Editing Manifest destiny (section)

== Era of expansion ==
{{see also|United States territorial acquisitions table}}
[[File:John Quincy Adams.jpeg|thumb|[[John Quincy Adams]], painted above in 1816 by [[Charles Robert Leslie]], was an early proponent of continentalism. Late in life he came to regret his role in helping U.S. slavery to expand, and became a leading opponent of the annexation of Texas.]]
The phrase "manifest destiny" is most associated with the [[Territorial evolution of the United States|territorial expansion of the United States]] from 1803 to 1900. However, the [[Vermont Republic]] joined the United States in 1791, the [[Territories of the United States|territory]] of [[American Samoa]] grew larger in 1904 and 1925, and the U.S. acquired what is now the [[United States Virgin Islands]] in 1917 and what was the [[United Nations]] [[Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands]] in 1947. Of that Trust Territory, the [[Northern Mariana Islands]] joined the United States in 1986, while the [[Federated States of Micronesia]], [[Republic of the Marshall Islands]], and [[Palau]] became independent states in a [[Compact of Free Association]] with the U.S.<ref name="autogenerated1">AmericanSamoa</ref><ref name=Immerwahr />

Some scholars limit the "manifest destiny" period to solely North American continental expansion from the [[Louisiana Purchase]] to the [[Alaska Purchase|acquisition of Alaska]] in 1867, sometimes called the "age of manifest destiny".<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Hanson |first1=Kurt |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=rCQsQdqFyMYC |title=American Foreign Relations since 1600: A Guide to the Literature, Second Edition |first2=Robert L. |last2=Beisner|author2-link=Robert L. Beisner |publisher=ABC-CLIO |year=2003 |isbn=978-1-57607-080-2 |page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=rCQsQdqFyMYC&pg=PA313 313]}}</ref> During this time, the United States expanded to the Pacific Ocean—"from sea to shining sea"—largely defining the borders of the [[Contiguous United States#Continental and mainland United States|continental United States]] as they are today.<ref>Stuart and Weeks call this period the "era of manifest destiny" and the "age of manifest destiny", respectively.</ref> In the 1890s, the United States expanded into [[Polynesia]] and [[Asia]] with the annexation of the [[Republic of Hawaii]], the [[Philippines]], [[Guam]], and [[American Samoa]].

=== War of 1812 ===
{{Further|War of 1812}}
One of the goals of the War of 1812 was to threaten to annex the British colony of [[Lower Canada]] as a bargaining chip to force the British to abandon their fortifications in the Northwestern United States and support for the various [[Native Americans in the United States|Native American tribes]] residing there.<ref>Walter Nugent, ''Habits of Empire: A History of American Expansion'' (2008) pp 73–79.</ref><ref>Once the war began Jefferson—then in retirement—suggested seizing Canada, telling a friend, "The acquisition of Canada this year, as far as the neighborhood of Quebec, will be a mere matter of marching, and will give us experience for the attack of Halifax the next, and the final expulsion of England from the American continent." Jefferson To William Duane." {{Cite book |last=Adams |first=Henry |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=IZqMDXn6nwoC&pg=PA528 |title=History of the United States of America During the Administrations of James Madison |publisher=Library of America, 1891, reprinted 1986 |year=1986 |isbn=978-0940450356 |page=528}}</ref> The result of this overoptimism was a series of defeats in 1812 in part due to the wide use of poorly-trained [[Militia (United States)|state militia]]s rather than regular troops. The American victories at the [[Battle of Lake Erie]] and the [[Battle of the Thames]] in 1813 ended the Indian raids and removed the main reason for threatening annexation. To end the War of 1812 [[John Quincy Adams]], [[Henry Clay]] and [[Albert Gallatin]] (former treasury secretary and a leading expert on Indians) and the other American diplomats negotiated the [[Treaty of Ghent]] in 1814 with Britain. They rejected the British plan to set up an [[Indian barrier state|Indian state in U.S. territory]] south of the Great Lakes. They explained the American policy toward acquisition of Indian lands:
{{Blockquote|The United States, while intending never to acquire lands from the Indians otherwise than peaceably, and with their free consent, are fully determined, in that manner, progressively, and in proportion as their growing population may require, to reclaim from the state of nature, and to bring into cultivation every portion of the territory contained within their acknowledged boundaries. In thus providing for the support of millions of civilized beings, they will not violate any dictate of justice or of humanity; for they will not only give to the few thousand savages scattered over that territory an ample equivalent for any right they may surrender, but will always leave them the possession of lands more than they can cultivate, and more than adequate to their subsistence, comfort, and enjoyment, by cultivation. If this be a spirit of aggrandizement, the undersigned are prepared to admit, in that sense, its existence; but they must deny that it affords the slightest proof of an intention not to respect the boundaries between them and European nations, or of a desire to encroach upon the territories of Great Britain... They will not suppose that that Government will avow, as the basis of their policy towards the United States a system of arresting their natural growth within their own territories, for the sake of preserving a perpetual desert for savages.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Gates |first=Charles M. |year=1940 |title=The West in American Diplomacy, 1812–1815 |journal=Mississippi Valley Historical Review |volume=26 |issue=4 |pages=499–510 |doi=10.2307/1896318 |jstor=1896318}} quote on p. 507.</ref>}}

A shocked [[Henry Goulburn]], one of the British negotiators at Ghent, remarked, after coming to understand the American position on taking the Indians' land:
{{Blockquote|Till I came here, I had no idea of the fixed determination which there is in the heart of every American to extirpate the Indians and appropriate their territory.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.pbs.org/wned/war-of-1812/essays/treaty-ghent/|title=PBS, ''The War of 1812'', Essays.|website=[[PBS]]|url-status=dead|access-date=September 4, 2017|archive-date=July 5, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170705131607/https://www.pbs.org/wned/war-of-1812/essays/treaty-ghent/}}</ref>}}

