The Benevolence of the Manifest Destiny

[cash]

Originally Posted by ole

There were those who claimed "God's will." I would challenge anyone to find an individual pioneer or settler, at any period before, during or after Manifest Destiny, who went west because it was "God's will." They went for land. They went with the railroad. They went with merchandise to sell. They went for gold. They went for opportunity. They didn't go because God commanded them to.

They believed they were entitled to the land because God wanted them to have it. That it was a convenient interpretation that happened to fit with their desires is beside the point. That was the interpretation they had.

Originally Posted by ole

The aborigine's were, in effect if not in definition, territorial. If a Pawnee hunted on Lakota land, he was chased out or killed. On the other hand, all tribes were on the lookout to expand their territory. This river or that ridge did not mark a boundary. It all depended on the hostility that came and went with this tribe or that. The Lakota got along well with the Cheyenne, but hated the Absarokas. There was give and take.

They didn't have any conception of anyone owning land. They all used the land. A Pawnee who was hunting on land used by Lakota would be chased or killed because he was an enemy, not because of some concept of "their land" that they didn't understand. What was important was not the land but rather what was on the land, whether it was buffalo or crops or some other important feature that was necessary for survival. They weren't defending their territory. They were defending what they needed to survive.

Regards,
Cash

[cash]

Originally Posted by sgtcsa

To those Native Americans, the land was theirs, period.

No, it wasn't. They didn't have the concept of property ownership. They used the land, and they used what was on it to survive.

Originally Posted by sgtcsa

Along came the 'settlers', and they wanted that land. Now, to them, the Indians, the land belonged to them, that is a fact!

No, it's not a fact. To them, the land belonged to nobody. If they thought the land belonged to them, they would have killed every white person who came along uninvited to the shores of America.

Originally Posted by sgtcsa

As for a rant? No more sir, than your feeble argument about ownership.

---------------------
Then I suggest you read some more about the Indian culture. They had no concept of property. That was something the white man taught them after settling on the land. Whites would fence off the land and say the Indians couldn't use it anymore, leading to conflict.

Originally Posted by sgtcsa

Gods will? I must admit, that was rather humourous, even for me.

You don't believe in God?

Originally Posted by sgtcsa

I'm sure that most of those 'settlers', were not fully overcome by a religious experience, and that God told them that the land was rightfully theirs, so get those ignoble barbarians off of it.

Have you read any of the writings that came out of the Manifest Destiny era? Apparently not.

Originally Posted by sgtcsa

I also found that, in a sense, you were somewhat correct, is saying that General Sheridan, didn't say, that...'The only good Indian is a dead Indian'. It is true, he didn't initiate that statement, but he did SAY it, or words close to it, words to the effect, that 'The only good indian he ever met was dead'. The press really picked up on that, and thus, he is attributed to be the first in saying it. Don't say I didn't do my research on that one, because I wanted to be sure that you were right

I appreciate that, Sarge, I really do.

Anyway, look at the context in which he said the only good Indians he saw were dead. The Lewy article talks about the context and the meaning. In other words, he was being told, to the effect "You can trust me, I'm a good Indian." And in saying all the good Indians he saw were dead, Sheridan was saying, to the effect "No, I can't trust you." He wasn't saying all the Indians had to be killed, which is what many would like you to believe.

Regards,
Cash

[cash]

Originally Posted by dawna

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! :-)

"Quite wicked" may be an understatement. :-)

The reason I keep asking about this is because each post makes me more convinced that you and I are operating with different definitions and different concepts of capitalism and capitalists. That's why I'd really like to see your answers to those questions. That post really didn't address capitalism in the era of Manifest Destiny [1840s], and it focused solely on two people from one section of the country. That can hardly be representative of the country as a whole, now, can it?

Originally Posted by dawna

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?

Well, how is capitalist greed different from any other type of greed?

"Aurulent"--what a crackerjack word! Thanks for that trip to the dictionary. :-)

One can see greed in almost anything. Vast tracts of land can be sources of wealth or they can be avenues for survival for families, and making it possible for those families to live on those lands can facilitate their survival. Or both.

So where does the greed end, or begin?

Originally Posted by dawna

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?

Since Manifest Destiny was something in which the entire country engaged, I think it's fair to include it in this one, don't you?

Originally Posted by dawna

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 think that differs fundamentally with what I've been saying. The Indians had a different way of viewing the world. It wasn't puerile, it was just different.

