henry, do remember henry clay from the compromise? known as the great compromiser. clay is a planter, a slave owning planter late jackson. he thought a better idea was a diversified economy. he is like the new alexander hamilton. by the way, he will live to a ripe old age, unlike hamilton, it's clay versus jackson. clay, as i mentioned the last time we met, ran for president several times and lost every time, he would say things like, i'd rather have integrity and remain honest then become president. he lost, i don't know what that says. anyhow, that was the case with clay. clay is leading the opposition. clay is leading the opposition. let's take a look than at territorial growth, and try to connect it to democracy and get into some of those background of the mexican american war. in 1819, the united states and new spain at the time had drawn borders between american and spanish lands. spain had undisputed possession of california, of new mexico, new mexico, again, including those modern u.s. states of nevada and utah and arizona, parts of wyoming and colorado. and then there is a revolution in mexico in 1821. so now, mexico declared itself an independent republic, it was governing itself. meanwhile, in the west, farther north, the united states and england were both laying claim to the oregon territory. if you want to imagine the modern states of idaho, and washington, an oregon, but also british columbia, up to the end of the southern panhandle of alaska, that is the oregon territory. they were sharing. which is fairly rare. that is a jointly occupied oregon territory. if either one of them was gonna no longer want to jointly occupy and draw borderline somewhere, they had to give the other one a years notice. the mexicans living in new mexico and in california depended on american trade for manufactured goods. the governments depended on that trade for revenue. the mexican officials there. there is very lose control, if any, between those places and mexico city where the government was. what's spain had believed, and then later mexico, in order to control what they called the northern frontier, what becomes the u.s. southwest, that's so far from the capital, they needed to settle what they called, quote unquote, civilized hispanic people there. what that meant was that white spaniards, white mexicans, or indians who had embraced catholicism and agriculture. so, they invited immigration by anybody of european ancestry, including americans. all you had to do was to emigrate, declare yourself catholic, and you had to come with a couple hundred acres of land, and eventually more. it's a pretty good deal for some people who don't have land or who are looking for a new start. there was, let's get to a picture of it, there was, in the northern mexican frontier in texas, lorenzo de zavala, de zavala was a physician. he was a tejano physician a mexican tejano. in the northern frontier, the mexicans living in those places had particular identities that were attached to being mexican, we're also very different. okay, so the regional identities really matter here. in california, we have the california's, in new mexico we had the nuevomexicanos, in texas it is the tejano. he was a tejano physician. either early 1830s he is so concerned about american immigration into the northern mexican frontier that this is what he wrote, quote, he said, an englishman will become a mexican in mexico city, and the mexican will become an englishman in london. the same will not occur in the case of the colonies, he means the northern frontier. those places will necessarily make up an entirely diverse nation, it would be absurd to expect them to renounce their religion, their customs, and deeply held convictions. what will the results be? he asked. they will not be able to subject themselves to the military regime and the ecclesiastical government that unfortunately have persisted in mexican territory despite the revolutions, despite the new constitution's. they'll invoke the institutions that should be governing the country, the want them to not be a lie, and illusion, but a reality. whatever military chief tries to intervene in civil transactions, they will resist, they will triumph. influenced by the united states alone my alter the character of mexican government for the better, de zavala thought. combined with the constant flow of american migrants into mexico, what he called, this is his words now, quote, what he called the american habits of liberty, thrift, work, the austere religion and customs, their individual independence, the republicanism, all of those that bring the triumph of liberty to mexico. and so, by 1836, there were only 30,000 hispanics living in new mexico, about 3000 in california. about 4000 in texas. the governor in, new mexico, governor manuel armijo complained to the mexican government. he would say, look, our citizens are beset by what he called, barbaric tribes. they were left with no protection. the we -- are poor, only survive thanks to trade with the americans. the americans start looking at the sparsely populated land and see the potential for agriculture and mining. that is gonna figure into the manifest destiny sentiment that these lands ought to become u.s. territory. that the americans would use the land better than the mexicans were using it, not only that, they were ordained by divine providence to do so. i talk about texas for a moment, these terms here. the tejanos in texas, they are the mexicans living in texas. the texians are the white americans who have migrated, they're bringing with them their black slaves. the texans later, that's the u. s. state of texas. we talk about texans. when we have the state becomes part of the united states, we have the texans. i saw a license plate their day in town that said texian, i assume that is an old republican living in town here. by 1823, there were 3000 americans in texas. the next year, the new mexican government started encouraging american colonization. they thought it was the best way to bring in manufactured goods. there is virtually very little governmental or trade connection with mexico city. they gave a generous land grants to men called impresarios. in 1826, one of those impresarios led a revolt against mexican rule. and the tejanos and stephen austin, an impresario, led the fight against the rebel and put down the revolt. what happened was, american allegiance of those texians started waining over the 1820s and 1830s, especially after mexico close the border to immigration. and also outlawed slavery and forbade further introduction of slaves. by 1834 the number of americans living in texas had doubled anyways. by 1835, there is about 1000 americans crossing the border into mexico per month, into texas. by 1836, there's 30,000 white americans in texas, 5000 black slaves, and about 4000 tejanos. meanwhile, the president