Post two responses to the following prompt: The desire for expansion into the west/southwest completely disregarded any possible consequences that would stem from actually acquiring the land.
Be clear in your stance, and use the days you have to come up with a good response
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The expansion West and Southwest did not completely disregard the consequences. While it was done rather quickly when looking at Oregon and California, there had been time for debate.
ReplyDeleteTexas is the best example on how problems were not disregarded in favor of expansion. Texas was seeking to become a state for years before it was accepted. The US realised that there would be consequences of accepting Texas. It was realized that by accepting Texas into the union, it would be allowing a large slave territory to enter the Union. Also, people were aware that by accepting Texas, they would antagonize Mexico. Three presidents delayed Texas's acceptance because it was a controversial decision (Jackson, Van Buren, Tyler). If reasons for not expanding and potential consequences were ignored, the acceptance of Texas would not have taken as long as it did.
The Oregon territory and the southwest are more controversial. There was a sharing of Oregon between the US and Britian, but since the US was much closer to it than Britain, and since it wasn't filled with an English populace, the United States had a much higher influence in that territory. For this reason, it was likely inevitable that at least some of the Oregon territory would be obtained by America, and it was better to obtain it now rather than later. This is because had the Oregon territory been obtained later, Britain would have had more time to inhabit the region, so it would be more difficult to negotiate them off of the land. However, the United States wasn't completely ready to govern Oregon. It took a couple of years for the United States to begin setting up anymore than the bare minimum of organisation in that area. In fact (according to wikipedia), it wasn't until the Whitman massacre that the government began seeing Oregon as a territory they needed to focus on governing.
I'm going to say that the southwest was the most spontaneous of the territories gained in this time. For example, before Santa Anna had ceded the territory, many Whigs opposed the idea of spreading to California, but once it was available, they thought "Oh, we already took the Mexicans out of California... what the hey?!". There was a land that was available for some taking, so America took it without too much hesitation. There really wasn't much time to consider consequences, considering that a treaty had already been created that obtained a huge amount of land for the United States, which seemed foolish to reject at this point.
Overall, the consequences of taking Texas were considered, the Oregon territory was probably going to be taken at one point or another, but the US was not prepared for the consequences of owning it since it took so long for them to set up a government there, and the Southwest was a fairly spontaneous decision.
Nah, consequences of westward/southwestward expansion were definitely considered very important and were sometimes massive ordeals. The thing is, some consequences were considered less impacting than others to the white population of the United States. These consequences could be accepted as long as they didn't cause too much dissent among the people.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, Native Americans lived in westward lands after being pushed from their territories along the east coast. As expansion was pursued, the government regarded the natives at first as a separate people of almost a mini-nation, with natural rights to their lands since they were there first, technically. The Indians were treated with a not so terrible amount of respect. However, as expansion proceeded to become more of a fever and Manifest Destiny took hold, more land became synonymous with more power, and the consequences of such an land grab seemed more favorable to the United States and less favorable to the Native Americans. So the natives were slighted, their lands taken and their tribes forced to move further west or assimilate.
In the act of accepting Texas into the union, there was much consideration of consequences; the issue was highly debated. This was due to the fact that Texas had many people who owned slaves and since it was in the south, if it were added to the union, there would be one more very large southern slave state which would give the south a bit of a majority in the House as well as one more state than the north. This imbalance was a highly considered consequence, but in comparison with other consequences, it was taken into stride and Texas was allowed into the union after being an independent nation for quite some time.
The consequences that were considered tended to be consequences that would greatly impact citizens of the nation; outside nations, Britain and Mexico chiefly, weren't considered very seriously. It seemed that there was much confidence about acquiring territories like California, Oregon, and Texas since despite their "rightful ownership", they were full up with more people of the U.S than of other nations.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that the desire for expansion could be classified as disregarding consequences or regarding them; generalizing is not appropriate in this situation.
