- According to Sullivan, what right did the Republic of Mexico have to this territory? Do you agree? Explain.
- What did John O'Sullivan say about the slavery issue and its impact on Texas Annexation? What does he see eventually happening to the institution of slavery?
- Do you agree with the idea that the United States had a manifest destiny? Why or why not?
A Student Resource & Online Community for Advanced Placement United States History
The Final Countdown To...
Monday, November 28, 2011
Unit 8: Manifest Destiny
Read the John L. O'Sullivan editorial on Manifest Destiny. Then, comment on the blog. In your response, you must first briefly summarize Sullivan's defense of the U.S. annexation of Texas. Then respond to one of the following questions:
Tags:
Editorial,
links,
Manifest Destiny,
online assignment,
Unit 8
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
Sullivan believed that the Republic of Mexico had no right to that territory. It was rightfully America's province because there were Americans living there. I agree with him that since Americans were living there, they had the right to choose who to be loyal to in the sense of government.
Sullivan stated that slavery had nothing to do with the annexation of Texas. He mentioned the peoples of Mexico, Central, and South America and how their blood had been mixed so much that there could be no racial prejudices, which is better for the countries. He sees slavery ending.
I agree witht he idea that the United States had a manifest destiny. They claimed land by force, however in their eyes, they did it because it was necessary. Taking all the land that they did, expanding the population and their culture was also necessary to allow the country to thrive and become a world power.
John Sullivan thought that the US owned Texas and here was no reason for Mexico to be arguing otherwise. Texas was already free from Mexico and there were Americans living here anyway.
I believe we had to the right to expand west. We needed more land for many reasons. Our population from birthrate and foriegners was increasing greatly so we just needed more land or people to live and work. Also it was practicaL becasue our nation, becoming more industrialized, made it easier to travel. There were also different resources and terrain that could help our nation with trade and new jobs.
Sullivan believed that slavery didnt have anything to do with the annexation of Texas and the Republic of Mexico had no right to that territory.
I agree with the idea that the united states had a manifest destiny. The US was able to expand across the country. STarting off with the thirteen colonies the US was able to obtain territory across the country in California.
-John Sullivan believed that the United States was the rightful owner of Texas. Mexico had released their allegiance on Texas completely and clearly. They had no argument and fighting about it was pointless. The Americans had already settled there and creatd a stable government.
- I agree with the idea that the United States had a manifest destiny. We needed to continue spreading westward in order to maintain a stable economy,government, and environment. We needed more land in order to house the increasing population. Expanding westward would allow more space to build new factories, find new species of animals, or even create new inventions.
- John O' Sullivan believed that Mexico had no right to keep arguing for Texas because they had their own independance. Americans were living there so it didnt matter what Mexici had to say. I agree because Mexico did not have control over Texas anymore. We had our own government.
- He stated that slavery was not the reason why Texas was annexed. He sees slavery decreasing. I agree with the idea that the U.S. had a manifest destiny because we accomplished our goal of expanding westward and obtaining land in the north. Everyone believed in God and it was destined for us to do it. There are alot of advantages of exoanding our territory such as making more money and creating new jobs and more immigration which increases our population.
O'Sullivan strongly believed that Mexico had no right what so ever to that land. Since there was already Americans living in the Texas territory that meant that the United States were the people who had a right to that land. I disagree with O'Sullivan because yes Americans did live in the Texas territory but it was still owned by the republic of Mexico not the US.
O'Sullivan said that the annexation of Texas had nothing to do with slavery. Since the South American people were mixed so often with other races no one could discriminate against each other and therefore no one could own each other. I think he hopes slavery will end due to this Manifest Destiny.
I think that every country has a right of Manifest Destiny as long as they achieve it fairly and without war or cheating.
In John L. O'Sullivan editorial on Manifest Destiny he believed that the Republic of Mexico belonged to the Americans. Texas was an independent nation that had seceded from Mexico. Americans had settled their and created their own society waiting to join the US. Mexico had no right to attack Americans on issue that was not theirs.