Originally Posted by dawna

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."

Now, see? I think this shows that we're on a different wavelength on this thread, which to me necessitates we get very basic and define exactly what we mean.

Originally Posted by dawna

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.

Agreement is so nice. :-)

Originally Posted by dawna

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'm suggesting a belief that God has given you this land to spread across can lead to actions which are either moral or immoral, depending on what those actions are. One can engage in rape and murder of anyone you come across, which would be immoral, or one can live amicably with those you come across, which to me would be moral and still within the belief that God has given you this land to spread across.

Originally Posted by dawna

"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.

And let me remind you that attitude in this case came about after depravations by the Indians.

Originally Posted by dawna

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.

I'm sure Greeley considered the Indians to be puerile. That doesn't mean they were. But if we look at his general attitude toward them, he's not looking to wipe them out. He's looking to what he truly believes to be the best future for them.

Originally Posted by dawna

"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?

They are not from the era of Manifest Destiny, which is supposed to be what this thread is about, isn't it?

Originally Posted by dawna

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.

So basically it's possible they were sincere, but you don't think so?

Regards,
Cash

[8thvacav]

Cash,
So you pick Prof. Lewy because thats what you want to believe. All the rest are wrong! Has it ever come to you that you may be wrong. Your defending Sheridan, The guy that wanted to fire on John Brown Gordon when he was under a white flag at Apamattox....I know that's a myth too! I think you are graspping at straws.
Martin

[johan_steele]

Actually Martin, I think Cash & Dawna are both backing up their argument w/ scholarship which is why I'm so interestly following this thread. My own knowledge of the specifics of Manifest Destiny is quite wanting.

Prof Lewy is not the only source I have seen that refutes that Sheridan said "The only good Indian is a dead indian." I had always thought his comments was actually: "All the good Indians are dead." Meaning the good Indians fell on the field of battle leaving the not so good to lead the way. He said something similar to a GAR meeting, (I'm paraphrasing) "All the good Southerners fell on the field of battle, leaving the shirkers, deserters and cowards to shape the way history looks at the Armies of the Confederacy." IIRC he was taking a shot at Jubal Early.

If you disagree so adamently w/ Cash, put forward evidence from a reputable historian or scholar to refute it.

[cash]

Originally Posted by 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.

I think it was an important element. Without the expansion of the United States there would have been no territory added. Without that territory added, there would have been no argument about expansion of slavery into the territories. It's quite possible that territory would eventually have been added anyway, but I don't think it would have been added with such rapidity.

As I said before, slavery was a major driving force behind Manifest Destiny. We added Texas and fought the Mexican War to add more territory for slavery. The filibuster expeditions of the 1840s were attempts to add territory for slavery. The attempt to gain more Mexican territory was an attempt to add territory for slavery. The attempt to acquire Cuba was an attempt to add territory for slavery. These all were part of the Manifest Destiny era.

Regards,
Cash

[cash]

Originally Posted by 8thvacav

So you pick Prof. Lewy because thats what you want to believe. All the rest are wrong! Has it ever come to you that you may be wrong.

You're free to provide evidence other than your opinion, which is what I've done. Prof. Lewy at least has studied the time period and is writing based on his research.

Originally Posted by 8thvacav

Your defending Sheridan, The guy that wanted to fire on John Brown Gordon when he was under a white flag at Apamattox.

Maybe you should investigate the circumstances about which you're speaking.


Regards,
Cash

[dawna]

Cash:

"Aurulent"--what a crackerjack word! Thanks for that trip to the dictionary.

It is a crackerjack word and just as much fun as "puerile," but I'm chagrined to learn that I've caused you extra work.

"Well, how is capitalist greed different from any other type of greed?"

Capitalist greed operates on the premise of inequality and exploitation, with profit as the only moral obligation.

"One can see greed in almost anything. Vast tracts of land can be sources of wealth or they can be avenues for survival for families, and making it possible for those families to live on those lands can facilitate their survival. Or both."

"So where does the greed end, or begin?"

I suppose that question can only be answered on an individual and personal basis. But if greed is a motive of actions, and not the actions themselves, then what is the standard or normal to which one measures greed by? Yes, vast tracts of land were both sources of wealth for capitalists, and an avenue in which to ensure family survival. But property was not a guarantee of personal freedom or perpetuation when bankers exploited mortgages, and railroad barons took advantage of thousands of starving immigrant workers.

