The Benevolence of the Manifest Destiny

[bill_torrens]

Dear Martin & Sgt C.S.A.,

Thank you both very much indeed.


Dear Neil,

Thanks as well.

Rest assured that I don’t intend to repeat any of the things I’ve said either. I will simply refuse to have anything to do with anyone who indulges in any more of this foreigner-baiting. If that means that eventually the only Billy Yank with whom I’ll be able to have a conversation is you, please rest assured that this suits me just fine.

And feel free to fire every cannon in your debating arsenal. If you want to stick the knife into Britain over its conduct with regard to America between 1861 and 1865, go right ahead. I might even agree with you. Neither Dawna nor I are delicate blooms who can’t cope with plainly-spoken disagreement…I think you know that from our many previous debates. But we demand a certain bare minimum of respect.

And now, if the issue of foreigners on the boards is to be regarded as closed, might I suggest that we consider the issue of treating female contributions as if (Shock! Horror!) women were actually the intellectual equals of men? In the year 2005 can we cope with such a notion?

No. On reflection, that’s a step too far. Let’s leave the troglodytes some crumbs of comfort.

Bill

[dawna]

Originally Posted by russ_aukerman

Don't mind if we don't jump in, though. The water is a little cold in that part of the pond.

Russ:

Thank you for your comments, and although it is cold in this part of the pond, it is also crystal clear and quite refreshing. :-)

I'm interested in the Manifest Destiny as the enigmatic ideal which spirited thousands of people across the plains and prairies in their quest to conquer mountains and unknown territories...in the name of God. Exterminating a group of people along the way seemed a small price to pay for doing 'God's work.'

The Manifest Destiny was embraced by all of the United States, but at the time of the Civil War it expressed itself in expansion to the West, and the issues that this created for both sections. The South wanted to expand to the West with slavery still in tact, and the North was reluctant to compete for land, labour, and wealth...or to live with negroes.

To quote an opinion on the Manifest Destiny under another thread: "It simply shows expansion of slavery to be the driving influence behind Manifest Destiny." If that is the case, then I would think that the Manifest Destiny is an important issue with respect to the Civil War, and I'm interested in the "driving influences" on both sides. And that same zeal, dogged determination, and insular seduction of thought, which allowed the slaughter of Native Americans and fellow U.S. citizens - both in the name of an abstruse ideal. It is an astounding feat.

I'm hugely fascinated by a concept that embraces expansion and conquest, but then pulls up the drawbridge once you're in.

Dawna

"These are times in which a genius would wish to live. It is not in the still calm of life, or the repose of a pacific station, that great characters are formed." ~Abigail Adams~

[dawna]

Northern Capitalism

"I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half." Jay Gould

"A man always has two reasons for doing anything -- a good reason and the real reason." J. Pierpont Morgan

During the Civil War, prominent merchants, with eloquent outbursts of patriotism, formed union defense committees in various Northern cities, and solicited contributions of money and commodities to carry on the war. It was disclosed before the Congressional investigating committees that not only did the leading members of these union defense committees turn their patriotism to thrifty account in getting contracts, but that they engaged in great swindles upon the Government in the process. Thus, Marcellus Hartley, a conspicuous dealer in military goods, and the founder of a multimillionaire fortune, [Footnote: When Marcellus Hartley died in 1902, his personal property alone was appraised at $11,000,000. His entire fortune was said to approximate $50,000,000. His chief heir, Marcellus Hartley Dodge, a grandson, married, in 1907, Edith Geraldine Rockefeller, one of the richest heiresses in the world. Hartley was the principal owner of large cartridge, gun and other factories.] admitted that he had sold a large consignment of Hall’s carbines to a member of the New York Union Defense Committee.

In a sudden burst of contrition he went on, “I think the worst thing this Government has been swindled upon has been these confounded Hall’s carbines; they have been elevated in price to $22.50, I think.” [Footnote: House Report No.2, etc., 1861-62, vol. ii: 200-204] He could have accurately added that these carbines were absolutely dangerous; it was found that their mechanism was so faulty that they would shoot off the thumbs of the very soldiers using them. Hartley was one of the importers who brought over the refuse arms of Europe, and sold them to the Government at extortionate prices. He owned up to having contracts with various of the States (as distinguished from the National Government) for $600,000 worth of these worthless arms. [Footnote: Ibid.] That corruscating patriot and philanthropic multimillionaire of these present times, J. Pierpont Morgan, was, as we shall see, profiting during the Civil War from the sale of Hall’s carbines to the Government.