=== Continentalism ===
The 19th-century belief that the United States would eventually encompass all of North America is known as "continentalism".<ref name="Continental">{{Cite web |title=Continental and Continentalism |url=http://www.sociologyindex.com/continental.htm |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150509193436/http://www.sociologyindex.com/continental.htm |archive-date=May 9, 2015 |website=Sociology Index.com}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=1820s – Continentalism {{pipe}} Savages & Scoundrels |url=http://www.savagesandscoundrels.org/flashpoints-conflicts/1820s-continentalism/ |website=www.savagesandscoundrels.org}}</ref> An early proponent of this idea, John Quincy Adams became a leading figure in U.S. expansion between the [[Louisiana Purchase]] in 1803 and the [[Polk administration]] in the 1840s. In 1811, Adams wrote to [[John Adams|his father]]:

<blockquote>The whole continent of North America appears to be destined by Divine Providence to be peopled by one ''nation'', speaking one language, professing one general system of religious and political principles, and accustomed to one general tenor of social usages and customs. For the common happiness of them all, for their peace and prosperity, I believe it is indispensable that they should be associated in one federal Union.<ref>Adams quoted in {{Harvard citation no brackets|McDougall|1997|p=78}}.</ref></blockquote>

[[File:Alfred Jacob Miller - Fort Laramie - Walters 37194049.jpg|thumb|right|The first [[Fort Laramie]] as it looked prior to 1840. Painting from memory by [[Alfred Jacob Miller]]]]
Adams did much to further this idea. He orchestrated the [[Treaty of 1818]], which established the [[Canada–United States border|border between British North America and the United States]] as far west as the Rocky Mountains, and provided for the joint occupation of the region known in American history as the [[Oregon Country]] and in British and Canadian history as the [[New Caledonia (Canada)|New Caledonia]] and [[Columbia District]]s. He negotiated the [[Adams–Onís Treaty|Transcontinental Treaty]] in 1819, transferring [[Spanish Florida|Florida]] from Spain to the United States and extending the U.S. border with Spanish Mexico all the way to the Pacific Ocean. And he formulated the [[Monroe Doctrine]] of 1823, which warned Europe that the Western Hemisphere was no longer open for European colonization.

The Monroe Doctrine and "manifest destiny" formed a closely related nexus of principles: historian Walter McDougall calls manifest destiny a corollary of the Monroe Doctrine, because while the Monroe Doctrine did not specify expansion, expansion was necessary in order to enforce the doctrine. Concerns in the United States that European powers were seeking to acquire colonies or greater influence in North America led to calls for expansion in order to prevent this. In his influential 1935 study of manifest destiny, done in conjunction with the [[Walter Hines Page School of International Relations]],<ref>{{cite journal | author-last=Linebarger | author-first=Paul M. A. | title=Twenty SAIS Years, An Informal Memoir | journal= SAIS Review | volume= 8 | number= 1 | year=1963 | pages=4–40 | jstor=45348230 }}</ref> Albert Weinberg wrote: "the expansionism of the [1830s] arose as a defensive effort to forestall the encroachment of Europe in North America".<ref>{{Harvard citation no brackets|McDougall|1997|p=74}}; {{Harvard citation no brackets|Weinberg|1935|p=109}}.</ref>

==== Transcontinental railroad ====
Manifest destiny played an important role in the development of the [[transcontinental railroad]].{{When|date=May 2024|reason=[[First transcontinental railroad]]?}} The transcontinental railroad system is often used in manifest destiny imagery like John Gast's painting, American Progress where multiple locomotives are seen traveling west.<ref name=":3"/> According to academic [[Dina Gilio-Whitaker]], "the transcontinental railroads not only enabled [U.S. control over the continent] but also accelerated it exponentially."<ref name=":4">{{Cite book |last=Gilio-Whitaker |first=Dina |title=As long as grass grows: the indigenous fight for environmental justice, from colonization to Standing Rock |date=2019 |publisher=[[Beacon Press]] |isbn=978-0-8070-7378-0 |location=Boston, Massachusetts |oclc=1044542033}}</ref> Historian Boyd Cothran says that "modern transportation development and abundant resource exploitation gave rise to an appropriation of indigenous land, [and] resources."<ref name=":11">{{Cite book |last=Cothran |first=Boyd |title=Remembering the Modoc War: redemptive violence and the making of American innocence |date=2014 |publisher=The University of North Carolina Press |isbn=978-1-4696-1861-6 |location=Chapel Hill, NC |oclc=897015863}}</ref>

==== All Oregon ====
Manifest destiny played its most important role in the [[Oregon boundary dispute]] between the United States and Britain, when the phrase "manifest destiny" originated. The [[Anglo-American Convention of 1818]] had provided for the joint occupation of the [[Oregon Country]], and thousands of Americans migrated there in the 1840s over the [[Oregon Trail]]. The British rejected a proposal by U.S. President [[John Tyler]] (in office 1841–1845) to divide the region along the [[49th parallel north|49th parallel]], and instead proposed a boundary line farther south, along the [[Columbia River]], which would have made most of what later became the state of [[Washington (state)|Washington]] part of [[British North America|their colonies in North America]]. Advocates of manifest destiny protested and called for the annexation of the entire Oregon Country up to the Alaska line ([[54-40|54°40ʹ N]]). Presidential candidate Polk used this popular outcry to his advantage, and the Democrats called for the annexation of "All Oregon" in the [[1844 U.S. presidential election]].

[[File:Emanuel Leutze - Westward the Course of Empire Takes Its Way - Smithsonian.jpg|thumb|American westward expansion is idealized in [[Emanuel Leutze]]'s famous painting ''[[Westward the Course of Empire Takes Its Way]]'' (1861).]]

