American Expansionism, 1783-1860

A Manifest Destiny?

Mark Joy

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• eBook ISBN: 9781317878445
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Early American History
• Index: History

This new Seminar Study surveys the history of U.S. territorial expansion from the end of the American Revolution until 1860.

The book explores the concept of 'manifest destiny' and asks why, if expansion was 'manifest', there was such opposition to almost every expansionist incident. Paying attention to key themes often overlooked - Indian removal and the US government land sales policy, the book looks at both 'foreign' expansion such as the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, and the war with Mexico in the 1840s and 'internal' expansion as American settlers moved west .

Finally, the book addresses the most recent historiographical trends in the subject and asks how Americans have dealt with the expansionist legacy.

CHAPTER ONE

EARLY AMERICAN EXPANSIONISM

The earliest examples of the expansionism of the young American nation were the conflicts, negotiations and treaties with the various Indian nations in eastern North America concerning the lands between the Appalachian Mountains and the Mississippi River. This chapter briefly surveys the earliest expansionary policies of the United States government in the period between the end of the American Revolution and the beginning of Thomas Jefferson’s administration in 1801.

In the Treaty of Paris of 1783, which ended the American Revolution, Great Britain had agreed to generous boundaries for the newly independent United States (see Map 1). The American commissioners sent to negotiate the peace had been instructed by the Continental Congress to insist only on independence. In other matters, they were to follow the lead of America’s French ally. But the American negotiators soon found that French interests and American interests did not necessarily coincide. France hoped that an independent United States would weaken the British Empire, and that the young American nation would remain a weak dependent of France in the international arena. Spain, which had entered the war against Great Britain late as an ally of France (but never directly allied to the United States) wished to restrict America’s ability to expand to the West. The Spanish negotiators suggested that the lands between the Appalachian Mountains and the Mississippi River be reserved for the Indians, an idea which also appealed to the British negotiators.

Faced with these difficulties, the American peace commissioners decided to disregard their allies and negotiate with the British directly. This created virtually a separate peace between the United States and Great Britain. While the American negotiators did not get all they wanted, they got more than many observers at the time anticipated. The boundaries agreed to in the Treaty, generally from the St Lawrence River south to the 31st parallel, and from the Atlantic coast west to the Mississippi River, granted the United States a sizeable western domain that had never been a part of the original thirteen states. The United States was taking control of approximately 541 million acres of land, about 230 million acres of that total being west of the Appalachian Mountains. This region between the Appalachian Mountains and the Mississippi River was an area of great potential interest to American settlers.

After the Revolution, not only were settlers interested in these rich lands, but also the new national government was very eager for the settlers to go to this region and to purchase land from the national domain. Under the Articles of Confederation, the US government lacked any efficient powers of taxation, so revenue problems were a recurring concern. Cash from the sale of public land was the major source of federal income; thus the young nation was vitally interested in seeing settlers take up the land. Land was also needed to redeem the bounties that had been given to soldiers during the Revolution as an encouragement to enlist or to remain in the army.

DISPOSSESSING THE EASTERN INDIANS

The nations involved in colonizing North America generally proceeded under the assumption of the ‘royal estate’ principle. What the Europeans considered ‘undiscovered’ lands were claimed in the name of the monarchs under whose flag the discoverers sailed. Thus, the land was thought to belong to the nation that had first laid claim to it. The French had first claimed much of the Ohio River Valley, although the British disputed French control over the eastern portions of this region. In 1763, France had ceded its rights to this land as part of the settlement that ended the Seven Years’ War and its American counterpart, the French and Indian War. Twenty years later, at the conclusion of the American Revolution, Great Britain ceded much of this land to the United States.

Thus, according to established diplomatic practices in the European tradition, the leaders of the United States believed that they had a legitimate claim to these lands. But the Indian tribes inhabiting the lands generally saw the issue otherwise. Many tribes denied that either the French or the British imperial governments had ever conquered them, and therefore the British had no right to cede these lands to the United States.

