Did Slavery Kill Manifest Destiny?

I have recently been involved in a discussion in which the topic is the premise that slavery killed the idea of manifest destiny. However, after looking at the subject and thinking about it, I do not agree with this premise. Slavery, while being one of the causes of manifest destiny, was not the death of the ideal of territorial expansion. Prudence, if anything, was what ended the expansionist ideals of the mid-nineteenth century.

The term "manifest destiny" first arose during the furor over the annexation of the Republic of Texas in 1844-45. However, the ideal had been around for decades prior, even into the period before the War for Independence. But it wasn't until the uproar over Texas that the term "manifest destiny" was actually used. Daniel Howe, in his work What Hath God Wrought gives this statement, which fairly well defines manifest destiny: "'Manifest destiny' served as both a label and a justification for policies that might otherwise have simply been called American expansionism or imperialism. The assumption of white supremacy permeated these policies." Americans felt it was their right, almost a divine right, to expand and spread democracy and freedom to those peoples both to the north and to the south of the borders of the United States. Howe says that if "America had a divine mission to perform, to be a beacon of freedom...then perhaps increasing its extent and power would bring blessings to the whole world."

It is a fact that slaveowners wanted to expand American soil in order to spread slavery. It was painfully obvious to these men that if the peculiar institution was to survive, more territory was required. However, slaveowners were not the only group whose interests were vested in expansion. Land speculators saw the west as money in their pockets. Railroad men saw the vast western plains as a perfect avenue to build a railroad to the Pacific. And small farmers and new immigrants saw the west as a place to start over and make a family and a living. To them, the west was a vast, unclaimed expanse, that was theirs for the taking. Never mind the Native American tribes and the Mexicans; it was their right to take that territory and make it theirs.

So what stopped this expansion? What "killed" manifest destiny? In essence, it was prudence. During the decades of 1840 and into the 50's, expansion was a major goal. There was James Polk's idea to purchase Cuba for $100 million. There was the furor with England over the boundary of the Oregon Territory, which gave rise to the slogan "54º 40 or Fight!" There were the filibusteros who attempted to take territory for America in Central America and the Caribbean. And perhaps the greatest expansionist scheme of all, the Mexican War, which gained the United States the territory which became California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah and part of New Mexico. The latter was the only scheme that worked, but these were all plans to expand the territory of the United States.

So why didn't they work? Spain wasn't going to give up Cuba, and the United States wasn't about to take on a major European power, even one in its decline. They were also not about to take on Great Britain in a third war with that country in less than 75 years. And the filibusteros? They were all stopped by the countries that they tried to take territory from or they failed due to illness or not enough backing. They were seen as imprudent and unwise ventures. Slavery did not have a direct impact on their failure. Though there were many who were rabidly against the war with Mexico because they saw it as a war to expand slavery, California came in a free state and slavery most likely would not have succeeded in the rest of teh territory gained in the Mexican Cession. Oregon was well above the Missouri Compromise line and though it might have succeeded there, probably wouldn't have gotten a hold there. So slavery had little impact on a much of the territory that was taken because of manifest destiny.

One must also take into account the imperialist attitude that arose in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. American expansion was not done, and the territory of Alaska and Hawaii, later to become states, and the Phillipines, Puerto Rico, and other islands, both in the Caribbean and the Pacific, came under United States control. So slavery, as can be seen, didn't kill these expansionist attitudes. Slavery, while it did a great deal to tear the nation apart in the 1850's, did not destroy the expansionist attitudes of the American people. Slavery did not kill manifest destiny.

Dr. Samuel A. Mudd: Innocent vs. Guilty.

I will try to post more often. I always mean to, but I forget and something else takes over.

Recently, I have begun studying the assassination of President Lincoln and the men who were behind the conspiracy. One of the men who was caught up in the whole mess was a young doctor from Charles County, Maryland by the name of Samuel Alexander Mudd. On April 15, 1865, in the early morning hours, J.W. Booth stopped at Mudd's house and had his leg set after he had broken it jumping from Lincoln's box to the stage. Mudd was later arrested, tried and sentenced to life in prison for supposedly belonging to the conspiracy to assassinate the president.

