Manifest Destiny and Sectionalism in 19th Century America

Posted on Dec 19, 2024 in History

I. Manifest Destiny

  • A. What is it?
    • The belief that the United States was destined by God to expand westward across North America.
    • This expansion was seen as a way to spread American ideals such as democracy, liberty, and capitalism.
  • B. What did it result in?
    • Led to the annexation of territories such as Texas, Oregon, and California.
    • Created tensions over slavery and territorial disputes, which fueled sectionalism between the North and South.

II. Expansion Under the Polk Presidency

  • A. Texas
    • 1. What happened after the split from Mexico?
      • Texas declared independence from Mexico in 1836. After nearly a decade of independence, it sought to join the United States.
    • 2. Europe (especially Great Britain) interest in Texas: Why?
      • Great Britain saw an independent Texas as a way to weaken U.S. expansion and could use it as a cotton supplier.
    • 3. Annexation
      • Texas was annexed into the U.S. in 1845 under President John Tyler, setting the stage for the Mexican-American War.
  • B. Oregon
    • 1. Control prior to the Oregon Treaty?
      • Both the U.S. and Great Britain claimed parts of Oregon. The region was divided along the 49th parallel before the Oregon Treaty.
    • 2. Why was there support for annexation?
      • Many settlers along the Oregon Trail wanted U.S. control for better access to the land.
    • 3. What was decided in the Oregon Treaty?
      • The treaty, signed in 1846, split the Oregon Territory between the U.S. and Britain along the 49th parallel.


  • C. California
    • 1. What were Polk’s feelings towards California? Why?
      • Polk saw California as a vital acquisition for U.S. trade, particularly with Asia, and for the nation’s future economic growth.
    • 2. Why was Mexico not happy about it?
      • Mexico viewed the U.S. desire for California as a threat to its sovereignty over the region.
    • 3. Diplomatic efforts to resolve the issue?
      • Polk sent diplomats to Mexico to negotiate the purchase of California, but Mexico refused to sell.
  • D. Mexican-American War
    • 1. Who won? Why?
      • The U.S. won the war due to superior military tactics, leadership (Zachary Taylor and Winfield Scott), and a larger, more modern military.
    • 2. Agreement that ended the war?
      • The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848) ended the war, granting the U.S. control of California, New Mexico, and other southwestern territories.

III. New Territories and Statehood

  • A. What was the most pressing question in the 1850s regarding new lands?
    • The central issue was whether new territories should permit slavery or be free states, which was critical to maintaining the balance of power between the North and South.
    • 1. Provisions?
      • California admitted as a free state.
      • Utah and New Mexico territories decide slavery by popular sovereignty.
      • Abolition of the slave trade (but not slavery) in Washington, D.C.
      • Fugitive Slave Act, requiring Northerners to return runaway slaves.
    • 2. Why were the provisions significant?
      • It temporarily eased tensions between the North and South but failed to resolve the underlying slavery issue.
      • B. Compromise of 1850


  • 3. What is popular sovereignty?
    • The idea that the people of a territory should decide for themselves whether to permit slavery.
  • 4. How did this oppose provisions made in the Missouri Compromise?
    • The Missouri Compromise had prohibited slavery north of the 36°30′ line, but the Compromise of 1850 allowed slavery in new territories based on popular sovereignty.
  • C. North vs. South
    • 1. What did the North think about the Fugitive Slave Law?
      • The North strongly opposed the Fugitive Slave Law, seeing it as a moral outrage that forced them to participate in the institution of slavery.
  • 2. What was the Underground Railroad?
    • A network of safe houses and routes that helped escaped slaves reach free states or Canada.
  • D. Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854)
    • 1. Provisions?
      • The Kansas and Nebraska territories were organized, and slavery was to be decided by popular sovereignty.
      • Repealed the Missouri Compromise, allowing slavery north of the 36°30′ line.
    • 2. What happened in Kansas as a result?
      • Kansas became a battleground between pro-slavery and anti-slavery forces, leading to violent conflicts known as “Bleeding Kansas.”

IV. The Dred Scott Case

  • A. What was the case about?
    • Dred Scott, a slave, sued for his freedom, arguing that he had lived in free territories and thus should be free.
  • B. What was the ruling?
    • The Supreme Court ruled that Dred Scott was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. It also declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, stating that Congress could not prohibit slavery in the territories.
  • C. Why was it a significant case?
    • It intensified sectional divisions by effectively legalizing slavery in all territories, enraging Northern abolitionists.


V. Harpers Ferry Revolt
  • A. What was the intent of John Brown’s revolt?
    • John Brown’s goal was to incite a slave rebellion by seizing the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia.
  • B. How did this further polarize North and South?
    • The South viewed Brown’s raid as evidence of Northern hostility and the potential for slave uprisings. The North, while divided on Brown’s methods, viewed his martyrdom as a symbol of anti-slavery resistance.
VI. Slave Power Theory
  • A. Southern Control of Leadership
    • 1. White House: The presidency was often held by Southerners, many of whom were slaveholders.
    • 2. Congress: The South held significant power in Congress due to the 3/5 compromise and the equal representation in the Senate.
    • 3. Supreme Court: The majority of justices were Southerners, ensuring pro-slavery rulings.
  • B. How did the South gain this control?
    • 1. Constitutional Provisions
      • a. 3/5 Compromise: Slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person for representation purposes, giving the South more political power.
      • b. Senate: Every state, regardless of size, had two senators, ensuring Southern influence.
      • c. Electoral Votes: The South had more electoral votes due to the 3/5 compromise.
      • d. Supreme Court: Presidents appointed Southern justices, further solidifying pro-slavery judicial influence.
    • 2. Party Politics
      • The Democratic Party, which dominated politics, was largely controlled by Southern interests, maintaining the political power of slavery.


VII. Economic Issues in Dispute
  • What’s the issue?
    • Tariffs: The North supported tariffs to protect its industries, while the South opposed them, as they relied on imported goods.
    • Banking: The North favored a national bank, while the South distrusted centralized financial control.
    • Land Policy: The North wanted land available for small farmers, while the South wanted cheap land for large plantations.

Infrastructure/Internal Improvements: The North supported government funding for infrastructure (railroads, canals), while the South was less enthusiastic, believing it benefited Northern industry more than Southern agriculture.

VIII. States’ Rights – The Constitutional Question
  • Southern Position:
    • The South argued that states had the right to nullify federal laws they deemed unconstitutional and that each state should decide whether to permit slavery.
  • Lincoln’s Position:
    • Lincoln believed in preserving the Union and argued that the federal government had the authority to limit the spread of slavery into new territories.