The Benevolence of the Manifest Destiny

[8thvacav]

Originally Posted by ole

Are we discussing what? The native Americans got the short end of the stick. And you would have us do what? Return the short-grass prairies to them? It's over. The nation did them wrong, but it's finished. A reality.

All the hand-wringing and weeping can do nothing to change it. Many of our ancestors screwed them real good. That wasn't the only time someone got the short end, and it will not likely be the last time. But here we are, looking ahead, not back.

Blaming God or those who claimed to speak for him is dust in the wind. There was opportunity there, and blood was shed for its fulfillment. The sun will come up tomorrow.
Ole

Well I guess you could say the same about slavery and the CW. Then what would we talk about. That's a easy way out. (The sun will come up tomorrow.
.
Martin

[dawna]

Cash:

I've read a fair bit regarding 19th century pioneer women (they are my heroes) and the harshness and reality of the lives of the people at that time. Their spirit, determination and tenacity is inspiring to me, especially as I sit here and contemplate this with my brew of Tim Horton's coffee, while safely nestled in an ambiance of comfort and well-being.

That post doesn't address "Northern Capitalism" in the era of Manifest Destiny. Once again, how does "Northern Capitalism" fit into Manifest Destiny, and why weren't "Southern capitalists" as hypocritical as "Northern capitalists?"

Since the United States more than tripled it's geographical size from the beginning to the end of the 19th century, and the last major land purchase within the U.S. was in 1853, I believe that my post does reflect Northern Capitalism in the era of Manifest Destiny. And I honestly can't think of a better example of war-time profiteering than the likes of Jay Gould and Marcellus Hartley. I do understand though how I have created confusion with respect to Capitalist greed (applicable to all of the U.S.) and Northern Capitalism at the time of the Civil War. For this I apologize and I fear that now I have fallen from the 'very bad' to the 'quite wicked,' ...blame it on the Manifest Destiny! :-)

Regarding capitalist greed, do you not see the California gold rush, the push for railroad expansion, and vast tracts of beckoning land as a huge draw and aurulent opportunity for bankers, merchants, traders, miners and farmers who hoped to strike it rich?

Again, I would be more than happy to participate in a discussion devoted to Southern Profiteers...perhaps you would like to start a new thread?

Puerile has nothing to do with it. They had a different world view. They didn't believe the land belonged to anyone. By and large, they weren't territorial.

The Indians believed the land was sacred and should be regarded with a deep respect and reverence. Europeans viewed the land as an obstacle, a commodity, and theirs for the taking. The Indian's appreciation of the spirit of nature and their widespread belief in the Great Spirit was as intense and realistic as the Christian God who was brought to America via the Manifest Destiny.

I don't understand your point. Meliority means "the state or quality of being better" as in an improved situation. Why apologize for improving a situation?

I'm afraid you are taking my meaning 'out of context.' With reference to my statement, the meaning is "superior."

There were people who had a genuine humanitarian outlook toward the Indians and sought to ameliorate their condition.

I too believe that there were some good and decent people who where benevolent towards the Indians and who genuinely believed that they were improving the quality of the Indian's lives.

What I'm saying is that the concept of Manifest Destiny itself was neither moral nor immoral. Actions taken were either moral or immoral, but the idea itself, of expanding because God had given us this land, was neither moral nor immoral.

I admit that now I'm confused. Are you suggesting that God's wish for His chosen people to expand across America was a neutral and pacificist ideal, and not a "moral right?" If so, doesn't that make the religious backing of the Manifest Destiny somewhat redundant? Perhaps this is too abstract for this simple, Canadian cowgirl, or my intellect this summer has become rivalled only by garden tools. :-)

I agree that the concept of westward movement was fundamentally benign, but the cornerstone of the Manifest Destiny was to "be fruitful and multiply." And if the actions of the migrating people were to be judged as moral or immoral, how do you then reconcile this to a dispassionate God?

As much as I would like to share your altruistic view of the Manifest Destiny (perhaps I've become jaded and cyncial without even realizing it), when there's land ripe for the taking, nuggets to be mined, and tracks to be lain, the spirit of the people often turns into a greenish hue. But the justification remains the same as long as one is receiving "God's blessing."

