Trump's Manifest Destiny, Pt. 1

In the shadow of Jackson and Polk

Donald Trump probably does not know it, but he is in the footsteps of President James K. Polk. Polk was an admirer of Andrew Jackson. If one recalls, Jackson brutally marched the American Indians out of the east into the Midwest. As a general, he also invaded Spanish Florida in 1818. The next year Spain decided to sign a treaty surrendering Florida to the USA. After serving as military governor of Florida, he moved back to his plantation in Tennessee where he owned hundreds of slaves.

Polk was also from Tennessee, but he co-owned a plantation in Mississippi where he, like Jackson, owned many slaves. While in congress Polk strongly allied himself with President Jackson. And, like Jackson, Polk believed in American expansionism. Jackson directed his efforts to the south; Polk looked west. He was such a zealot for manifest destiny he was willing to go to war over the issue. He first threatened war with Britain over the Oregon Territory, but got a settlement in 1846.

Polk did go to war, in two stages, with Mexico. First, Polk accepted the annexation of Texas, fixing its border at the Rio Grande, knowing Mexico claimed the Nueces River as Texas’ southern boundary. Mexico now broke relations with the USA. General Zachary Taylor deliberately violated the Mexican border and then blockaded the city of Matamoros. This led to hostilities. The shooting skirmishes gave Polk the pretext to say Mexico had “shed American blood on American soil”; knowing full well that Mexico did not see it that way. (If anyone is reminded here of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, give yourself a pat on the back.)

But Polk had designs beyond Texas. So he sent an army expedition to Santa Fe, and another to California to foment a rebellion in the northern part of Mexico. When Mexico was defeated, this gave Polk the grounding to annex all of northern Mexico. This consisted of what later became California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, an undisputed claim to Texas, almost all of Arizona, and parts of Colorado, and Wyoming. All in all, it was 55% of what had been Mexico. Mexico got 15 million. Talk about a fire sale.

One should add, a major reason why Texas wanted to split from Mexico was because Mexico had outlawed slavery in 1829. Finally, Abraham Lincoln violently opposed Polk’s war policy and he wanted to know exactly where American blood was shed, knowing that it was in disputed territory.

If one looks at a map from before the battle over Texas, one can easily see why the Gulf of Mexico was labeled as it was. It had been named that since at least 1672, when French Jesuits used the term. But President Trump, in the shadow of Polk, wants to rename that large body of water the Gulf of America. In fact, there is now a dispute between the White House and the AP news service over this issue. Because the rest of the world uses the original term. (CBS News, 2/12/25, story by Kiki Intarasuwan)

If that was Trump’s only Polk/Jackson claim. Not even close. Trump and his Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, have also decided to confront Panama over the Canal Zone. For anyone who knows the true history of America and the Panama Canal, its roughly analogous to Polk in Mexico. And its amazing that Trump and Rubio either ignore it or discount it.

First, Panama was actually part of Columbia directly prior to Teddy Roosevelt’s decision to build the Panama Canal. And Roosevelt was convinced to do this by the Frenchman Philippe Bunau-Varilla. He had been part of the previous failed French effort to build a canal through Panama connecting the Atlantic with the Pacific. When the idea was revived in France years later, he went to New York and recruited William Nelson Cromwell--part of the powerhouse lobbying firm Sullivan and Cromwell—to:

1.) Talk the White House out of building the canal at an alternative route through Nicaragua, and

2.) Start a rebellion in Panama when the senate in Colombia would not pass a treaty providing for its construction.

About the last, Teddy Roosevelt and Bunau-Varilla cooperated to make the rebellion succeed. Roosevelt sent a fleet into the area to block any forces coming from Colombia; the Frenchman drafted the new country’s constitution. He then made himself ambassador to the US, even though he had not lived in Panama for nearly two decades. No Panamanian signed the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty. But it was ratified in Panama on December 2, 1903. With little exaggeration one can say that Roosevelt and Bunau-Varilla stole Panama in order to build the canal. Bunau- Varilla become a millionaire because of this heist.

Make no mistake, later on Panama realized that the northerners had stolen the canal, and now owned and operated it on their land. In January of 1964, violent riots broke out with dozens of deaths. It got so bad the American embassy had to be abandoned. That day was annually honored as Martyrs’ Day in Panama. It set the stage for the signing of the 1977 Torrijos-Carter Treaties. That agreement led to Panama taking control of the Canal Zone in 1999. President Carter forcefully used this dark history to get the treaty through the senate.

During his inaugural address, Trump said, “China is operating the Panama Canal and we didn’t give it to China. We gave it to Panama and we’re taking it back.” Trump also complained about high fees being charged to American vessels for passage. President Jose Raul Mulino denied both accusations.

The reality is that China has become a maritime superpower, while America has all but stopped shipbuilding. China makes about 95% of the world’s shipping containers. Therefore nearly 90% of US freight is transported by three ocean carrier cartels made up of foreign corporations. (The Hill, article by Arnav Rao, 2/13/25)

Because of this massive industry, China is a heavy user of the Panama Canal. Chinese companies have invested in a cruise terminal and a bridge to be built over the canal.

