Question

Interpretation:

Mexican War
Manifest Destiny
A: The pacific expansionist who rejoiced in the bloodless annexation of Texas was shortly mocked by the resultant
war with the aggrieved recent owner of that disputed country. The War with Mexico was in turn the cause of a new
territorial ambition which, though it resulted merely in the acquisition of New Mexico and Upper California, was
directed for a time toward the annexation of all Mexico and fell short of it only through a slight turn of events. This
ambition marked a momentous change both in the policy and in the ideal of American expansionism.... the enlarge-
ment of territorial aim was probably due less to philanthropy than to a consideration of national self-interest.... Yet
the expansionism of the Mexican War anticipated the ideology of the white man's burden by accepting the obliga-
tion to the darker peoples. Expansionists contemplated not merely the regeneration of the Mexicans but a whole
series of civilizing enterprises among the lesser breeds.-Albert K. Weinberg, Manifest Destiny, 1935
The Birth of Texas Republic
The idea that its godd
to expand we
B: An old age was dying, a new age being born; and such stormy transitions always bear harshly upon party struc-
tures. Facing the new issues which the war created, both Whigs and Democrats showed the strain. Being in power,
the Democratic Party suffered the more. A few years earlier it had seemed homogeneous and closely knit. Actually,
it was composed of disparate interests bound together by very loose ties and ready to quarrel the moment a sufficient
motive appeared; and now the war revealed its essential lack of unity. A powerful body of Northern Democrats, their
greatest strength lying in New England and upper New York, stood opposed to any expansion of slavery. A still more
powerful body of Southern Democrats, counting many Northern supporters, held that slavery had right to spread w
through any areas where climate and other conditions favored it. Alongside these two bodies stood a vigorous array o
of Democrats, their principal strength in the northwest, who were not unwilling to allow slavery to grow if by some
compromise free soil grew with equal or greater celerity.-Allen Nevins, Ordeal of the Union, 1950
Explain the differences between Interpretation A and Interpretation B:

Answer 1

Interpretation A by Weinberg views the Mexican War and Manifest Destiny as American expansionism influenced by 'white man's burden' and self-interest, while Interpretation B by Nevins emphasizes the internal political and sectional conflicts within the Democratic Party over expansion and slavery.

Step-by-step explanation:

The student is asking to explain the differences between two historical interpretations concerning the Mexican War and Manifest Destiny.

Interpretation A, by Albert K. Weinberg, suggests American expansionism during the Mexican War was partly motivated by a sense of 'white man's burden' and contemplated the 'regeneration' of Mexicans through civilizing enterprises. It hints at a blend of national self-interest and a perceived obligation towards other peoples, wrapping territorial ambitions under the guise of benevolent expansionism.

Interpretation B, by Allen Nevins, focuses on the internal struggles within the Democratic Party over the issue of expansion and slavery. It highlights that the war exacerbated the existing fractures between Northern Democrats, who opposed the expansion of slavery, and Southern Democrats, who believed in its spread. This interpretation brings to light the political and sectional strife within the United States that was intensified by the war, rather than the external civilizing philosophies.

Answer 2

Interpretation A views American expansionism as being partly justified by a sense of moral obligation, while Interpretation B highlights the internal political conflicts over slavery expansion.

Step-by-step explanation:

The two different interpretations of the Mexican War and Manifest Destiny reflect varying perspectives on American expansionism in the 1840s. Interpretation A, by Albert K. Weinberg, focuses on the idea that the expansionism related to the war led to the concept of a 'white man's burden' and a moral obligation to civilize other cultures, suggesting a philanthropic aspect to the territorial expansions, albeit likely driven by self-interest.

On the other hand, Interpretation B by Allen Nevins discusses the political turmoil within the United States, specifically within the Democratic Party, due to differing views on the expansion of slavery as the nation grew, highlighting the internal conflicts about slavery and expansion that contributed to the fracturing of party unity.