"Writing in September 1864, the Reverend William Crawford reported on the attitude of the white population of Colorado: 'There is but one sentiment in regard to the final disposition which shall be made of the Indians: ‘Let them be exterminated—men, women, and children together.’' Of course, he added, 'I do not myself share in such views.' The Rocky Mountain News, which at first had distinguished between friendly and hostile Indians, likewise began to advocate extermination of this 'dissolute, vagabondish, brutal, and ungrateful race.' With the regular army off fighting the Civil War in the South, the western settlers depended for their protection on volunteer regiments, many lamentably deficient in discipline." [Guenter Lewy, "Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide?"
"And note the date. This is after the era of Manifest Destiny."

Thank you for posting Reverend Crawford's report in it's entirety. It confirms the prevailing attitude of the white population towards Indian genocide at the time of the Civil War and within the time frame of the Manifest Destiny.

In 1859, Horace Greeley wrote the following passage: "To the prosaic observer, the Indian of the woods and prairies is a human being who does little credit to human nature, a slave of appetite and sloth, ...I could not help saying, 'These people must die out, there is no help for them. God has given this Earth to those who will subdue and cultivate it, and it is vain to struggle against his righteous decree."
------------------------
And in the same essay he wrote, "I urge, therefore, that in future efforts to improve the condition of the Indians, the women be specially regarded and appealed to. A conscientious, humane, capable Christian trader, with a wife thoroughly skilled in household manufactures and handicraft, each speaking the language of the tribe with whom they take up their residence, can do more good than a dozen average missionaries. Let them keep and sell whatever articles are adapted to the Indians' needs and means, and let them constitute and maintain an industrial school, in which the Indian women and children shall be freely taught how to make neatly and expeditiously not only moccasins, but straw hats, bonnets, and (in time) a hundred other articles combining taste with utility. Let a farm and garden be started so soon as may be, and vegetables, grain, fruits given therefrom in exchange for Indian labor therein, at all times when such labor can be made available. Of course, the school, though primarily industrial, should impart intellectual and religious instruction also, wisely adapted in character and season to the needs of the pupils, and to their perception of those needs." [Horace Greeley, "From Letter 13: 'Lo! the Poor Indian!"

The rest of Horace Greeley's article is unbelievably patronizing and self righteous. While stating that "Indians were inferior, lazy, they must die out, and that the land was given by God to people who could manage it much better than it's original inhabitants;" Mr. Greeley further claims that until the earth is rid of such slothful creatures, they should be 'taught a more suitable religion and a way of making a hundred other articles combining taste with utility.' The adjective puerile comes to mind once again.

"These comments were from 1862, in relation to the Dakota-US conflict in Minnesota, also known as the Sioux Uprising."

I'm familiar with the Santee Sioux uprising and I do recall the reaction to Andrew Myrick's comments with respect to the starving Indians - I'm not certain what you are objecting to?

Do you allow for the possibility that they were sincere in their belief that God had given them this continent and therefore wanted them to expand?

Actually, I do allow for this possibility Cash but for the most part, I believe that western expansion became a personal and national manifesto for greed, using the vehicle of divine authority as justification for plundering the land and it's original occupants.

Dawna

"If you know you are going to fail, then fail gloriously." ~Cate Blanchett~

[sgtcsa]

Martin,
Well said, pard. Always keep'em guessing. You won't hear THAT statement connected with WBTS, and slavery. But, then again, it was okay to annihilate or otherwise banish to reservations, a whole people. After all, weren't they just savages? The Negro, of course, at least was able to live, and were not considered 'savage'. Inferior, yes, but not a savage to destroy. Shucks, I guess they (The Negro), at least had a reason to be kept alive. All they did was shoot the Noble Red man......And for what? His home. You can't say that the land was not his home...................it was just a rather big home.

Respectfully,
SgtCSA

[thea_447]

Hello again, my compatriots, please excuse my tardiness in writing but a few things have been going on around here that took my attention. You will have to understand that I started reading again from the VERY beginning of all these posts so am systematically going to comment on some.

