This phrase was coined by Andrew Jackson in a letter written in

1843 to Rep. Aaron V. Brown and which was published without


his permission in 1844. I will get back to it later.b. It is also worth noting that the phrase was used primarily with

respect to the annexation of Texas. (508)6. Originally, the idea of "extending the area of freedom" was not perceived

as being logically related to the extension of territorial extent. The ideawas that we would spread democracy by example. (509)a. Please note that Weinberg is pointing out one example of an

American national characteristic: a belief that we have a specialpurpose, mission or destiny.(1) This idea goes back to the Puritan Errand Into the

Wilderness.(2) It includes this idea that we are the beacon of hope,

freedom, and democracy to a world held in the thralls ofcorrupt monarchical governments.(a) Lincoln shared this view very strongly; that is one

reason why he was willing to fight so hard topreserve the Union. For Lincoln, this dream has theforce of religious conviction.

(b) Although given to the US by France at a later date,the Statue of Liberty embodies this ideal ofdemocracy by example.

(3) Manifest Destiny will mark a more aggressive phase, withthe addition of racist and strategic/economic motives to theoriginal ideological ones.

(4) The Young America Movement, which is usually dated inthe 1850s may be seen as an example.

(5) Both the North and the South in the Civil War describedtheir reasons for fighting in terms of liberty and freedom. Many modern historians regard such formulations as a meresmokescreen for the real reasons, and do not credit theparticipants with either telling the truth (even tothemselves) or understanding themselves. That is theirproblem.

(6) US Imperialism in many ways is a continuation of elementsof Manifest Destiny (racism, strategic, economic motivescombined with democratic ideology) with the addition ofSocial Darwinism.

(7) We fought World War I "to make the world safe fordemocracy." Other, more cynical explanations have beengiven, but the evidence that these reasons influenced actualpolicy makers is not (to me at least) convincing.

(8) World War II was a moral crusade if ever there was one.


We fought for the Four Freedoms, the Atlantic Charter, todefend and preserve our very way of life and our mostfundamental values.(a) If I might get personal a bit here. I regard World

War II as the most important event of the twentiethcentury because I believe that the challenge tohuman values was so profound and the possibilityof an Axis victory so great. Had Hitler won, theworld would have been plunged into a dark andbloody era whose end no one could predict (I amstealing some thoughts from Churchill here, but notphrasing it as well). Without the US, Hitler wins. Therefore, I tend to interpret US history with WorldWar II in mind, and I tend to believe that, if God hasa plan to use the United States (a Puritan idea) thenthat plan culminated in World War II or, at thelatest, the end of the Cold War. My father'sgeneration saw the apex of our history and, to stealanother phrase, our nation's finest hour.

(9) We defended democracy against the threat of Communismduring the Cold War. Again, cynical motives can be andhave been adduced, but the average voter (and we are, afterall, a democracy, and the average voter counts) visualizedthe struggle in terms of a morality play. Russia representedthe "Evil Empire."

(10) As recently as the Gulf War, one will note that PresidentBush found it necessary to justify the war by portrayingSaddam Hussein as another Hitler and casting the strugglein moral terms. We really fought to preserve the free flowof oil, but that would not secure votes.

(11) There has always been a messianic, moralistic, andideological streak in the American consciousness

7. There was also the belief among many of the early national leaders thatdemocracy and expansion were incompatible: expansion would threatento disrupt the balance of the sections and thus subvert the Union. (510-1)

8. In addition, there was fear that expansion threatened states' rights bycreating a new section with conflicting interests with the original sectionsthat could shift the balance of power according to its own interests. Toparaphrase John Randolph of Roanoke, why should Americans acquiescein adding territories that would eventually rule them? (511)

9. The common thread of these objections were an egoistic fear thatexpansion threatened the liberties of the nation, state, and individual. (511)


10. The acquisition of the Louisiana Purchase and the War of 1812 helped toallay these fears. Westerners proved to be loyal democrats, and the federalprinciple proved to be flexible and successful. (512-3)

11. The fear of European encroachment, especially British encroachment,is the catalyst for change.a. Texas--fear of British influence began in 1843. This fear, by the

way, was well-founded. Please note that the US had previouslyrefused a request by Texas for annexation. In our view, and in theview of international law, there was no reason not to annex morallyor legally, since the overwhelming majority of Texans wished it. Mexico's refusal to acknowledge Texas' independence is a cause ofthe Mexican War, but it is not very rational--Texas had in factdefeated Mexican arms, and maintained an independentgovernment for ten years in defiance of Mexico City. One of theconditions by which Santa Anna and his troops were released fromcaptivity was recognition of Texas' independence. While oneshould seek to comprehend the other person's point of view, andwhile one may certainly concede valid points, Mexico's refusal toaccept the loss of Texas was emotional, irrational, and ultimatelyself-destructive. In the meantime, the question for US policy is"What was different in 1844 than in 1836?" The answer is Texas'negotiations with Great Britain. As far as racism is concerned, theUS was neither more nor less racist in 1846 as it was in 1836 or1856. Racism may play a role, but not a decisive one; it is not acatalyst for events.