As president, Polk sought compromise and renewed the earlier offer to divide the territory in half along the 49th parallel, to the dismay of the most ardent advocates of manifest destiny. When the British refused the offer, American expansionists responded with slogans such as "The whole of Oregon or none" and "Fifty-four forty or fight", referring to the northern border of the region. (The latter slogan is often mistakenly described as having been a part of the 1844 presidential campaign.)<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Miles |first=Edwin A. |date=September 1957 |title='Fifty-four Forty or Fight'—An American Political Legend |journal=The Mississippi Valley Historical Review |publisher=Organization of American Historians |volume=44 |issue=2 |pages=291–309 |doi=10.2307/1887191 |jstor=1887191}}</ref> When Polk moved to terminate the joint occupation agreement, the British finally agreed in early 1846 to divide the region along the 49th parallel, leaving the lower Columbia basin as part of the United States. The [[Oregon Treaty]] of 1846 formally settled the dispute; Polk's administration succeeded in selling the treaty to Congress because the United States was about to begin the [[Mexican–American War]], and the president and others argued it would be foolish to also [[Two-front war|fight the British Empire]].{{Citation needed|date=December 2019}}

Despite the earlier clamor for "All Oregon", the Oregon Treaty was popular in the United States and was easily ratified by the Senate. The most fervent advocates of manifest destiny had not prevailed along the northern border because, according to [[Reginald C. Stuart|Reginald Stuart]], "the compass of manifest destiny pointed west and southwest, not north, despite the use of the term 'continentalism{{'"}}.<ref>Treaty popular: {{Harvard citation no brackets|Stuart|1988|p=104}}; compass quote p. 84.</ref>

In 1869, American historian [[Frances Fuller Victor]] published ''[[s:en:The Overland Monthly/Volume 3/Manifest Destiny in the West|Manifest Destiny in the West]]'' in the ''[[Overland Monthly]]'', arguing that the efforts of early American fur traders and missionaries presaged American control of Oregon. She concluded the article as follows:
{{Cquote|It was an oversight on the part of the United States, the giving up the island of Quadra and Vancouver, on the settlement of the boundary question. Yet, "what is to be, will be", as some realist has it; and we look for the restoration of that picturesque and rocky atom of our former territory as inevitable.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Victor |first=Frances Fuller |date=August 1869 |title=Manifest Destiny in the West |journal=[[Overland Monthly]] |volume=3 |issue=2 |title-link=wikisource:en:The Overland Monthly/Volume 3/Manifest Destiny in the West}}</ref>}}

=== Mexico and Texas ===
[[File:Battle of Río San Gabriel.jpg|thumb|The [[Battle of Río San Gabriel]] was a decisive battle action of the [[Mexican–American War]] (1846–1848) as part of the [[Conquest of California|US conquest of California.]]]]
[[File:The_Battle_of_San_Jacinto_(1895).jpg|thumb|The [[Battle of San Jacinto]] was the final battle during the [[Texas Revolution|Texas revolution]] (1835-1836) which resulted in a decisive victory for the [[Texian Army|Texian army]].]]
Manifest destiny played an important role in the expansion of Texas and American relationship with [[History of Mexico|Mexico]].<ref>Ramon Eduardo Ruiz, ed., ''The Mexican War—was it Manifest Destiny?'' (Harcourt, 1963).</ref> In 1836, the [[Republic of Texas]] [[Texas Declaration of Independence|declared independence]] from Mexico and, after the [[Texas Revolution]], sought to join the United States as a new state. This was an idealized process of expansion that had been advocated from Jefferson to O'Sullivan: newly democratic and independent states would request entry into the United States, rather than the United States extending its government over people who did not want it. The [[Texas annexation|annexation of Texas]] was attacked by anti-slavery spokesmen because it would add another slave state to the Union. Presidents Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren declined Texas's offer to join the United States in part because the slavery issue threatened to divide the Democratic Party.<ref>Lyon Rathbun, Lyon "The debate over annexing Texas and the emergence of manifest destiny." ''Rhetoric & Public Affairs'' 4#3 (2001): 459–93.</ref>

Before the election of 1844, Whig candidate Henry Clay and the presumed Democratic candidate, former president, Van Buren, both declared themselves opposed to the annexation of Texas, each hoping to keep the troublesome topic from becoming a campaign issue. This unexpectedly led to Van Buren being dropped by the Democrats in favor of Polk, who favored annexation. Polk tied the Texas annexation question with the Oregon dispute, thus providing a sort of regional compromise on expansion. (Expansionists in the North were more inclined to promote the occupation of Oregon, while Southern expansionists focused primarily on the annexation of Texas.) Although elected by a very slim margin, Polk proceeded as if his victory had been a mandate for expansion.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Mark R. Cheathem |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=mtprDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA139 |title=Historical Dictionary of the Jacksonian Era and Manifest Destiny |last2=Terry Corps |publisher=Rowman & Littlefield |year=2016 |isbn=978-1442273207 |page=139}}</ref>

==== All of Mexico ====
{{Main|All of Mexico Movement}}

After the election of Polk, but before he took office, Congress approved the annexation of Texas. Polk moved to occupy a portion of Texas that had [[Texas Declaration of Independence|declared independence from Mexico]] in 1836, but was still claimed by Mexico. This paved the way for the outbreak of the Mexican–American War on April 24, 1846. With American successes on the battlefield, by the summer of 1847 there were calls for the annexation of "All Mexico", particularly among Eastern Democrats, who argued that bringing Mexico into the Union was the best way to ensure future peace in the region.<ref>{{Harvard citation no brackets|Merk|1963|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=GhYJTaZiuxwC&pg=PA144 144–147]}}; {{Harvard citation no brackets|Fuller|1936}}; {{Harvard citation no brackets|Hietala|2003}}.</ref>

This was a controversial proposition for two reasons. First, idealistic advocates of manifest destiny like O'Sullivan had always maintained that the laws of the United States should not be imposed on people against their will. The annexation of "All Mexico" would be a violation of this principle. And secondly, the annexation of Mexico was controversial because it would mean extending U.S. citizenship to millions of Mexicans, who were of dark skin and majority Catholic. Senator [[John C. Calhoun]] of South Carolina, who had approved of the annexation of Texas, was opposed to the annexation of Mexico, as well as the "mission" aspect of manifest destiny, for racial reasons.<ref>{{Cite book|author1-link=W. Paul Reeve |last=Reeve |first=W. Paul |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=mpYKBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA6 |title=Religion of a Different Color: Race and the Mormon Struggle for Whiteness |publisher=Oxford UP |year=2015 |isbn=978-0199754076 |page=6}}</ref> He made these views clear in a speech to Congress on January 4, 1848:

