What is meant by Manifest Destiny? What influence has it had on American foreign policy?

The main purpose of this essay is to analyze the meaning of Manifest Destiny and explain how it has influenced the US foreign policy. It also attempts to provide logical evidence that Manifest Destiny can be argued as the sole reason for why America itself has a history. Few Americans had never assumed that the boundaries of the United States would stand forever unchanged. Manifest Destiny was the driving force responsible for changing the face of American history. It was the philosophy that created a nation.

As far as the outline of my argument is concerned, I begin with an illustration of what Manifest Destiny means. Apparently, it is essential to take a look back to American history, in order to illustrate the roots of Manifest Destiny, how old it is and the reasons that it was created. In the second part of the essay, I am going to examine the influence of Manifest Destiny on the American foreign policy, including the contemporary foreign policy.

Although, American history was built on a chronological record of significant events, each event had a cause and subsequent effect on one another. Moreover, historical events are presented in history as being tangible, being tied to a date or an exact happening. On the other hand, Manifest Destiny is a philosophical phenomenon. It cannot be tied to a date, event or a specific period of time. Manifest Destiny existed and still exists as the philosophy that embraces American history as a whole. It is an intangible ideology that created American history. Taking this into consideration, and in order for this analytical and explanatory approach to be effective, I need to make a presentation of at least the most important historical events of the 18th and 19th century and combine them with Manifest Destiny. This way the influence that Manifest Destiny had on American foreign policy can be observed more easily and more effectively as well. And of course I consider quite necessary for my analysis to mention recent historical events of the 20th and 21st century; events that reflect the influence of the Manifest Destiny on the US foreign policy up to date.

Additionally, the provision of evidence for this subject would have been unachievable without the inspiring and priceless books and ideas of authors like LaFeber, Michael Dunne, William Earl Weeks, Michael Mann, David S. Heidler and Jeanne T. Heidler, Blum, Alan Brinkley and Michael H. Hunt.
In 1845, a democratic leader and influential editor by the name of John L. O’Sullivan gave the movement its name. In an attempt to explain America’s thirst for expansion, and to present a defense for America’s claim to new territories he wrote:

“…the right of our Manifest Destiny to over spread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federaltive development of self-government entrusted to us. It is right such as that of the tree to the space of air and the earth suitable for the full expansion of its principle and destiny of growth.”(Brinkley, 1995:352)

In its simplest form, Manifest Destiny can be defined as a “Movement”. More specifically, it would be the systematic body of concepts and beliefs that powered American life and American culture. The notion of Manifest Destiny was publicized in the papers and was advertised and argued by politicians throughout the nation. The idea of Manifest Destiny Doctrine became the torch that lit the way for American expansion.

Manifest Destiny revitalized a sense of “mission” or national destiny for Americans. The people of the United States felt it was their mission to extend the “boundaries of freedom” to others by imparting their idealism and belief in democratic institutions to those who were capable of self-government. This sense of “mission” for expansion was explained by the Secretary of Treasury Robert J. Walker in 1847 as “a higher than an earthly power”; a power that had guided American expansion and “still guards and directs our destiny, impels us onward, and has selected our great and happy country as a model and ultimate centre of attraction for all the nations of the world.” (LaFeber, 1994:95). However, it excluded those people who were perceived as being incapable of self-government, such as Native American people and those of non-European origin. Blacks, Indians and Mexicans in particular were by the 1830s most often seen as obstacles to progress, incapable of improvement. American nationalism and the dream of Manifest Destiny became defined increasingly in racial terms. “The emerging concept of Americans as an Anglo-Saxon people combined with an increasing pessimism regarding the improvability of nonwhite peoples”, as William Earl Weeks (1996:63) describes it.

Although the movement was named in 1845, the philosophy behind Manifest Destiny always existed throughout American history. According to LaFeber (1994:9), a group of English men and women settled at Massachusetts Bay in 1630. Their leader, John Winthrop said: “We must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill, the eyes of all people are upon us.” Those can be regarded as among the most famous words in American history since they have been quoted repeatedly- from the founding fathers in the 1780s to President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s- to define the US mission in the world. If we want to bring an example of how old the concept of Manifest Destiny is, we can go back to the 1820s, at the beginning of the Jacksonian age. In 1818, Andrew Jackson, while taking a broad interpretation of vague instructions from President Monroe, led military forces into the Floridas during the Florida crisis. In a systematic and ruthless way, he punished the Seminal Indians for taking up arms with the Spanish; he destroyed Spanish forces and captured several cities and forts.(LaFeber, 1994:79). According to LaFeber, Jackson was “the ruthless frontier fighter who seized key parts of Florida”. Americans, who had moral reservations about the rough tactics of Jackson, soothed their consciences with a familiar, but not yet named philosophy.