b. Oregon--The territory was jointly governed, but a sharp ideologicalelement enters discussions about Oregon; to Americans of thisgeneration, Great Britain was an enemy, and its government acorrupt monarchy. We are as yet unable to distinguish between therule of Queen Victoria and the Tsar. Sen. Dickinson announcedthat the issue was " 'a question between two great systems;between monarchy and republicanism.'" (516)

c. California--we feared that the British would use Oregon as aspringboard for entry into California as well. (517) Note that itwas assumed that Mexico could not retain California. One cannothelp but feel that paranoia is creeping into our national dialogue(on the other hand, considering Great Britain's success atimperialism, perhaps not so paranoid.) It was with respect toCalifornia that John L. O'Sullivan first coined the phrase "ManifestDestiny." (cf below)

d. We evidently regarded the threat under three heads:(1) Whatever threatened US security threatened democracy.


(2) European absolutism threatened to pollute our democracy.(3) Adjacent European power threatened to block the extension

of our democracy. (518)12. The assumptions of the earlier era were therefore inverted during the

Roaring Forties: expansion came to be viewed as essential to ourdemocracy and Union, and failure to expand came to be viewed as a threat.(518)

13. There are different strands to this inversion.a. Southern paranoia (a problem which will grown steadily from

this point on) (518)(1) Threats by Northern abolitionists to dissolve the Union

should Texas be annexed give substance to the fire-eaters'fears. (518-9)

(2) Fireeaters like Robert Barnwell Rhett candidly admittedthat they desired Texas to extend slavery in the US. Theyreconciled this with States' Rights by arguing that it wouldpreserve the power of the South, taken as a section, toprotect their "peculiar institution."

b. Ideological: expansion increased the opportunities for self-development. The pioneers forging their way West were seen nowas the carriers of that ideal of Jefferson's: "That government isbest which governs the least." (521)

c. Economic: the continued existence of democracy requiredcontinuous economic expansion (521) [This is really an importantstrand; do not forget it!](1) Rep. Duncan stated, in defense of the Oregon Bill, "'I have

before remarked that personal liberty is incompatiblewith a crowded population. . . . The inability of theweak, the humble and the non-assuming to contend withthe over-bearing, the cunning, and the graspingmonopolist makes it necessary, to the equality ofcircumstances and personal liberty, that the advantagesof territory should constantly be kept open to all whowish to embrace it." (521)

14. The traits of this new national consensus included a egoisticdisparagement [today, scholars tend to describe it as "racist" rather than"egoistic"] of other peoples to help themselves (526) a. They had not responded by our example yet.b. They must be taken under our wing for their own good.c. This arrogance was partially ameliorated by idea of America as a

"refuge to all devotees of freedom in a world elsewhere threatenedwith a rising deluge of despotism." (527)


(1) This ideology has not yet excluded foreigners from our soil,an important difference with the nativism of the late 19thand early 20th century.

15. "Enshrined in expansionism, then, was this dogma of the special mission. .. . The expansionist dogma of destiny was essentially ethical in itsassumption that 'Providence had given to the American people a great andimportant mission . . . to spread the blessings of Christian liberty.' It wasambitiously ethical in its further assumption that 'Providence' had a'design in extending our free institutions as far and wide as the Americancontinent.' But the primary providential end was no more the elevation ofthe Latin-American heathen than was the elevation of the adjacentPhilistines the end of the Israelite's journey to the Promised Land. Theend in view was, as stated by John L. O'Sullivan in his first passage onmanifest destiny, 'the free development of our yearly multiplying millions.' But in a second reference to manifest destiny he implied the moralsignificance of this free development of Americans. Americans weredestined to develop themselves as subjects in 'the great experiment ofliberty and federated self-government entrusted to us.'" (531)

V. Some Readings in Manifest DestinyA. The following selections will attempt to provide a representative sample. Note

the various lines of argument. They are arranged in chronological order. Pleasenote the context!