<blockquote>We have never dreamt of incorporating into our Union any but the Caucasian race—the free white race. To incorporate Mexico, would be the very first instance of the kind, of incorporating an Indian race; for more than half of the Mexicans are Indians, and the other is composed chiefly of mixed tribes. I protest against such a union as that! Ours, sir, is the Government of a white race.... We are anxious to force free government on all; and I see that it has been urged ... that it is the mission of this country to spread civil and religious liberty over all the world, and especially over this continent. It is a great mistake.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Calhoun |first1=John Caldwell |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=BilSukogRh4C |title=The Papers of John C. Calhoun |last2=Cook |first2=Shirley Bright |last3=Wilson |first3=Clyde Norman |publisher=Univ of South Carolina Press |year=1959 |isbn=978-1-57003-306-3 |page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=BilSukogRh4C&dq=%22We+have+never+dreamt+of+incorporating+into+our+Union+any+but+the+Caucasian+race%22&pg=PA64 64]}}</ref><ref>Merry, Robert W. ''[[A Country of Vast Designs: James K. Polk, the Mexican War and the Conquest of the American Continent]]''. New York: Simon & Schuster 2009, pp. 414–415</ref></blockquote>

This debate brought to the forefront one of the contradictions of manifest destiny: on the one hand, while identitarian ideas inherent in manifest destiny suggested that Mexicans, as non-whites, would present a threat to white racial integrity and thus were not qualified to become Americans, the "mission" component of manifest destiny suggested that Mexicans would be improved (or "regenerated", as it was then described) by bringing them into American democracy. Identitarianism was used to promote manifest destiny, but, as in the case of Calhoun and the resistance to the "All Mexico" movement, identitarianism was also used to oppose manifest destiny.<ref>{{Harvard citation no brackets|McDougall|1997|pp=87–95}}.</ref> Conversely, proponents of annexation of "All Mexico" regarded it as an anti-slavery measure.<ref>{{Harvard citation no brackets|Fuller|1936|pp=119, 122, 162 and ''passim''}}.</ref>

[[File:USA Territorial Growth 1850.jpg|thumb|upright=1.35|Growth from 1840 to 1850]]
The controversy was eventually ended by the [[Mexican Cession]], which added the territories of [[Alta California]] and [[Santa Fe de Nuevo México|Nuevo México]] to the United States, both more sparsely populated than the rest of Mexico. Like the "All Oregon" movement, the "All Mexico" movement quickly abated.

Historian [[Frederick Merk]], in ''Manifest Destiny and Mission in American History: A Reinterpretation'' (1963), argued that the failure of the "All Oregon" and "All Mexico" movements indicates that manifest destiny had not been as popular as historians have traditionally portrayed it to have been. Merk wrote that, while belief in the beneficent mission of democracy was central to American history, aggressive "continentalism" were aberrations supported by only a minority of Americans, all of them Democrats. Some Democrats were also opposed; the Democrats of Louisiana opposed annexation of Mexico,<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Gilley |first=Billy H. |year=1979 |title='Polk's War' and the Louisiana Press |journal=Louisiana History |volume=20 |issue=1 |pages=5–23 |jstor=4231864}}</ref> while those in Mississippi supported it.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Brent |first=Robert A. |year=1969 |title=Mississippi and the Mexican War |journal=Journal of Mississippi History |volume=31 |issue=3 |pages=202–214}}</ref>

These events related to the Mexican–American War and had an effect on the American people living in the Southern Plains at the time. A case study by David Beyreis depicts these effects through the operations of a fur trading and Indian trading business named Bent, St. Vrain and Company during the period. The telling of this company shows that the idea of Manifest Destiny was not unanimously loved by all Americans and did not always benefit Americans. The case study goes on to show that this company could have ceased to exist in the name of territorial expansion.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Beyreis |first=David |date=June 1, 2018 |title=The Chaos of Conquest: The Bents and the Problem of American Expansion, 1846–1849 |journal=Kansas History |volume=41 |issue=2 |pages=74–98}}</ref>

=== Filibusterism ===
After the Mexican–American War ended in 1848, disagreements over the expansion of slavery made further annexation by conquest too divisive to be official government policy. Some, such as [[John Quitman]], Governor of Mississippi, offered what public support they could. In one memorable case, Quitman simply explained that the state of Mississippi had "lost" its state arsenal, which began showing up in the hands of filibusters. Yet these isolated cases only solidified opposition in the North as many Northerners were increasingly opposed to what they believed to be efforts by Southern slave owners—and their friends in the North—to expand slavery through [[filibuster (military)|filibustering]]. [[Sarah Parker Remond|Sarah P. Remond]] on January 24, 1859, delivered an impassioned speech at [[Warrington, England|Warrington]], England, that the connection between filibustering and slave power was clear proof of "the mass of corruption that underlay the whole system of American government".<ref>{{Harvard citation no brackets|Ripley|1985}}</ref> The [[Wilmot Proviso]] and the continued "[[Slave Power]]" narratives thereafter, indicated the degree to which manifest destiny had become part of the sectional controversy.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Morrison |first=Michael A. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qgjICQAAQBAJ |title=Slavery and the American West: The Eclipse of Manifest Destiny |year=2000 |isbn=978-0807864326 |page=43|publisher=Univ of North Carolina Press }}</ref>

Without official government support the most radical advocates of manifest destiny increasingly turned to [[filibuster (military)|military filibustering]]. Originally filibuster had come from the Dutch ''vrijbuiter'' and referred to buccaneers in the West Indies that preyed on Spanish commerce. While there had been some filibustering expeditions into Canada in the late 1830s, it was only by mid-century did filibuster become a definitive term. By then, declared the ''[[New-York Daily Times]]'' "the fever of Fillibusterism is on our country. Her pulse beats like a hammer at the wrist, and there's a very high color on her face."<ref>{{Cite news |date=March 4, 1854 |title=A Critical Day |work=[[The New York Times]] |url=https://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9D00E7D8133DE034BC4C53DFB566838F649FDE}}</ref> Millard Fillmore's second annual message to Congress, submitted in December 1851, gave double the amount of space to filibustering activities than the brewing sectional conflict. The eagerness of the filibusters, and the public to support them, had an international hue. Clay's son, a diplomat in Portugal, reported that the invasion created a sensation in Lisbon.<ref>{{Cite book |last=May |first=Robert E. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=2asy7XRUSysC&pg=PA11-IA5 |title=Manifest Destiny's Underworld: Filibustering in Antebellum America |year=2004 |isbn=978-0807855812 |page=11|publisher=Univ of North Carolina Press }}</ref>