ReplyDeleteIn California and Oregon, I feel that for the most part the consequences were thought out, and while it was a quick move, ultimately their were no rash decisions made. While of course the future could not be predicted, the United States was relatively responsible. While it seems that they moved quickly, ultimately, they had been considering taking Oregon for many years. The United States and Britain both had inhabitants within the territory, and grew to appreciate the benefits the land offered, such as fur trading. These benefits were continually appreciated once the land was acquired.
Additionally, in Texas, the decision as to whether it would become a state was debated over for many years, through multiple presidents. This was a decision that was extremely well considered and certainly regarded the positives and negatives.
The taking of Texas, however was not as well thought out. While at first they did consider what the consequences of going to war with Mexico would be, they ultimately decided to go about it anyway. Luckily, the United States was a more stable and strong country, and therefore won without too much devastation. However, I feel that it could have been much worse. The government was more concerned about expanding into Texas then it was about what would happen once they expanded. I think it got to the point where the United States simply did not want to take no for an answer, and therefore went to war with Mexico.
I agree with Carly. I think that for the most part, the consequences were considered, however there were times when the decisions were too quick and unnecessary. Ultimately, however the citizens of the United States were taken into consideration, however people of other countries, such as Britain and Mexico were pushed aside.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with this statement. When the U.S considered acquiring Texas, it looked at the potential consequences and therefore delayed its acceptance into the Union for quite some time. Americans were concerned that, as a large slave state, Texas would tip the delicate balance between slave and free states. Additionally, if they accepted Texas it would start hositilities with Mexico. Despite these consequences, America took in Texas anyway. This does not mean that it disregarded the consequences. On the contrary, it examined them for several years. It just means that America decided it was more important to expand than to worry about diplomatic relations. Oregon and California were not as well thoughout as Texas, but this generalization is still inaccurate because it does not apply to all the acquisitions of new territory.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sarah's assertion that America did not want to take no for an answer. It was so hungry for expansion that it was adamant about taking Texas. This still doesn't mean it disregarded the consequences of taking Texas because it was an issue disputed over throughout several presidencies. It just proves that the U.S considered its options and chose expansion because it felt it was more significant than any potential consequence.
ReplyDeleteBoth President Jackson and Van Buren delayed Westward expansion for a very good reason. By taking the land, the consequences would bring too much controversy. Americans were not thinking about the consequences of their decisions to want more land. By acting like one of the common Americans and not thinking his actions through, President Tyler got Texas, Oregon, and California.
ReplyDeleteWebster and others from the Whig party did not support the rapid expansion of America because they knew the expansion would only bring up trouble. With most of America blinded my Manifest Destiny; Webster could foresee slavery, statehood, foreign relation, and expansion problems. He was one of the very few who really thought over exponential expansion seriously, everyone else was gun-ho about how much land they were going to get.
The only reason America did think about Texas, was because Mexico was on America’s southern border. If Mexico was not so close to the United States, I’m sure we wouldn’t have had as much trouble getting the land. If Texas was owned by Britain, then it would be much easier to get the land, because they did not have armies right there. Because Mexico was on its home front, Mexico posed more of a threat; leading to more controversy.
I do not necessarily think that the consequences from expansion were disregarded. They were recognized but the acquisition of more land outweighed the consequences of it.
ReplyDeleteThe first example is Texas. Texas, after receiving its independence petitioned to become a state for a time that spanned over three presidencies. Obviously the presidents knew what the consequences would be if they allowed Texas into the Union if they waited for so long. Their first problem was that Mexico threatened to cut off all diplomatic relations with the US if they accepted Texas into the Union. Their second problem was slavery. Texas, if it became a state, would have been a slave state, which caused much unrest among the other states. President Tyler disregarded these repercussions and allowed Texas into the union.
The second example is Oregon. The border of the Oregon territory had long been disputed by the British and the Americans and was inhabited by people of both countries. However, the US decided it wanted the land even at the risk of a third war with Britain. Thankfully, the border dispute was settled peacefully and the US did not have to go to war again with Britain.