The question now becomes: was he set up, was he a scapegoat in one of the largest manhunts in American history, or was he truly a conspirator in Booth's plot? The evidence, I believe, points to the former two, rather than the latter. Much of the evidence gathered was seemingly quite circumstantial, and points, rather, to Booth, in essence, setting up Mudd.

We know that Booth's original plot had been to kidnap Lincoln, and his planned escape route was through Southern Maryland, a hotbed of southern sympathizers, of which Mudd was undoubtedly one. However, was he a spy, or a courier for the Confederacy? This is hard to prove, as evidence is scanty. No evidence has come forward to directly link him to Richmond, and the fact that he knew Samuel Cox, a known Confederate spy in Charles County isn't enough to convict, as who didn't know Mr. Cox, a very well known and wealthy man in the area?

We also know that Booth met Dr. Mudd in November, 1864, and that he stayed with the Mudd's for a night and bought a horse from one of Mudd's neighbors, which was later used by Lewis Powell (aka Lewis Payne/Paine) to escape from Seward's home after his attempt to murder the Secratary of State. There was also another meeting of the two in Washington a month later, which seems to be accidental, a passing meeting between the two. The two did exchange words, but what those words were isn't known, and could very well be just concerning a land deal Booth was supposedly trying to make with Mudd. But was Booth in Charles County to specifically meet with Mudd, or was he there to just scout out the area and develop assets, something any good agent would do?

There is also the fact that on the night Booth stopped, he wore a disguise, and did not identify himself to Mudd. When Herold and Booth stopped, Herold introduced himself as Tyson and Booth as Tyler. If Mudd was a member of any conspiracy, why hide his identity? Why not say that it was him? Mudd would surely have helped in a heartbeat, to help his fellow conspirator, rather than fulfill the Hippocratic oath he was bound to uphold? If Mudd was in on the whole kidnapping plot, which devolved to murder, then what is the need to disguise himself? There isn't any.

Thirdly, there is the fact that Booth did not tell the authorities himself and that he hid evidence from them. At the time that Booth left, Mudd apparently wanted to hurry back to Bryantown and tell the authorities that he had a suspicion that Booth had just stayed at his house and had just left. He wife, however, begged him not to, because she was afraid that they might return and clean up a loose end. Instead, he told his cousin George the next day, and George, a Unionist (one of a few true Unionists in Charles County), told the detectives, who came to talk to Mudd on Tuesday. On Friday, he turned over the boot, and a couple of days later was arrested as a conspirator. People say that he forgot to get rid of evidence, but in reality, he could have just been holding onto a boot for a patient to come and pick up. As a doctor, he had to cut off the boot, and, cut in the right place, a boot can easily be repaired. So might he, at the time, have thought the man would possibly take his boot, or if he left it, come back to get it, so that he could repair it?

Many pieces of evidence point to Mudd's innocence. The evidence that incriminated Mudd is all circumstantial. Was he a part of a plot to kidnap Lincoln? It is highly doubtful. Was he southern sympathizer? Most likely, as he owned slaves and some of his relatives went to fight for the Confederacy. So was he innocent or guilty? I hold to his being completely innocent.

There is much out there to read on this subject. Here are some titles that one can read, which give both sides of the story.

-American Brutus by Michael Kauffman. This book is excellent, a product of many years of research. Comes from the point of view that Mudd was innocent for the most part.
-Blood on the Moon by Ed Steers. This book is also good. It comes from the point of view that Mudd was guilty and member of the conspiracy.
-Manhunt by James Swanson. A narrative of the 12 day chase of Booth and all that happened in between. A fast, interesting read, but not quite on par with the first two.

Peruse these and decide for yourself. You can also visit the Mudd House, which is a privately owned museum in Charles county. Read and decide. Innocent......or guilty?