[[File:WilliamWalker.jpg|thumb|left|Filibuster [[William Walker (filibuster)|William Walker]], who launched several expeditions to Mexico and Central America, ruled [[Nicaragua]], and was captured by the Royal Navy before being executed in [[Honduras]] by the Honduran government.]]
Although they were illegal, filibustering operations in the late 1840s and early 1850s were romanticized in the United States. The Democratic Party's national platform included a plank that specifically endorsed William Walker's filibustering in [[Nicaragua]]. Wealthy American expansionists financed dozens of expeditions, usually based out of New Orleans, New York, and San Francisco. The primary target of manifest destiny's filibusters was Latin America but there were isolated incidents elsewhere. Mexico was a favorite target of organizations devoted to filibustering, like the [[Knights of the Golden Circle]].<ref>{{Harvard citation no brackets|Crenshaw|1941}}</ref> William Walker got his start as a filibuster in an ill-advised attempt to separate the Mexican states Sonora and Baja California.<ref>James Mitchell Clarke, "Antonio Melendrez: Nemesis of William Walker in Baja California." ''California Historical Society Quarterly'' 12.4 (1933): 318–322. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/25178226 online]</ref> [[Narciso López]], a near second in fame and success, spent his efforts trying to secure Cuba from the [[Spanish Empire]].

The United States had long been interested in acquiring Cuba from the declining Spanish Empire. As with Texas, Oregon, and California, American policy makers were concerned that Cuba would fall into British hands, which, according to the thinking of the Monroe Doctrine, would constitute a threat to the interests of the United States. Prompted by O'Sullivan, in 1848 President Polk offered to buy Cuba from Spain for $100 million. Polk feared that filibustering would hurt his effort to buy the island, and so he informed the Spanish of an attempt by the Cuban filibuster López to seize Cuba by force and annex it to the United States, foiling the plot. Spain declined to sell the island, which ended Polk's efforts to acquire Cuba. O'Sullivan eventually landed in legal trouble.<ref name="Tread">{{Harvard citation no brackets|Crocker|2006|p=150}}.</ref>

Filibustering continued to be a major concern for presidents after Polk. Whigs presidents [[Zachary Taylor]] and [[Millard Fillmore]] tried to suppress the expeditions. When the Democrats recaptured the White House in 1852 with the election of [[Franklin Pierce]], a filibustering effort by [[John A. Quitman]] to acquire Cuba received the tentative support of the president. Pierce backed off and instead renewed the offer to buy the island, this time for $130 million. When the public learned of the [[Ostend Manifesto]] in 1854, which argued that the United States could seize Cuba by force if Spain refused to sell, this effectively killed the effort to acquire the island. The public now linked expansion with slavery; if manifest destiny had once enjoyed widespread popular approval, this was no longer true.<ref>{{Harvard citation no brackets|Weeks|1996|pp=144–152}}.</ref>

Filibusters like [[William Walker (filibuster)|William Walker]] continued to garner headlines in the late 1850s, but to little effect. Expansionism was among the various [[origins of the American Civil War|issues that played a role]] in the coming of the war. With the divisive question of the expansion of slavery, Northerners and Southerners, in effect, were coming to define manifest destiny in different ways, undermining nationalism as a unifying force. According to Frederick Merk, "The doctrine of Manifest Destiny, which in the 1840s had seemed Heaven-sent, proved to have been a bomb wrapped up in idealism."<ref>{{Harvard citation no brackets|Merk|1963|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=GhYJTaZiuxwC&pg=PA214 214]}}.</ref>

The filibusterism of the era even opened itself up to some mockery among the headlines. In 1854, a San Francisco Newspaper published a satirical poem called "Filibustering Ethics". This poem features two characters, Captain Robb and Farmer Cobb. Captain Robb makes claim to Farmer Cobb's land arguing that Robb deserves the land because he is Anglo-Saxon, has weapons to "blow out" Cobb's brains, and nobody has heard of Cobb so what right does Cobb have to claim the land. Cobb argues that Robb doesn't need his land because Robb already has more land than he knows what to do with. Due to threats of violence, Cobb surrenders his land and leaves grumbling that "''might'' should be the rule of ''right'' among ''enlightened'' nations."<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Burge |first=Daniel |date=August 2016 |title=Manifest Mirth: The Humorous Critique of Manifest Destiny, 1846–1858 |journal=Western Historical Quarterly |volume=47 |issue=3 |pages=283–302 |doi=10.1093/whq/whw087 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

=== Homestead Act ===
{{Main|Homestead Acts}}
[[File:Hultstrand61.jpg|thumb|[[Norwegian American|Norwegian]] settlers in North Dakota in front of their homestead, a [[Sod house|sod hut]]]]
The Homestead Act of 1862 encouraged 600,000 families to settle the West by giving them land (usually 160 acres) almost free. Over the course of 123 years, 200 million claims were made and over 270 million acres were settled, accounting for 10% of the land in the U.S.<ref name=":5">{{Cite journal |last=Anderson |first=Hannah L. |date=2011 |title=That Settles It: The Debate and Consequences of the Homestead Act of 1862 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/41304034 |journal=The History Teacher |volume=45 |issue=1 |pages=117–137 |jstor=41304034 |issn=0018-2745}}</ref> They had to live on and improve the land for five years.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Favor |first=Lesli J. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hZ2dZHbLgVkC |title=A Historical Atlas of America's Manifest Destiny |publisher=Rosen |year=2005 |isbn=978-1404202016 |chapter=6. Settling the West |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hZ2dZHbLgVkC&pg=PA1864}}</ref> Before the [[American Civil War]], Southern leaders opposed the [[Homestead Acts]] because they feared it would lead to more free states and free territories.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Teaching With Documents:The Homestead Act of 1862 |url=https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/homestead-act/ |access-date=June 29, 2012 |publisher=The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration}}</ref> After the mass resignation of Southern senators and representatives at the beginning of the war, Congress was subsequently able to pass the Homestead Act.