I think that although consequences from expansion were regarded, some consequences occurred that were unforeseeable. Texas was not annexed by America solely because of the possible war with Mexico if America did this. Texas was eventually admitted to the Union only because President Tyler realized it his position on the controversy would make the people vote for him and support his presidency (this was definitely a good consequence for him).
ReplyDeleteWhen Americans settled in Maine and the Oregon territory, they weighed their options. They could either be successful lumberjacks in somewhat contested territories (which only led to real fighting in Maine that was of little importance) or be less successful in the crowded, competitive American states. Settling and expanding farther away was a more profitable choice, and with little risk. The settlers weighed their options and understood the consequences, they just felt migrating was a better deal for them.
Exactly, Tyler was the one not to think. Other Presidents in the past had thought about it, hence why a decision was made. If the President of the time REALLY thought about the consequences of taking Texas, then we may be arguing the pros and cons of annexing Texas for 10 more years. Like most of America, Tyler was blinded by manifest destiny as well and did not think as much as Webster did about the repercussions of that one action.
ReplyDeleteThe desire for expansion did not completely disregard the possible consequences that would arise from acquiring the land. Soon after the Texans won their independence from Mexico, they requested to be a part of the United States. However, it wasn’t for another ten years that Texas would be annexed into the country. Mexico did not acknowledge Texas as their own independent country and promised to cut off diplomatic relation with the United States had they annexed Texas. Three presidents, Jackson, Van Buren, and Harrison (well he died so quickly that he didn’t have much of a choice), did not accept the union of Texas into the United States, because they feared having a bad relationship with Mexico.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the United States did not want to go into a war with Britain over the disputed land in Oregon. Polk declared that the land rightfully belonged to the US in his inaugural speech, but the British declared otherwise. The US citizens were so excited to acquire even more land and promoted their interest in Oregon territory by stating “Fifty-four forty or fight,” which meant if the British does not agree to make the border at that parallel, the US will fight another war with the British. However, Polk saw the dangers that might arise if the US became embroiled in yet another conflict with Great Britain. He made a compromise to the 49th parallel boundary if Vancouver Island remained British. Thus, the US did not completely disregard the possible consequences from expansion south and west. The presidents’ actions clearly show that they thought long and hard about the benefits and the disadvantages of expansion and decided their actions accordingly.
Before acquiring any land in the west and southwest territories, the United States definitely considered all possible consequences that would be brought forth. In previous years, decisions were often made on impulse, such as the war of 1812. It happened all so quickly that there was little or no time to think about the situation. This then lead to a pointless war that only affected our country in a negative manor. From choices like these, our government learned from their mistakes and misconceptions and thought out expansion, weighing all the pros and cons.
ReplyDeleteTexas is a main example of how any problems were not ignored when dealing with the idea of expansionism. Admitting Texas into the Union was a very tempting action to carry out. Their agriculture, cheap land, and access to major bodies of water were major factors that would help our economy thrive but also two major problems were recognized. Admitting Texas into the Union would anger Mexico and cause them to be very hostile towards us. The government also realized that accepting Texas would throw off the balance between free and slave states in the Union. This would then cause issues within America itself along with international ones as well. As many presidents pondered upon these problems, it was ultimately decided to accept Texas and that any problems they would face were worth dealing with.
