Name ______Team______Class 10-
Manifest Destiny
1803-1853
Epoch Study Guide
Review the following American Movement (AM) resources:
19. Oregon Trail (1812)
20. Northwest Boundary Gap (1818)
21. Santa Fe Trail (1821)/Old Spanish Trail (1830)
22. Mormon Trail (1830)/Mormon Church (1847)
23. The Battle of the Alamo (1836)
24. Webster-Ashburton Treaty (1842)
25. Texas Annexation (1845)
26. The California Gold Rush (1849)
27. Gadsden Purchase (1853)
Examine the information and summarize the significance of all AM material and incorporate into your study guide.
ALSO: Complete the evaluation report on each. Remit separately.
------
Use WebBoard “resources”.
BOA – 6, 7, 9
USO – 22a, 25, 27, 29
Chapter 10.1 – The Transportation Revolution
· Describe how the transportation system developed during the first half of the 19th cent.
· Explain the importance of the Erie Canal (1825).
· How did the “Transportation Revolution” effect the sections: North, South and West?
· Why were state and local governments willing to finance roads and canals?
· Describe the communications breakthroughs in 1840’s.
· What were the positives and negatives from this revolution?
True or False. Circle T or F
1. The “National Road” connected the North with the South. T F
2. After canals and railroads were built, many Westerners shipped their
products to Eastern cities instead of New Orleans. T F
Multiple Choice. Place the BEST answer in the space provided.
1. ______The greatest significance of the Erie Canal was that it created:
a. the American transportation movement into a major revolution
b. New York City as a greatest trade port in the Western Hemisphere
c. the Great Lakes as the most traveled waterway in the world
d. the northern states into an industrial power
2. ______A transatlantic telegraph line was developed by:
a. Samuel Morris b. DeWitt Clinton c. Cyrus Field d. Robert Fulton
Chapter 10.4 – The Rise of the West
· During this period, states considered “west” meant west of what geographical feature?
· How were cities constructed in the West?
· How did the “balloon-frame house” help Western cities to grow?
True or False. Circle T or F
1. By 1840, more than one out of every 3 Americans lived in the West. T F
2. New western cities rarely had a newspaper and a hotel before homes were built. T F
Multiple Choice. Place the BEST answer in the space provided
1. _____ Which of the following was NOT an “instant city”?
a. Chicago b. Detroit c. NYC d. Cincinnati
2. _____ Which of the following materials could be assembled by a speedy method, developed in 1830’s for
building homes?
a. heavy timber b. balloon frame c. sod d. mortise and tenon
Chapter 10.5 – The Cotton Kingdom
· Besides producing more cotton, how else did southerners justify slavery?
· What were some of the effects of slavery on the South?
True or False
1. Slavery tied up capital that could have been invested in industrial equipment. T F
2. The South did not industrialize because many immigrants from Europe did not
have industrial skills. T F
3. “Peculiar institution” referred to the northern controlled Congress. T F
Multiple Choice. Place the BEST answer in the space provided.
1. _____ The “Middle Passage” is a term used to describe:
a. transatlantic shipment of slaves b. the Erie Canal
c. travel west of the National Road d. the safest sections of the underground railroad
2. ____ Which statement about slavery is FALSE?
a. Almost all slaves lived on plantations
b. Almost all slaves lived primarily in the South
c. About half of all slaves lived in groups of less than 20
d. About half of all slaves lived in plantations of more than 1,000 slaves
3. _____ Black slavery was to the South as “______slavery” was to the North.
a. immigrant b. wage c. price (no, not me) d. labor
John L. O’Sullivan
“Annexation” Democratic Review - Summer 1845
“It is time now for opposition to the Annexation of Texas to cease, all further agitation of the waters of bitterness and strife, at least in connection with this question . . . It is time for the common duty of Patriotism to the Country to succeed; — if this claim will not be recognized, it is at least time for common sense to acquiesce with decent grace in the inevitable and the irrevocable.
Texas is now ours. Already, before these words are written, her Convention has undoubtedly ratified the acceptance, by her Congress, of our proffered invitation into the Union; and made the requisite changes in her already republican form of constitution to adopt it to its future federal relations. Her star and her stripe may already be said to have taken their place in the glorious blazon of our common nationality; and the sweep of our eagle's wing already includes within its circuit the wide extent of her fair and fertile land. . . .
Why, were other reasoning wanting, in favor of now elevating this question of the reception of Texas into the Union, out of the lower region of our past party dissensions, up to its proper level of a high and broad nationality, it surely is to be found, found abundantly, in the manner in which other nations have undertaken to intrude themselves into it, between us and the proper parties to the case, in a spirit of hostile interference against us, for the avowed object of thwarting our policy and hampering our power, limiting our greatness and checking the fulfillment of our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions.
This we have seen done by England, our old rival and enemy; and by France, strangely coupled with her against us. . . .It is wholly untrue, and unjust to ourselves, the pretense that the Annexation has been a measure of spoliation, unrightfully and unrighteous— military conquest under forms of peace and law— territorial aggrandizement at the expense of justice, and justice due by a double sanctity to the weak. This view of the question is wholly unfounded, and has been before so amply refuted in these pages, as well as in a thousand other modes, that we shall not again dwell upon it.
The independence of Texas was complete and absolute. It was independence, not only in fact but of right. 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— motives of policy might have prompted a more deferential consideration of her feelings and her pride, as involved in the question.
