During the period spanning from 1800 to 1855, there were many arguments made in the ever-present debate regarding the possibility of the territorial expansion of the United States. The two arguments, pro-expansion and anti-expansion, were seen in debates over the Louisiana Purchase, the War of 1812, the removal of Indians from their territories, possible trade routes through expansion, and the Mexican-American War. These arguments made in the debate are seen in documents A, B, C, D, F, G, H, and I. The documents not only show the opinions of the people, but also the effect they had on the government. Pro-expansion sentiments were shown through debates concerning the War of 1812, the removal of Indians from their villages, possible …show more content…
The graph shows how Southern, rural voters were pro-war, due to their want for more land capable of being cultivated for crops. As the South could possibly gain land from the war, which they did through Spain, they were pro-war, as being pro-war meant the expansion of US territory. As for pro-war sentiments being expressed in relation to the removal of Indians from their territories, they are seen in documents C and D. Document C depicts writing stating that the United States needed to send people to civilize the Indians where the British, who had previously been allied with the Indians, had failed. As for Document D, it shows routes through which Indians were forced from their homes onto reservations further west through the Indian Removal Act. Both of these documents show how the US, in their greed for land, pushed Indians west, either through compromise or military force, in order to gain control over more land. This removal, however, would not be enough for the United States, and soon the Indians would be pushed further west, again and again, until there was nowhere to push them, as the United States had run out of land to conquer. Indian removal was necessary for the United States to have total control …show more content…
By expanding to the west coast, Oregon specifically, the United States hoped to begin trade with Asian countries. As tensions increased in Texas, mainly over what territory had control over Texas, war was becoming more and more likely. documents G and H both touch on the subject of the Mexican-American War, with Document G being created before the war was declared, and Document H being proposed after the war ended. Document G showed how the United State’s main goal in the impending Mexican-American War was the acquisition of new territory, Texas in particular. This acquisition was proposed in a positive light after it was stated that the territory of Texas was, “...free land of ours the means to spread the light of the Gospel… (Document G).” This view, that the expansion of Christianity, or the civilizing of the uncivilized, was necessary in creating a more perfect world, a world in which the United States held control from the east to the west. As for Document H, which states arguments made after the war was concluded, Calhoun expressed his views that
When it came time to take action the Indians were forced to move westward leaving them far from the land they had come to know as well as having to adapt to new places. The Indians
In the article by Anthony F. C. Wallace, “The Hunger for Indian Land in Andrew Jackson’s America,” the reasons for America's need for Indian land is discussed. The purpose of this article is to explain the Indian removal that occurred under Andrew Jackson’s presidency. The thesis of this essay states that Americans kicked the Natives off of their land to fulfill a selfish desire to expand the cotton industry. The first point Wallace uses to support his thesis is how Jackson’s financial interest in the land affected the removal of Natives.
Andrew Jackson and Congress passed the Indian Removal Act in 1830. The Indian Removal authorized the relocation of Native Americans from the lands East of the Mississippi River and to the west. The plan was finished by moving the Native Americans to what is now Oklahoma. The Indian Removal Act was meant to support the expansion of the United States without interference by moving the Natives out of the way. The Indian removal act was rationalized by the self-serving concept of manifest destiny, the belief that the expansion of the United States from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean was divinely ordained and inevitable, was used to justify the eviction of Native Americans from their native homelands.
Starting off his short term as president, James K. Polk had expanded the nation by two-thirds through the addition of Texas, the Oregon boundary, and the conquest of all Mexican provinces north of 31 degrees. However, having been elected on a platform pressing for Oregon to a northern boundary of of 54 degrees 40’ and Texas to a southern boundary of the Rio Grande river, Polk came to an agreement with Britain on 49 degrees but went to war with Mexico in want of Texas, New Mexico, and California. The acquisition of Mexico was concerning because it surfaced the debate over the balance of power and slavery between the North and the South. Along with Polk’s decision, Democrats agreed in expanding territory because of their strong following of the Democratic doctrine, the Manifest Destiny, by expanding the nation’s territory through any means.
“Indian Removal document 1” has shown that the states are moving straight towards Indian land, not the surrounding land. On the map, it looks like there is other land they could have moved on to. But, they chose specifically Indian land. Not only are they moving straight into Indian land, in “Indian Removal document 2” the Indians are being forced to move into even more western lands. This has caused problems for the Indians because they are familiar with the land they live on, not the land they are being forced to move too.
The Act led to an array of legal and moral arguments for and against the need to relocate the Indians westward from the agriculturally productive lands of the Mississippi in Georgia and parts of Alabama. This paper compares and contrasts the major arguments for and against the
During the period of 1830 to 1860, it is the time that had been changed American West so much. It is actually critical and controversial for the specific reasons and evidence why the American obviously becomes more significant. I would like to highlight the important points about this issue. Since the end of Louisiana Purchase, the US government broadly stated the idea of expansionism, around 1840, through many areas of America in order to occupy territory, the growth of federal government, and the creation of a bureaucratic state. With Polk as a president of US, he declared the needs to expand the territories westward.
Throughout the war, the North and the South’s viewpoints had been continuously changing. Their opinions were both similar and different throughout the war. Both sides initially believed they would win the war, swiftly and easily. Both also realized that their thought was wrong. The North carried the idea that they were morally just and correct.
After many excruciating and bloody battles, one example being the Battle of Horse Show Bend, Native American tribes began to realize they couldn’t defeat Americans in war. Instead they developed a strategy of appeasement. This plan consisted of the Native Americans giving up a large portion of their land, in hopes that they could retain some of it. However, appeasement and resistance did not work. Following, Andrew Jackson convinced congress to pass the Removal Act of 1830.
Polk and corresponding political course of his administration. But the author does not assert that it was solely Polk’s desires. Rather Polk is portrayed as an initiative follower of Thomas Jefferson’s and Andrew Jackson’s ideas about American expansion. The belief in potency of a new undeveloped land became the characteristic of that time. “By 1840s, territorial expansion was viewed by many to be a measure of that [America’s] greatness”.
In debating Indian Removal, Congress was discussing the dispossession and expulsion of independent Indian communities in the eastern half of North America. The debate was not a new one, but was set in terms of the principles and experience of a country with
Native Americans have fought for their land but Americans were too brutal and forceful to them that they had to give their land to keep their people safe. Not all the Native Americans land were given away by force but some of the Native Americans peacefully made a deal with Americans to keep themselves safe and secure. This essay is to talk about some of the reasons as to why this is one of the many dire mistakes the United States has made. The plan to make Indian reservations started in the 1930 when President Andrew Jackson signed the “Indian Removal Act” on May 28, 1930.
As stated before, the US was justified in going to war with Mexico because of three reasons, Americans were killed, Texas was already annexed, and Manifest Destiny allows it. The United states had many superb reasons for going to war with Mexico. This essay is significant because it helps explain the United States’ choice to go to war with
Both the North and the South found the Civil War to be an extremely contentious conflict. The Civil War was viewed differently in the North and the South. They did share some opinions despite these disagreements. While both sides believed they were acting correctly, neither of them was entirely correct. The opposing and complementary perspectives that the North and the South held towards the Civil War will be covered in this essay.
Introduction Thesis- The Mexican-American War marked a significant turning point in the debate over slavery by increasing territorial tensions, boosting political issues, and developing multiple social and spiritual movements. Paragraph One- Territorial Tensions Annexation of Mexico Territories Gold in California- More tensions over California becoming free or slave Missouri Compromise- laid out which states would be slave/free states Overruled later on Texas, was it free or was it mexico?- Debates over whether or not Texas would remain free or become slave state