I do not agree with the statement that the United States completely disregarded all consequences when expanding south and westward. The example of Texas is a thorn to this assumption. After Texas gained its independence from Mexico Texas decided that they wanted to join The Union and become a state. Various presidents looked at the consequences and stayed away from obtaining Texas. This included Jackson, Van Buren, and Tyler. The main reason the United States refused the admission of Texas was because of Mexico. Mexico did not officially recognize Texas independent, and so they stated that if the United States admitted them than diplomatic ties would be ceased between Mexico and the United States. Also the United States was afraid of a war breaking out if Texas was made a state and did not feel they were militarily ready to take on that task. If the Texas joining Union did go over well the United States also still worried about obtaining other land from Mexico and if they took Texas it would be more difficult to take these other territories such as California and New Mexico. Even if it did join the Union it would be a giant slave state which would imbalance the free to slave state ratio. Texas did not become a state until the end of Polk’s presidency. This all therefore shows the United States did think about the consequences for expansionism.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Dana in that although the United States was "land hungry" it still looked at consequences to its actions. The United States was very adamant on obtaining Texas and other territories, but they still thought it through. Before obtaining territory the United States asked itself how it would affect the Union and relationships with other nations. They would way these pros and cons before obtaining the territory. It took 4 presidencies to decide on the Texas affair. Although the United States was “land hungry” it still had its head on straight.
ReplyDeleteThe desire to expand west into the West and Southwest did not completely disregard the possible consequences that would stem from actually acquiring the land. Most of the debates that occurred during this time period were actually due to arguments over the possible effects newly acquired territory could lead to.
ReplyDeleteFor example, Texas was a state that won its independence from Mexico and then asked the United States if they could be part of the Union. This was a unique situation in which the United States was not fighting for territory but rather uncertain if they even wanted the territory. For ten years, the United States government dwelled on whether or not they should accept Texas’s request and what it would mean for their southern neighbor. The United States was thinking in terms of diplomatic relations rather than thinking in terms of expansionism. With Mexico constantly threatening war over their heads if the United States offered annexation, the United States had to be careful with every choice they made. But they also had to be careful with the people at home. Many Americans rejected the thought of annexation of Texas and there was a strong abolitionist movement against the annexation as well due to Texas being a slave state. If allowed into the Union, it would lead to an imbalance in the equal proportion of slave states and free states but luckily when Texas was annexed in 1845, the territory around Oregon was also acquired by the United States.
I also agree with Dana’s point that although the United States was greedy for more territory, it definitely still looked at the overall consequences. It was this kind of reflection on whether or not the United States wanted to go through the consequences of a neighbor disliking them for months or more that had the United States questioning their situation. It depended on these territories to make the United States consider how their relations with them would be affected. It all depended on how much the territory would be affected, how it would damage the original area, and the beneficial consequences if any.
ReplyDeleteDana made a good point about the US being land hungry. To most people, more land represented more power, so naturally the people and the government of the US would want more land to become more powerful. The desire for "power" and the concept of manifest destiny seemed more favorable even though their actions could result in serious consequences.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that desire completely disregarded possible consequences that would result in acquiring land. Like what Dana said, the decision to admit Texas into the union was monumental; the issue sat on the president's desk for 8 years. The fear of letting Texas into the Union was that it would become a slave state, and there would be a lot more land to practice slavery. In addition, another southern state would have disrupted the balance between the number of northern and southern states, as they would have more votes than their northern rivals. Also, if Texas was admitted into the Union, then they would have to deal with Mexico, who ended up being upset that Texas "betrayed" them. President Polk's decision to admit Texas into the Union was a bold decision, (still a southerner), but he was prepared to face any of the problems. It is evident that fear of altercations prevented Texas from joining the Union for almost a decade.
ReplyDeleteThere was also contemplation about marking land in the (north) west. Many of the people migrating along the Oregon trail were in search of a new life. Lots of travelers encountered Indians in their journeys. While a small percentage of them were hostile, many tribes helped guide the pioneers to the Pacific. Americans did not view the Native Americans as a problem. However, when the Americans were interested in obtaining Oregon territory, conflicts broke out with the British over border disputes. As Laura stated, "Fifty-four forty or fight" was the motto threatening the Brits that they would go to war if they did not hand over territory. America was on the brink of another war with Britain but not until the Brits ceded the land to America. Still, the possibility of another war was nerve-wracking to many citizens and brought up the question what would happen if the US did go to war with Britain.