However, in order to understand Manifest Destiny and therefore the reasons that it was created, it is essential to take into deep consideration the America’s need and desire to expand. From that perspective, I think it is worth-mentioning that the United States was experiencing a periodic high birth rate and increases in population during immigration. And because agriculture provided the primary economic structure, large families to work the farm were considered an asset. The US population grew from more than 5 million in 1800 to more than 23 million by mid-century. Thus there was a need to expand in new territories to accommodate this rapid growth. It is estimated that nearly 4 million Americans moved to Western territories between 1820 and 1850. According to LaFeber, this incredible development is called the American “multiplication table” and refers to the combination of the decreasing infant mortality and the production of families of five to ten children (LaFeber, 1994:11). Kennedy told the House of Representatives:

“Go to the West and see a young man with his mate of eighteen; after a lapse of thirty years, visit him again, and instead of two, you will find twenty-two. That is what I call the American multiplication table.”(LaFeber, 1994:12)

In addition to that, the United States suffered two economic depressions-- one in 1818 and a second in 1839. These crises drove some people to seek their living in frontier areas. Also, frontier land was inexpensive or, in some cases, free; expansion into frontier areas opened opportunities for new commerce and individual self-advancement; land ownership was associated with wealth and tied to self-sufficiency, political power and independent “self-rule”; maritime merchants saw an opportunity to expand and promote new commerce by building West Coast ports leading to increased trade with countries in the Pacific. Because of all these factors “countless pioneers rapidly peopled western lands that speedily passed through territorial status to statehood. By 1819, nine additional states had joined the first thirteen, a burst of expansion fueled by cheap land on the frontier and its allure to immigrants from Europe…While westward expansion fueled a major economic boom, it also began to alter the nature of American politics.” US foreign policy was the result of Manifest Destiny. (Heidler, 2003:9)

At the same time, the US foreign policy was heavily influenced by Manifest Destiny. First used in 1845, the term Manifest Destiny conveyed the idea that the rightful destiny of the US included imperialistic expansion:

“One popular way of thinking, however, was to attribute imperialism to determinism of some sort: the hand of God, the instinct of race, the laws of Darwinism, the force of Economics and trade- anything but reasonable decision. Though many Americans deemed willing to surrender to imperialist policies, few would admit that they did so because they wanted to.” (Blum, 1985:536)

Throughout the 19th century, Americans discussed and debated issues connected to expansion. Westward acquisitions began with the Louisiana Purchase, an event of great historic significance for the US. The new nation laid claim to “the entire expanse of the most fertile river valley in the world, dubbed by Jefferson the ‘Valley of Democracy’ that insured the spread of his ‘Empire of Liberty’, without shedding a drop of blood.” (Heidler, 2003:7). Westward expansion continued through the mid-century period with the land gained through the war with Mexico in 1846. Jefferson’s vision of liberty tied to an expansive foreign policy was carried forward by three Tennesseans — A. Jackson, S. Houston and J. K. Polk --, as the Virginians left off. Jackson “consolidated the nation’s hold on the southeast interior”, “…chastened Britain no less than Spain and subdued the Indians…”, as an important presence east of the Mississippi. Polk laid claim to the entire Oregon territory and “pressed to the brink of war with Britain.” After that, in 1846, he turned on Mexico. The war ended with one half of Mexico – California and the New Mexico territories – falling permanently into American hands. “This tripling of the nation’s size”, as Hunt characterized it, “depended on growing American military power that rendered insecure the grip of Russia, Britain, France, Spain, and Mexico on their respective North American territories.” (Hunt, 1987:29) The achievements during the Texas, Oregon and Mexican Wars cultivated the feeling that the possibilities of this “mighty nation” are boundless and that this nation was destined soon to “surpass the greatness of any European power, to exceed the size of any empire and to overtake even the Chinese in population.” (Hunt, 1987:31)