"Since Manifest Destiny was something in which the entire country engaged, I think it's fair to include it in this one, don't you?"

Fair enough. So I will seek shelter from your opening volley in hopes that I don't end up somewhere in Kansas!

I don't think that differs fundamentally with what I've been saying. The Indians had a different way of viewing the world. It wasn't puerile, it was just different.

Yes, it was "different," and original. But inferior, according to most Europeans.

President Van Buren, 1836: "No state can achieve proper culture, civilization and progress, as long as Inidans are permitted to remain."

"I'm suggesting a belief that God has given you this land to spread across can lead to actions which are either moral or immoral, depending on what those actions are. One can engage in rape and murder of anyone you come across, which would be immoral, or one can live amicably with those you come across, which to me would be moral and still within the belief that God has given you this land to spread across."

But many American citizens did not try to live amicably with those they came across, and their actions were immoral by any standards. I suggest to you again Cash that the religious component of the Manifest Destiny became a thinly veiled disguise for a group of people to commit some very immoral actions. How can you claim to promote freedom while at the same time ignoring justice?

"I'm sure Greeley considered the Indians to be puerile. That doesn't mean they were. But if we look at his general attitude toward them, he's not looking to wipe them out. He's looking to what he truly believes to be the best future for them."

It's interesting to me that so many people seemed to know what was best for nations that had been surviving and living adequately for hundreds of years, without interference. And who better to be in tune with "God's vast land" than Native Americans who regarded the earth as sacred? According to Mr. Greeley, the best future for the Indians was to deny them their own personal freedom, and to disgard their religious and cultural experiences. You speak much about Christianity, but you don't make allowances for the spiritual death of Native Americans.

"They are not from the era of Manifest Destiny, which is supposed to be what this thread is about, isn't it?"

Even if Andrew Myrick's comments were not made within the time frame of the Manifest Destiny (I believe they are), they are still worth consideration as the general attitude of people at the time.

So basically it's possible they were sincere, but you don't think so?

I believe that some people genuinely believed that it was God's preordained plan for them to "be fruitful and multiply." But because an intangible ideal such as the Manifest Destiny is open to several different interpretations, including political control of the frontier, I think the majority of people were simply looking for what everyone else wanted - new beginnings and a plethora of opportunities.

When thousands of wagons were streaking across the American continent, I don't think it was God who was clutching those sweaty reins.

Dawna

[sgtcsa]

"The Indians didn't believe anyone owned the land. That's a fact."
.................................................. .................................................. ...............

Cash,

This is only a fact, in the sense that the whites hadn't yet started taking away their land. Once they started taking it away, then they got 'hostile' because the whites were taking it and running them off. Yes, it's true, they didn't have any land deeds to it, but you can bet that they knew what they lived on, and could call home. So, yes, in a sense, they knew what belonged to them. They knew when the whites started making them live on reservations......they knew what they had, and they weren't going to just stand by and watch the whites take it. They might have lived along side of them, to a degree, but that didn't happen, did it? The whites took. So again, in that sense, the Indians might not have had the same interpretation as the whites, about what belonged to whom, but brother, they knew, alright, when the whites grabbed 'their' land and made them move to lands unfit for the average white to live. They knew then.

Warmest regards,
SgtCSA

[cash]

"Aurulent"--what a crackerjack word! Thanks for that trip to the dictionary.

It is a crackerjack word and just as much fun as "puerile," but I'm chagrined to learn that I've caused you extra work.
--------------------
Oh, please don't be chagrined, Ma'am. A trip to the dictionary is a joyous thing, not to be confused with the drudgery of work.





"Well, how is capitalist greed different from any other type of greed?"

Capitalist greed operates on the premise of inequality and exploitation, with profit as the only moral obligation.
-----------------
And how is that different from any other kind of greed?





"One can see greed in almost anything. Vast tracts of land can be sources of wealth or they can be avenues for survival for families, and making it possible for those families to live on those lands can facilitate their survival. Or both."

"So where does the greed end, or begin?"

I suppose that question can only be answered on an individual and personal basis. But if greed is a motive of actions, and not the actions themselves, then what is the standard or normal to which one measures greed by? Yes, vast tracts of land were both sources of wealth for capitalists, and an avenue in which to ensure family survival. But property was not a guarantee of personal freedom or perpetuation when bankers exploited mortgages, and railroad barons took advantage of thousands of starving immigrant workers.
------------------------
I must admit we are on very different wavelengths once again. My problem is that basically I don't see anything wrong with greed itself. It is the motivator for all the significant advances in science and society throughout history.