One of the Congressional committees, investigating contracts for other army material and provisions, found the fullest evidences of gigantic frauds. Exorbitant prices were extorted for tents “which were valueless”; these tents, it appeared, were made from cheap or old “farmers’” drill, regarded by the trade as “truck.” Soldiers testified that they “could better keep dry out of them than under.” [Footnote: House Report No. 64, etc., 1862-63: 6.] Great frauds were perpetrated in passing goods into the arsenals. One manufacturer in particular, Charles C. Roberts, was awarded a contract for 50,000 haversacks and 50,000 knapsacks. “Every one of these,” an expert testified, “was a fraud upon the Government, for they were not linen; they were shoddy.” [Footnote: Ibid.] A Congressional committee found that the provisions supplied by contractors were either deleterious or useless. Captain Beckwith, a commissary of subsistence, testified that the coffee was “absolutely good for nothing and is worthless. It is of no use to the Government.”

This committee extracted much further evidence showing how all other varieties of provisions were of the very worst quality, and how “rotten and condemned blankets” in enormous quantities were passed into the army by bribing the inspectors. It disclosed, at great length, how the railroads in their schedule of freight rates were extorting from the Government fifty per cent. more than from private parties. [Footnote: House Report No. 2, etc., 1861-62, xxix.] Don Cameron, leader of the corrupt Pennsylvania political machine, and a railroad manipulator, [Footnote: He had been involved in at least one scandal investigated by a Pennsylvania Legislative Committee, and also in several dubious railroad transactions in Maryland.] was at that time Secretary of War. Whom did he appoint as the supreme official in charge of railroad transportation? None other than Thomas A. Scott, the vice-president of the Pennsylvania Railroad.

Scott, it may be said, was another capitalist whose work has so often been fulsomely described as being that of “a remarkable constructive ability.” The ability he displayed during the Civil War was unmistakable. With his collusion the railroads extorted right and left. The committee described how the profits of the railroads after his appointment rose fully fifty per cent in one year, and how quartermasters and others were bribed to obtain the transportation of regiments. “This,” stated the committee, “illustrates the immense and unnecessary profits which was spirited from the Government and secured to the railroads by the schedule fixed by the vice-president of the Pennsylvania Central under the auspices of Mr. Cameron.” [Footnote: House Report No. 2, etc., 1861-62, xix. The Pennsylvania Railroad, for example, made in 1862 the sum of $1,350,237.79 more in profits than it did in the preceding year.]

These many millions of dollars extorted in frauds “came,” reported the committee, “out of the impoverished and depleted Treasury of the United States, at a time when her every energy and resources were taxed to the utmost to maintain the war.” [Footnote: Ibid., 4.]</I>

These are but a few facts of the glaring fraud and corruption prevailing in every line of mercantile and financial business. Great and audacious as Gould’s thefts were later, they could not be put on the same indescribably low plane as those committed during the Civil War by men most of whom succeeded in becoming noted for their fine respectability and “solid fortunes.” So many momentous events were taking place during the Civil War, that amid all the preparations, the battles and excitement, those frauds did not arouse that general gravity of public attention which, at any other time, would have inevitably resulted. Consequently, the men who perpetrated them contrived to hide under cover of the more absorbing great events of those years. Gould committed his thefts at a period when the public had little else to preoccupy its attention; hence they loomed up in the popular mind as correspondingly large and important.

A SPECIMEN OF GOULD’S TUITION.

At the very dawn of his career in 1857, as a railroad owner, Gould had the opportunity of securing valuable and gratuitous instruction in the ways by which railroad projects and land grants were being bribed through Congress. He was then only twenty-one years old, ready to learn, but, of course, without experience in dealing with legislative bodies. But the older capitalists, veterans at bribing, who for years had been corrupting Congress and the Legislatures, supplied him with the necessary information. Not voluntarily did they do it; their greatest ally was concealment; but one crowd of them had too baldly bribed Congress to vote for an act giving an enormous land grant in Iowa, Minnesota and other states, to the Des Moines Navigation and Railroad Company. The facts unearthed must have been a lasting lesson to Gould as to how things were done in the exalted halls of Congress. The charges made an ugly stir throughout the United States, and the House of Representatives, in self defense, had to appoint a special committee to investigate itself.

