Westward Expansion, Manifest Destiny & Contested Land — Practice · Grade 7 Social Studies
Chapter: Expansion, Slavery & ReformWhat this practice covers
By the end of Westward Expansion, Manifest Destiny & Contested Land you should be able to:
- I can explain what Manifest Destiny claimed and who coined the phrase.
- I can describe how Texas went from Mexican province to American state.
- I can explain why each new territory sharpened the slavery crisis.
8 questions, written answer, each with a worked explanation.
Vocabulary used: context, primary source, interpretation, annexation, Manifest Destiny.
Problem 1
Answer and explanation
Purchase, annexation, and war involved different actors, agreements, and conditions. The Louisiana Purchase, Texas annexation, and territorial transfer after the Mexican-American War were not one mechanism. Distinguishing them also helps explain contested boundaries and the consequences for communities already living in the territories.
Problem 2
Answer and explanation
Manifest Destiny supplied a justification for expansion, not proof that alternatives were impossible. Claims of national opportunity must be compared with opposition and with consequences for Native nations, Mexican residents, and others. A benefit asserted by one speaker does not establish universal benefit.
Problem 3
Answer and explanation
Ask who signed, whom they represented, whether their authority was contested, and what pressures shaped the agreement. A signed document establishes an agreement by particular parties. It does not by itself demonstrate free consent by every person or recognized institution in the affected nation.
Problem 4
Answer and explanation
New territories reopened questions about slavery’s extension and the admission of states. Those decisions affected labor arrangements and representation, especially the balance in the Senate. Changing territorial claims therefore also changed the constitutional and political stakes of the sectional conflict.
Problem 5
Answer and explanation
The act and removal were related but distinct events separated by years and a presidential transition. Jackson supported the 1830 act; Van Buren was president during the principal forced Cherokee removal. A causal account must include intervening treaties, resistance, state pressure, and federal action. Correct chronology does not reduce the consequences or erase institutional responsibility.
Separate legislation from implementation.
Place events under different administrations.
Identify the continuing policy and the particular actors who implemented it.
Response criteria
- Describe the historical context and institutions accurately.
- Connect relevant evidence with an explained claim or calculation.
- Represent particular perspectives without stereotypes or invented testimony.
- Identify an assumption, evidentiary limit, or distinction that qualifies the conclusion.
Problem 6
Answer and explanation
No. Diplomatic terms, legal recognition, and actual enforcement are different evidence. Examine the treaty’s provisions alongside later courts, land records, and residents’ accounts. A territorial transfer can change governing claims while rights remain contested or are undermined.
Response criteria
- Describe the historical context and institutions accurately.
- Connect relevant evidence with an explained claim or calculation.
- Represent particular perspectives without stereotypes or invented testimony.
- Identify an assumption, evidentiary limit, or distinction that qualifies the conclusion.
Problem 7
Answer and explanation
No. A transfer of claims between governments is not universal Native consent. Examine nation-specific treaties, relationships, settlement, and enforcement.
Problem 8
Answer and explanation
It hides choices, conflict, coercion, resistance, and alternatives. Explain specific institutions and decisions rather than treating an ideology as a natural law.