in mexico city, santa ana, was consolidating power, and touched off a number of rebellions and six or seven mexican states, texas is one of those rebellions, in the united states, we know that as the texas revolution. this time, austin joined the side of the rebels. and who as i said, it was a liberal, he was opposed to the dictatorship of santa ana sided with the americans and even help texas, the texas republic, write its first constitution and served as its first interim, as its vice president. but i santa ana was pretty successful at first, defeating the americans at the alamo and then the americas in texas decided to declare the independence. they elect a rebel leader, sam houston as a president and, it's houston's army that defeated santa ana and. by defeating him on the battlefield, they forced santa ana to sign a treaty represent recognizing the independence of the new republic of texas. this is 1836. don't confuse it with the mexican american war ten years later. that's the texas revolution. so texas, the republic of texas was not recognized by mexico. mexico did not ratify the treaty that santa ana signed under duress after having been defeated. so this is the republic of texas and at first they don't have any desire to enter the union. they're just another republic. it's like jefferson's dream of that north american continent of six or seven republicans, all governing themselves, but no not all under one government. so that's 1836 then. back a little bit to the territorial growth. so here is, here is where the push for territorial growth is coming from in the united states. politically, it's coming from the jeffersonian site. first of the republicans, really the democratic republicans, we've been renamed themselves the democratic party in 1827, and they're the agricultural party. and their sense, they do not have a sense like the whigs do that wealth can be created through innovation and division of labor. you've got to pull it out of the ground or you have to grow it. that means that always inevitably means an agrarian empire that's always going to mean more land, whether it's in the southeast, from the indians, award becomes a southwest, from mexico. so first you you come to the louisiana purchase, opposed by the federalist party. then comes the push for texas annexation, which we are going to talk about in a minute. it is a new whig party which is inheritor of the federalist, they're going to oppose that. and then the whig party is going to pose the war itself. and then they are going to pose for the most part the joint session of territory. so is there whigs on the hamiltonian side of things, had had a dream of more of a way nation-state which would consolidate itself by being smaller and building infrastructure so that everyone could develop a common identity and not spreading from sea to shining sea. so that's the difference so politically the expansion issue for the most part in the democratic party and the anti expansionist were in the whig party by the 1840s. but there's more to life than politics, thank god, and the hears the nonpartisan factors. evangelization is one. so we talked about anti-colonialism and the reform is a little bit already, and the evangelicals. and they wanted to spread the gospel as they see up to asia. most of the end of evangelical presidents also think that the catholics of mexico and a christian and they need the real bible and they need the real gospel, and they want to bring that to mexico, but the count because it's a closed, it's a closed country to the missionaries. so they have a little bit of interest in expanding territory because to them at also means expanding the gospel. then there is a commercial reasons. if someone in the northeast wanted any kind of new territory at all, it would be the west coast. if you think of the maritime and commercial interests and having access to the pacific and, you think about the reasons the europeans had left europe in the first place in the 14 hundreds, looking for routes to trade in china and in east asia. so the maritime trade, commerce, and finally this sense of mission, this mission that had transformed from just an errant into the wilderness of self government to spreading self government and maybe that's with a mission. and this, this all ties together and in this sense that there was, that american said of themselves, that there was something exceptional about them. that old city on a hill idea that we talked about with john winthrop that new england colony was going to be a city on a hill and an example to the world and the world with cleanup exact and have self government and a christian commonwealth it's a drug. that's transformed by this time into the sense that the mission of the united states is just to spread republican governors, representative government. most people nowadays would use a democracy and republicanism as synonyms, but they would have used the word republicanism still quite a bit. and so, what was it about the americans that was so exceptional?? the people promoting this rhetoric in the 18, beginning in the early 18 40s, especially as the americans started considering texas annexation, talked about anglo-saxon's. so they didn't talk about the term white, usually, although did, but they are talking more about anglo-saxon. wasn't anglo-saxon? anglo-saxon's, they said, were superior by virtue of your few things. they were superior because they were protestants. and that was a religion of free people, so they said. they were superior politically because of the republican government, the representative government. so in most cases they're not giving those later 19th century arguments for racism that are viewing biological supremacy somehow. so dear white, anglo-saxon protestants. and republican government was safest with them. they had created it, they could promote it, and many of them believed that republican government could even be found in the pages of the bible. and so the more catholics emigrated to the united states, the more they try to draw the distinction between catholics, who they said were incapable of democratic government, because they served the pope in rome before they served their own country, trying to draw a distinction between those catholics and the protestant americans and republican in republican government was safe just in the hands of protestants. so they are opposing the westward movement of catholics, for instance, in catholic immigration. so this is the high point of the anti catholicism in the united states that resulted in 1836 in the burning of the charleston convent outside of boston, convent as school. and then in 1844, in a series of deadly riots in philadelphia, where the philadelphia, whether pennsylvania merged militia even had to be called out and cannon were used to quell the rioting and the burning of catholic churches and burning of