In some areas, the Homestead Act resulted in the direct removal of Indigenous communities.<ref name=":6">{{Cite journal |last=Wilm |first=Julius |date=2018 |title=The Indians Must Yield: Antebellum Free Land, The Homestead Act, and the Displacement of Native Peoples|journal=Settlers as Conquerors: Free Land Policy in Antebellum America |pages=17–39}}</ref> According to American historian [[Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz]], all five nations of the "Five Civilized Tribes" signed treaties with the Confederacy and initially supported them in hopes of dividing and weakening the U.S. so that they could remain on their land.<ref name=":7">{{Cite book |last=Dunbar-Ortiz |first=Roxanne |title=An indigenous peoples' history of the United States |date=2014 |publisher=[[Beacon Press]] |isbn=978-0-8070-0040-3 |location=Boston |oclc=868199534}}</ref> The United States Army, led by prominent Civil War generals such as William Tecumseh Sherman, Philip Sheridan, and George Armstrong Custer, waged wars on "non-treaty Indians" who continued to live on land that had already been ceded to the U.S. through treaty.<ref name=":6"/><ref name=":7"/> Homesteaders and other settlers soon followed and took possession of the land for farms and mining. Occasionally, white settlers would move ahead of the U.S. Army, into land that had not yet been settled by the United States, causing conflict with the Native people who still resided there. According to Anglo-American historian Julius Wilm, while the U.S. government did not approve of settlers moving ahead of the army, Indian Affairs officials did believe "the move of frontier whites into the proximity of contested territory—be they homesteaders or parties interested in other pursuits—necessitated the removal of Indigenous nations."<ref name=":6"/>

According to historian Hannah Anderson, the Homestead Act also led to [[environmental degradation]]. While it succeeded in settling and farming the land, the Act failed to preserve the land. Continuous plowing of the top soil made the soil vulnerable to erosion and wind, as well as stripping the nutrients from the ground. This deforestation and erosion would play a key role in the Dust Bowl in the 1930s. Intense logging caused a decrease in much of the forests and hunting harmed many of the native animal populations, including the bison, whose population was reduced to a few hundreds.<ref name=":5"/>

=== Beyond North America: Annexation of Hawaii ===
[[File:Annexation Here to Stay.jpg|thumb|Newspaper reporting the [[Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom|annexation]] of the [[Republic of Hawaii]] in 1898]]
In 1859, [[Reuben Davis (representative)|Reuben Davis]], a member of the House of Representatives from Mississippi, articulated one of the most expansive visions of manifest destiny on record:
<blockquote>We may expand so as to include the whole world. Mexico, Central America, South America, Cuba, the West India Islands, and even England and France [we] might annex without inconvenience... allowing them with their local Legislatures to regulate their local affairs in their own way. And this, Sir, is the mission of this Republic and its ultimate destiny.<ref>[[Thomas A. Bailey]], ''A Diplomatic History of the American People'' (Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc.: New York, 1950), p. 277, n. 38, quoting ''Cong. Globe'', 35 Cong., 2 sess., p. 705 (Feb. 2, 1859); ''but see'' [[Howard Zinn]], ''The Zinn Reader'' (Seven Stories Press: New York, 2009), p. 332, re-printing Zinn's 1970 essay "Aggressive Liberalism", which attributes the quoted language not to Reuben Davis, but to Jefferson Davis.</ref></blockquote>
As the Civil War faded into history, the term ''manifest destiny'' experienced a brief revival. Protestant missionary [[Josiah Strong]], in his best-seller of 1885, [[Our Country (book)|''Our Country'']], argued that the future was devolved upon America since it had perfected the ideals of civil liberty, "a pure spiritual Christianity", and concluded, "My plea is not, Save America for America's sake, but, Save America for the world's sake."<ref>{{Harvard citation no brackets|Strong|1885|pp=107–108}}</ref>

In the [[1892 U.S. presidential election]], the [[History of the United States Republican Party|Republican Party]] platform proclaimed: "We reaffirm our approval of the [[Monroe Doctrine|Monroe doctrine]] and believe in the achievement of the manifest destiny of the Republic in its broadest sense."<ref>{{Cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=AtWgAAAAMAAJ&q=%22achievement+of+the+manifest+destiny+of+the+Republic%22&pg=PA245 |title=Official Manual of the State of Missouri |publisher=Office of the Secretary of State of Missouri |year=1895 |page=245}}</ref> What was meant by "manifest destiny" in this context was not clearly defined, particularly since the Republicans lost the election.

In the [[1896 United States presidential election|1896 election]], the Republicans recaptured the White House and held on to it for the next 16 years. During that time, manifest destiny was cited to promote [[Territorial evolution of the United States|overseas expansion]]. Whether or not this version of manifest destiny was consistent with the continental expansionism of the 1840s was debated at the time, and long afterwards.<ref>Republican Party [http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showplatforms.php?platindex=R1892 platform] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071018004944/http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showplatforms.php?platindex=R1892 |date=October 18, 2007 }}; context not clearly defined, {{Harvard citation no brackets|Merk|1963|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=GhYJTaZiuxwC&pg=PA241 241]}}.</ref>

For example, when President [[William McKinley]] advocated annexation of the [[Republic of Hawaii]] in 1898, he said that "We need Hawaii just as much and a good deal more than we did California. It is manifest destiny." On the other hand, former President [[Grover Cleveland]], a Democrat who had blocked the annexation of Hawaii during his administration, wrote that McKinley's annexation of the territory was a "perversion of our national destiny". Historians continued that debate; some have interpreted American acquisition of other Pacific island groups in the 1890s as an extension of manifest destiny across the Pacific Ocean. Others have regarded it as the antithesis of manifest destiny and merely [[imperialism]].<ref>McKinley quoted in {{Harvard citation no brackets|McDougall|1997|pp=112–113}}; {{Harvard citation no brackets|Merk|1963|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=GhYJTaZiuxwC&pg=PA257 257]}}.</ref>