I agree when people say America had a manifest destiny because of the growing population of immigrants, increasing birth rates, and fewer death rates the US needed to expanded westward. Expanding westward allowed the california gold rush creating jobs, and more places to build factories which stimulated the economy and more places for religions like the Mormons to be held in.
I agree with the idea of manifest destiny because it allowed America to expand into the vast country it is now. Letting it happen allowed new cultures and people to be incorporated into the increasing American population. America was now to produce more with the different climates and soil across the new America given to us through manifest Destiny.
John O’Sullivan believed that the Mexican government had absolutely no rights to Texas. Texas had filed for their own independence, and now they were able to make decisions for themselves. He didn’t see a problem with the United States annexing the independent country.
I do think that The United States had a Manifest Destiny. This is mainly because the amount of people living in the country was multiplying at alarming rates. They were simply running out of room to expand and prosper. With all the people immigrating into the United States everyone wanted to be able to spread out live comfortably. The new land gave them endless possibilities to do so many things.
Mexico had no right to that territory. Texas was independent from Mexico. Americans were living in Texas.
The slavery issue had no impact on the annexation of Texas. John Osullivan belived slavery would die out because all the people were mixed. The people of mexico, central and south america were mixed, mixed blood. there would be no racial discrimination.
i agree that the US had a manifest destiny because the population was increasing fast. with all the new ways of traveling, the people could get around the entire continent. with the popultaion increasing, there would be a need for more land to sustain the larger population.
John O'Sullivan stated that since Texas now belonged to the United States, Mexico no longer had a right to the land anymore. I do agree with him because Texas was not a part of Mexico at this time, they were independent, and Americans were living there as well.
O'Sullivan does not think that slavery had anything to do with the annexation of Texas. He eventually sees slavery decreasing.
I do agree with the idea that the US had a manifest destiny. For example, the country forecully took land in order to keep expanding its territory because they believed that it was their right to do so, and that it was in God's will for them to do so as well. They also believed that territory was needed in order to them to gain more world power.
Sullivan believed that Mexico had no right to the territory of texas. It was already independant and had americans living there.
I do agree with the U.S. having a manifest destiny because it let us expand as a country. We went from having 13 colonies to expanding our land and getting more territories. Getting this land turned us into the super power we are today.
John Sullivan said that Mexico never had any true claim to Texas. Texas had belonged to America. Americans had been settling there since the end of the Mexican War.
Mexico had no argument for Texas except that they felt it still belonged to them. Texas had its Independence and Mexico had no true claim to Texas.
John Sullivan believed the annexation of Texas had nothing to do with slavery. He believes by annexing Texas as a slave state it will bring the U.S. a step closer to abolishing slavery. He believes this because when a slave state is brought in to the U.S. another free state is brought into the northern U.S. Every free state brought into the U.S. made the U.S. a step closer to getting rid of slavery.
John O'Sullivan believed that Texas belonged the the United States and not Mexico. He said that the independence of Texas was complete and absolute. He also said that Texas was released from all Mexican allegiance by Mexico itself. O'Sullivan believed that slavery had nothing to do with the annexation of Texas, too.
I do agree with the idea that the United States had a manifest destiny. Moving westward allowed America to gain use of the Pacific Ocean and gain land for the increasing population. Gaining more land would make the U.S. more powerful as well.
John Sullivan believed that The territory of Texas belonged to the US and that Mexico had no right to declare otherwise. He believes this because there were Americans living there and that they acquired the land in a legitimate way.
John Sullivan states that the Annexation of Texas had nothing to do with slavery. He states "nor is there any just foundation for the charge that Annexation is a great pro-slavery measure- to increase and perpetuate that institution".
I do believe that the US had a manifest destiny. In the days of only 13 colonies, they dreamed of a day where the country would stretch across the continent. As they grew they took whatever steps were necessary to complete this, mostly by force. This allowed the US to thrive and become a very dominant world power.
John Sullivan believed that Texas belonged to the United States. Texas had seceded from Mexico and wanted to be away from them. Since the Americans had settled there, Sullivan believed it should become part of the United States. Texas had already been a small part of the United States since American citizens were settled there, so all he wanted was to finalize their annexation.