B. John C. Calhoun, Jan. 24, 1843 [Speaking in opposition to a bill to fortify theOregon border] "Our population is rolling toward the shores of the Pacific withan impetus greater than what we realize. . . . Such is the wonderful growth ofa population . . . and such the impetus with which it is forcing its way,resistlessly, westward. It will soon . . . reach the Rocky Mountains and beready to pour into the Oregon territory, when it will come into our possessionwithout resistance or struggle. . . ." (Calhoun 88)

C. Andrew Jackson Letter to Aaron V. Brown Feb. 12, 1843, published without hisconsent in 1844: ""Soon after my election, it was made known to me . . . that anew treaty was there concluded [with Spain] by which the Sabine, and not theRio Grande, was recognized and established as the boundary of Louisiana. . .. I thought . . . that it was right never to cede any land or boundary of therepublic but always to add to it by honorable treaty, thus extending the area offreedom. . . . .We can now only look at it as one of annexation, if Texaspresents it to us; and if she does, I do not hesitate to say that the welfare andhappiness of our Union require that it should be accepted. . . . If, in a militarypoint of view alone . . . it will be found to be most important to the UnitedStates to be in possession of that territory. Great Britain has already madetreaties with Texas. . . . [Jackson discusses the military implications of this inquite a lot of detail; this is clearly his chief concern] The question is full of


interest, also, as it affects our domestic relations and as it may bear uponthose of Mexico to us. . . . The annexation of Texas to the United Statespromises to enlarge the circle of free institutions, and is essential to theUnited States, particularly as lessening the probabilities of future collisionwith foreign powers, and giving them greater efficiency in spreading theblessings of peace." (Jackson 95-7)

D. Editorial, United States Magazine and Democratic Review [a Democraticmagazine] April 1844: [the editorial quotes extensively a letter written by Sen.Robert J. Walker of Miss. advocating annexation; Walker was fromPennsylvania, immigrated to Mississippi, became a wealthy planter andslaveholder, later served in the Cabinet and as governor of Kansas, where heincurred the hatred to his fellow planters; he was loyal to the Union in 1861, andserved as an envoy for the US in Europe] "Che serà, sarà--what must be, mustbee--and, in general, the sooner therefore it is, the better. . . . That Texas is tobe . . . included in the Union . . . we have long . . . regarded as an eventalready indelibly inscribed in the book of future fate and necessity. . . . We areneither Southerners, to desire the annexation for the purpose of propping upthat side of the fast failing equilibrium in the federal government between thefree and the slave states; nor Abolitionists, who, erroneously making thequestion of slavery a political and a federal question, with equal vehemence,for the same reason, deprecate that event. . . . The Valley of the West, or ofthe Mississippi--the magnificent region allotted already by the unequivocalfinger of Providence, for the main center and home of the great republican,confederated empire of the West. . . . .That the whole of this valley region . . .must . . . come together into one homogeneous unity of political system, is asimple geographical fact. . . . [quoting Walker] 'The Creator . . . has planneddown the whole valley, including Texas, and united every atom of the soil andevery drop of the water s of the mighty whole. . . . it is impious in man toattempt to dissolve this great and glorious Union. . . . . To refuse to accept thereannexation is to lower the flag of the Union before the red-cross of St.George and to surrender the Florida pass, the mouth of the Mississippi, thecommand of the Mexican Gulf, and finally, Texas itself, into the hands ofEngland' . . . [The article urges annexation because of] the danger ofEngland's acquiring the possession of, or a dominant control over, the youngstate. . . . And as for what may be termed the anti-slavery objection, this hasno greater force than the other. The question of slavery is not a federal ornational but a local question. . . . This balance of political power between thesections we regard as of little consequence. . . . Free states will be made fasterthan slave ones, to say nothing of probable decay of that institution in some ofthe more northern of the Southern states." ("Texas Without War," 192-200)

E. Rep. Joshua Giddings, Whig and Abolitionist, in opposition to annexation, May


21, 1844: "The North and West now hold the balance of political power; andat the present session we have asked for a bill for the protection of our lakeand river commerce. . . . But let us admit Texas and we shall place thebalance of power in the hands of the Texans themselves. They, with theSouthern states, will control the policy and the destiny of this nation. . . . Arethe liberty-loving Democrats of Pennsylvania ready to give up our tariff?"(Giddings 201)

F. James K. Polk from his Inaugural Address, Mar. 4, 1846: "I regard the questionof annexation as belonging exclusively to the United States and Texas. . ..None can fail to see the danger to our safety and future peace if Texasremains an independent state or becomes an ally or dependency of someforeign nation more powerful than herself. . . . Our title to the country of theOregon is 'clear and unquestionable,' and already are our people preparing toperfect that title by occupying it with their wives and children. . . . The worldbeholds the peaceful triumphs of the industry of our emigrants. To us belongthe duty of protecting them adequately." (Polk 286-8)