This committee made a remarkable and unusual report. Ordinarily in charges of corruption, investigating committees were accustomed to reporting innocently that while it might have been true that corruption was used, yet they could find no evidence that members had received bribes; almost invariably such committees put the blame, and the full measure of their futile excoriations, on “the iniquitous lobbyists.” But this particular committee, surprisingly enough, handed in no such flaccid, whitewashing report. It found conclusively that corrupt combinations of members of Congress did exist; and in it recommended the expulsion of four members whom it declared guilty to receiving either money or land in exchange for their votes. One of these four expelled member, Orasmus B. Matteson, it appeared, was a leader of a corrupt combination; the committee branded him as having arranged with the railroad capitalists to use “a large sum of money [$100,000] and other valuable considerations corruptly.” [Footnote: Reports of Committees, House of Representatives, Thirty-fourth Congress, Third Session, 1856/57. Report No. 243, Vol. iii. In subsequent chapters many further details are given of the corruption during this period.]

But it was essentially during the Civil War that Gould received his completest tuition in the great art of seizing property and privileges by bribing legislative bodies. While many sections of the capitalist class were, as we have seen, swindling manifold hundreds of millions of dollars from a hard-pressed country, and reaping fortunes by exploiting the lives of the very defenders of their interests, other sections, equally mouthy with patriotism, were sneaking through Congress and the Legislatures act after act, further legalizing stupendous thefts.

PATRIOTISM AT FIFTY PER CENT.

Some of these acts, demanded by the banking interests, made the people of the United States pay an almost unbelievable usurious interest for loans. These banking statutes were so worded that nominally the interest did not appear high; in reality, however, by various devices, the bankers, both national and international, were often able to extort from twenty to fifty, and often one hundred per cent., in interest, and this on money which had at some time or somehow been squeezed out of exploited peoples in the United States or elsewhere.

By these laws the bankers were allowed to get annual payment from the Government of six per cent. interest in gold on the Government bonds that they bought. They could then deposit those same bonds with the Government, and issue their own bank notes against ninety per cent. of the bonds deposited. They drew interest from the Government on the deposited bonds, and at the time charged borrowers an exorbitant rate of interest for the use of the bank notes, which passed as currency.

It was by this system of double interest that they were able to sweep into their coffers hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars, not a dollar of which did they earn, and all of which were sweated out of the adversities of the people of the United States. From 1863 to 1878 alone the Government paid out to national banks as interest on bonds the enormous sum of $252,837,556.77. [Footnote: House Documents, Forty-fifth Congress, Second Session, Ex. Document No. 34, Vol. xiv., containing the reply of Secretary of the Treasury Sherman, in answer to a resolution of the House of Representatives.] On the other hand, the banks were entirely relieved from paying taxes; they secured the passage of a law exempting Government bonds from taxation. Armies were being slaughtered and legions of homes desolated, but it was a rich and safe time for the bankers; a very common occurrence was it for banks to declare dividends of twenty, forty, and sometimes one hundred, per cent.

It was also during the stress of this Civil War period, when the working and professional population of the nation was fighting on the battlefield, or being taxed heavily to support their brothers in arms, that the capitalists who later turned up as owners of various Pacific railroad lines were bribing through Congress acts giving them the most comprehensive perpetual privileges and great grants of money and of land.

Gould saw how all of the others of the wealth seekers were getting their fortunes; and the methods that he now plunged into use were but in keeping with theirs, a little bolder and more brutally frank, perhaps, but nevertheless nothing more than a repetition of what had long been going on in the entire sphere of capitalism.

THE SECOND STAGE OF THE GOULD FORTUNE

The first medium by which Jay Gould transferred many millions of dollars to his ownership was by his looting and wrecking of the Erie Railroad. If physical appearance were to be accepted as a gauge of capacity none would suspect that Gould contained the elements of one of the boldest and ablest financial marauders that the system in force had as yet produced. About five feet six inches in height and of slender figure, he gave the random impression of being a mild, meek man, characterized by excessive timidity. His complexion was swarthy and partly hidden by closely-trimmed black whiskers; his eyes were dark, vulpine and acutely piercing; his forehead was high. His voice was very low, soft and insinuating.

PRIVATE CONFISCATION OF THE ERIE RAILROAD.

The Erie Railroad, running from New York City to Buffalo and thence westward to Chicago, was started in 1832. In New York State alone, irrespective of gifts in other States, it received what was virtually a gift of $3,000,000 of State funds, and $3,217,000 interest, making $6,217,000 in all. Counties, municipalities and towns through which it passed were prevailed upon to contribute freely donations of money, lands and rights. From private proprietors in New York State it obtained presents of land then valued at from $400,000 to $500,000, [Footnote: Report on the New York and Erie Railroad Company, New York State Assembly Document, No. 50, 1842. See also, Investigation of the Railroads of the State of New York, 1879, I: 100.] but now worth tens of millions of dollars.