If Texas became peopled with an American population, it was by no contrivance of our government, but on the express invitation of that of Mexico herself; accompanied with such guaranties of State independence, and the maintenance of a federal system analogous to our own, as constituted a compact fully justifying the strongest measures of redress on the part of those afterwards deceived in this guaranty, and sought to be enslaved under the yoke imposed by its violation. She was released, rightfully and absolutely released, from all Mexican allegiance, or duty of cohesion to the Mexican political body, by the acts and fault of Mexico herself, and Mexico alone. There never was a clearer case. . . .
Nor is there any just foundation for the charge that Annexation is a great pro-slavery measure— to increase and perpetuate that institution. Slavery had nothing to do with it. Opinions were and are greatly divided, both at the North and South, as to the influence to be exerted by it on Slavery and the Slave States.
That it will tend to facilitate and hasten the disappearance of Slavery from all the northern tier of the present Slave States, cannot surely admit of serious question.
The greater value in Texas of the slave labor now employed in those States, must soon produce the effect of draining off that labor southwardly, by the same unvarying law that bids water descend the slope that invites it. Every new Slave State in Texas will make at least one Free State from among those in which that institution now exists— say nothing of those portions of Texas on which slavery cannot spring and grow— say nothing of the far more rapid growth of new States in the free West and Northwest, as these fine regions are overspread by the emigration fast flowing over them from Europe, as well as from the Northern and Eastern States of the Union as it exists.
On the other hand, it is undeniably much gained for the cause of the eventual voluntary abolition of slavery that it should have been thus drained off towards the only outlet which appeared to furnish much probability of it the ultimate disappearance of the Negro race from our borders. The Spanish-Indian-American populations of Mexico, Central America and South America, afford the only receptacle capable of absorbing that race whenever we shall be prepared to slough it off— emancipate it from slavery, and (simultaneously necessary) to remove it from the midst of our own. Themselves already of mixed and confused blood, and free from the "prejudices" which among us so insuperably forbid the social amalgamation which can alone elevate the Negro race out of a virtually servile degradation even though legally free, the regions occupied by those populations must strongly attract the black race in that direction; and as soon as the destined hour of emancipation shall arrive, will relieve the question of one of its worst difficulties, if not absolutely the greatest.
. . . [T]here is a great deal of Annexation yet to take place, within the life of the present generation, along the whole line of our northern border. Texas has been absorbed into the Union in the inevitable fulfillment of the general law which is rolling our population westward, the connection of which with that ratio of growth in population which is destined within a hundred years to swell our numbers to the enormous population of two hundred and fifty millions (if not more), is too evident to leave us in doubt of the manifest design of Providence in regard to the occupation of this continent.
It was disintegrated from Mexico in the natural course of events, by a process perfectly legitimate on its own part, blameless on ours; and in which all the censures due to wrong, perfidy and folly, rest on Mexico alone. And possessed as it was by a population which was in truth but a colonial detachment from our own, and which was still bound by myriad ties of the very heart-strings to its old relations, domestic and political, their incorporation into the Union was not only inevitable, but the most natural, right and proper thing in the world— it is only astonishing that there should be any among ourselves to say it nay.”
· Paraphrase the meaning of O’Sullivan’s term - “Manifest Destiny”.
· Why can it be said that the U.S. did not invent this philosophy?
· Describe O’Sullivan’s prediction about the future California.
Chapter 11.4 – Texas and Oregon
· Describe the fight for Texas.
· What was the “Gag Rule”?
· Describe the Election of 1844. (Who were the candidates? What were the issues? What happened? Who won? Why?)
· What does “54-40 or Fight” mean? How was the Oregon issue settled?
· Compare “Manifest Destiny” with the Puritan belief in a “City on a Hill”.
True or False. Circle T or F
1. Most Texans living in the Mexican state were from the North. T F
2. Texas favored established relations with Great Britain and France. T F
3. Only Northerners could rally behind the idea of “Manifest Destiny”. T F
4. Pres. Polk wanted to claim all of the Oregon Territory north of Alaska. T F
Multiple Choice. Place the BEST answer in the space provided.
1. _____ The presidents since Andrew Jackson were scared of annexing Texas because they were afraid of:
a. Mexican resentment b. foreign immigration
c. expansion of slavery d. “Manifest Destiny”
2. _____ James K. Polk ran for president as a:
a. Jacksonian Democrat b. Anti-Jackson Democrat c. Republican d. Whig
3. _____ What name was used to describe Polk when he ran for president in 1844?
a. a bright star b. a dark horse c. an underdog d. a troublemaker
4. _____ President Polk’s major issue was:
a. expansion b. slavery c. tariff d. transportation
5. _____ The slogan “54-40 or fight” refers to a boundary fight with:
a. Spain b. Russia c. Great Britain d. Mexico
Declaration of the Mexican War
James K. Polk, President of the United States to the Congress of the United States. May 9, 1846
To the Senate and the House of Representatives:
The existing state of the relations between the United States and Mexico renders it proper that I should bring the subject to the consideration of Congress……
In my message at the commencement of the present session I informed you that upon the earnest appeal both of the Congress and convention of Texas I had ordered an efficient military force to take a position "between the Nueces and Del Norte." This had become necessary to meet a threatened invasion of Texas by the Mexican forces, for which extensive military preparations had been made. The invasion was threatened solely because Texas had determined, in accordance with a solemn resolution of the Congress of the United States, to annex herself to our Union, and under these circumstances it was plainly our duty to extend our protection over her citizens and soil.