=== Spanish–American War ===
{{main|Spanish-American War}}
[[File:Well, I hardly know which to take first! 5-28-1898.JPG|thumb|A cartoon of [[Uncle Sam]] seated in restaurant looking at the bill of fare containing "Cuba steak", "Porto Rico pig", the "Philippine Islands" and the "Sandwich Islands" (Hawaii)]]
In 1898, the United States intervened in the Cuban insurrection and launched the [[Spanish–American War]] to force Spain out. According to the terms of the [[Treaty of Paris (1898)|Treaty of Paris]], Spain relinquished sovereignty over Cuba and ceded the [[Philippines|Philippine Islands]], [[Puerto Rico]], and [[Guam]] to the United States. The terms of cession for the Philippines involved a payment of the sum of $20 million by the United States to Spain. The treaty was highly contentious and denounced by [[William Jennings Bryan]], who tried to make it a central issue in [[1900 United States presidential election|the 1900 election]], which he lost to McKinley.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Bailey |first=Thomas A. |authorlink=Thomas A. Bailey |year=1937 |title=Was the Presidential Election of 1900 a Mandate on Imperialism? |journal=[[Mississippi Valley Historical Review]] |volume=24 |issue=1 |pages=43–52 |doi=10.2307/1891336 |jstor=1891336}}</ref>

The [[Teller Amendment]], passed unanimously by the U.S. Senate before the war, which proclaimed Cuba "free and independent", forestalled annexation of the island. The [[Platt Amendment]] (1902) then established Cuba as a virtual [[protectorate]] of the United States.<ref>{{Citation |last=Beede |first=Benjamin R. |title=The War of 1898, and U.S. Interventions, 1898–1934: An Encyclopedia |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=48g116X9IIwC |work=Military History of the United States; v. 2. Garland reference library of the humanities; vol. 933 |pages=[https://books.google.com/books?id=48g116X9IIwC&pg=PA119 119–121] |year=1994 |postscript=. |publisher=Taylor & Francis |isbn=978-0-8240-5624-7}}</ref>

=== American Samoa ===
The United States, [[German Empire]], and United Kingdom participted in the [[Tripartite Convention]] of 1899 at the end of the [[Second Samoan Civil War]], resulting in the formal partition of the [[Samoan archipelago]] into a [[German Samoa|German colony]] and the U.S. territory of what is now called [[American Samoa]]. The United States annexed [[Tutuila]] in 1900, [[Manu'a]] in 1904, and [[Swains Island]] in 1925.<ref name=AmericanSamoa>{{Cite USGov|agency=United States Department of the Interior|title=American Samoa|url=https://www.doi.gov/oia/islands/american-samoa#:~:text=Political%20Status,Manu'a%20followed%20in%201904.|access-date=2025-04-05}}</ref><ref>Ryden, George Herbert. ''The Foreign Policy of the United States in Relation to Samoa''. New York: Octagon Books, 1975. (Reprint by special arrangement with Yale University Press. Originally published at New Haven: Yale University Press, 1928), p. 574. The Tripartite Convention (United States, Germany, Great Britain) was signed at Washington on December 2, 1899, with ratifications exchanged on February 16, 1900.</ref>

The eastern Samoan islands became a territory of the United States.<ref name="DoI">{{cite web|url=https://www.doi.gov/oia/islands/american-samoa|title=American Samoa Office of Insular Affairs|publisher=U.S. Department of the Interior|date=June 11, 2015|website=www.doi.gov|access-date=August 11, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180309054757/https://www.doi.gov/oia/islands/american-samoa|archive-date=March 9, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> The western islands, by far the greater landmass, became known as [[German Samoa]], after Britain gave up all claims to Samoa and in return accepted the termination of German rights in Tonga and certain areas in the [[Solomon Islands]] and [[West Africa]].<ref>Ryden, p. 571</ref> Forerunners to the [[Tripartite Convention]] of 1899 were the Washington Conference of 1887, the [[Treaty of Berlin (1889)|Treaty of Berlin of 1889]], and the Anglo-German Agreement on Samoa of 1899.

The following year, the U.S. formally [[Annexation|annexed]] its portion, a smaller group of eastern islands, one of which contains the noted harbor of [[Pago Pago, American Samoa|Pago Pago]].<ref name="Americans, Almost and Forgotten">Lin, Tom C.W., [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3454210 Americans, Almost and Forgotten] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200921093931/https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3454210 |date=September 21, 2020 }}, 107 California Law Review (2019)</ref> After the [[United States Navy]] took possession of eastern Samoa for the [[Federal government of the United States|United States government]], the existing [[coaling station]] at Pago Pago Bay was expanded into a full [[Naval base|naval station]], known as [[United States Naval Station Tutuila]] and commanded by a commandant. The Navy secured a [[Deed of Cession of Tutuila]] in 1900 and a [[Deed of Cession of Manu{{okina}}a]] in 1904 on behalf of the U.S. government. The last sovereign of Manu{{okina}}a, the [[Tui Manua Elisala|Tui Manu{{okina}}a Elisala]], signed a Deed of Cession of Manu{{okina}}a following a series of U.S. naval trials, known as the "Trial of the Ipu", in Pago Pago, Ta{{okina}}u, and aboard a [[Pacific Squadron]] gunboat.<ref>{{cite book |author=Joanne Barker |title=Sovereignty Matters: Locations of Contestation and Possibility in Indigenous Struggles for Self-determination |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=nHp7-BTy57MC&pg=PA109 |date=2005 |publisher=U of Nebraska Press |isbn=0-8032-5198-X |page=109 |chapter=Passive Resistance of Samoans to US and Other Colonialisms |access-date=October 12, 2015 |archive-date=June 21, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200621021648/https://books.google.com/books?id=nHp7-BTy57MC&pg=PA109%2F |url-status=live }}</ref> The territory became known as the [[United States Naval Station Tutuila|U.S. Naval Station Tutuila]].

