A struggle against fate: the opponents of manifest destiny and the collapse of the continental dream, 1846-1871

Show simple item record

dc.contributor Rothman, Joshua D.
dc.contributor Giggie, John Michael
dc.contributor Steinbock-Pratt, Sarah
dc.contributor May, Robert E.
dc.contributor.advisor Rable, George C.
dc.contributor.author Burge, Daniel Joseph
dc.date.accessioned 2018-01-19T19:39:03Z
dc.date.available 2018-01-19T19:39:03Z
dc.date.issued 2017
dc.identifier.other u0015_0000001_0002810
dc.identifier.other Burge_alatus_0004D_13139
dc.identifier.uri http://ir.ua.edu/handle/123456789/3448
dc.description Electronic Thesis or Dissertation
dc.description.abstract Over the last century, historians have fleshed out the reasons why individuals supported the ideology of manifest destiny in the nineteenth-century. In contrast to these studies, this dissertation examines the opponents of manifest destiny. Drawing upon a wide range of primary sources, from comedic novels to newspapers to popular periodicals, this dissertation focuses upon the arguments put forth by those who believed that the United States did not need to expand territorially. It shows that the opponents of manifest destiny developed a trenchant critique of the ideology. Before the outbreak of the Civil War, they argued that manifest destiny was a violation of Washington’s advice given in his Farewell Address, that it was the moral equivalent of robbery, that it encouraged men to filibuster, that it was designed to benefit the rising slave power, and that it was violation of the tenth commandment not to covet the land of one’s neighbors. These arguments shifted in the aftermath of the Civil War, but the opponents of manifest destiny continued to argue that expansion was not necessary because the United States already occupied the most fruitful land on the continent. Analyzing the arguments of the opponents of manifest destiny helps to explain why a destiny that seemed so manifest in 1845 failed to come to pass over the ensuing decades. Proponents of manifest destiny believed that the United States was destined to take over the continent of North America, but this dream slowly unraveled over the course of the nineteenth-century, as Mexico, Canada, Central America, Cuba, and Santo Domingo remained outside of the grasp of the United States. Although the demise of manifest destiny is usually credited to the rise of sectionalism in the middle of the 1850s, the following study demonstrates that many Americans in the nineteenth-century simply did not see the need to expand the national borders. Their opposition to expansion played a pivotal role in bringing down the continental dream of manifest destiny.
dc.format.extent 283 p.
dc.format.medium electronic
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf
dc.language English
dc.language.iso en_US
dc.publisher University of Alabama Libraries
dc.relation.ispartof The University of Alabama Electronic Theses and Dissertations
dc.relation.ispartof The University of Alabama Libraries Digital Collections
dc.relation.hasversion born digital
dc.rights All rights reserved by the author unless otherwise indicated.
dc.subject.other History
dc.title A struggle against fate: the opponents of manifest destiny and the collapse of the continental dream, 1846-1871
dc.type thesis
dc.type text
etdms.degree.department University of Alabama. Dept. of History
etdms.degree.discipline History
etdms.degree.grantor The University of Alabama
etdms.degree.level doctoral
etdms.degree.name Ph.D.

Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search DSpace


My Account