The period following the Civil War up to the late 1870’s was given over to consolidating the territorial lands and integrating them to the political and economic mainstream. In the south, the policies of reconstruction were aimed at a quick reintegration of that region back into the union. In the west, efforts as diverse as the building of a transcontinental train line, federal support for the enterprises and a federal subsidization of land settlement all served to bring western territorial areas within the influence of eastern economic and political institutions. With the election of 1876, southern reconstruction was considered complete, the mechanisms for settling, building and integrating western territories were in place, the prime source of national controversy and division was removed and finally, the beginnings of a new age of industrialism were in evidence. According to Hunt, “after four years of national immobility the old vision of greatness and liberty regained its hold…” (Hunt, 1987:36) At the same time, the industrial growth of certain nations, notably England, Germany, France, Russia and Japan, and their demand for new foreign markets/colonies to sustain growth (especially in the Pacific, East Asia and the Americas) “began to evoke in the United States both alarm and calls for imitation.” (Hunt, 1987:36) It was this tension that fueled foreign policy debates in the latter years of the 19th century and into the early years of the 20th century.

According to LaFeber (1994:171), “the road to Latin America markets and bases was certainly a traditional path for US expansion.” In 1870, President S. Grant tried to annex Santo Domingo and ensure that no other power could control the country, by claiming that Santo Domingo could support “the entire colored population of the US, should it choose to emigrate.” Another, more promising opportunity to seize new territory took land in Cuba, after the Cubans had started a revolution against decaying Spanish control in 1868. Next US target became the Central America. In the late 1870s, the building of an isthmian canal in Panama by the French resulted in the intervention of the US. As LaFeber informs us (1994:174) “the turn to an ocean-to-ocean canal owned and operated by the US occurred in the 1870s and 1880s, long before it was realized in Panama in 1903.” Moreover, the active interventionism of the US in Latin America was displayed by the Chilean and Brazilian affairs. But the most dramatic aspect of this vigorous policy appeared in Venezuela during 1895-1896. The reason is that, during that crisis Washington officials challenged Great Britain, which was the world’s leading power. In addition to that, Great Britain’s long-held interests were replaced by Americans in Nicaragua and Costa Rica, which were economically dominated by 1900. Finally, before the turn of the century, the US fought the Spanish-American war in 1898 and as a result they acquired Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines.

By 1900, Americans had also an army on the Asian mainland and had conquered a string of bases across the broad Pacific that linked that mainland to the United States. The magnificent Hawaiian Islands, “the stepping-stone to the growing trade of the Pacific”, as President Cleveland termed the islands, were the first stop and Samoa the second one. (LaFeber, 1994:178) After the 1899 agreement on Samoa, “a key section in its bridge to Asia”, the US traders and missionaries could finally turn their attention to the final destination and last quest for more than 100 years, Asia. The US “scavenger diplomacy” in Asia, the willingness of Seward to use force and his longings to work with European powers, in order to expand the Western interests in Europe, reflected the US diplomacy in Asia for the next eighty years. Asian countries, like China, Korea and Manchuria, were of great strategic importance for America. But no sooner had the Washington officials started to promote their expansion in Asia, than Korea and China were violated by the region’s developing power, Japan. “The US could do nothing about it…but most US officials agreed with Secretary of State W. Q. Gresham in 1894: Japan was the most civilized country in Asia and, as such, could be trusted to respect the US as her best friend.” (LaFeber, 1994:183)

“By the end of the century…activist leaders embraced a broad definition of national security that would carry the nation towards greatness in the world. In this endeavor they ultimately brought Americans to terms with colonies and naval bases, spheres of influence and protectorates, a powerful blue-water navy and an expeditionary army.” (Hunt, 1987:41) During the tumultuous era between the Spanish-American War and the end of World War I, imperialists argued that their destiny as a special people was not limited to the North American continent. Their fate was inextricably tied to the global community. After the Monroe Doctrine (1822), an additional promotion for Manifest Destiny was the Roosevelt Corollary, which stated that in addition to being the military protector the US should be the business protector of the “less civilized” countries as well. Unable to avoid participation, the United States entered World War I in 1917. According to LaFeber (1994: 296),
“Wilson led Americans into the charred fields of Europe, where 50,000 would die so that the president could try to replace revolution with a democratic world based on American principles.” After WWI, the US foreign policy leaned towards isolationism. Fearful of future enlargements, United States didn’t join the League of Nations, a global peacekeeping organization. According to Dunne, this American rejection of membership dominates the historiography of US foreign relations between the first and second World Wars:

