3. The territorial growth of the U.S. Flashcards
Proclamation Line: When did it happen? Why? What is it? What impact did it have on the Americans?
Proclamation Line:
- When: 1763, following the end of the Seven Years’ War (also known as the French and Indian War).
- Why: Britain sought to maintain peace with Native American tribes, who still occupied much of North America, and to prevent further conflict over western territories. The Proclamation was also a way to manage the vast new territories Britain gained after defeating France, including areas in Appalachia.
- What it is: The Proclamation Line was a boundary drawn along the Appalachian Mountains, which prohibited colonial settlement west of it, essentially reserving these lands for Native Americans.
- Impact on Americans: The Proclamation angered colonists, who saw westward expansion as a natural right and economic necessity. This restriction fueled resentment, contributing to tensions that would eventually lead to the American Revolution. The Proclamation also highlighted the growing divide between British authorities and colonial desires for autonomy and territorial expansion.
transcontinental empire
A transcontinental empire in the U.S. context refers to the expansion of U.S. territorial control across the entire North American continent, from the Atlantic Ocean in the east to the Pacific Ocean in the west. This idea emerged in the 19th century, particularly with the notion of Manifest Destiny, which justified U.S. territorial acquisition through policies like the Louisiana Purchase, the annexation of Texas, the Oregon Trail, and the Mexican-American War, ultimately resulting in the U.S. stretching from coast to coast.
Northwest Ordinance
The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 was a law that helped the U.S. expand in an orderly, structured way. It made sure new territories could become full states and had rights like freedom of religion, trial by jury, and even banned slavery. It helped create states like Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and treated these new territories as equal partners in the Union, not subservient colonies.
It was an important step in building the U.S., but also laid the groundwork for future conflicts over things like slavery.
definition of impressment
Impressment is the act of forcibly recruiting individuals, usually sailors, into military service. During the War of 1812, the British used impressment to seize American sailors, claiming they were British subjects, which angered the U.S. and contributed to the war.
“No Transfer Resolution”
What was it?
The No Transfer Resolution was passed by the U.S. Congress in 1811.
It declared that East Florida (the eastern half of modern-day Florida) could not be transferred to any other foreign power without the U.S. having a say in the matter. In short, if Spain decided to give it up or sell it to someone else (like Britain), the U.S. wasn’t having it.
Why did it happen?
British Interests: Britain was a major player at the time, and there was real concern in the U.S. that if Spain, who owned Florida, couldn’t control it, Britain might step in and take over. The U.S. was like, “Uh, no thanks, not gonna let you roll in and get comfy down here.”
War of 1812: The U.S. was also deep in the mess that was the War of 1812. The British were stirring the pot, and Florida was a prime location for them to exploit. Remember, the Seminole tribe and runaway slaves in Florida had sided with the British against the U.S. during the war, so having Britain take control of the region wasn’t exactly what the U.S. had in mind.
What happened?
The resolution basically set the stage for future U.S. intervention in Florida. It said, “If you’re not going to take care of this land, Spain, we’ll just come in and do it ourselves.” This foreshadowed the aggressive moves the U.S. would make to acquire Florida in the years to come.
The resolution wasn’t like a law that could immediately do anything, but it made it clear that the U.S. was not going to allow Florida to be transferred out of Spanish hands without U.S. approval.
In practice, the resolution was part of the buildup to the 1819 Adams-Onís Treaty, where the U.S. eventually acquired Florida after Jackson’s military actions in 1817-1818.
So basically, it was a way for the U.S. to flex its muscles, making it clear to Spain (and anyone else who might be interested) that Florida was going to stay under American influence, whether by negotiation or force.
The Missouri Compromise (1820)
The Missouri Compromise (1820):
The Missouri Compromise was a significant legislative agreement aimed at maintaining a balance of power between slave and free states in the U.S.:
Background: As new territories were being settled, the U.S. faced growing tensions over whether new states would permit slavery. The balance of power in Congress was delicate; both Northern free states and Southern slave states wanted to maintain an equal number of states to prevent the other side from gaining too much influence.
The Crisis: When Missouri applied for statehood in 1819, it wanted to enter as a slave state. This alarmed Northern politicians because it would tip the balance in favor of the slave states.
Compromise Solution:
Missouri as a Slave State: Missouri was admitted as a slave state.
Maine as a Free State: To maintain balance, Maine was admitted as a free state.
36°30’ Line: A line was drawn across the Louisiana Territory at latitude 36°30’. Slavery was prohibited north of this line, except for Missouri.
Impact: The compromise temporarily quelled tensions but was more of a stopgap measure than a permanent solution. It illustrated the deep divisions in the U.S. over slavery, divisions that would eventually lead to the Civil War.
The Missouri Compromise was a way to manage the symptoms of the slavery debate without addressing its root causes. It showed how deeply intertwined the issues of expansion, governance, and human rights were in the early U.S., with the struggle between free and slave states becoming a defining feature of American politics leading up to the Civil War.
what happened after Texas’ annexation
Texas Annexation:
Annexation in 1845: Texas was annexed into the Union in December 1845, becoming the 28th state. The annexation was controversial and was done through a joint resolution of Congress rather than a treaty. The annexation itself was largely driven by expansionist sentiment (Manifest Destiny), but the issue of slavery was a major sticking point.