Ole: And God had nothing to do with it. His name was invoked more as a stimulant than a real belieft. The view of the original colonies, once they found out that land stretched to a whole 'nother ocean. It seems fairly logical that they should assume that they should include it. Why they didn't try to include Mexico and Canada, as well, eludes me. Surely to God, you cannot believe this. I also find it quite presumptous that you have decided for yourself that you know what each and every colonist thought and taking these territories away from the people who'd lived here from the beginning.

Does this thought process include a mystical conclusion that every single Yank wanted to go to war and that every Southerner wanted the WBTS? (Excuse me, I must read on. I didn't realize we were beginning to talk in terms of fairy tales.)

DAWNA, NOT NEIL STATES (with my abject apologies to Neil for this next postbeing read through too quickly.)

:Of course young nations make mistakes in their infancy, but they were carved out by adults who had the vision and determination to seek a better life. At what point did greed pave the way and it become acceptable for one group of people to receive the asperous end of the Manifest Destiny stick? Enter the religion of the salvating dogs, whose profits were gained by any means conceivable. We agree on this. Nations do make mistakes. The difference in my opinion and yours is that this USA since the WBTS has not only given up that religion bit,but revved up the salivating dog attitude, and thrive on the profits gained by any means!

Bill: Amongst the factors, in my opinion, was the belief that the U.S. had to remain powerful and undivided in order to carry out its divine mission.

“Our Union is river, lake, ocean and sky:
Man breaks not the medal, when God cuts the die!”

Oliver Wendell Holmes

Well put, my good and constant friend.....the hypocrisy of intoning what Man does and what God does.....sounds like they're on equal footing, doesn't it?

Neil states: Compensated emancipation was offered not once, but a few times during the war, and a form of comensated emancipation was offered way before the Civil War, but turned down on each occassion.

And yes, it would have been much cheaper in money and lives if it had been seriously considered. Agreement from me once more IF the amount offered for reimbursement for the slaves before the war hadn't been an absolutely ludicrous amount. Emancipation had not been ludicrous in its amount even when, if I'm not mistaken Lincoln LIED (this guy really had a problem with that word truth, didn't he?) and told the South that the Emancipation Proclamation had really only been a war measure and wouldn't be carried out. The North never seriously considered buying out , they just wanted it on paper..Then there was that part about unconditional surrender and in general return to the way the North wanted things run before the war. But the point missed here is so blatant: this war was not about slavery. As I have pointed out before, the South would have been better off if they'd stayed in the Union if that were the sticking point. It was all the other things that I and others have brought up repeatedly for the South to fight for: states rights and tariffs. But WHEN THE NORTH INVADED A NEW NATION they brought war upon us all. This is a point that none of you Yanks can possibly concede because your entire premise is lost. If secession can only be denied, then Yanks were NOT invading them. Reckon they guessed wrong about all those uneducated farmers who left home to fight because "You're HERE!" You can try all you want to say that the farmers were fooled into fighting by those rich plantation owners and the state governments, but in the South THEN AND NOW, if you come unlawfully on a man's property he has a right to shoot you. (Can't keep it quite straight if he's IN my very house if I have to shoot him and keep the body IN the house or do I need to drag him out on the lawn? Could one of you lawhoot you. (Can't keep it quite straight if he's IN my very house if I have to shoot him and keep the body IN the house or do I need to drag him out on the lawn? Could one of you lawyers answer that one for me so I won't have to ask one of my police friends and have them look at me oddly.)

BILL: On two occasions either I or Dawna have raised the issue of whether foreigners can really engage in these debates in a way that doesn’t offend good taste. On both occasions we were assured that an outsider’s perspective was welcome.

But that’s not how it works in practice. In practice, criticism of the North and of the Federal government of the 1860s is received by a bunch of unreconstructed xenophobes as if it were criticism of the whole of America. And so, time after dreary time, we have to put up with the jibes directed at our own countries - which cannot be debated here because they are entirely off the point. Which is why it is so bloody rude to make them in the first place.

As I’ve just said, this cannot be debated here. But I want to go on record as saying that I consider this statement unforgivable and will no longer communicate with the person who made it.