“…the passage from rejection of the League of Nations to the membership of the UN represented a peculiarly American journey: not so much from isolationism to internationalism, but rather the adoption of multilateral means and the retention of the unilateral option to promote American interests in a world where, at the end of WWII, American economic power was unsurpassed and its naval and aerial strength overwhelming.” (Dunne, 2000:34)

However, the two World Wars would seem nothing but skirmishes compared to the struggle ahead. In a world of pure power politics, with the Soviet Union constituting a strategic threat of an altogether new magnitude, conquest of entire world seemed a real possibility. As Hunt illustrates (1987:153), the most important expression of Cold War foreign policy was the doctrine of containment, inspired by the old ideology. That doctrine stated that the chief threat to freedom around the world was Soviet communism – which the US had the duty to combat and defend liberty. For instance, where they saw signs of a dangerous drift to the left, American leaders turned the economic and political screws and as a last resort, sent in the troops or unleashed the CIA (i.e. 1954- Guatemala, 1965- Dominican Republic). Another example of the old impulse to impose on the world the patterns of an ideological foreign policy was the Vietnam War. Apart from containment, American development theory was focused on the modernization of traditional societies, the creation of international organizations (i.e. UN, NATO, World Bank), stable and free societies, common sense of nationhood etc. On January 11, 1989, Ronald Reagan declared: “We meant to change a nation and instead we changed a world. Countries across the globe are turning to free markets and free speech…I have thought a bit of the shining ‘city on a hill’.” (LaFeber, 1994:745) This way president Reagan placed his statement into the historical context of Manifest Destiny.

The collapse of the Soviet Union pointed to the end of Cold War. As a result, “Americans spent the 1990s riding a wave of post-Cold-War triumphalism that made them feel invulnerable.” (Mann, 2003:411) It’s worth-mentioning that the coverage of important overseas events, like the Gulf War, declined by at least one-third between 1989 and 1999. Americans thus preferred to neglect costly foreign policy problems that festered around the world. They only watched Forrest-Gump-type movies, the Monica Lewinski scandal, a post-1995 booming stock market and the ceaseless expansion abroad of their McDonald’s, Pizza Huts, Disneylands and military bases. All these “indications of their global popularity and superiority of their culture” are also reflective of the existence of Manifest Destiny in their minds and thoughts.

To sum up, what we should really question is: Are we to believe that when the task of these frontiersmen was complete in 1890, they also considered their Manifest Destiny complete? Taking into deep consideration the meaning of Manifest Destiny and the forms of the US foreign policy during the 20th century, I strongly support that not only did the idea of Manifest Destiny not end in 1890, it took on a whole new face and it still exists even nowadays. On September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks changed the US and, consequently, its foreign policies, leading to a war in Afghanistan and a second one in Iraq. The US government of G. W. Bush has started a war against international terrorism. According to President Bush, the Middle East is the crucial region of this war on terrorism. In one of his statements, which reflect the ideology of Manifest Destiny, Bush claims:

“Americans are 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’s God’s gift to humanity…”


REFERENCES

Blum, Schlesinger, Jr. (eds.) 1985. The National Experience: A History of the United States. Harcourt Brace Hovanovich.

Brinkley, A. 1995. American History, A Survey Volume I & II. Mc Grawhill.

Dunne, M. 2000. US Foreign Relations in the Twentieth Century: From World Power to Global Hegemony. International Affairs 76:1:25-40.

Heidler, S. D. and Heidler, T. J. 2003. Manifest Destiny. Greenwood Press.

Hunt, M. H. 1987. Ideology and US Foreign Policy. Yale University Press.

Lafeber, W. 1994. The American Age; U.S. Foreign Policy at Home and Abroad 1750 to the Present. W.W. Norton & Company.

Mann, M. 2003. Incoherent Empire. Verso.
Week, W. E. 1996. Building the Continent Empire. Ivan R.