What Trump is really upset about is the fact that Panama signed up for China’s Belt and Road Initiative, a colossal infrastructure and investment project, which is really a part of BRICS. When Panama joined, they were followed by Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Honduras. At the same time, these countries severed relations with Taiwan. This was a large defeat for American foreign policy. And it was done under Trump’s first administration. (BBC report, by Shawn Yuan, 1/22/25). Thus the Rubio/Trump threat of gunboat diplomacy, recalling Teddy Roosevelt. It seems to have worked. Panama has now said it will not renew the Road and Beltway membership when it expires. (Reuters, report by Simon Lewis and Michael Martina, 2/3/25)

Then there is Trump’s utterly bizarre claim to Gaza. In a joint address with Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump said that America will assert its sovereignty over the Gaza Strip, remove the 2 million Palestinians there and turn the area into, “something really nice, really good”, transform it into “the Riviera of the Middle East.” (Patrick Lawrence, Consortium News, 2/11/25)

One might ask, in a Lincolnesque Jackson/Polk disclaimer: what claim does the USA have to the Gaza strip? If one recalls, Palestine existed there before the United Nations decided to divide up the area into two states in 1947. The problem was that, as Stefan Moore described it, this plan was designed and strongly in favor of the Zionist interests, especially that of David Ben Gurion. It took three days to pass the final UN resolution, there was that much resistance. And according to both Jawaharlal Nehru and John Kennedy, bribery was involved. (Consortium News, 2/14/25; see also Lawrence) Resolution 181 was non-binding and never endorsed by the Security Council. It also violated the UN charter, which calls for the “principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.” (Ibid, Moore)

If the UN tried to pass something like this again through the General Assembly, it would very likely fail. So through what authority would Trump be able to do something like seizing Gaza? Would he take the Hillary Clinton route and use NATO?

But that is not all. Trump also wants to move the Palestinians from Gaza to Jordan and Egypt. It does not appear that he asked those countries’ leaders about this huge transmittal in advance. Since neither nation was accepting of such an endeavor. But that does not matter to our president. Trump replied, “They say they’re not going to accept. I say they will.” (ibid, Lawrence)

There is also this slight problem: How could one build a Riviera type construction project with Hamas still there? Contrary to what Benjamin Netanyahu proclaimed at the beginning of the last war, Israel did not eliminate either Hamas or Hezbollah. In the face of Hamas and Hezbollah, Trump made the puzzling remark: that this Riviera project would not involve American troops. Oh really? Without massive bloodshed? On his Truth Social site Trump wrote that, “The Gaza Strip would be turned over to the United States by Israel at the conclusion of fighting.” (ibid, Lawrence) Which sidesteps the fact that there is a truce set up with prisoner exchanges in process.

Let us make no mistake, President Biden—and before that Senator Biden—was, for all intents and purposes, a lackey of the Likud Party in Israel. He had no problem in granting more and more money—in the billions—to Netanyahu to prosecute a war that largely consisted of bombing homes and businesses in Gaza and killing innocent civilians. But Trump has taken Biden’s terrible judgment a step further. No prior president, or high official for that matter, has ever stated that somehow the USA had any kind of claim over Palestinian territory. Let alone the right to deport nearly 2 million people both north and south out of their area. Trump is now doing Netanyahu’s dirty work for him.

How to explain this radical departure? As they say in Washington, money talks and bullshit walks. Sheldon Adelson became a billionaire off of his Las Vegas holdings--specifically the Las Vegas Sands Corporation, which spent 1.5 billion to build The Venetian. But he also built casinos in Pennsylvania, Singapore and Macau. As to our point here, he owned at least two newspapers in Israel and he was buried in Jerusalem.

In 2015, Adelson was enraged when James Baker delivered a talk before the J Street moderate Jewish lobby in Washington. (Jason Zengerle, New York magazine, 9/9/2015) In 2016 he endorsed Trump for president and said he would give up to 100 million to support his campaign. (Jonathan Martin, NY Times, May 13, 2016) Adelson passed on in 2021. His wife Miriam is of the same persuasion when it comes to Israel. She donated 100 million to the Trump campaign for 2024. Which was a large leap from the 20 million the Adelsons gave in 2016. (WFAA report of 10/30/2024, by Paul Livengood).

Needless to say, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, that kind of money gives you a lot of influence anywhere in Washington, particularly in the White House. It makes a mockery out of the concept of democracy. Which, in the face of Trump’s relationship with Elon Musk and Miriam Adelson, recalls the famous dictum of Anatole France: “The law in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal their bread.”

Just remember, President Kennedy had members of the SDS transported to the White House to discuss his attempt to get a test ban treaty with Russia. This is how far we have fallen. (American Prospect, 4/5/22, article by Robert Kuttner).

In Part 2: Greenland, Canada, Musk in Germany and Ukraine