Impact on Slavery:
Texas as a Slave State: Texas, as part of its independence, had re-established slavery, so it was admitted as a slave state. This meant that Texas immediately added to the Southern bloc of slave states.
Increased Southern Influence: Texas’ entry into the Union increased the Southern influence in Congress, especially in the Senate, where each state had equal representation. More Southern states meant more votes for policies favoring slavery and the expansion of slavery into new territories.
The Balance of Power:
The Missouri Compromise (1820) had been created to maintain a balance between free and slave states, but Texas’ annexation threw that balance into jeopardy. The South (slave states) gained more power in Congress with Texas’ addition, while the North (free states) saw their influence diminish.
This growing imbalance contributed to the political tensions that would eventually lead to the Civil War.
Northern Resistance:
Many Northern abolitionists and anti-slavery advocates saw the annexation of Texas as an unjust expansion of slavery. They believed that adding more slave states to the Union would worsen the moral and political conflict over slavery.
Others felt it was unfair because they feared the South would dominate Congress and impose slavery onto new territories, which Northern states saw as a violation of the growing moral opposition to slavery.
Settler colonialism
Settler colonialism is a form of colonization where foreign settlers move to a land, establish control, and permanently occupy it, often displacing or eradicating the Indigenous populations. It focuses on settlement and the ongoing exploitation of land and resources.
How was the US envisioned from its inception?
o From its inception, the United States was envisioned as an expanding entity. Figures like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson spoke of the U.S. as a “nascent empire” or an “infant empire”, suggesting an ambition for growth beyond the initial thirteen colonies.
The idea of the United States as an “empire” was present from the beginning (like Rome, starting small and then expanding and even having slaves no wanne-be Ceasar yet, but US is younger than Rome was when it met with Ceasar’s rule)
How did the Articles of Confederation nod towards expansionism? Other early examples of such mindset?
o The Articles of Confederation initially had no defined western boundaries for the states, showing a mindset oriented towards expansion.
Many colonists considered westward expansion a natural right and an economic necessity. The Proclamation Line of 1763, which prohibited colonial settlement beyond the Appalachian Mountains, was a major grievance that fueled the desire for independence and expansion.
Rejection of limitations: When John Dickinson proposed setting western boundaries for the states in the draft Articles of Confederation of July 1776, the idea was rejected.
Northwest Ordinance
1787: Northwest Ordinance is enacted, setting up a system for governing the Northwest Territory and establishing a model for future expansion and statehood.
It codified the principle of expansion into law, affirming the U.S. commitment to growth while maintaining self-government.
How did George Washington and Thomas Jefferson view the United States in terms of expansion?
They saw the U.S. as a “nascent empire” or an “infant empire,” suggesting ambitions for growth beyond the initial thirteen colonies.
What was the significance of the Proclamation Line of 1763 in American expansionism?
It prohibited colonial settlement beyond the Appalachian Mountains, fueling grievances that contributed to the desire for independence and expansion.
How did the Articles of Confederation reflect the mindset towards westward expansion?
They initially had no defined western boundaries, indicating an orientation towards expansion.
What was Thomas Jefferson’s vision of the U.S. Constitution in relation to expansion?
Jefferson believed it was well-suited for “extending extensive empire and self-government,” envisioning a nation populating all of North and South America.
How did the concept of the “Empire of Liberty” reflect the Founding Fathers’ vision?
It signified a republican empire spreading across the continent, emphasizing liberty but also aggressive expansionism.
How did James Madison’s view of a large republic differ from Montesquieu’s?
Madison argued that a larger republic could better manage factions and ensure stability, while Montesquieu believed republics must be small to survive, otherwise it leads to division.
How did Madison’s vision in Federalist No. 10 address the issue of factions?
He argued that a large republic would dilute the influence of any single faction, reducing the risk of majority domination and promoting a pluralist democracy.
How did Alexander Hamilton view the United States’ role on the world stage?
He saw the U.S. as an “interesting…empire” with the potential to create a “great American system” that would dominate both the Old and New Worlds.
What was Montesquieu’s belief regarding the size of republics?
Montesquieu believed that republics must be small to avoid divisions and ineffective government, a view rejected by Madison in favor of expansion.
How did Madison justify the expansion of the U.S. as a means to manage factions?
He argued that a larger, more diverse republic would prevent any single faction from dominating, ensuring stability through a balance of competing interests.
How did Hamilton’s vision of American power compare to European influence?
He believed the U.S. would be superior and able to dictate terms of connection between the Old and New Worlds, positioning the U.S. as a major global power.
What did Jefferson’s refutation of small republics imply about his vision for America?
He believed that republics did not need to be small to survive and that the U.S. could successfully expand while maintaining republican principles.
How did the concept of “Empire for Liberty” evolve from “Empire of Liberty”?
It suggested a shift towards more aggressive expansionism, reflecting plans to spread American influence and governance across a broader territory.
The Northwest Ordinance
1787
What it was:
* Law passed by Congress of the Confederation that set a system for governing the Northwest Territory (the land north of the Ohio River, which became Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin). 📜
Why it was created:
* The Articles of Confederation didn’t have a clear process for incorporating new territories. The Ordinance filled this gap, creating a system for orderly settlement and eventual statehood. 🏞️
* Only successful legislation passed under the Articles—like the one thing Congress got right! 😅