In addition, an extraordinary series of special privileges and franchises was given to it. This process was manifolded in every State through which the railroad passed. The cost of construction and equipment came almost wholly from the grants of public funds. [Footnote: “The Erie railway was built by the citizens of this State with money furnished by its people. The State in its sovereign capacity gave the corporation $3,000,000. The line was subsequently captured, or we may say stolen, by the fraudulent issue of more than $50,000,000 of stock.” ... “An analysis of the Erie Reorganization bill, etc., submitted to the Legislature by John Livingston, Esq., counsel for the Erie Railway Shareholders, 1876.”]

Confiding in the fair promises of its projectors, the people credulously supposed that their interests would be safeguarded. But from time to time, Legislature after Legislature was corrupted or induced to enact stealthy acts by which the railroad was permitted to pass without restriction into the possession of a small clique of exploiters and speculators.

Great Fortunes From the Railroads: Gustavus Myers

[russ_aukerman]

Dawna -

"To quote an opinion on the Manifest Destiny under another thread: "It simply shows expansion of slavery to be the driving influence behind Manifest Destiny." If that is the case, then I would think that the Manifest Destiny is an important issue with respect to the Civil War, and I'm interested in the "driving influences" on both sides."

I see your interest as more closely related to the question of what caused the war. I believe the cause was slavery. But I recognize that the answer is more dynamic than appears at first blush. In that regard, I think you've got the tail wagging the dog. By that I mean that you've elevated manifest destiny (the tail) to a cause, when I see slavery (the dog) as the cause. Slavery had many impacts, particularly in the socio-economic fabric of the south. But I believe that had there never been slavery and the war, there still would have been manifest destiny. IMO, any interaction between slavery and manifest destiny, as it impacted the war, was a mere by-product of the issue of slavery.

[johan_steele]

Bill, Allow me to clarify my intent as you seem to have taken such offence at my posts. I don't see drawing parrallels to contemporary (mid 19th century) actions of non US govt entities as a direct attack especially as I see them as precedent setting. In particular I feel the similarities between American "Manifest Destiny" and the British Empires "Make the world England" are intriguing and should be thought provoking. French, German, Russian and other actions in the international realm of politics bear striking similarities to the American Manifest Destiny.

The actions of England in the Opium War did not take place in a vacuum, nor did their actions in India and elsewhere. They were prior to and contemporary actions to the development of Manifest Destiny. There were also actions of France, Germany, Russia etc that were similar and no less despicable. As Manifest Destiny was certainly a theory w/ International impact I see any attempts to paint it as an American only issue as more than a bit foolish.

I see the actions of the US as little different than those of many nations in Europe... are they any more or less immoral? I don't think so, were they right? Hell no.

As you apparently have no intention of speaking w/ me again... a pity as I think you, Russ and Dawna the three most intriguing reads from th other side of the aisle. And as I've said before I don't see your posts as anti-American or even inflamatory. Thought provoking, occasionaly annoying and even once offensive to the memories of the men in blue but never baiting, deragatory nor anti anything. I'm sorry you feel otherwise.

If you still feel the need to book a cheap flight over and punch me right in the nose feel free. Be advised I might punch back a time or two though. But please endeavour to book enough time for me to give you a few guided tours of local historical spots. The Vilas Louis, Rock Island Arsenal and the CS POW camp there as well as some excellent Dakota War sites.

Dawna, I wish to applaud your recent post, good info, some of which I have never heard.

Do you believe the Manifest Destiny theory to be a purely Northern one? My own belief is that it was another national sin w/ plenty of blame to go around. I also admit that I am still forming an opinion on the subject; so in short my own jury is still out.

My apologies to all if the impression was made that I was repelling attacks on the Union w/ triple canister. That was not my intent. Everyone who has ever read any of my posts should be well aware that I am one cynical bastard.

8thVACAV perhaps you should read some more of my posts; I have never had anything but the greatest respect for the CS fighting man, his spirit, courage or tenacity; any who say otherwise is a lieing to you. Now the leadership of the CS is another matter entirely... politicians of the worst sort and for the most part below my contempt. Guess what, I don't rate Union politicians as much if any better. I have never made my stance upon the CS govt a secret and that sir, is a fact.