However, before the federal government could deal effectively with the Indians’ claims to the western lands, it first had to deal with the claims of several of the states within the Union. In the midst of the War of Independence, the Articles of Confederation had been drawn up as a form of government for the new nation. The Continental Congress approved the Articles in November 1777, but formal adoption required the unanimous consent of all of the thirteen states. The state of Maryland held up ratification of the Articles for four years because of a dispute over the western lands issue. Several of the states had extensive claims for lands west of the Appalachian Mountains, dating from their original colonial charters. But some of the states, such as Maryland, had no western land claims. Politicians in Maryland believed that the states without western lands would continually be at a disadvantage in this new union, as compared to the states with large land claims. Therefore, Marylanders insisted that all lands be turned over to the federal government. Maryland refused to ratify the Articles of Confederation until the states with western land claims – New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, North Carolina and Georgia – agreed to cede their claims to the national government. With Maryland’s final approval in 1781, the Articles of Confederation went into effect. Throughout its brief history, many problems plagued the government under the Articles of Confederation. Fearful of creating a national government that was too strong, American statesmen had instead created one that was not really strong enough to function effectively. Once the War of Independence was over, the young American nation found that land issues were among the most pressing concerns facing the government. Besides the needed revenue that land sales provided, there was also the basic philosophy that the best use of the government’s domain was to get it into the hands of settlers who would bring the land into production. Before the land could be sold to settlers, however, the government had to deal with the issue of the Indians’ claims to the land. Approximately half of the territory that Great Britain turned over to the United States in the treaty concluding the War of Independence consisted of unceded Indian lands. Once the Indians were removed or had otherwise given up claim to their land, and the land had been sold to settlers, the government faced the question of how to govern newly settled territories.

In its earliest formulations of policy toward the Indian tribes within the boundaries of United States territory, the new nation proclaimed several goals: peace on the Indian frontier, dealing justly with the Indians, ‘civilizing’ the Indian people, and providing for their education. Historians continue to debate whether or not these goals were genuinely pursued or were simply political rhetoric. Genuine or not, it can simply be stated that most of these goals were secondary and were never achieved. The primary goal, which was largely achieved over the course of a few decades, was to obtain the title to all of the Indian lands east of the Mississippi River. Since the Indians in this region did not necessarily recognize any legitimate claim that the United States might have over their land, the new government tried various methods to get the Indians to give up their title to this land. This process was often referred to as ‘extinguishment of title.’

Besides asserting a right to the land by the established diplomatic procedures represented in the Treaty of Paris of 1783, United States authorities also expressed a more philosophical justification for the dispossession of the Indians. The argument was that the Indians did not use the land. American officials argued that the Indians’ economy was based only on hunting and gathering, and thus did not make intensive use of the land. Was it right that valuable and potentially fruitful lands should be left in the hands of those who would not bring them into full production? As historian Patricia Limerick has shown, this line of reasoning made the Indians the guilty party: ‘The argument thus shifted the terms of greed and philanthropy: it was not that white people were greedy and mean-spirited; Indians were the greedy ones, keeping so much land to themselves; and white people were philanthropic and farsighted in wanting to liberate the land for its proper uses’ (Limerick, 1987: 190). As if that ethnocentric rhetorical leap was not daring enough, American policy makers went even further: it was actually in the Indians’ best interest to give up the lands. Settlement and development by non-Indians around tribal lands would mean that the game would gradually diminish and ‘following the chase’ would no longer be possible. Thus, government officials argued, making the Indians give up some of their lands and become farmers themselves was really for their own good. In making these philosophical justifications for taking the Indians’ lands, however, American policy makers generally failed to notice that many of the woodland Indians of eastern North America were already agriculturalists to a great degree.

In a series of treaties negotiated between 1784 and 1786, the United States attempted to implement its basic Indian policy. However, Indian leaders often protested the American government’s assumption that it already owned the lands involved in these treaties. While a pretense of negotiation was involved, the United States basically dictated the terms of all of these early treaties to the tribes involved. The tribes were told to sign or else face military action, and most felt too weak to resist militarily. By terms of these treaties, the US extinguished the Indians’ claim to most of the lands in the southeastern part of what would eventually become the state of Ohio.

