Manifest Destiny Wasn't Destiny—It Was a Choice
A Promise Made, A Promise Broken
When I was a kid in Chicago, I remember looking at maps and thinking borders were just... there. Natural. Permanent. Like rivers or mountains.
It wasn't until college that I learned borders are political choices. Someone drew those lines. Someone decided which side was "ours" and which side wasn't.
And someone gave that choice a name that made it sound inevitable: Manifest Destiny.
This issue, we're unpacking “manifest destiny. Because understanding how the border was created—and the ideology that is justified helps us understand why we're still fighting about what “American” means and who belongs.
The Big Idea: Destiny as Justification
Manifest Destiny was the 1840s belief that the United States was destined—by God, by nature, by history—to expand across the North American continent.
But here's what they don't teach you in school: it wasn't destiny. It was a choice.
A contested choice. A choice many Americans opposed. A choice that succeeded through violence, through war, through broken promises.
And if it was a choice then, it's a choice now.
What Manifest Destiny Actually Said.
The Core Ideology (1840s)
Manifest Destiny claimed three things:
Inevitability - Expansion was going to happen no matter what.
Superiority - Anglo-Saxon Americans were racially and culturally superior.
Divine blessing - God wanted the U.S. to expand.
John O'Sullivan coined the term in 1845, writing that it was America's "manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence."
Translation: We're supposed to take this land. It's God's plan.
What This Meant for Mexicans
If expansion was "destiny," then Mexicans in the way of that destiny had to be:
Inferior (racially, culturally, morally).
Obstacles to progress.
Threats to civilization.
Though Mexicans legally became Americans after the US-Mexico War, this is the beginning of viewing and thinking about any "Mexican" negatively, as a reference tied to crime, threat, and societal issues needing a final solution.
Key point: The ideology came first. The war came second. Racialization justified both.
It Wasn't Inevitable—People Opposed It
Here's what they don't tell you: Manifest Destiny was controversial.
Many Americans—including prominent figures—opposed the Mexican American War and the ideology behind it.
Henry David Thoreau, an influential American writer/essayist, refused to pay taxes to fund the war. He went to jail for it. He wrote Civil Disobedience, arguing that unjust laws don't deserve obedience.
Abraham Lincoln (then a congressman) challenged President Polk to show exactly where American blood was shed on "American soil," questioning whether the war was defensive or aggressive.
Frederick Douglass called the war "disgraceful, cruel, and iniquitous" and connected it directly to the expansion of slavery.
What this tells us: The war wasn't inevitable. The ideology wasn't universal. There were Americans who saw it for what it was—a land grab justified by racist ideology.
From 1840s Ideology to 2026 Border Politics
The Ideology Didn't End—It Evolved. Manifest Destiny didn't disappear after 1848. It transformed.
Then (1840s):
"Mexicans don't belong on this land".
"We're destined to expand".
"They're inferior/obstacles to progress".
Now (2026):
"Mexicans & Mexican Americans don't belong in this country".
"We need to secure the border".
"They're criminals/threats to security".
Same logic. Different language.
The "manifest destiny" continues:
After the war, Mexicans who stayed in the newly American Southwest had to be constructed as threats to justify ongoing exclusion, surveillance, and control.
The irony: Mexicans were granted full citizenship, but they and their descendants were never fully acknowledged as such in theory or practice.
When people ask you, "Where are you really from?" or when your citizenship is questioned, or when you're told to "go back to Mexico"—
The ideology that says Mexicans don't belong here. Even though we were here first.
Mexican American History as Response:
Manifest Destiny said: This is inevitable. This is how history unfolds.
Credible scholarship says: it was a choice then, and it's a choice now.
While we can’t choose our history, we can control our narrative and how we are remembered.
We get to choose:
How we tell the story of the borderlands.
Who belongs and on what terms.
Whether we accept the categories imposed on us or create something new.
Critical Borderland Consciousness, not “in-betweeness”; instead, existence.
Critical Borderland Consciousness (our new theoretical lens) explains why we're not stuck in between; we are negotiating where we fit. (Next issue and forthcoming podcast)
We're not writing ourselves into history. We're reclaiming the history that was always ours.
Existence is a state of being premised on what is needed when it's needed and how it's needed.
We're not proving we belong. We're creating space where belonging isn't a question.
Reflection Questions / Preguntas para Reflexionar.
For Students:
When you hear "border security" or "illegal immigration" rhetoric, who decided which side of the border is "ours"? And when did that decision get made?
Where in your life are you still accepting "destiny" that someone else wrote for you? What would it look like to write your own?
How does understanding Manifest Destiny as a choice (not destiny) change how you think about current border politics?
For Educators:
How do you teach Westward Expansion? Does your curriculum present it as inevitable or as contested?
What would it look like to teach the Mexican American War from the perspective of those who opposed it?
How can you help students see the connection between 1840s ideology and contemporary border rhetoric without overwhelming them?
Kiddos and the Classroom
Hi! My name is José del Refugio, but my friends call me “Cuco”, which is an apodo (a-po-doe) or nickname for my name “Refugio”. So, please, call me Cuco! I want to introduce my best friend, Monica. She wears clothes similar to mine. Where I am a pachuco, she is a pachuca.
Food for thought!
1. What do you notice about how Monica and Cuco are dressed? How is their style different from what you usually see?
2. Monica is dressed as a "pachuca"—a style that Mexican American women wore to show pride in who they were. What are some ways you show pride in your own culture or family?
3. Look at the background of the picture. What do you see that reminds you of your own neighborhood, barrio, or community
4. Cuco and Monica look happy and confident walking together. What do you think makes them feel proud of who they are?
5. The pachuca style was a way for young women to be bold and creative. What's something bold or creative you've done that made you feel proud?
The Profe Podcast
Here, we have conversations about anything and everything concerning Mexican/Mexican Americans within the context of US history as well as the US-Mexico Borderland.
Manifest Destiny and the Americanization of the West.
Imposter Syndrome and 1st-generation Mexican American college students.
Hispanic, Latino, Chicano, “Oh, my!”
Contact Us: [email protected]
We offer customized:
Lesson plans
Interactive class activities
Custom podcasts conversations
Professional Development presentations
Culturally themed presentations
We're here to help you with your educational journey and personal growth goals, making it a fun & enjoyable experience!
Sharing the email = sharing some love, thank you!
