The Debate over Annexing Texas and the Emergence of Manifest Destiny

This content is available through online browsing (free) program dependent on page scan. Screen readers can not currently scan, so please contact JSTOR user support for access. We will provide PDF copy of your screen reader

In 1845, journalist John O'Sullivan first used the term "obvious fate" in the New York democratic review. O'Sullivan supports the consolidation of Texas by the United States, which is considered by the United States to be independent of any other country. (Mexico considers the region to be the territory of Mexico.) Over 20 years, British and Americans have moved to this area, bringing increasingly slave men and women, bringing this region to the American economy and politics It is tied to. In 1845, opposition to consolidation and consolidation culminated and became a hallmark of President Henry Clay and James Pork 's campaign campaign. It is in this climate that O'Sullivan wrote a column of reviews for July to August. He believes that the consolidation opponents "are hindering the realization of our apparent fate to expand the millions of freely developed continents that Providence assigns to us" ( 1)

Manifest Destiny is a concept developed by Polk, which is a plan for Anglo-Saxon Americans to expand westward in the Pacific Ocean. In 1845, John L. O'Sullivan described the right to expand the consolidation of Texas and the right to occupy the remaining territory as the rights of the American citizens. Manifest Destiny is the reason to prove the merger of Oregon, New Mexico and California. - In the 1840 's, the industrialization process in the United States got into full swing. This proves that the continuous expansion of the state is a problem, the idea of ​​a clear fate is very important. John L. O 'Sullivan once said, "It is our obvious destiny to expand the freely developed continent that we are allocating millions times a year" (USA: the story of the story history)