On July 17, 1911, the U.S. Naval Station Tutuila, which was composed of Tutuila, [[Aunu{{okina}}u]] and Manu{{okina}}a, was officially renamed American Samoa.<ref>{{cite news |first=Stan |last=Sorensen |title=Historical Notes|page =2 |url=http://americansamoa.gov/tapuitea/2006/Tapuitea60712.pdf |work=Tapuitea |date=July 12, 2006 |access-date=August 16, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110926183511/http://americansamoa.gov/tapuitea/2006/Tapuitea60712.pdf |archive-date=September 26, 2011 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Manu{{okina}}a celebrates 105 years under the U.S. Flag |url=http://www.samoanews.com/viewstory.php?storyid=7779 |work=[[Samoa News]] |date=July 16, 2009 |access-date=August 16, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110927012532/http://www.samoanews.com/viewstory.php?storyid=7779 |archive-date=September 27, 2011 }}</ref> People of [[Manu{{okina}}a]] had been unhappy since they were left out of the name "Naval Station Tutuila". In May 1911, Governor [[William Michael Crose]] authored a letter to the Secretary of the Navy conveying the sentiments of Manu{{okina}}a. The department responded that the people should choose a name for their new territory. The traditional leaders chose "American Samoa", and, on July 7, 1911, the [[Solicitor General of the Navy|solicitor general of the Navy]] authorized the governor to proclaim it as the name for the new territory.<ref name="Sunia-2009">Sunia, Fofo I.F. (2009). ''A History of American Samoa''. Amerika Samoa Humanities Council. {{ISBN|978-1573062992}}.</ref>{{rp|209}}

=== Insular cases ===
{{main|Insular cases}}
The acquisition of [[Territory of Hawaii|Hawaii]], the [[Philippines]], [[Puerto Rico]], [[Guam]], and [[American Samoa]] marked a new chapter in U.S. history. Traditionally, territories were acquired by the United States for the purpose of becoming new states on equal footing with already existing states. These islands were acquired as colonies rather than prospective states. The process was validated by the [[Insular Cases]]. The Supreme Court ruled that full constitutional rights did not automatically extend to all areas under American control.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Torruella |first=Juan |date=Fall 2013 |title=Ruling America's Colonies: The 'Insular Cases' |url=https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1652&context=ylpr |format=PDF |journal=[[Yale Law & Policy Review]] |volume=32 |issue=1 |pages=65–68 |jstor=23736226}}</ref> The Philippines became [[Treaty of Manila (1946)|independent in 1946]] and Hawaii [[Hawaii Admission Act|became a state]] in 1959, but Puerto Rico, Guam, and American Samoa remain territories.<ref name="Immerwahr">{{cite book|last=Immerwahr|first=Daniel|title=How to Hide an Empire : A Short History of the Greater United States|url=https://play.google.com/store/books/details/Daniel_Immerwahr_How_to_Hide_an_Empire?id=GYtbDwAAQBAJ|year=2019|publisher=Vintage Publishing|isbn=978-1-84792-399-8}}</ref>

According to Frederick Merk, these colonial acquisitions marked a break from the original intention of manifest destiny. Previously, "Manifest Destiny had contained a principle so fundamental that a Calhoun and an O'Sullivan could agree on it—that a people not capable of rising to statehood should never be annexed. That was the principle thrown overboard by the imperialism of 1899."<ref>{{Harvard citation no brackets|Merk|1963|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=GhYJTaZiuxwC&pg=PA257 257]}}.</ref> [[Albert Beveridge|Albert J. Beveridge]] maintained the contrary at his September 25, 1900, speech in the Auditorium, at Chicago. He declared that the current desire for Cuba and the other acquired territories was identical to the views expressed by Washington, Jefferson and Marshall. Moreover, "the sovereignty of the Stars and Stripes can be nothing but a blessing to any people and to any land."<ref>{{Harvard citation no brackets|Beveridge|1908|p=123}}</ref> The nascent [[First Philippine Republic|revolutionary government]], desirous of independence, resisted the United States in the [[Philippine–American War]] in 1899; it won no support from any government anywhere and collapsed when its leader was captured. [[William Jennings Bryan]] denounced the war and any form of future overseas expansion, writing, {{"'}}Destiny' is not as manifest as it was a few weeks ago."<ref>{{Harvard citation no brackets|Bryan|1899}}.</ref>

=== 20th-century reforms ===

In 1917, all Puerto Ricans were made full American citizens via the [[Jones–Shafroth Act|Jones Act]], which also provided for a popularly elected legislature and a bill of rights, and authorized the election of a Resident Commissioner who has a voice (but no vote) in Congress.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Glass |first=Andrew |date=March 2, 2008 |title=Puerto Ricans nranted U.S. citizenship March 2, 1917 |work=[[Politico]] |url=https://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8771.html}}</ref> In 1934, the [[Tydings–McDuffie Act]] put the Philippines on a path to independence, which was realized in 1946 with the [[Treaty of Manila (1946)|Treaty of Manila]]. The [[Guam Organic Act of 1950]] established Guam alongside Puerto Rico as an unincorporated unorganized [[territory of the United States]], provided for the structure of the island's civilian government, and granted the people U.S. citizenship.

=== 21st century ===
{{main|American expansionism under Donald Trump}}
In 2025, [[Donald Trump]] became the first president to use the phrase "manifest destiny" during an [[United_States_presidential_inauguration#Inaugural_address|inaugural address]],<ref>{{cite web |url=https://abcnews.go.com/538/video/trumps-term-begins-538-politics-podcast-117938628 |title=Trump's Second Term Begins - 538 Politics Podcast |website=ABC News |access-date=2025-01-24}}</ref> declaring an extension of American influence "into the stars" with ambitions to plant the U.S. flag on [[Mars]].<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.whitehouse.gov/remarks/2025/01/the-inaugural-address/ |title=The Inaugural Address |website=[[White House]] |date=January 20, 2025 |access-date=2025-01-24}}</ref> Since being elected, Trump has suggested at various points to annex [[Canada]], [[Greenland]], and the [[Panama Canal]], to [[Proposed United States invasion of Venezuela|invade Venezuela]] and Mexico,<ref>{{cite web |title=Read the full transcript: President-elect Donald Trump interviewed by "Meet the Press" moderator Kristen Welker |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-interview-meet-press-kristen-welker-election-president-rcna182857 |website=nbcnews.com |date=8 December 2024 |publisher=NBC News |access-date=2 February 2025 |archive-date=31 January 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250131210613/https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-interview-meet-press-kristen-welker-election-president-rcna182857 |url-status=live}}</ref> and to [[Potential American ownership of the Gaza Strip|take over the Gaza Strip]].