Expansion: Healthy or Dangerous?


Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

In Wilentz’s reading of chapters 17-20 expansion was very prominent and consumed politics throughout these years opening many doors. Polk’s presidency was plagued with the issue over the annexation of Texas. This issue may have been one of Polk’s most notable throughout his presidency. Polk was finishing up what Martin Van Buren had started; Van Buren’s party platform stood behind two things in particular and those were, the annexation of Texas as well as securing Oregon territory’s borders (Taylor 300). Therefore, this issue over Texas was an ongoing debate lasting throughout two presidencies leaving enough time for multiple perspectives and various new forms of political parties to arise. Yet, there is a deeper meaning behind all of this and it was not just the annexation of Texas and the new issues that arose with that, such as, how to deal with slavery. The deeper issue and the root of all of this was the idea of expansionism and various forms of manifest destiny that paved the way for new democratic possibilities.

This goes along with what SPEDWARDS mentions in his blog post, when stating that, “expansion and slavery are always paired together.” This is something that makes sense in the grand scheme of things, as new land is found and old lands are being over-worked it makes sense to expand and bring your slaves with you to till the new territory. Yet this sparks controversy because there are many abolitionists and parties such as the antislavery Whigs, Barnburners, or groups like the Liberty Free Soil Party. These groups had views that were multi-faceted and conflicted with various other parties and views. All of this controversy and contradiction came about because of expansion and because of expansion there were new policies that needed to be set in stone. This is where the various political views and parties were introduced on the political scene. Many parties want to express their views and the way things should be incorporated or “run” on these states added to the frontier. The clash of various political organizations over matters of expansion pioneers the way to new democratic opportunities. One movement in particular that came about because of the consequences of expansion was the women’s rights movement led by Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Stanton.

Although, these clashes at first glance can be seen as dangerous to the Union, they are in fact healthy. These clashes and various parties that arise from expansion progress the United States in a positive light. By expressing the various views on certain matters, it is possible to come to a conclusion that satisfies the preferences of the majority.

Texas Annexation and Polk


Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

Since we read about Polk this week, I thought ya’ll might enjoy this song about his presidency:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StTiCU_fqCg

I found the annexation of Texas to be an interesting story, particularly the variety of reasons supporting and opposing it.  Annexation appealed to several groups of people for a variety of reasons.  Manifest Destiny appeared as a means of spreading democracy and American ideals onto the rest of the continent, and the expansionists believed that democracy “was a universal value that should- and could- rule the world” (Wilentz 296).  Additionally, bringing Texas into the Union could defend against Great Britain’s imperial powers.  Houston was considering joining with England after the United States rejected annexing them the first time (298).  People such as Upshur and Andrew Jackson supported annexation as “the only practical check on Britain’s ambitions” (295).  Third, Southern slaveholders approved of this move because it would expand their influence.  However, slavery also affected opposing arguments.  The anti-slavery advocates feared that Texas would offer too much power to the South.  Additionally, some of the eastern slaveholders also opposed Texas annexation because it would cause a westward diffusion of slaves and lessen the consolidation of power on the Southern east coast.  Finally, others were opposed to Texas entering the union because it would bring on a war with Mexico.

On either side of the issue, slavery and war came into play.  Some wanted to avoid the spread of slavery; others wanted to spread their slave influence.  Some people wanted to avoid a war with Mexico; others wanted to combat English imperialism.

Polk aligned with those that saw Texas annexation as an important move to protect against Great Britain. Rather than associating himself with the spread of slavery and risking alienation from anti-slavery advocates, his pro-annexation stance was based on protecting the United States from the English and spreading democratic values westward.  As a classmate mentioned in his post (spedwards), Polk did not have the intention of favoring one group over the other, but Texas unfortunately ended up becoming an issue about slavery.