G. John L. O'Sullivan, "Annexation" from the United States Magazine andDemocratic Review, July 1845: "Texas is now ours. . . .the fulfillment of ourmanifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the freedevelopment of our yearly multiplying millions. . . . The independence ofTexas was complete. . . It was not revolution, it was resistance to revolution. .. Nor is there any just foundation for the charge that annexation is a greatpro-slavery measure--calculated to increase and perpetuate that institution. Slavery has nothing to do with it. . . . That it will tend to facilitate and hastenthe disappearance of slavery from all the northern tier of the present slavestates, cannot surely admit of serious question. . . . Every new slave state inTexas will make at least one free state from among those in which thatinstitution now exists. . . . to say nothing of the far more rapid growth of newstates in the free West and Northwest. . . . It is undeniably much gained forthe cause of the eventual v voluntary abolition of slavery, that it should havebeen thus drained off toward the only outlet which appeared to furnish muchprobability of the ultimate disappearance of the Negro race from our borders. The Spanish-Indian-American populations of Mexico, Central America, andSouth America, afford the only receptacle capable of absorbing that racewhenever we shall be prepared to slough it off--to emancipate it from slavery,and (simultaneously necessary) to remove it from the midst of our own. . . .California will . . . next fall away. . . Imbecile and distracted, Mexico never canexert any real government over such a country. . . . The Anglo-Saxon foot isalready on its borders. A population will soon be actual occupation ofCalifornia, over which it will be idle for Mexico to dream of dominion. . . .Their right to independence will be the natural right of self-government


belonging to any community strong enough to maintain it." (O'Sullivan 288-92)

H. Anonymous Editorial, American Review, a Whig journal, Jan. 1846: "Regardingthe accession of California as an event which present tendencies, if not checkedor counteracted, must render inevitable. . . . No one who cherishes a faith inthe wisdom of an overruling Providence, and who sees, in the nationalmovements which convulse the world, the silent operation of an invisible butomnipotent hand, can believe it to be for the interest of humanity, for the well-being of the world, that this vast and magnificent region should continueforever in its present state. . . . the manifest designs of Providence areunfulfilled, and the paramount interests of the world lack due advancement. While California remains in possession of its present inhabitants and undercontrol of its present government, there is no hope of its regeneration. Thiswill demand a life, an impulse of energy, a fiery ambition of which no sparkcan ever be struck from the soft sluggishness of the American Spaniard. . . .The affairs of the whole world are, in many very important respects, linkedand even fused together. Commerce, which has come to be the ruling powerupon the globe, makes its home upon the broad sea that knows no bounds--itsfamiliar paths are upon the world's great highways. . . . [Mexico] cannot lackthe sagacity to perceive that, with Great Britain firmly fixed in California, shecould not engage in war with the United States without a certainty, or, at theleast, a very strong probability of having Great Britain for an active ally. . .We deem it impossible that Great Britain should expect to occupy California,either as a colony or 'somewhat in the manner of the East India Company,'with the acquiescence or indifference of the United States. In no spot uponthe continent could she establish her power where it could be so effectuallywielded to our lasting injury. It can scarcely be doubted that the PacificOcean is hereafter to bear upon its bosom a far greater commerce than nowfloats upon the Atlantic. Whatever may be its relation to Europe, to theUnited States, it is destined to be the highway to Asia." ("California and theNational Interest," 323-328)

I. Thomas Hart Benton, Senate speech, May 28, 1846 "It would seem that theWhite race alone received the divine command, to subdue and replenish theearth,' for it is the only race that has obeyed it--the only one that hunts outnew and distant lands, and even a New World, to subdue and replenish. . . .The van of the Caucasian race now top the Rocky Mountains . . . Commerceis a great civilizer . . . the White race will take the ascendant . . . The Red racehas disappeared from the Atlantic coast: the tribes that resisted civilizationmet extinction. Civilization, or extinction, has been the fate of all people whohave found themselves in the track of the advancing Whites." (Benton 204-206)


J. James Russell Lowell, excerpts from the Bigelow Papers, 1848:

"T would n't suit them Southern fellers, They 're a dreffle graspin' set.We must ollers blow the bellers Wen they want their irons het;May be it's all right es preachin', But my narves it kind o' grates,Wen I see the overreachin' O' them nigger-drivin' States.

Them thet rule us, them slave-traders, Hain't they cut a thunderin' swarth(Helped by Yankee renegades.) Through the vartu o' the North!We begin to think it's nater To take sarse an' not be riled;Who 'd expect to see a tater All on eend t being' biled?

Ex fer wat, I call it murder-- There you he it plain an' flat;I don't want to go no furder Than my Testyment fer that;God hez sed so plump an' fairly, It's ez long ez it is broad,An' you've got to git up airly Ef you want to take in God.

They may talk o' Freedom's airy Tell they're pupple inn the face--It's a grand gret cemetary Fer the barthrights of our race;They jest want this Californy So's to lug new slave-states inTo abuse ye, an' to scorn ye, An' to plunder ye like sin.

Tell ye jest the eend I've come to Arter cipherin' plaguy smart,An' it makes a handy sum, tu,


Any gump could larn by heart,Laborin' man and laborin' woman Hev one glory an' one shame.Ev'ry thin' thet's done inhuman Injers all on 'em the same.