On the surface, it may seem that the expansion south and west were out of impulse and only because of the sudden surge to continue expansion, but it really wasn't. The consequences of the expansion were considered, but America simply got selfish, and expanded regardless. Some additions, such as Texas and Oregon, exemplify the considerations the government took towards making their final decision.
ReplyDeleteTexas was a land mass owned by Mexico, who then allowed Americans to migrate, who then obtained their independence. Texans consistently advocated their addition to the Union, but officials were in no significant rush. Texas was a slave state, and by adding it to the Union, the balance between slave and free states would be disrupted. Most importantly, was the tie to Mexico. The US was already facing diplomatic affairs and hostilities with Canada up North, causing no desire to take issues to a higher degree with their southern neighbor. Officials wanted to try to steer away from hostility with the Mexicans as much as they could. Eventually, the desire to expand grew more to be more necessary than relations with Mexico when granting the wish of the Texans, and allowing the state into the Union.
Oregon was also a drawn out addition. It had been a shared territory with Great Britain, practically making it an unofficial state. It took time to decide whether or not to claim Oregon as America's own because of the touchy relations with Britain at the time over affairs concerning Canada and state borderlines. Eventually, the Americans decided to simply take the risk of possible war with Britain, again, and add Oregon.
I like how Justin mentioned that three presidents, Jackson, Van Buren and Tyler, could not resolve the issue on whether to admit Texas into the Union. This further supports how the Texas issue was a big deal and how resolving it was not an easy task. Polk made a gutsy decision to allow them into the Union. He knew that he would have to deal with Mexico afterwards, but he was prepared for them.
ReplyDeleteCarly made a good point earlier when she brought up the Native Americans, whom were removed out of the eastern region and sent westward. WIth the expansion, we obviously were going to have to bombard the natives once again, but because of Manifest destiny working through successfully, expansion, and once again taking the natives' land, was deemed more favorable for the United States rather than the Native Americans.
ReplyDeleteLaura makes a good point. Polk's compromise with the 49th parallel and also the consideration of bad relations with Mexico before annexing Texas shows that the government really did think about their choices, they just only thought about the repercussions that would affect them and the people of their nation.
ReplyDeleteThe government was very cautious when they began expanding further south and west; it wasn't a question of if they acknowledged consequences, only if the risks outweighed the rewards. It took multiple presidencies to figure out what the government wanted to do with Texas's application as a state because they knew the problems it could bring: the anger of Mexico and the addition of a new slave state. Texas had a long wait to gain entry into the US because of all the possibilities that had to be considered.
ReplyDeleteIn taking Oregon, America had to be careful not to upset Great Britain; the War of 1812 was hopefully fresh enough in their memories to know not to push past their limits. Ultimately, America did risk provoking the British into fighting, but it wasn't as if they ran into Oregon the first chance they got and declared it U.S. territory. They did weight the possibility of war, but decided the risk was not enough to dissuade them from the reward.
The word consequence carries a bad connotation around it; when we think consequence, we think the negative outcomes of an act. But consequences can mean the good or bad results, and America definitely considered both. I've already talked about the bad, but the U.S. also thought about the good; these positive consequences convinced America to expand into these lands. Ignoring consequences altogether would be alike to running through the hallways scribbling on the walls with crayon without thinking what you could get OR lose out of it.
Carly makes a great point in highlighting the idea of how we were already invloved in a dispute with Canada and did not want any other problems. The fact that we were already dealing with issues with other countries made our government especially careful that they made the right choice and did whatever was possible to avoid any more disagreements.We did not want to spread our focus on multiple situations for it could have made our country weaker compared to that if we put all our strength and power into one issue.
ReplyDeleteA lot of people have brought up Manifest Destiny as a way to suggest that people expanded recklessly west without thinking of the repercussions. I think it ultimately depends on if you feel those people are representative of the country when it comes to expansion. Are we supposed to look at these believers in Manifest Destiny and say that because they didn't consider the consequences, America didn't? Or is Webster, one individual (but with more power), a better representation?