Let's say I control access to a reservoir in the desert. You come to me and ask me for water. What motivation do I have to give it to you? Well, I know you're a nice person so I can give you the water and feel good about that.

Now, this nasty old Englishman, Bill [Just joking, Bill] comes along and demands water. Well, not liking the way he's going about it, I refuse him. What's in it for me? Now, if Bill is willing to pay me a few pieces of gold that I can use to buy some Civil War books from Neil's overpriced bookstore, then I might reconsider. I get the ability to purchase Civil War books and Bill gets the water he needs to survive. More people show up, and it's no longer possible to hand out bottles of water, but since they are willing to pay me and thus make it possible for me to buy even more Civil War books, I develop a distribution system whereby water is efficiently delivered to each home. I've done this out of greed, but it is a very good thing, don't you think?





"Since Manifest Destiny was something in which the entire country engaged, I think it's fair to include it in this one, don't you?"

Fair enough. So I will seek shelter from your opening volley in hopes that I don't end up somewhere in Kansas!
------------------
Oh, I was hoping you would include them in your posts. :O




I don't think that differs fundamentally with what I've been saying. The Indians had a different way of viewing the world. It wasn't puerile, it was just different.

Yes, it was "different," and original. But inferior, according to most Europeans.
-------------------
I agree that was their viewpoint.



"I'm suggesting a belief that God has given you this land to spread across can lead to actions which are either moral or immoral, depending on what those actions are. One can engage in rape and murder of anyone you come across, which would be immoral, or one can live amicably with those you come across, which to me would be moral and still within the belief that God has given you this land to spread across."

But many American citizens did not try to live amicably with those they came across, and their actions were immoral by any standards. I suggest to you again Cash that the religious component of the Manifest Destiny became a thinly veiled disguise for a group of people to commit some very immoral actions. How can you claim to promote freedom while at the same time ignoring justice?
--------------------
Again, though Dawna, it's what people did with that religious component that is the salient issue, not the religious component itself. People have been misusing religion for ages, but that doesn't mean the religion itself is bad. The concept of a Manifest Destiny itself was neither good nor bad. What people did with that concept was either good or bad.




"I'm sure Greeley considered the Indians to be puerile. That doesn't mean they were. But if we look at his general attitude toward them, he's not looking to wipe them out. He's looking to what he truly believes to be the best future for them."

It's interesting to me that so many people seemed to know what was best for nations that had been surviving and living adequately for hundreds of years, without interference. And who better to be in tune with "God's vast land" than Native Americans who regarded the earth as sacred? According to Mr. Greeley, the best future for the Indians was to deny them their own personal freedom, and to disgard their religious and cultural experiences. You speak much about Christianity, but you don't make allowances for the spiritual death of Native Americans.
------------------
I was trying to describe the thought process of the white people of the time. What happened to Native Americans is a fact of history, and yes, whites of the time did think they knew best for others. The Indians had been living for centuries without interference, but that was not going to continue because whites were spreading across the continent and some form of interference was inevitable, even if that interference consisted of a town or a group of homesteads near the tribe. Cultural contamination was inevitable--unstoppable.





"They are not from the era of Manifest Destiny, which is supposed to be what this thread is about, isn't it?"

Even if Andrew Myrick's comments were not made within the time frame of the Manifest Destiny (I believe they are), they are still worth consideration as the general attitude of people at the time.
-------------------
It was the attitude of someone living after the era of Manifest Destiny, who was in the midst of a war with Indians, a war which saw several different depradations by the Indians.




So basically it's possible they were sincere, but you don't think so?

I believe that some people genuinely believed that it was God's preordained plan for them to "be fruitful and multiply." But because an intangible ideal such as the Manifest Destiny is open to several different interpretations, including political control of the frontier, I think the majority of people were simply looking for what everyone else wanted - new beginnings and a plethora of opportunities.

When thousands of wagons were streaking across the American continent, I don't think it was God who was clutching those sweaty reins.
--------------------
I can't say I disagree with this. But I wouldn't call that desire for new beginnings and opportunities a bad thing, necessarily.

Regards,
Cash