When I first joined these boards I received the most cordial of welcomes. Until I let slip that my sympathies were with the South. I then received a lengthy post ridiculing my country in terms so jaw-droppingly offensive that it was only my sense of curiosity that stopped me from walking away at once. Gosh, you are so darned eloquent . I bet you could read a menu out loud and it'd be interesting! And you are quite right about your original welcome here. My apologies for those other Americans who changed their tune when they heard a chorus of "Dixie" from across the waters.

And Ole, although I have had the courtesy to read each and every word on these boards I am never going to be drawn into other countries problems, or whether it's on some posters' opinions of the problems in China, Iraq, etc. I am here solely to discuss the WBTS and will continue to do so with those who don't get side-tracked in the nether regions.

Ole: The use of "The Benevolence of Manifest Destiny" and "The Philosphy of Coercion" are thinly veiled excuses for bashing the Northern Side. From those bases, it is easy enough to slip in word's like "hypocracy" and "capitalist greed."

.....Shall we get cheerful and resume study of Manifest Destiny and its irrelevance?

Ye Gods and little fishes! Have you decided that Manifest Destiny was and is a GOOD thing condoned by God Almighty, that the United States IS and ALWAYS has been sufficiently ENTITLED to any part of the rest of the entire world that would be profitable for them? I truly am trying to think that your word "irrelevance" is an astounding misprint! And the manner in which your paranoia is showing about the two threads: The Benevolence of Manifest Destiny" and "The Philosophy of Coercion" makes me urge you to take a walk around the block, then pour a stiff one and contemplate seriously why in heck we haven't had Cuba for the past at least one hundred years!! Then we wouldn't have those irritating people drowning in those little boats trying to get here. They could have what WE HAVE right there!

OLE: On the other hand, I don't consider MD a national sin. It was, at the time, a logical concept -- fill it up to the borders; it's ours. Unfortunately, aboriginal people (My underling...THEA) occupied most of that land.

Keep in mind that Amerinds were considered as a people somewhat less worthy of regard than the Negro. The first contacts along the coast were not as amicable as some would have it. When a movable object meets an irrepressible force, there is but one result. (Now THAT sounds strangely like WBTS..hmm)

OLE:Then it was to move all of the more central tribes across the Mississippi -- and this was before MD became a national obsession. Unfortunate? Yes. A stain? Yes. Fait accomplii? Yes. Regrets and all that. Moving on ...

And moving on has been the permanent theme of these United States ever since. But to call it "unfortunate, a stain, regrets and all that"......Ask ANY INDIAN of any tribe, if you can find one willing to speak to you what HE/SHE thinks of this policy. (MY thought here...they'd probably wish they had invented some A bombs themselves. Half a country would seem better to them than the ludicrous conditions of the reservations they live on now. Stop for a moment and think about that word: Reservations: what is that? Are we protecting them from something horrendous? Nah, that can't be it...that's already happened! Reserving them for some grand later reparations that have will of course have to be approved of by a Congress. (Now how many members there are Indians? I forget.) OR could it be that they are being kept for some future secret maneuvers we have planned when we can find someone who has never even SEEN a white peson and we can send our Indians with bows and arrows and TAKE 'EM! Gosh this reservation idea has some great plan, I'm sure I just haven't thought of it like the great minds of Congress have spent sleepless nights pondering.

I really need to rest now because I haven't yet begun to fight on this thread.

After my husband gets home from his work in the private sector as a project manager on something like those Hyundai plants or huge Convention centers, or Trident sub stations....we'll take a little walk and have some fun discussing what's been said on these threads.anager on something like those Hyundai plants or huge Convention centers, or Trident sub stations....we'll take a little walk and have some fun discussing what's been said on these threads. He's having as much fun HEARING about it as I am discussing it, hopefully with as much courtesy as I can of late...Then we'll head out for groceries at Wal-Mart, that great destroyer of the private businesses in this entire USA..(Ya gotta go where the price is right and my SUV, loving called the Hummer, won't guzzle a weeks worth.) I'm sure there's a Yank out there saying what we Southerners laugh about "Wal-Mart: where the Elite Meet!"

And you know what. You'd be surprised at the tremendous amount of Dixie Outfitter shirts you see ALL over the place and we are a bedroom community for Maxwell and oddly these people don't dislike us at all..in fact they enjoy BEING HERE! Just count the stats on where the military retires.