K. Charles Sumner, Whig and Abolitionist, "Report on the War with Mexico"adopted by the Massachusetts legislature 1847: "A war of conquest is bad; butthe present war has darker shadows. It is a war for the extension of slaveryover a territory which has already been purged by Mexican authority from thisstain and curse. Fresh markets of human beings are to be established. . . .But it is not merely proposed to open new markets for slavery: it is alsodesigned to confirm and fortify the 'Slave Power.' Here is a distinction whichshould not fail to be borne in mind. Slavery is odious as an institution . . .But it has been made the basis of a political combination, to which has notinaptly been applied the designation of the 'Slave Power.' . . . The object of thebold measure of annexation was not only to extend slavery, but to strengthenthe 'Slave Power.' The same object is now proposed by the Mexican War. . . .it is virtually . . . a war against the free states of the Union." (Sumner 361-365)

L. Albert Gallatin, "Peace with Mexico," a pamphlet published in 1847: "It is saidthat the people of the United States have a hereditary superiority of race overthe Mexicans, which gives them the right to subjugate and keep in bondage theinferior nation. This, it is also alleged, will be the means of enlightening thedegraded Mexicans, of improving their social state, and of ultimatelyincreasing the happiness of the masses. [Is it] compatible with the principle ofdemocracy, which rejects every hereditary claim of individuals, to admit ahereditary superiority of races? . . . .In the progressive improvement ofmankind, much more has been due to religious and political institutions thanto races. . . . .At this time the claim is but a pretext for covering the justifyingunjust usurpation and unbounded ambition. But [even] admitting withrespect to Mexico, the superiority of race, this confers no superiority of rights .. . no man is born with the right of governing another man. He may, indeed,acquire a moral influence over others, and no other is legitimate. The sameprinciple will apply to nations. However superior the Anglo-American racemay be to that of Mexico, this gives the Americans no right to infringe uponthe rights of the inferior race." (Gallatin 369-372)

M. Abraham Lincoln, speech to Congress, from the Spot Resolutions, "A true issuemade by the President would be about as follows: 'I say the soil was ours, onwhich the first blood was shed; there are those who say it was not.' . . . As anation should not, and the Almighty will not, be evaded, so let him [Polk]


attempt no evasion . . . if. . . he can show that the soil was ours where the firstblood of the war was shed, . . . then I am with him . . . . But if he can not orwill not do this . . . then I shall be fully convinced of what I more than suspectalready--that he is deeply conscious of being in the wrong." (Lincoln 212-217)

N. Henry David Thoreau, from Civil Disobedience, 1849: "That government isbest which governs not at all. . . . Can there not be a government in whichmajorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience, in whichmajorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency isapplicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment . . resign his conscience to thelegislator? . . . if it [an injustice perpetrated by government] is of such anature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say,break the law. Let your life be a counterfriction to stop the machine." (Thoreau540-548)

VI. The Election of 1844A. The Whigs unanimously nominated Henry Clay.

1. Clay tried to avoid the issue of Texas in his platform.B. The Democrats pull a surprise

1. Van Buren was upset at the convention, and failed to obtain the 2/3 votenecessary for nomination.

2. John C. Calhoun demanded Texas for slavery.3. The convention turned to a "Dark Horse" candidate, one acceptable to both

wings: James Knox Polk, Jackson's House leader, who was known as"Young Hickory."

4. Polk's platform demands the "reannexation of Texas and thereoccupation of Oregon."

C. Clay tried to straddle the fence on expansion, but his effort is too late.D. Polk won the election

1. The Liberty Party had formed, with James G. Birney as its presidentialcandidate. Birney was a Kentucky slaveholder who repudiated slavery,emancipated his bondsmen, and devoted his full time attention to trying toend slavery.a. The Liberty Party cost Clay New York, and New York cost him the

election.E. Tyler decided to seize credit for annexing Texas for himself. He called for

annexation by a joint resolution of Congress, which avoided the requirement for a2/3 vote of the Senate.1. Texas retained title to all public lands but bears all debts incurred as an

independent nation.2. In addition, the joint resolution permitted Texas to divide itself into as

many as 5 slave states.3. Texas was admitted as a state in December 1845.

VII. Polk as President


A. Polk promised to1. Lower the tariff (he did)2. Restore Van Buren's independent treasury (he did)3. Acquire California (he did)4. Settle the Oregon question (he did)5. Oppose internal improvements such as bills for harbors, canals, and

railroads. (he did)6. After just one term, physically exhausted, Polk retired, having fulfilled

every campaign promise. He died very soon after. How many Presidentshave fulfilled every promise?

B. Oregon1. The northern border of the territory was 54° 40', which is the southern

edge of Alaska.2. Polk began by demanding everything. He then offered to compromise at

the 49° (our present border).3. The British reject this proposal.4. Polk then decides to play hard-ball. He demands it all again.

a. In 1846, he asks Congress to abrogate the Treaty of 1818, whichprovided for joint occupation.

b. The Democratic Party begins proclaiming the slogan "54° 40' orFight!" Highly belligerent war talk fills the nation.