ReplyDeleteI guess it comes split. Maybe for those that really did want to expand, that desire did override any sense of the consequences. Only those who felt no particular urgency towards expansion themselves, the Whig Party, could look beyond that dream and look critically at the subject. There were two sides on the expansionist issue then, split, one pushing further out west while the other tried to avoid any messes the first group could cause.
I agree with Scott's point that we only focused on the bad consequences that would arise from expansion. Acquiring land in in the south and in the west would provide America with benefits in trade, and each president considered this consequence as well as the other consequences.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading and considering (and sleeping in on a delayed opening, without which I would not have done this assignment :) ), to respond to other people, while the acceptance of Texas may have been well thought out, the consequences of gaining Texas were still present. Even though they were considered, they were disregarded. Also, to restate what I did in my original post, it took the United States two years before they even started to govern Oregon the way it needed to be governed. In California, there was probably not even time to consider the consequences.
ReplyDeleteHowever, consider the alternative. Consider the consequences of not taking the land. There was a spirit of manifest destiny, and land that was available for obtaining. Gigantic amounts of land. Not obtaining the land would have been quite unpopular with the rest of the populace. Also, the land was disputed territory already. To keep it in this state for longer would make it a much worse diplomatic problem over time, something that could potentially rise to an international crisis even greater than the Mexican War.
Well, obviously the desire to expand into the west and southwest did not completely disregard the consequences of the conquests. If anything some of the consequences only added to the incentives and the entire way the dangers of it were understood.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, the new acquisitions, such as Texas, were known or expected to become slave states. This consequence would only add to the desire for the expansion. In addition, a lot of planning went into the elaborate plots to acquire land. At first, Presidents were hesitant to add new states because they knew of the consequences. For example, Taylor did not immediately add Texas as a state because he knew it would anger Britain. And the end of his presidency, when he finally allowed Texas to become a state, it is hard to argue that he was not aware of the consequences of this union because of the years he was repressing it. Moreover, it is almost impossible to argue that Polk was not aware of the consequences of the expansion, diplomacy wise. He made sure that he was not the aggressor in the conflict and therefore probed the Spanish into attacking him. Had he not, it would have shown a clear disregard for the consequences. Overall, though, the common people were looking mostly at the favorable aspects of the new land, such as greater resources and more pride, while the government focused mostly on the issues concerning slavery in the new lands. Both combined, in the end, showed the consequences of the addition were carefully thought out.
I agree with David Orshan that taking land in the Southwest such as New Mexico was unnecessary to the well being of the USA, and options were not weighed well. The USA, under Tyler, had actually acquired New Mexico just before the start of the war. It was one of the reasons Mexico was pushed to war with America. It was not a good decision to take the land because the pros of owning a barren desert with few American settlers was less than another factor for the Mexican-American War to begin. I think this was a way for America to acheive its "manifest destiny" that was so desired, but it also was very much opposed by people in the Northeast who had no stake in the land whatsoever.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the statement that the desire of expansion was disregarding its consequences. Besides some radical southern congressmen, the government was fully aware what would happen if expansion were to take place. The Texas sitution was a good example. It took ten years to decide wether or not to accept Texas into the Union. If there were no threat then Texas would of joined the Union quicker. After all, Texas had cheap land and could help the economy. The government however knew that if they were to accept Texas, Mexico would proably pull their diplomatic relations. The U.S did not really want this to happen becasue they feared a war and losing their trade with Mexico. So I think the american government knew the consequences because they were very hesitant to accept Texas. Another situation where they knew the consequences was with Oregon. While it did not take a long time to decide their action they proably considered adding Oregon to the Union because they knew that Great Britan controlled some of the land.