In time, the heavy-handed tactics of the government would lead to increased resistance by the Indians of the Old Northwest. Beginning in 1783, a series of Indian wars broke out in the Ohio River valley. Tribal leaders such as Joseph Brant (Mohawk), Little Turtle (Miami), and Blue Jacket (Shawnee) stirred up resistance among the tribes in the northern part of the Ohio River Valley. Eventually they formed a loose confederacy, which historians sometimes refer to as the Northwest Confederacy, to actively resist American advances. Joseph Brant traveled to England to try to get aid for Indians from the British government. British agents in Canada and in outposts still occupied in the Old Northwest did supply arms for the Indians.

THE NORTHWEST ORDINANCES

Even while these Indian wars raged on the northwestern frontier, a significant milestone in the development of American policy toward incorporating these new western lands was achieved with the passage of the Northwest Ordinances of 1785 and 1787. These two bills have been called the most important legislation ever passed by the Congress under the Articles of Confederation. In the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, Congress laid out the processes by which the northern part of the Ohio River Valley would be surveyed in orderly fashion, offered for sale by the government, and eventually be organized for territorial government and statehood. The Land Ordinance laid out the provisions for what became known as the ‘Rectangular Survey,’ the orderly fashion in which the lands were to be laid out into townships and surveyed into sections of 640 acres (a square mile). Most American lands west of the Appalachian Mountains were surveyed by this system, so this legislation laid down an important precedent.

Another aspect of the Northwest Ordinances that was important for the future expansion of the United States was the provision that any states created in this region would become equal in status to the original thirteen states. Once achieving statehood, the citizens in these new states would be equal in all respects to citizens living in the original states. Thus, no class of colonial dependents was to be created in the new territories. Thirty-one of the fifty states that exist today were organized under the principles laid down in the Northwest Ordinances.

The Northwest Ordinances also evidenced a shift in the government’s attitude toward dealing with the Indians of this region. Article Three of the Ordinance showed a shift in the government’s attitude towards dealing with these tribes:

The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the Indians … their lands and property shall never be taken from them without their consent, and in their property, rights, and liberty, they shall never be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars authorized by Congress, but laws founded in justice and humanity shall from time to time be made, for preventing wrongs done to them, and for preserving peace and friendship with them.

(quoted in Prucha, 1984: 1: 47)

While the rhetoric of the Northwest Ordinances in regard to the Indians appeared to be more positive than earlier US policies, one should not overemphasize this shift. As historian Reginald Horsman has pointed out, ‘The Northwest Ordinance made it quite clear that, whatever was said to the Indians and however strong the fear of war, the United States intended to settle the area from the Ohio to the Mississippi River’ (Horsman, 1967: 37).

CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENTS

In the late 1780s, problems with the form of government created under the Articles of Confederation finally became so grievous that steps were taken to amend the Articles. Many Americans believed that the government under the Articles was teetering on the brink of failure. If the national government did fall apart, there was a possibility that other nations might move in to try to take control of parts of the dissevered states. Great Britain still had outposts in the Old Northwest, and Spain was active on the southwestern border. An initial attempt to deal with the problems at a meeting in Annapolis, Maryland, in 1786 accomplished little because few delegates from the various states actually attended. But this Annapolis meeting did issue a call for a convention to meet in Philadelphia, beginning in May 1787. Fifty-five delegates, from all of the states except Rhode Island, met in Philadelphia.

The Articles of Confederation required the unanimous consent of all thirteen states for any amendment. It appeared that several major amendments might be necessary, and that unanimous consent might be virtually impossible to obtain. Thus, the delegates to the Philadelphia convention soon realized that their efforts should focus on writing a new framework of government to be submitted for the approval of the people, rather than attempting a wholesale revision of the Articles.

