Manifest destiny was coined by John O’Sullivan. O’Sullivan was a Confederate sympathizing journalist who was core to the push towards Texas annexation. But Manifest Destiny was always an idea in America. Founded, ironically, in opposition to European colonization that led to lackluster representation and abridgement of fundamental human rights– America would be built by colonization of the indigenous peoples of the Americas just like the Europeans and would grow thanks to the harshest and most evil form of slavery. Jefferson would be apt to cite lofty ideas like ‘liberty’ and ‘justice,’ and would rightly fight for it in some ways, but with indigenous groups and enslaved peoples he would be core to spitting in the face of those ideas.
Manifest destiny, however, was something that people wanted in early America, that had an undercurrent under American policy, and affected artistic works of the time– but it wasn’t a national policy. That is until John Tyler, wishing to expand slavery, made it that way. Unpopular and without a party, he, leaving office, declared the annexation of Texas. This made the core issue of the election moot, as Tyler himself had promoted Polk with the little patronage he had if Polk promised to annex Texas. This made the Polk administration, mostly focused on the Oregon territory they promised to annex completely (and didn’t), somewhat distracted by an influx of people complaining about how Americans on Texan disputed soil were being oppressed by Mexico. Polk, a Jacksonian and therefore a populist, quickly sent American troops to the disputed territory, hoping for conflict. When the conflict came he had an excuse to declare war on a weaker nation citing the idea that “American blood had been shed on American soil.” With this America was no longer a victim of the original sin of Europe, conquering land that they wanted and colonizing it– they were an imperial power like those that would emerge in the 19th and 20th centuries. While America would not be a world power or superpower until the Spanish American War, which was equally about Manifest Destiny, they were now a nationalistic power instead of an agrarian aristocratic confederacy like most of the founders wanted.
But was Manifest Destiny inevitable? Yes, like the colonization of the Americas, Manifest Destiny was made inevitable by long running geographic and political-cultural factors. For the colonization of the Americas– Europe, Asia, Northern Africa, and Western Oceania were connected and therefore all advancements of one became an advancement of the other. This led to quicker development and more of a need for written record keeping, capitalism, and war. The interconnectedness led to many wars, which allowed for more defined power structures and better technology for war. Geographic and temperature variety that could not be found to as high an extent in the Americas led to more need for different inventions. Why didn’t the Sahara need wheels? Well, they couldn’t use them in the dessert. Why didn’t the Swiss need camels? Well, they couldn’t use them in the alps. But now both Carthage and Rome would have wheels and camels. Native American culture wasn’t worse, weaker, or less developed. It was just better suited for the Americas. And the Americas did not need war or conquering. Europe and Asia did. Europe happened to claim the Americas. Likewise, Manifest Destiny was inevitable when Enlightenment Era ideals caused separatist movements within the colonies. These colonies wanted to have the power of Europe because of the cultural framework they found themselves raised in. But because Europe couldn’t easily be conquered, nor Asia or Northern Africa, their eyes were set on the tribal groups that had not conquered Carthage, Rome, Kyoto, Beijing, or Babylonia. It’s not surprising to me, then, that when America became powerful with the turn into the 20th century they began to conquer (or at least try to conquer) Spain, Ottoman, Italy, Bulgaria, Germany, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Serbia, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
How did the indigenous groups respond? The same way conquered groups in Europe, Africa, and Asia did. Differently. Some sought compromise. The Horse Creek Treaty saw indigenous groups compromising for fear that if they did not then worse conquering would occur. You can see the same happen in Rome during the conquering Carthage. Others rebelled and violently attacked. In the first case of what could be interpreted as Manifest Destiny, long before the term was coined, the wars of King Phillips and Queen Anne saw Hanna Duston witness the brutal murder of her child (allegedly) at the hands of the Narragansett. Some rolled over and gave up. The Indian Removal Act that led to the Trail of Tears saw very little push back. This is, of course, an oversimplification. Each tribe was as complicated as the people within them. Individuals within the tribes did not always fit the overarching generalizations. Some Seminoles perhaps sought peace. Some Creeks perhaps fought back. But overall, different tribes responded differently.
The same can be said about the Americans. Even at the time many Americans found objections to indigenous mistreatment. But their voice was drowned out by the majority and those in power. Jacksonians dominated the post-founding–pre-Civil-War era. And Jacksonains craved conquering. As it seems, Black Hawk, Metacomet, and Tecumseh could not defeat those who claimed destiny.