Sullivan believed slavery had nothing to do with the rights to Texas. The Texas Region had been very diverse and the cul;tures mized so it would be hard for them to decide who could be legitimate slaves. He saw slavery coming to end, or at least it was slowing down.
Sullivan thought of Texas as already part of the U.S. This was supported by the fact that Americans were previously living in the province. He also made it clear that slavery had nothing to do with the annexation of Texas.
I agree that the U.S. did have a manifest destiny because of the increasing population, as well as the California Gold Rush creating jobs. This called for the westward expansion because of the increase of population and culture. So, the westward movement could provide the U.S. with room to grow and thrive as a whole union.
John O’Sullivan believed that Mexico had no right to the territory because he believed Texas was already part of America: it had already gained independence from Mexico, there were Americans living there under a kind of democracy, and he states that its ‘Convention’ has already ratified its acceptance as a state into America before he has even written this essay. He goes on to defend the Annexation not as a cruel, unrighteous conquering or a pro-slavery measure, but as a destined action, a “fulfilling of the general law.”
Sullivan says that the annexation of Texas had nothing to do with slavery. He believed that slavery would collapse and be irrelevant in the state of Texas because of the amount of ethnicity mixture in the people already living there: he felt that eventually there would not only be no slavery, but also no discrimination.
John L. O'Sullivan believed that Texas no longer belonged to Mexico and it was not necessary for them to try and argue with the U.S over the land. We had our own people living in Texas and had our own government it was an independent nation. I do agree with this because if we already had people living in Texas and it was an independent nation then it should no longer belong to mexico.
Sullivan said that Slavery did not impact the annexation of Texas. It did not have anything to do with it. Sullivan believed/saw slavery slowly decreasing and thought that it would eventually be gone with for good.
I do think that the U.S had Manifest destiny because we were able to expand westward and our population was able to increase. However, i do think that in order for Manifest destiny to occur their should be no war or fighting or arguing and people should not take land from one another. It should be civil.
John L. O’Sullivan argued in his editorial on Manifest Destiny that Texas was broken from Mexico naturally and lawfully. He believed annexation was inevitable, natural, right and proper. He also defended that slavery had nothing to do with the annexation, it was instead American destiny. The addition of Texas was, to him, a step in rolling the American population westward and occupying the entire continent.
O’Sullivan said that the slavery issue had nothing to do with the annexation of Texas. He saw the eventual emancipation of slaves along with the removal of the race itself from American borders. He believed there would be a removal of blacks from the prejudices they faced in the U.S. to Mexico, Central America, and South America. There, he reasoned, the slave race would fit in with the already mixed and confused blood and not be prone to social degradation.
-Sullivan thought that Mexico had no claims to Texas because there were Americans living in Texas. -Sullivan thought that the annexation of Texas had nothing to do with slavery and that because of how diverse the population was no one could discriminate against one another -I agree with Manifest Destiny because it is for the greater good of the nation. Seeing as our population was growing we needed more room to expand.
O'Sullivan believed that US owned Texas & Mexico had no right to still be arguing for it.
I agree that the US had a manifest destiny. With our population increasing how it was with immigrants and people having children, we needed more land and it was there.
John O'Sullivan believed that Texas belonged to the United States. I agree with O'Sullivan because Texas had independence from Mexico, so it was no longer theirs. There were American living there.
I agree that the United States had manifest destiny. There was an increase in population and birthrates so the US expanded westward because that had to maintain their stable government and environment.
-John Sullivan believed that the R. of Mexico didn't have any right to the territory and it rightfully belonged to America seeing that Americans were already living there.
I agree with this because since there were Americans living there, they should not be governed by any other than that of America.
He believed that the Mexican republic had no right to territory. and that the u.s owned Texas. i agree with this because they had already settled there, so they should be rightful owners.
Sullivan said that Texas being annexed had nothing to do with slavery.
the u.s accomplished what they set out to do which was expand towards the west so i think that would be considered a manifest destiny.
Post a Comment