It is not necessary in this context to relate the basic framework of the US Constitution, or the ins and outs of the debates at the Constitutional Convention. But what did the new Constitution mean in terms of the potential expansion of the United States? It created a more truly national government, which could act more effectively for the interests of the entire nation on both the domestic and international scene. The Constitution did provide for the possibility of adding new states: Article IV, Section 3 simply said ‘New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union…’ and went on to specify that no new state could be created out of parts of existing states without the approval of the people therein. Since nothing was specifically spelled out about the means of acquiring new territory, most of the delegates may have been thinking chiefly of how new states would be formed in the western regions that were already part of the United States. Historian Daniel Boorstin notes that there was little debate at the convention over this section dealing with the admission of new states (Boorstin, 1965: 265). Delegates from some of the large eastern states argued for provisions in the Constitution that would guarantee that the original thirteen Atlantic seaboard states would always dominate the new government. On the other hand, representatives from the smaller states welcomed the idea that new states created in the west would be fully equal, thus reducing the predominance of some of the large and powerful eastern states (Morgan, 1956: 140–1). The exact details of how new states would be created were left for Congress to formulate in regular legislation.

The adoption of the Constitution symbolized a fundamental shift in the thinking of American statesmen about the potential size of a republic. Originally, many American political thinkers had argued that the history of republics in the past indicated that this form of government was best suited for a small nation. James Madison addressed this argument in the famous essay in The Federalist Papers, number 10. He argued that in a large republic, there would be many different interest groups and factions, and the interaction of these different groups would prevent any one party from gaining too much power or influence. Thus, the size of a large republic could be made a favorable point rather than a detriment.

The Constitution provided that this new form of government would take effect when the document was ratified by nine states. That milestone had been reached by June 1788. However, two of the most populous and most economically important states – New York and Virginia – had not yet ratified. Many doubted that any new government would succeed without the full involvement of these two important states, so the implementation of the Constitution did not begin until after those two states ratified in the summer of 1788. The first presidential election under the Constitution was held in January 1789. George Washington was virtually unopposed in the election for the first president under the new framework of government. The first Congress of the new constitutional government met in March 1789.

FURTHER CONFLICTS IN THE TRANS-APPALACHIAN WEST

Whether the nation was governed under the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution, the general objective of obtaining title to Indian lands in the trans-Appalachian west was still being pressed. The government’s basic objective of getting the land remained the same even though the methods were changing. In July 1787, the Secretary of War Henry Knox reported to Congress that the government had neither sufficient money nor an adequate army to carry on an Indian war. Faced with this financial fact of life, the government decided that purchasing land from the Indians would be cheaper than war. Knox argued that the government should negotiate with the Indians and ‘convince them of the justice and humanity as well as the power of the US and of their disposition to promote the happiness of the Indians’ (Horsman, 1961: 40–1).

In October 1787, Congress acted upon all these proposals and moved toward a more diplomatic Indian policy. Congress ordered that a general treaty be negotiated with all Indians of the Old Northwest. Funds were allocated for treaty annuities and land purchases that might come from this treaty. Thus, US Indian policy was shifting. The government would attempt to buy the lands from the Indians, rather than insisting on the ‘right of conquest.’ Despite this change in procedure, the overall objective of acquiring all lands west of the Mississippi River was still in place. This is clearly seen in the instructions sent to the Governor of Northwest Territory in October 1787. The Secretary of War instructed Arthur St Clair, the territorial governor, ‘You will not neglect any opportunity that may offer of extinguishing Indian rights to the Westward as far as the River Mississippi’ (quoted in Horsman, 1961: 41).

The proposed general treaty was slow in coming. In 1788, Governor St Clair negotiated a treaty with portions of the Iroquois, Wyandot, Delaware, Ottawa and Chippewa tribes. The government’s new policy was partially incorporated in these treaties. St Clair told the Indians that though the US claimed these lands by right of conquest, it was also willing to pay the Indians in order to secure uncontested title to the land.

Despite the numerous treaties that St Clair and others negotiated, troubles...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• Maps
• Chronology
• Preface
• 1. EARLY AMERICAN EXPANSIONISM
• 2. THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE
• 3. ROUNDING OUT THE NATIONAL DOMAIN:DIPLOMACY AND BOUNDARY ISSUES
• 4. OREGON AND TEXAS
• 5. THE WAR WITH MEXICO
• 6. CONCLUSION
• DOCUMENTS
• GLOSSARY
• WHO’S WHO
• BIBLIOGRAPHY
• GUIDE TO FURTHER READING
• INDEX