ReplyDeleteThe desire for expansion into the west/southwest did not completely disregarded any possible consequences that would stem from actually acquiring the land. There was a great amount of controversy in admitting Texas as a new state in the union because of the slavery balance. It took 8 years before Tyler finally took a decisive stance on the Texas issue and accepted them into the Union. The US had been warned by the Mexican government that their trade relations would be cut off if they accepted Texas. But Polk eventually used this to his advantage to justify a war with Mexico. Polk had in mind to add California,and New Mexico land to the country, already knowing that the Mexicans would fight back for it. He knew all that and he was willing to fight for these lands. The ideas of Manifest Destiny were a major factor in massive land grabs, the consequences were often war with the foreign countries that owned these lands. America knew what they were getting into because they had dealt with expansion before- with the Native Americans and their violent responses. So it's not like they haven't "played" this game before. Presidents before Polk have never really taken a definitive stance on these issues because they often mentioned that it was "complicated" and "hard to deal with" which means that they did think about the implications of expansion. After invading these territories, they weighed the outcomes of the wars (with Britain over Oregon and with Mexico over Texas and California) deciding that they had good chances of beating the Mexicans and they withdrew from potential war with GB. This shows that they did think about the consequences of expansion.
ReplyDeleteI like the example that Laura used to describe the situation with Britain. Even though the US citizens were excited to acquire more land in Oregon territory and by stating “Fifty-four forty or fight". The dispute between America and Great Britain was carefully and cautiously settled so that a war wouldn't start. America couldn't afford, in more ways than one, to go to war with Great Britain. Even though there were some radical southern congressman who wanted nothing more to gain new lands, the balance within congress kept decisions "level-headed" as they probably discussed the consequences of their actions. Wasn't that the point of gathering together anyways?
ReplyDeleteI think that the desire to expand west did in fact take into consideration the consequences of expansion. When adding new states to the U.S. the government had to take into consideration the addition of Texas because of the major slavery issue. Adding Texas would cause problems because it would disrupt the balance between free and slave states.
ReplyDeleteAlso when adding Oregon, the Americans had to be careful not to anger the British. If the United States had just rushed into conquering the West, then many more problems would have occurred with the British and with Mexico as well.
With the Mexican situation, the Americans did not exactly rush into a war. They prepared for war, however they didn't immediately start to fight the Mexicans in order to gain Texas and other land in the west such as California.
Justin brings up another good point that Texas being added to the Union would threaten to cut off all ties with the Mexican government. The United States did not want to lose relations. He also mentioned how the United States may not be able to gain more land if relations with Mexico were cut off. Texas was an important addition to the new territory, however if all ties were cut off then the United States may not have been able to gain the other land that Mexico owned. This shows that the U.S. did not rush into their decision to gain more territory by any means possible. Manifest destiny did create a desire to expand as much as possible, however the U.S. government was smart about it and weighed their options thoroughly before actually expanding.
ReplyDeletePolk did not analyze the consequences and responsibilities that resulted from the western expansion. It is unquestionably true that it increases US’s influence of power and their prestige. Such of these problems that arise from western expansion conflict with Texas and the Indians. These problems may have been prevented if Polk had thought before he had acted. The addition of Texas to the United States of America would caused a lot of tension between US and Mexico. The US further becomes a threat as it slowly comes towards Mexico’s borders. Also, the slavery issue would be brought up due to the Missouri Compromise. The Indian issue continues to be brought up as a problem to the legislature of the government. During the Jackson Administration, the Indian Removal act moved the Indians to the west in a marked territory. The further expansion towards the west would spark even further controversial actions along with causing the hostility of the Indians.
ReplyDeleteThe expansion West and Southwest did not completely disregard the consequences that would result from acquiring the land. Even though it was acquired quickly when looking at Oregon and California, they did take the time to thoroughly discuss the situation. For example, Texas wanted to become a state for years before it was actually accepted by the US. The government recognized that there would be consequences by accepting Texas such as another slave state within the Union that would disturb the existing balance. The US was also very cautious because they knew that adding Texas would anger Mexico. Jackson, Van Buren, and Tyler delayed Texas's acceptance because it was a very controversial topic for a long time.
