Manifest Destiny

Manifest Destiny was a political vision embraced by many Americans during the mid-18th century through the late 19th century advocating that the United States needed to broaden its territory to cover all of North America as predestined by God. The proposal of expansion in the United States during the 18th century was short of being a new concept, but the ideas of progression and individual economic opportunity were supported by the populace. These beliefs would start the ball rolling for an escalated growth of expansionist envisioning their own claims to a new destiny, no matter the difficulty or regards for who or what was in their way.
As the United States stood on the verge of war with Mexico, an unmistakable voice stood out as a clear vindicator for “Manifest Destiny", John L. O'Sullivan. In his article to The United States Magazine and Democratic Review titled "Annexation", O'Sullivan's indirect focus was on the subject of the annexation of Texas, which was independent of Mexico and in the potential process of ratification by Congress to be established into the Union. The purpose of O'Sullivan article was much broader than Texas. Its primary use was to gain the support of his Democratic Party members, and justify the commitments to a program of expansion as expressed by the support of people like Henry Clay, and Daniel Webster.
Of course, not all Americans shared the same views that O’Sullivan expressed in his article “Annexation”. One such person was William E. Channing a leading anti-expansionist; in his letter to Henry Clay, he expressed his vexed views on why Texas should not extend into the Union.   Channing conveyed a message of war and crime, that the actions of acceptance would merit punishment by the Mexican government as well as a show of aggression by European forces. He deemed the idea of Texas joining the Union was “more than a political question…but morals and religion” (Channing, Denounces, p.235, lines 5-6). Channing felt the Texan revolt as a...