Westward Expansion & Manifest Destiny

US History

Chapter 4 · Westward Expansion & Manifest Destiny

After independence, the new republic grew west. This chapter covers the 1803 Louisiana Purchase, the idea of "manifest destiny" that came to justify further expansion, and the forced removal of the Cherokee and other nations under the Indian Removal Act. The sources are three reference articles, on the Louisiana Purchase, on manifest destiny and on the Trail of Tears. All three include a scholarly criticism or a disputed figure, and the chapter keeps each one rather than smoothing it into a single story.

The Louisiana Purchase, 1803

The treaty was signed on 30 April 1803, for $15 million, about $380 million in 2024 dollars, or roughly 3 cents an acre. The purchase covered 828,000 square miles across the Mississippi River drainage basin, about 26 percent of the present-day contiguous United States, including all or part of fifteen states and two Canadian provinces.

Question	What the source says
Why Napoleon sold	France had failed to suppress the Haitian Revolution and faced renewed British hostilities. Without Caribbean revenue, Louisiana held little value, and the source says he acted partly "out of anger towards Spain and the unique opportunity to sell something that was useless and not truly his yet."
Jefferson's concern	He considered proposing a constitutional amendment but ultimately treated the purchase as constitutional, comparing it to "the case of a guardian, investing the money of his ward in purchasing an important adjacent territory."

What Was Actually Bought The source says scholars emphasise that the United States primarily acquired "the preemptive right to obtain Indian lands by treaty or by conquest," and that subsequent settlements with indigenous nations cost about $2.6 billion through 2012. The purchase is often described simply as territory changing hands between two governments. The source's own emphasis is that the land was already inhabited, and that the "purchase" transferred a claim against other European powers, not clear possession. I keep that distinction rather than saying France sold land it fully controlled.

Manifest Destiny

The newspaper editor John L. O'Sullivan coined the phrase "manifest destiny" in 1845, though some historians attribute the unsigned editorial "Annexation" to the journalist Jane Cazneau. O'Sullivan used it to argue for Texas annexation, writing that it was "our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence," and used it again in December 1845 on Oregon. The source says the term gained prominence after Whig critics attacked it, which caused expansionists to embrace the language.

What It Claimed

Three tenets: American moral superiority, a mission to spread republicanism, and divine sanction for expansion. It drew on American exceptionalism, romantic nationalism, Anglo-Saxonism and white supremacist ideology, including the belief that "the American Anglo-Saxon race was separate, innately superior."

How It Was Used

To justify displacing indigenous peoples, supported by legal frameworks such as Johnson v. McIntosh, which established European "discovery rights" over indigenous lands. The 1862 Homestead Act accelerated settlement and removed indigenous communities directly. Democrats invoked it to justify the 1846 Mexican-American War and the annexation of Texas.

Its Own Limits

Some advocates wanted to annex "All of Mexico," opposed by anti-slavery-expansion voices and by racial exclusionists such as Senator John Calhoun, who rejected incorporating Mexico's mixed-race population.

A Historian's Own Criticism The source reports that historian Frederick Merk argued manifest destiny "lacked national, sectional, or party following commensurate with its magnitude," and that aggressive continentalism was a minority Democratic position, not a genuine national consensus. Merk concluded it "proved to have been a bomb wrapped up in idealism." Scholars also debate whether 1890s overseas expansion was manifest destiny's extension or a different phenomenon, imperialism. I report this as reported criticism, not as the article's own settled verdict, and I do not resolve the debate the source describes as open.

The Indian Removal Act and the Trail of Tears

President Andrew Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act in 1830, authorising the government to extinguish Native American land claims in the Southeast and exchange them for territory west of the Mississippi. The Cherokee, Muscogee (Creek), Seminole, Chickasaw and Choctaw, called the "Five Civilized Tribes" in the source, were forcibly relocated between 1830 and 1850.

Nation	Removal years
Choctaw	1831 to 1836 (first removed)
Seminole	1832 to 1842
Creek	1834 to 1837
Chickasaw	1837 to 1847
Cherokee	1838

The Cherokee travelled about 1,000 miles from Tennessee through Kentucky and southern Illinois to Oklahoma during the winter of 1838. The source describes brutal conditions, "heavy rains, snow, and freezing temperatures," with marchers charged exploitative tolls and denied access to towns because of disease concerns.

Death Tolls That Vary Widely Total deaths across all tribes are given as 13,200 to 16,700. By nation: Cherokee 4,000 to 8,000, Choctaw 2,000 to over 4,000, Creek 3,500 to 4,500, Seminole up to 5,500 (including warfare), Chickasaw 500 to 800. The source says these figures "varied significantly by source." I report the ranges as given and do not pick a single number.

A Court Ruling Not Enforced In Worcester v. Georgia (1832), the Supreme Court ruled that only the federal government, not the states, held authority over Indian affairs. The source says the Court "did not ask federal marshals to carry out the decision," leaving enforcement to Jackson, who chose forced removal over what he judged the risk of civil war. Historians dispute Jackson's intentions: the source says some argue he held "benevolent intentions," while others contend his rhetoric about relocation concealed expansionist goals. I present both readings and do not choose between them.

Two Chapters, One Pattern

A Comparison Across This Chapter Both the Louisiana Purchase and the removals rest on a legal claim against indigenous peoples that the United States exercised without their consent: the "preemptive right" from the purchase, and Johnson v. McIntosh's "discovery rights" behind removal. Neither source states the connection directly. I draw it because both claims appear in today's sources on the same subject, expansion, and I flag it as my own reading rather than something either article argues.

What I Did Not Verify I did not find the details of the Mexican-American War, the Homestead Act's provisions, the lives of settlers on the frontier, the perspectives of the nations removed beyond the route and death-toll figures, or the later western territories and statehood. I also did not check the $2.6 billion settlement figure or the $380 million conversion against another source. The chapter covers two episodes of expansion and the idea used to justify them, not the whole of westward settlement.

Hands-On Exercises

Exercise 1

Explain what the Louisiana Purchase transferred, according to the chapter, and why "the United States bought the land" is an incomplete description.

→ Solution

Exercise 2

A student writes "About 4,000 people died on the Trail of Tears." Use the chapter to correct the claim.

→ Solution

Exercise 3

Explain Frederick Merk's criticism of manifest destiny as the chapter reports it, and say what evidence would show whether he was right.

→ Solution

Quick Reference

Louisiana Purchase: 30 April 1803; $15 million; 828,000 sq mi, about 26 percent of the contiguous US; really a "preemptive right" against indigenous lands
Manifest destiny: coined by O'Sullivan, 1845; moral superiority, mission, divine sanction; Merk called it minority-backed and "a bomb wrapped up in idealism"
Indian Removal Act: 1830; Five Civilized Tribes removed 1830 to 1850; Cherokee 1838, about 1,000 miles
Deaths: 13,200 to 16,700 total; figures vary widely by source and by nation
Worcester v. Georgia: 1832; ruled for federal authority; not enforced; Jackson's intentions disputed
Not covered: the Mexican-American War, the Homestead Act's provisions, settler life