ReplyDeleteIf potential consequences of expansion were ignored, the acceptance of Texas would not have taken as long as it did. The Oregon territory and the southwest are more controversial. The US and Britain shared Oregon but due to proximity and a large percentage of American inhabitants, the US had significantly more influence in the territory. Because of the circumstances, US eventually would take some if not all of Oregon, and the government felt that it was time to bring Oregon into the union. Even though the US analyzed the situation, we were not completely ready to govern Oregon. It took a several years for the United States to settle down and organize the area. The South West was a golden opportunity for the US to acquire land, but there was no telling how long the window of opportunity would be open, so we had to move quickly. There was a land that was available for some taking, so America took it without too much hesitation. There wasn't much time to consider every angle of the circumstances because a treaty had already been created that obtained a huge amount of land for the United States, which would have been foolish to reject. Overall, the consequences of taking Texas were considered, Oregon was destined to be part of America sooner or late, and the Southwest was an opportunity that had to be taken.
Rebecca makes a very good argument when she discusses Polk and his beliefs. Like she explains, Polk knew exactly what would happen if they took in Texas but he thought that the pros outweighed the cons. If it angered Mexico, oh well, he would be fighting them later anyway. Polk just came in and took care of business for the United States. That's the kind of person he was, that's who he presented himself to be, and that's who the Americans chose to run their country. If the people wanted a more cautious and hesitant president, then they would have elected someone else into office.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think the desire for expansion into the west/southwest completely disregarded any possible consequences that would stem from actually acquiring the land. Although it had seemed this way, in reality, it was not. For instance, the issue regarding Texas and its statehood is a perfect example. Before being accepted into the union, it was clearly debated upon whether or not it was a good idea. Several consequences were proposed pertaining to its statehood. If Texas was added as a state, the balance of free and slave states would be thrown off again. This unbalanced ratio would have many people complaining. Also, some people regarded Texas as being stolen from Mexico and at the time, America did not want to get involved with some they’d regret because even they knew that it would be a risky decision. In addition, if Texas joined the Union, the United States was also apprehensive and worried that other regions such as California and New Mexico would be difficult to obtain. Due to this extensively argued topic, Texas was a perfect example in how consequences were not completely disregarded because it wasn’t officially a state until the conclusion of Polk’s presidency. Texas was not immediately added into the Union and possible consequences for expansion were evidently not ignored.
ReplyDeleteI agree with David's statement on how Texas finally became apart of the Union after three official presidencies. (Jackson, Van Buren, and Tyler) This illustrated the fact that the US. didn't completely disregard any possible consequences because of the extensive planning. Getting involved with something that they would later be apologetic for was not something that they wanted. Therefore, considering the potential outcomes would likely help them make their decisions. Finally during Polk's presidency, Texas was admitted, but only after decisive actions and several disputes.
ReplyDeleteThe desire to expand into new lands did indeed result in some conflicts among the people which inhabited those lands, and those who wished to inhabit them. However, not all efforts resulted in consequences.
ReplyDeleteWestward expansion had been an issue for quite some time however, no body truly took a firm stance on the issue. Eventually mullet man, Polk, was the most gutsy and simply made decisions. Having the guts to simply make any kind of choice at this point was a plus for the American public and therefore the public supported someone with forward pro-expansionist ways of thinking.
However, Polk's decision to move into the far Southwest and take New Mexico, as decisive as his choice was, and as supported as it was. It was a spontaneous move from the President. The reasoning behind the movement is understandable though, the land was there, no body was really using it, no one said we couldn't, so Polk just saw it as open land for the taking.
Reffering to what David, all the decision's to expand were not this easy to make, and many of them did come with consequence, even this one, as it engaged us in a war with Mexico eventually.