Final answer:
An opposing view towards annexation in the 19th century was that it was morally wrong, particularly due to its association with the spread of slavery and the impact on national unity. Figures such as John C. Calhoun and Abraham Lincoln predicted divisive national debates, and annexation from a Mexican perspective was seen as an infringement of sovereignty.
Step-by-step explanation:
Opposing Views Towards Annexation
An opposing view towards annexation during the 19th century included the perception that annexation is morally wrong. Throughout various periods, such as the annexation of Texas and the Mexican-American War, different groups and notable individuals held strong stances against the expansion of the United States due to its association with the spread of slavery and the moral implications involved.
From the Mexican perspective, American actions, such as the annexation of Texas, were seen as an infringement of sovereignty and territorial integrity. This was imbued with racial attitudes and a sense of American superiority. When considering the annexation of the Philippines, economic and social reasons were also cited by groups like the Anti-Imperialist League, highlighting concerns about adding new racial groups to the U.S. nationality. Moreover, figures like John C. Calhoun and Abraham Lincoln foresaw the rekindling of national debate over slavery and recognized the sectional divide that the annexation and expansion could exacerbate, posing a threat to national unity.
Thus, the primary objections to annexation revolved around moral concerns, fears of disrupting the balance between free and slave states, and the social and economic ramifications of incorporating new territories and populations into the United States.