irish catholic neighborhoods there in philadelphia. two sets of riots. that 1844. that's an election year. it's also the that texas annexation is being considered, finally, by the united states. texas had been independent for about ten years. and they are not sure they want to be part of the united states, but there is some americans who would like to be so and some texians so that the election year in 1844. and considering texas annexation because the whigs general seemed to oppose it, a democratic journalist wrote an article and coined the term, manifest destiny. manifest destiny is a slogan that incorporates all that religious rhetoric and political rhetoric and mission rhetoric about expansion. it all becomes wrapped up in manifest destiny. so it's got that anglo-saxon and anti catholic rhetoric embedded deep within it. it's not just about territory, in other words, it's about who's going to occupy the territory. so, this is how he commented. he said, our manifest destiny to overspread and possess the whole of the continent, which providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federated self government entrusted to us. he goes on to talk about or multiplying millions and all the people that providence is, this is a synonym forgotten. so this is how they are talking about god. providence's gods unfolding plan, manifest means that destiny of the united states has been made manifest. it's obvious. it would be difficult to miss it is what they're trist arguing and what the are whigs doing that by a voicing opposing texas and of the annexation is standing in the way of the obvious god given destiny of the united states to expand westward. that's what this article is about. so this is in, written in 1845, right after the election. but manifest destiny becomes just a handy slogan to refer not just to west for westward expansion, not just to expansion of territory connected to the united states, but connected to it is this sense that somehow, to quote some of the people of the day, the americans are the chosen people and they are going to drive the kanenites off the continent, right? there the new chosen people, chosen by provinces providence to occupy this, territory and they have all the right stuff that's needed and the self government the republican government and the right religions and they're the ones at the others are going to shrink before this. so that's manifest destiny. this is what the united states looked like in 1844, the year that's a very consequential election. texas claimed boundaries all the way up, all the way up into wyoming. as far as mexico was concerned, if there was an independent republic of texas, and they hadn't recognized it, it was just this area here. but when texas was seeking to enter the union, these are the borders it claimed. so this is a huge, disputed, disputed area in texas. the question, all these questions of territorial expansion came to a head in the presidential election. so texas wants to enter the union. sure the united states an exit? there's a lot of issues that might cause a war with mexico. mexico had promised that it would. mexico still claimed it as a state. and then there was the slavery question. it was very large. well, maybe you're divided up, then sudden you have 12 pro sliver senators instead of two. and in the meantime, in the meantime, great britain secretly approached santa ana and promised that if mexico annexed, you know, recognized texas independence, and then britain will ensure that mexico could hang on to california and new mexico. so the british, who were the biggest empire in the world at that time and getting larger, and the real enemy of the united states in the 19th century, as far as most americans were concerned, they are in the mexico to. which brings us to the oregon territory. should the u.s. press its rights to the oregon territory? should they give notice and then figure out a treaty. the democratic supporters that you are coined the phrase that as far as we know was never uttered by james james k. polk himself, aka young hickory, and that was 54 40 or fight. that means 54 degrees and 40 minutes latitude. 54.40 or fight. the implication is the americans want all of the oregon territory. how do like that for haggling? i'm having a yard sale in another month. i'm looking forward to the haggling. it's the best part. and also selling things that i got for free. that's the other good part, in another sense, right? so 54 40 or fight. is that a bargaining tool? is it haggling? or does polk really want the whole thing? polk doesn't really say. the election really instead becomes a referendum on the annexation of texas. sure the united states annexed texas or not? if you think it should, you vote for polk. paul talked about the reannexation of texas. believed or at least purported to believe that texas had been part of the louisiana purchase. that was an old argument the americans had. the only difficulty was was that. stephen austin's own maps had shown that it wasn't. but other than these little problematic things like the fact that it had not, there's this sense that maybe some of it was, all of it was, part of the louisiana purchase and, that's what he means by reannexation. john quincy adams, who the democratic hated because he had been elected president instead of jackson back in 1824, he's the one who had drawn up that tweet in 1819 between mexico and the united states. so they blamed him for giving it away, in other words. so if you want to annex texas you vote for polk. polk from tennessee. known as young. this is about polk, maybe i, might be wrong about this, but i think he may be the only president we've ever had with a mullet. [laughter] if you oppose texas annexation or are ambivalent about it, you would vote for henry clay that you. and so it's a play versus polk. clay never really comes out against texas annexation, but he never comes out in favor either. polk won by less than 1%, just about 38,000 votes, and it was new york state that tipped the balance for polk. he takes out his referendum on texas annexation. but it's a very close election election. in fact, had anti slavery purists not left the whig party clay probably would have won because new york would have swung to polk. maybe there's a lesson there for third-party -- i don't know. but maybe that's for another day, to talk about that. so the whig party kind of splitting a little bit about the slavery, hands the democrats the election. three days before polk took office in 1845, texas entered the union via treaty. so while from some standpoints texas is part of the mexican -- from other points standpoint is not. it enters the union a few days before polks takes office. but the war certainly is going to confront texas annexation. and it ent
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American Libraries
TV News
Understanding 9/11
