This paper examines the concept of manifest destiny as a driving force behind American territorial expansion from the colonial era through the nineteenth century and into the present day. It traces how divine providence was used to justify westward expansion, the displacement and near-destruction of Native American communities, the annexation of Texas, and the Mexican-American War. The paper also considers the racial and economic dimensions of manifest destiny — particularly how wealth, greed, and beliefs in Anglo-Saxon superiority shaped its execution — and argues that the ideology, while transformed, continues to influence American cultural and political thought in the modern era.
The paper effectively uses direct quotation from primary sources — such as O'Sullivan's writings on "divine destiny" and Bradford's account of conflict with Native Americans — alongside secondary scholarly commentary to build a layered, evidence-based argument. This technique of juxtaposing primary-source voices with critical analysis is a core skill in historical writing, showing how ideology was constructed and disseminated in its own time.
The paper opens with a broad overview of manifest destiny's scope and consequences, then moves chronologically from Puritan colonial ideology through westward expansion, Native American removal, racial justifications for slavery, and the Mexican-American War. Each section deepens the central argument that manifest destiny was less a benevolent mission and more a mechanism for racial and economic domination. The conclusion gestures toward the ideology's modern persistence in American political thought.
There once was a time when the United States was very different from how it is today — once, it was smaller than Massachusetts Bay. Hawaii and Guam were not yet part of America, and the nation was isolationist, contained within its own boundaries. America as the world sees it today extends over a vast portion of a continent and reaches across the seas to other lands. It is a world power crucial to the international order. The force that enabled such development was the idea of manifest destiny, which endured a series of transformations in order to promote the expansion of both American culture and political power. The concept of manifest destiny, although not as influential as it once was during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, remains a powerful underlying force in American cultural and political thought, as evinced by the nation's ongoing efforts to promote modern American political and economic ideals around the world.
It must be understood that although manifest destiny may sound like a term that promoted positive expansion from the east coast to the west coast, its reality was far more complex. While this expansion benefited many, it also harmed or destroyed many others. Manifest destiny was the cause of wars and the near extermination of the Native American race. In expanding across the Americas, many had to fight for their lives to hold onto what already belonged to them. The annexation of Texas is a prime example of people fighting for — and losing — what was theirs to begin with. This annexation was the primary cause of the Mexican-American War, which the Mexicans eventually lost (Chiodo 203). The attitudes that accompanied manifest destiny — expand and conquer — were generally not favorable to Mexicans, African Americans, or Native Americans. These groups suffered the most during this period (204).
Kaplan argues that America thinks itself invincible, as Rome once did, but that the country is setting itself up for failure, and that the events of September 11, 2001 are a perfect example and only the beginning of this country's downfall (13). Others hold similar views. Niebuhr characterizes America as a smug nation whose citizens believe they are where they are today because God favors them (12). This is a testament to the fact that, as a nation, many Americans carry a sense of entitlement. While this may be a sweeping generalization, it is important as a nation to remember how America came to be in its current position. Many aspects of American history — such as slavery and the treatment of Native Americans — should be a source of national reflection. This is not to say that Americans should be paralyzed by the past, but rather that they should learn from it so as not to repeat its mistakes.
The early European colonists justified the creation of a "New World" on the American continent by claiming a divine providence, which they believed gave them the right to conquer and disseminate their ideals to the indigenous inhabitants. In Nathaniel Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter, the narrator explains that the Puritans readily believed that "a high and glorious destiny awaited" the colonists in "the New England which they were here planting in the wilderness" (Hawthorne 95). The Puritans, among the first settlers to arrive on the American continent, were driven by a staunch belief in their God-given right to expand their religious beliefs beyond the narrow scope that their mother country, England, had afforded them. The confidence they gained upon arrival not only triggered determination in fulfilling their missionary goals, but also spurred the development of a well-organized community. Plans for infrastructural development were initiated shortly after their arrival, allowing the establishment of towns within a relatively short period of time.
To the early Americans, divine providence did more than free them from religious persecution — it soon became a justification for westward expansion. Two centuries after their arrival, the interest of the vast majority of Americans had turned toward exploration and the settlement of territories to the west. This sentiment is well illustrated in a passage by Henry David Thoreau, who wrote: "I must walk toward Oregon, and not toward Europe. And that way the nation is moving, and I may say that mankind progresses from east to west" (Thoreau 234). As this passage suggests, many Americans felt a subconscious pull toward the west, passively following the progression of America from "east to west," mirroring the journey their ancestors had made from Great Britain across the North Atlantic Ocean.
This belief that the United States was destined to expand across the continent was formalized in the early 1800s under the term "manifest destiny." The journalist John L. O'Sullivan wrote an article envisioning a "divine destiny" for the United States, grounded in values such as liberty and equality, which were said "to establish on earth the moral dignity and salvation of man" (O'Sullivan 2). The term and ideology were widely accepted by the public and frequently used in writing to encourage citizens to participate in the expansion, combining curiosity with the assurance that God's blessing would help America gain supremacy:
"The expansive future is our arena, and for our history. We are entering on its untrodden space, with the truths of God in our minds, beneficent objects in our hearts, and with clear conscience unsullied by the past. We are the nation of human progress, and who will, what can, set limits to our onward march? Providence is with us, and no earthly power can." (O'Sullivan 1)
Whether acknowledged or not, the westward movement was a form of colonization. There was a prevailing assumption among white settlers that Native Americans were primitive and needed to be civilized. When colonization occurs, one group is forced to submit to another group's culture, religion, and beliefs — it is, in effect, a hostile takeover, and this dynamic was central to manifest destiny. Some regarded this colonization as benevolent: those seeking to expand believed they were doing the natives a favor by "gently" forcing them to become what the settlers considered civilized. Some of this colonization was accomplished by force; other instances relied on cunning. Many Native Americans were persuaded to sell their fertile land to the federal government with the promise that the proceeds would be used to develop communities and improve agricultural systems. However, many white settlers did not honor these agreements and forcibly took the land from the natives (Guyatt 994).
The intent of many white settlers was never to pay anything to the natives for their land. This is a principal reason for the enormous amount of bloodshed during this period. Manifest destiny was not a positive venture; it was fundamentally about seizing land by force in order to create a nation with an economic and class system that favored whites over all other races. The land out west was seen as fertile and profitable, and settlers knew they could benefit enormously from owning it. Yet the land was already inhabited, and rather than purchasing it honestly as they sometimes claimed, they took it by force, driven by a belief in their own entitlement. They knew that many lives — especially those of Native Americans and Mexicans — would be destroyed, but the drive to own and control new territory outweighed any desire to proceed fairly or equitably.
Not all Americans subscribed to the concept of manifest destiny. Many settlers from different countries got along well with Native Americans and did not embrace slavery of any kind. Many German immigrants belonged to this group. The Germans and Native Americans maintained relatively harmonious relations; both groups shared the experience of being considered outsiders in the growing American nation. However, the Germans fared considerably better than the Native Americans when it came to assimilating into American culture (Eller 18). The German settlers were clearly in the minority in their more tolerant attitudes toward the natives.
You’re 64% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.