5. The British change their position and offer to compromisea. The Hudson's Bay agent, John McLaughlin, pointed out that the

preponderance of American settlers made the British positionmilitarily undefendable. He wanted to save the Company tradingcenter at Vancouver Island.

6. Polk agreed to a compromise along the 49th parallel, except for VancouverIsland, which remained British. This clears one potential internationalembroilment and allows him a free hand in the southwest.

VIII. The Immediate Origins of the Mexican WarA. I tend to be extremely critical of revisionist historians (as you may already have

guessed!) However, lest anyone not understand, I think that it is clear that theUnited States forced a war upon Mexico in 1846. Neither side is without blame,but the US clearly forced the issue.

B. Mexico, as promised, broke off diplomatic relations with the US when Texas wasannexed.

C. Mexico had real and substantial grievances1. Patriotic anger over annexation.2. A dispute over the Texas boundary--whether at the Nueces River, as

Mexico claimed, or the Rio Grande del Norte, as Texas and the USclaimed.a. The issue went back to the exact dimensions of the Louisiana


Purchase and the Adams-Onís Treaty. This debate is the origin ofPolk's "reannexation of Texas." On its merits, I believe that theMexicans had a substantially better case.

3. The obvious determination, enshrined in campaign promises, of Polk toacquire California.

4. I am very critical of the Mexicans' unwillingness to face reality and acceptthe loss of Texas. But they had every right to contest the border; theyhad every right to regard Polk as an enemy and his plans as a threat;and why should emotional patriotism be the exclusive province of theUS?

5. I have no moral quarrel with the annexation of Texas. Texas wasindependent, and annexation was the desire of its people. Everything elseis another matter indeed. We stole California, fair and square.

D. American grievances1. The instability of Mexican governments. The first 20 or 30 years of

Mexican independence are chaotic, at best. The nation is rent by chroniccivil war.

2. Debts owed American citizens by Mexico and Mexicans, which were notbeing paid. This is a legitimate grievance. It is also a consequence of theinstability of the Mexican government. Any statesman would not besurprised and would also not expect any real solution until the underlyinginstability is rectified.

E. James K. Polk was very willing, if not eager, to resort to force to achieve hisobjectives.1. Polk ordered Gen. Zachary Taylor and a small army to the Nueces River.

a. Under the circumstances, the presence of Taylor there could onlybe viewed as a provocation.

F. John Slidell's Mission1. Polk did in fact make a serious effort to buy California.2. He offered, via Slidell, to accept $2,000,000 in debts and to pay

$30,000,000 for New Mexico and California.a. Polk regarded this as a reasonable offer since American citizens

would seize the land in question with or without governmentassistance.

3. Slidell's mission was so unpopular with Mexicans that the government thatdared receive him was overthrown.

4. Mexican Gen. Mariano Paredes then affirmed Mexico's claim to all ofTexas, a move that was popular, but turned out to be suicidal.

G. Outbreak of Hostilities1. Polk decided to fight.2. He orders Taylor to cross the Nueces and advance to the Rio Grande, into

the disputed territory.


a. He was hoping that this would provoke an incident which hecould then use as an excuse for war.

b. Under the circumstances, this ends all discussion of who started thewar. It is open provocation.

c. Polk then composed a war message, and waited for news ofbloodshed.

d. When it was slow in coming, he lost patience, and decided to askfor war anyway.

e. At the last minute, news of a border incident arrived, and allowedPolk to pretend that American blood had been shed on Americansoil.

3. For some reason, John Garraty claims that war was not declared. (297) That is not true. The vote was 40-2 n the Senate, 174-14 in the House. CfBlum, 286, Current 381, Morrison and Commager Vol I 551)

IX. The Course of the Mexican WarA. Subsequent history should not cause one to think that US victory was inevitable.

In 1846, the Mexican army was four times the size of the US army, and had beenengaged in war almost continuously. It was European trained. The US army hadnot fought anyone except Indians for a generation. British newspapers werecertain that the Mexicans were better soldiers. The British minister to MexicoCity regarded the Mexicans as clearly superior. (Casdorph 52)1. The Mexican decision to renew their claim to all of Texas is

comprehensible only if the Mexican generals were utterly confident oftheir ability to defeat the US and seize by force of arms the territory theyhad lost.

2. European observers have traditionally had, and in some cases still have, avery low opinion of the American fighting man.

3. The small US army was led by two outstanding generals, Zachary Taylorand Winfield Scott.

4. The US army included a cadre of young, very well-trained West Pointerswho demonstrated very remarkable aggressiveness, resourcefulness, andcourage. Men who distinguished themselves in this war includedJefferson Davis, Ulysses S. Grant, A.P. Hill, George B. McClellan,Thomas Jonathan Jackson, and, above all else, Scott's chief of engineers,Robert Edward Lee.