I'll be back though. Ya'll can count on it!
With sincere regards to all who write their beliefs and the truths that they have lived by all their lives.. I can appreciate that.

I remain YMOS,

[johan_steele]

A question to inject into this thread. In what way was Manifest Destiny any different than how indeginous people were treated elsewhere in the world? It would seem to me that Manifest Destiny was little if any different than the official and unofficial policies of the various European Nations in their dealings w/ less... cultured (read non white) societies.

I had to do some reading on the subject and found that I was not far from the mark in suggesting that Manifest Destiny was a National Sin, I will now suggest that Manifest Destiny and various policies/theories etc that were similar in concept and execution across the world were a human sin. Was Manifest Destiny any dfferent than the actions of the Russians against the Native peoples of Siberia in the 19th Century, the French in Indochina or the British in India and Australia.

The US viewed the White American as superior to the Mexican, Negro and Native American. The British viewed the White Englishman as superior to the Indian, Chinese, Egyptian, Australian Aboriginal, Kenyan etc. The French viewed the North African, Mexican, Viet as inferior. All similar reactions to the non white culture. All three nations in some ways resorted to various unsundry ways of moving the problem out of the way. All three have had difficulties to this day with their dealings w/ the various cultures they wronged in the past. Is there a correlation? I'm still trying to find it; but I think every Nation has had its own version of Manifest Destiny.

Was Manifest Destiny a cause of the CW? Perhaps it might be viewed that way if one considers the way the Neo C's look to things. Was there unequal distribution of the benefits of Manifest Destiny? If one looks to the Mason Dixon Line as the dividing point between North and South and then consider the benefits gathered from West of the Mississippi River (excluding Louisianna) as having been taken from the effects of Manifest Destiny... Arkansas & Texas in particular stand out as Southern cultures, the North had Iowa and Minnesota with both sides equally fighting over Missouri & Kansas. The benefits that Texas & Arkansas brought into the US I think outweigh that gained by Minnesota & Iowa. I use as a minimum of proof to this the size of the US Army garrison in these areas prior to the ACW. Texas held a Lions share of the US Army garrisons deployed to deal w/ Indians. The Comanche alone made strong garrisons a neccesity in Texas and did the people in Minesota or Iowa benefit from garrisons in Texas? Actually, I think they did as many were forced to deal w/ the various Indians w/out the benefit of Army support so that the Army was actually appreciated when they did appear.

The negatives of civilian dealings created the Dakota War of 1862. When the Texans seized forts and such and forced US Army Garrisons out in 1861 the Commanches ran wild for almost a year before the Texas Rangers and other Texan troops were able to regain some modicum of safety along the frontier. In neither Texas or Minnesota were Indians dealt w/ fairly and in both cases (Commanche & Lakota) White settlers faced an aggressive and highly dangerous enemy. Neither tribe ever claimed friendship w/ the US or white people in general and in fact did a splendid job of giving every bit as good as they got. Upon further reading it doesn't take a brain scientist to discover that Texans and Minnesotans dealt w/ Native Americans in much the same way; brutally.

Neither the Lakota or Commanche, or any other plains tribe that I am aware of really put much stock in ownership in the same way that white people did or the US does today for that matter. It was once told me by a Lakota elder that a man should own no more than he can carry or protect, anything more is greed. Such sentiment explains much. Now there are/were other tribes than those on the plains; they were treated no better. The Seminoles, Cherokee, Navajo, Moducs etc. were all treated in much the same manner... "Get out of the way we want the land you are sitting on." Strikingly familiar to the way the Raj, Moors, Egyptians, Turks, Viet etc were treated by various European powers.

As it is I'm trying to see a correlation between Wal Mart and Manifest Destiny... I guess I'm mising the glaring similarities.

[thea_447]

In addressing Manifest Destiny and it's benevolence to anyone except the United States, whether this theory was in place before or after the WBTS, I thought I'd made abundantly clear that I would not discuss Manifest Destiny except as it applied to this country and I would also discuss the WBTS. Nothing more. I see nothing that could possibly be misconstrued except by someone who wants to lead me into a conversation that I decline .

