Western Expansion, Manifest Destiny, and the Mexican-American War

Start Free Trial

Student Question

Why did Americans move to the West and how did this affect the established inhabitants? Was the acquisition of these territories just? Was Manifest Destiny justified or a rationalization for land acquisition?

Quick answer:

Americans moved west for adventure, wealth, and personal land ownership, significantly impacting indigenous populations and established inhabitants. The acquisition of these territories generally lacked justice, as it involved taking lands already occupied by Native Americans and others. While Manifest Destiny was justified by contemporary beliefs in "might makes right," it is viewed today as a rationalization for land acquisition. Historical actions were legal then, despite being ethically questionable by modern standards.

Expert Answers

An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

One could pretty easily argue that European settlement in general, and American expansion, specifically, were unjustified.  The land was already occupied, and natives had a longstanding claim to North America based on where they had traditionally lived for centuries.

But we can't put historical events under today's moral and ethical microscope.  It was legal at that time, and few in society stood up and opposed it.  Understandable given the huge economic benefits to that expansion at that time.  We can expect humans in a similar situation today would also look for justification.

Approved by eNotes Editorial
An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

I think that the reasons for Westward Expansion were numerous. Some wanted to got west for adventure, some for wealth, and some were simply looking to find a spot they could call their own. As far as was the expansion done in a just manner, I would have to say no, not in all cases at least.

Approved by eNotes Editorial
An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

In today's terms, no, this expansion was not justified.  We no longer think that it is acceptable for countries to take land from other countries simply because they are able to.

But at the time that it was happening, there was definitely the idea that might made right.  The US was strong enough to take those lands and therefore it was okay for them to do so.

I do not believe that it is generally appropriate to judge people by standards other than those of their own day.  Therefore, I do not think that it was wrong for the US to do what it did.  (After all, for example, how did Mexico get the land the US took from them?  They stole it from the Indians, so why shouldn't the US turn around and take it from them?)

Get Ahead with eNotes

Start your 48-hour free trial to access everything you need to rise to the top of the class. Enjoy expert answers and study guides ad-free and take your learning to the next level.

Get 48 Hours Free Access
Approved by eNotes Editorial