5. The Mexicans consistently fought with great, at times, extraordinarycourage. They were consistently miserably led. The Americansconsistently fought with great courage, but added far superior leadershipand initiative. US forces were generally outnumbered by the Mexicans.

B. Strategy1. Polk attempted to direct strategy personally, which was hopeless

considering the state of communications, and a bad idea anyway.


2. The first stage was to clear the northern border areas of Mexican forceswhile simultaneously seizing Santa Fe New Mexico and California.

3. After this was accomplished, we would launch a knock out blow byamphibious landing at Vera Cruz and a march on Mexico City itself.

C. The Northern Theater1. Polk was deeply suspicious of both Taylor and Scott, who were Whigs.

This poisoned his relationship with his generals.2. There was fierce domestic opposition to the war from both Northern and

Southern Whigs (please note, Southern Whigs as well) and some SouthernDemocrats, such as John C. Calhoun.a. One line of attack was that the war was being fought to extend

slavery. Charles Sumner represents this view.b. One line of attack was that we had been misled by our leaders.

Abraham Lincoln represents this point of view.c. The war was particularly unpopular in New England. Henry David

Thoreau went to jail rather than pay a poll tax in protest of the war(he did, however, allow a relative to pay it for him and get out ofjail.)

3. Zachary Taylor, "Old Rough and Ready"a. Defeated a Mexican force at Palo Alto.b. Defeated another force at Resaca de la Palma. He was now firmly

over the Rio Grande.c. Won a tough battle at Monterrey, 9/21-23/46.d. Polk now stripped Taylor of most of his army. He feared Taylor's

popularity and wants to leave him idle for the rest of the war.e. Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna is allowed to pass through a US

blockade from Cuba to return to Mexico. He establishes himself(again) as dictator and then tries to surprise the weakened Taylorand crush him.(1) I can't help but think that allowing Santa Anna back into

Mexico was the nastiest thing we did to Mexico.f. Taylor crushed Santa Anna at the Battle of Buena Vista (2/22-

23/47)(1) Jefferson Davis, Taylor's son-in-law (but they were not on

good terms) distinguished himself in the battle. This helpslaunch him on his public career.

D. The Southwestern Theater1. California

a. In Sacramento, American settlers proclaim the Bear FlagRepublic.

b. John C. Frémont, (Thomas Hart Benton's son-in-law; they werenot on good terms either; at least, they weren't when he married


Jessie) had been stationed near the California border by Polk (bysheerest chance, I'm sure!). Frémont offered to lead the rebels.(1) In case you are wondering, both women married very young

and without their father's approval. Davis' first wife diedtragically of fever after only a short time together; VarinaDavis, the First Lady of the Confederacy, was Davis'second wife, whom he married some time later. Davismourned his first wife a long time. Jessie Benton Frémonthad been spoiled by her doting father. She was quite youngwhen she eloped with Frémont. Her enraged fatherarranged for him to go exploring the West--as far fromJessie as possible. That suited them both--they wereambitious. Frémont was very handsome, very brave, veryambitious, and pretty stupid. Jessie had all the brains in thefamily. In the end, dealing with Abraham Lincoln, shebecame a liability rather than an asset. So much for familygossip.

c. Commodore John Sloat, who by another sheer chance had aflotilla off the coast, seized Monterrey and San Francisco.

2. New Mexicoa. Stephen Watts Kearney left Ft. Leavenworth for Santa Fê.b. Santa Fê., which was essentially undefended, surrendered

peacefully.c. Kearney then continued on to California to seize San Diego and

Los Angeles.E. Winfield Scott "Old Fuss and Feathers"

1. Winfield Scott landed at Vera Cruz on 3/9/47.2. He then began a march along the route used by Cortez (it is the logical

invasion route).3. It is a brilliant campaign, and I am filled with astonishment. It is little

discussed today. But consider that Scott had to accomplish the mostdifficult of all military operations, an amphibious landing, and then marcha small army into the heart of a hostile nation, overcoming militaryopposition, severe difficulties of terrain, maintaining his supply andcommunications, and fending off an increasingly jealous President in hisrear.

4. We will see later that the aged and corpulent Winfield Scott, who wasdisgracefully shunted aside in 1862, could still see strategically veryclearly indeed. His Anaconda Plan was scorned by McClellan and othersin 1861, but the means by which the North won the Civil War look anawful lot like Scott's Anaconda Plan. He is the most overlooked man inUS military history.


5. Scott smashed a very strong Mexican position at Cerro Gordoa. The key to victory was a brilliant flanking maneuver led by Capt.

Robert E. Lee.6. Scott defeated the Mexicans at Contreras 8/7/477. Scott defeated the Mexicans at Churubusco 8/20/478. Scott defeated the Mexicans at Molino del Rey 9/8/479. Scott defeated the Mexicans at Chapultepec 9/13/47

a. Mexican officer cadets put up a truly heroic defense at this battle.10. With the fall of Chapultepec, Scott had possession of Mexico City itself.