The fallacies of the US government concerning the theory of Manifest Destiny, with that crucial kicker, God Almighty thrown in, are only of interest to me when I see that they were already occurring before the WBTS but after that victory , as is true with all victors they went after all the spoils of war.

With the crushing of the South , the Constitution of the United States in tatters, these benevolent victors inflicted a Reconstruction on a completely devastated portion of what had once been "their country" too. The differences between the mindset of those that "won" the war and those that "lost" are still glaring even to this day.

The United States, literally have perfected the art of reaching, and for the most part, achieving Manifest Destiny wherever they have wanted it enough. I ask you sincerely to look into the history of the United States just since the WBTS. You don't need to go into detail before that. We have a fairly good amount of information in those areas because events go further back in the course of history, but somehow they become less important....in some peoples minds, not all.

"I had to do some reading on the subject and found that I was not far from the mark in suggesting that Manifest Destiny was a National Sin, I will now suggest that Manifest Destiny and various policies/theories etc that were similar in concept and execution across the world were a human sin." I agree with this up to a point. The United States had seen the histories of other countries who had tried, some succeeded, and some failed absymally before the WBTS. But after their four long arduous years needed to defeat their own brothers, in my opinion, the United States felt they had achieved a status that would nor could ever be attained by any other country. It must have been a big shock to see what Hitler and Stalin were capable of.

Did it deter the United States to continue it's policy in regard to their Manifest Destiny? Of course not. The world can now merely watch and wait. This United States has never experienced an absolutely devastating defeat as has been pointed out to me by my worthy British friend, Bill. My feelings tell me this: What it would take to bring that about is something too fearsome to even contemplate.


"As it is I'm trying to see a correlation between Wal Mart and Manifest Destiny... I guess I'm mising the glaring similarities." Oh I don't know, from my point of view, you are once again missing even the slightest attempt at bringing
even a small smile back to these threads.

[johan_steele]

Thea... I wasn't directing the question at you... mainly because I didn't expect you to answer. I was hoping for a well reasoned response from Dawna, Russ, Ole and others who might help me get a better grasp on the impact of Manifest Destiny on the ACW. You see I have not yet positively made up my mind on the matter and would like some objective info.

I believe England and her Empire was the sole Superpower of the mid 19th Century, occupying a place similar to that of the US today... England was looked up to and emulated by many thus the actions of England had an impact. Just my humble opinion.

"This United States has never experienced an absolutely devastating defeat as has been pointed out to me by my worthy British friend, Bill. My feelings tell me this: What it would take to bring that about is something too fearsome to even contemplate."

Lets pray it doesn't happen. For those who don't put any stock in prayer, lets hope our politicians don't manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Come to think of it, IIRC Wal Mart came out of Arkansas... another present to the US from the south. Thanks

[russ_aukerman]

Shane -

I wish I could help. I don't see any impact of manifest destiny on the ACW. I think it existed before and after the war, and it seems unaffected by the war. I think that, before the war, the south saw expansion with slavery as well as economic concerns. But at that time the south included slavery in all their economic pursuits, so that's no surprise.

[ole]

Russ:

Excellent reasoning. Western expansion resumed with renewed vigor following the war. I suspect the movement never really halted, but with the army otherwise occupied, moving was not a great idea.

After the war there were 10s of thousands of boys who had become men. Of course, they'd go home for some of momma's cooking, but I can't see them staying. There was gold, land for farming or ranching, railroads reaching out to bring their produce to market across the country.

The days of subsistence farming were fading fast ... you could actually see your way to making a good living and being comfortable in your later years.

And, I'll reiterate: I'd like to see some evidence from any settler that he, she, or they were obeying God's will.

Thanks for your post.
Ole

[cash]

Originally Posted by 8thvacav

How can you qoute any one in that article? There's no two agree.

--
Read it a bit more carefully, then. Prof. Lewy provides quotes from some like Ward Churchill who maintain that there was a genocide, then he responds to those quotes.

Originally Posted by 8thvacav

And Sheridan did say it.

No. Sheridan never said the only good Indian is a dead Indian.

Originally Posted by 8thvacav

Read some of the comments at the bottom of the article. Here is just one.

And it doesn't claim Sheridan said the only good Indian is a dead Indian.

Regards,
Cash