Popular Destiny: Causes and Views Leading to the Civil War

Manifest destiny and popular sovereignty are not common phrases evoked in modern culture. What exactly are these two theories, popularized so long ago? What roles did they play in changes to the culture and society of the day? Were they really as divisive as is frequently asserted? These questions and more will be explored in the contents of this paper, examining the root causes of the United States' Civil War.

First up, "manifest destiny". Manifest Destiny is the theory propagated by the religious fervor in the late 1700's, primarily from New England's Puritans. The victories of the War of 1812 fueled this religious nationalism, as did the Louisiana Purchase, and Lewis & Clark's exploration of the territory. However, it wasn't until newspaper columnist and editor John O'Sullivan's article regarding the annexation of Texas published in The United States Magazine and Democratic Review was the term 'Manifest Destiny' actually coined. (ushistory.org, 2008) As vast droves of people moved west, first with the promise of free land, and then with the Californian gold rush, they brought the economics of their home states along with them, leading to Southerners looking for land to produce cotton, tobacco and other crops to clash with the industrialized Northerners looking for factory lands and resources to tap into. These issues were temporarily resolved with some measures like the Mason-Dixon Line, but Manifest Destiny raised questions about this fledgling nation's views on religion, regional economics – and their relation to each other on a federal level, race and the value of man, national patriotism, and even morality, to an extent. 

Popular sovereignty, on the other hand, was the name given the theory that the people living in a given area should decide their own nature of government. The first man to really propagate the theory was Senator Lewis Cass of Michigan, however, it didn't gain national prominence until Stephen A. Douglas coined the term in 1854. There were two main factions of the popular sovereignty movement: one that asserted that the territory's settlers should vote on their status early in territorial development. The other stance said a territory's status should be determined by a vote, taken when the territory was ready for statehood. ("United states history," 2009) This theory was the basis for the Compromise of 1850, and then the Kansas-Nebraska Act four years later. However, due to the "Bleeding Kansas' tragedy, the gaping holes in this ideology became sharply evident. After these events, it was mocking called "squatter sovereignty" by John C. Calhoun, and consequently picked up by the theories critics, primarily Southerners and pro-slavery Northerners. It was hoped that the application of popular sovereignty to incoming states and would preserve the Union. Unfortunately, it was not to be, as it would only work if there were enough voters in the territory persuaded to lean pro-slavery, and apart from an ACORN-level of voter fraud, was nigh impossible to achieve. The death knell for popular sovereignty came in the 1858 Lincoln-Douglas senatorial debates, when Stephen A. Douglas admitted that he believed that local laws could nullify the current federal fugitive-slave laws. That is when most historians see the theory as losing most of its Southern backing, and talks of secession began in earnest. (Weatherby, 2011)

These two views both had their own respective heydays. Manifest destiny inspired a nation to grow to its maximum physical potential, and even made a resurgence with the admission of Alaska and Hawaii. It united a people and gave them a purpose: to be fruitful and multiply across the land, and spread American influence from sea to shining sea. On the other hand, popular sovereignty, a theory born, raised and propagated from the south, tried to appease both sides of the slavery debate. However, all it truly succeeded in doing was driving the two sides further apart, even to the point of bloodshed. Effective for a time, it was at most a temporary measure, not really resolving anything for our nation. By the time it was given up, our newly-expanded country was not only divided ideologically, but was on the brink of war, needing only the slightest catalyst to push it over the edge into a bloody oblivion.

References

ushistory.org. (2008, April 12). U.S. history online textbook. Retrieved from http://www.ushistory.org/us/29.asp

United states history. (2009, May 14). Retrieved from http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h228.html

Weatherby, E. (2011, December 19). [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://pipenslippers.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/civil-war-sectionalism/