Manifest destiny is a fascinating concept, particularly due to ownership. The idea of destiny certainly has a religious connotation, but the American concept of manifest destiny went far beyond that. Is there a common thread in these articles in terms of ownership? How do the authors of the pro-manifest destiny pieces justify their right to expand westward? Additionally, how do the critical pieces (i.e. British cartoons), argue against these principles?
Finally, why was Mexico so crucial? How does it connect to our conversations about slavery?
The common thread in terms of ownership in the four articles I read was that certain places felt that they had a right to expand and a right to join or not join the Union. The authors of the pro-manifest destiny pieces justify their expansion westward because they thought it was inevitable that the Union would expand and if we did not expand we were limiting our greatness. The cartoon, The Land Of Liberty, shows the typical slave owner resting and his left leg is propped up on Washington’s head, while his slaves work and do his bidding. Higher up resides the American Flag, depicting that this is what freedom was at the time. Looking even further up is a devil like creature breathing fire over the people of Mexico. The other cartoon, “What? You Young Yankee-Noodle, Strike Your Own Father!” shows Americans as little, egotistical, slave drivers; while England, is shown as bigger, stronger, happier than America. Finally, Mexico was so crucial because it divided half or Oregon with Great Britain. Now, you had to decide weather these states where slave states or none slave states, which caused uproar within the Union.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading these articles, I believe that the common thread in terms of ownership was the common conflict of claiming and owning Texas between Mexico and the United States. The authors of the pro-manifest destiny pieces justify their right to expand westward as the right for the United States to expand its territory and obtain more resources in order to dominate the America. The British cartoon “The Land of Liberty” argued against these principles by showing the the conflicts (slavery, poor vs. rich, political problems) inside the United States and between South and North because Britain didn't want the United States to fight Mexico.
ReplyDeleteWhy was Mexico so crucial? I think that is because Mexico was a country that prohibited slavery, while Texas was a state that allowed slavery. At that period, Southern United States supported the Mexican war because it wanted to expand its slavery, especially because that Texas was a slavery state, but Northern United Stated disagree this war because it didn't want slavery to expand so it could still balance with the South. Mexican didn't claim Texas but it included Texas into its territory, and that was why the war caused.
After reading these articles, I think that the common thread was that certain areas felt they had the right to expand there territory. Some also felt they had the right to join or not to join the union. Another common conflict was if the United States or Mexico had the right to claim Texas. They did not know who should take the land of Texas because there was no main authority. Also, the people of the pro-manifest said the reason why they are expanding westward was because they thought if they were not expanding how could they make themselves the greatest possible. after reading these articles I felt Mexico was very important to the world at this time especially because where it is located. Mexico prohibited slavery and since it was right near Texas people meaning slaves tried to migrate their for freedom and rights.
ReplyDeleteI feel the common thread of the articles was having the right to expand westward and weather or not to join the union. Mexico played a vital role in the expansion of the United States because Mexico's ruler, Santa Anna, was against slavery so as Americans started to migrate into the territory of Texas, which was owned by mMexico at the time, and brought slaves along with them he didnt like that and we decided to fight them in the Alamo to settle the difference.
ReplyDeleteI believe the common thread of these articles and british cartoons was that specific areas believed they had a right on whether they wanted to expand or expand westward. They also believed they had a right to choose on whether to join the union or not. If they wanted to expand Mexico could not stop them, "no obligation of duty towards Mexico tended in the least degree to restrain our right to effect the desired recovery of the fair province once our own-." In the british cartoon "What? You Young Yankee-Noodle, Strike Your Own Father!" The british make fun of and belittle the Americans in their choice of slavery. The british believe they are better than the Americans. Mexico played a crucial role because the controversy between slave holding and non-slave holding was defined between the two countries. Mexico would not conform to the idea of Texas being a slaveholding state while in the southern American eyes it was a slave holding state. Mexico also played a crucial role because of the constant battle of who was in charge of Texas, Mexico was at the time although slaves were brought into Texas which was not favored by Santa Anna, the ruler of Mexico. The pro-manifest people were determined to expand the United States for more resources that Texas allowed.
ReplyDeleteThe common thread seen among these articles is everybody's idea of individualism and independence. They all claim ownership over themselves and other people/countries to continue to benefit themselves.This view of self worth continues with the British and Mexican cartoons that belittle the US for have slavery; Mexico and Britain are too high and mighty to be like America. To support their idea of manifest destiny they constantly justified it by rallying the people to ideas that if certain states don't join the union their crusade to reach the Pacific will fail along with the fact that these independent countries- soon to be states- will only end up competing economically and militarily in the future. As for Mexico I'm honestly not sure shy it ties into our discussions of slavery- I understand the background of Mexico-US history but I guess I just don't understand the question...
ReplyDeleteAfter reading these selections, I believe the common thread in relation to ownership was the common problem.Everyone had a different theory of independence and wanted to do what they pleased because they believed that it was their natural right to do so. They wanted to govern their selves, expand the nation and have the right to decide whether or not they waned join the union. Mexico played an important role in expansion because they had the rights to the land in Texas. They disputed with the slave owners on their land because Santa Anna didn't believe in Slavery. People wanted to expand the nation because Pro-Manifest, How could they be the best they could possibly be if they don't take all of their "Opportunities"
ReplyDeleteI reckon he common thread was the right to ownership and expansion. Texas was under Mexico and the United States wanted it to be part of the Union but the Mexican leader Santa Anna, who was an anti slavery ruler did not like the idea and did not want to go down without a fight so he went to war against America. America ended up winning the war but Texas was still not part of the Union until a little while after.
ReplyDelete