X. The Treaty of Guadalupe HidalgoA. We have won the war. Now, can we get the Mexicans to concede defeat so we

can go home?B. Nicholas Trist had accompanied Scott, with powers to negotiate a treaty.

1. Trist could not find an organized Mexican government with which tonegotiate. This is potentially a very dangerous situation for us, since apopular, disorganized uprising could have been bloody and prolonged. Cfthe Paris Uprising against the Prussians in 1872.

C. Polk became very impatient. He expected to gain from Mexican weakness, and herecalled Trist.

D. Trist refused to go, and instead negotiates a treaty that Polk did not like lest allorder in Mexico collapsed.

E. Polk repudiated Trist, refusing to pay his salary or expenses.F. The terms of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo

1. Mexico acknowledges US annexation of Texas2. Mexico acknowledges the Rio Grande as the border.3. Mexico cedes New Mexico (that includes Arizona) and Upper California

to the US.4. The US will pay $15,000,000 plus debts owed to US citizens (about

#3,250,000)5. Mexico thereby lost about 1/3 of its territory (1/2 if one includes Texas in

that area)6. Guadalupe Hidalgo was a very harsh treaty, yet Polk was furious! He

wanted more.7. Polk accepted the treaty only grudgingly in order to avert further fighting

and because the war's unpopularity was growing.8. The treaty was ratified 36-14.

XI. Immediate AftermathA. Gold was found at Sutter's' Mill California in January 1848.B. The California Gold Rush was on

1. This is the origin of the Forty Niners. Eat your heart out Joe Montana.2. $200,000,000 was taken out in just 4 years. This is really enormous

wealth.


3. The population of California explodes, leading to the question ofstatehood. The final phase on the way to the Civil War is about to begin


Works Cited

Benton, Thomas Hart. "The Superior Race and the Divine Command." Main Problems inAmerican History. Quint, Howard H., Cantor, Milton, Albertson, Dean, Editor. Volume I. Belmont California: Wadsworth Publishing Co. 1987.

Blum, John M., Morgan, Edmund S., Rose, Willie Lee, Schlesinger, Jr., Arthur M., Stampp,Kenneth M., and Woodward, C. Vann. The National Experience: A History of the UnitedStates. 5th ed. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1981.

Calhoun, John C. "On Territorial Expansion." Annals of America. Vol. 7. Chicago:Encyclopeadia Britannica, 1976. 87-88.

Casdorph, Paul D. Lee and Jackson. New York: Dell Publishing, 1992.

"California and the National Interest." Annals of America. Vol. 7. Chicago: EncyclopeadiaBritannica, 1976. 323-8.

Gallatin, Albert. "The Unjust War With Mexico." Annals of America. Vol. 7. Chicago:Encyclopeadia Britannica, 1976. 369-73.

Garraty, John. The American Nation. 5th Ed. New York: Harper & Row, 1983.

Giddings, Joshua. "Texas and Slavery." Annals of America. Vol. 7. Chicago: EncyclopeadiaBritannica, 1976. 201.

Jackson, Andrew. "The Annexation of Texas as Essential to the United States." Annals ofAmerica. Vol. 7. Chicago: Encyclopeadia Britannica, 1976.

Lincoln, Abraham. "The President is Arraigned." Main Problems in American History. Quint,Howard H., Cantor, Milton, Albertson, Dean, Editor. Volume I. Belmont California: Wadsworth Publishing Co. 1987.

Lowell, James Russell. "War and Slavery." Annals of America. Vol. 7. Chicago: EncyclopeadiaBritannica, 1976. 348-50.

O'Sullivan, John. "Our Manifest Destiny." Annals of America. Vol. 7. Chicago: EncyclopeadiaBritannica, 1976. 288-95)

Sumner, Charles. "A War to Strengthen the Slavery Interests." Annals of America. Vol. 7. Chicago: Encyclopeadia Britannica, 1976. 361-5.

"Texas Without War." Annals of America. Vol. 7. Chicago: Encyclopeadia Britannica,


1976. 192-200.

Thoreau, Henry David. "Resistance to Civil Government." Annals of America. Vol. 7. Chicago: Encyclopeadia Britannica, 1976. 540-548

Tindall, George Brown and Shi, David E. America: A Narrative History. 3rd Ed. New York: W.W. Norton, 1992.


Works Consulted

Freehling, William W. The Road to Disunion: Secessionists at Bay 1776-1854. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.

Myers, John Myers. The Alamo. New York: Bantam, 1948.

Tinkle, Lon. The Alamo. New York: Signet, 1958.

ap/ib american history mr. blackmonteachers.dadeschools.net/dblackmon/apibushistory...m. one measure...

Documents