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/

World War II’s Impact on Uncle Sam

Hearing stories of World War II always have fascinated this writer. Hearing them from members of “the Greatest Generation” who were actually there were downright remarkable. But almost all of the stories regaled to us as an American people look at the War in Europe, or in the South Pacific: we hardly ever hear about the war at home. What did WWII mean to people in America, to our armed forces, and to women and minority groups? What was its effect on our society as a whole? It is this writer’s intention to show some of the war’s impacts, and if it helped our country turn out for the better.

WWII, the largest, bloodiest conflict of the bloodiest century the earth has ever seen, had a much deeper affect on our nation that most people realize, but how did we get drawn into it? Our allies had been battling the Third Reich in Europe since 1939, and while Americans had been supplying the British war effort, we wanted to stay on our side of the “pond”: part of the isolationist theory popular at the time. But then, in December of 1941, the Japanese Empire attacked both American and British holdings all across the Pacific Ocean, most notably the cowardly sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. The Japanese specifically targeted Pear Harbor because the majority of the U.S. Pacific Fleet was housed there, and it was also home of the Pacific Fleet’s headquarters. By both diplomatic and military deception, the Japanese managed to get a massive air fleet of over 350 planes and their carriers maneuvered into position undetected, and in the early hours of 7 December 1941, they attacked the U.S. in a premeditated act of war. Japanese Admiral Yamamoto, the architect of the attack, had intended to launch the attack after a formal declaration of war, but his superiors ordered it before any such declaration was given. It was a major tactical victory, but because of these attacks, the USA jumped wholeheartedly into the war. Our troops were mobilized; our armed forces were built up to record numbers and shipped off to both theatres of the war, leaving many industrialized jobs open. Adm. Yamamoto then declared to his aides and officers, “I fear all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant.” Enter “Rosie the Riveter”, as many of America’s women stepped up and began filling those industrial positions of the ‘sleeping giant’. Women were not only allowed, but expected to go to work to help the war effort. This broke years of tradition, in which women needed to stay home and have a man provide while she looked after the house and children; but now, Jane Doe could provide for herself. Little did anyone know that this would become a foundational shift of American culture, and pave the way for everything from female executives and heads of state to feminism. (Shultz, 2004) Women aviators also formed the WASPs, or Women Airforce Service Pilots, which shuttled newly-built aircraft across the United States to various Army Air Force (AAF) bases where they were needed.

Women weren’t the only ones to help with the war effort: many minority groups stepped up to the proverbial plate as well. One of the most notable is the famed Tuskegee Airmen, or the “Red Tails”. These Afro-American aviators volunteered for service in the AAF, and were given their own fighter squadron. They were primarily bomber escorts, and were known not only as the first all-black combat aviation squadron, but also for the distinctive red paint on the tails of their P-51 Mustangs. (Factsheets, 2011) At the outset of the war, blacks were only allowed to be cooks or other labor-intensive, non-combat positions, but the Red Tails were not only in a combat position, but a very important one. After many successes in bomber escorting, and a number of pilots becoming aces, the Tuskegee Airmen began being utilized for other missions like close-air support and search-and-destroy missions, where they were also quite successful.

By the end of the war, the Army Air Forces and other military branches, who were initially forced to accept both blacks and women, ended up bringing them into the fold as brothers in arms. When someone fights, bleeds and dies along with you, there is a sense of camaraderie that is forged stronger than steel, and this sense of camaraderie was carried through the armed forces for years before the civilian sector. As these veterans began to be released from the military, however, they began to realize society hadn’t shifted as much as the military. Women, who were experienced aviators, were expected to return to their homes and become housewives again; blacks who were pilots, soldiers and sailors were told to go back to being second-class citizens alongside the same men they fought with against the evils of the Third Reich and Japanese Empire. Our society had begun to change, but it was still a slow process, and it continues to shift today.

So, what did WWII mean to people in America, to our armed forces, and to women and minority groups? And what was its effect on our society as a whole? This writer would propose that World War II set in motion a foundational shift in our thinking about women and minorities, and we probably will never fully finish shifting. Change is the only constant, and WWII was a massive catalyst for changes in our society.

References

Schultz, Stanley K. & Tishler, William P. (2004). American Civil War to the Present. World War II: The Impact at Home. Retrieved November 21, 2011 from http://us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/lectures/lecture21.html

West, Norman. (2008). Effects of World War II. Retrieved November 20, 2011 from http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/westn/effectww2.html

Factsheets: Tuskegee Airmen. (2011) Retrieved November 21, 2011 from http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=1356