Neil spoke well, as usual, when he stated that some of us love our country right or wrong... though I have to admit in most histories I have a tendency to root for the Lakota & Cheyenne...

[dawna]

Russ:

Thank you for your thoughts and I understand what you are saying. It's the end result (exploitation) of 'manifest destiny' that I'm attempting to reconcile to the Civil War, and the hyprocricy behind the reasons that the Lincoln administration did not want slavery to expand into the West. In this instance, I'm using 'expansion' as the hand that fed the 'dog,' in both sections.

If the Manifest Destiny is offered as an excuse for a country to do whatever they like with God lighting the way, then it would make sense that the South was exercising their own "God-given right" to practice the same principles behind such a concept - to create a nation in their own image.

Shane and Neil, thank you for your comments today. "Do you believe the Manifest Destiny theory to be a purely Northern one? My own belief is that it was another national sin w/ plenty of blame to go around. I also admit that I am still forming an opinion on the subject; so in short my own jury is still out."

I couldn't agree with you more Shane - the Manifest Destiny was most definitely a national sin. And that's what I'm interested in examining...how this complex ideal united a country, and then tore it apart.

Dawna

[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 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. 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 ...

Before, during and after the ACW, the primary motivation for moving west was land. Following the farmers, naturally, came industry. Without farmers, there was no need for it. By that time the doctrine of MD was gone. The desire for farm and ranch land had supplanted it. Railroads were financed by the grant of land which could be sold to farmers. No reason to farm if you can't sell your excess and move it to market.

The greedy capitalists did not drive the move west, but they certainly participated and took advantage of it. As in one of your posts you went to great lengths listing the sins of war profiteers, I'm not surprised that you didn't list a single southern one. "Shoddy" was well known on both sides of the Ohio. Northern "shoddy" was better documented, presumably because there was little Southern industry to make a splash in the records.

It would appear that Southern interest in expansion was to carry slavery into territories that could not justify its existence simply to maintain politial clout in the government. A question that always mystified me: Why the fracas in Kansas? You can't grow cotton there. And what did they want with Arizona and New Mexico? Utah, Colorado, Nevada?

A friend of mine suggested mining. Possible -- even probable -- but how many slaves could you work in a shift in a mine shaft? It has also been advanced that there might have been an adaptation to the work available for slaves. Possibly, but I don't see the planters adapting as readily to other industries. The conclusion is obvious but perplexing. Why insist on slave states where slavery would have a tenuous existence, if any? Can you see a cattle rancher putting his slaves on a horse and provisioning him for a few weeks?

In conclusion, I am interested in why you think MD had an influence on the ACW? I can do without an endless litany of war profiteers who have existed since time began and are an inevitable part of the game -- even now.

Regards,
Ole

[unionblue]

Dawna,

I am curious. Was there ever an attempt by persons or political parties to oppose westward expansion/Manifest Destiny? Before the Civil War?

Bill, I am proud to be the Billy Yank on your personal firing range above all others. I consider it a very unique honor and I will do my best to present the smallest target possible, thereby making it much more satisfying when you do score a 'hit'.

I feel like we have continued to face one another with honor, as those brave men did during that long-ago conflict. Although when the battle is on, we do the best to dispatch one another from the field of combat, during the lulls, we trade jokes, news and tobacco between the lines.

I will share my last cracker and the last swig from my canteen, old friend, and then yell, "Down Reb!" before I take aim and pull my debating trigger.

I will see you on the field.
Unionblue

[bill_torrens]

Shane,

You’re right. I was and remain offended. Not by broad comparisons of 19th century British foreign policy with that of the United States. But by the implication that, in the 20th or 21st centuries, British troops inflicted mass-murder or mass-rape on civilian populations. As long as that slur remains unretracted there can be no friendliness between us.

[If you were referring to the notorious shooting in India before WW2, please say so. By lumping the British in with the Germans and Russians you implicitly suggested that you were referring to something which happened in wartime.]

But you have gone to some trouble to explain other aspects of your arguments, and I feel it would be churlish of me not to reply.

With regard to Manifest Destiny, we are talking at cross purposes. I am not interested in it as a slight regional variation on Realpolitik. The latter is universal, and it is entirely reasonable of you to point this out. It is the religious aspect which interests me. It is religion, more than anything else, which arguably distinguishes the United States from the rest of the western world today. Here in Europe we are all secular societies; you do not appear to be, any more than Iran is. And I am particularly interested in how American expansionism has (arguably) followed a distinctive path because of this. (In the context of 1861-1865, “American expansionism” becomes “the Federal policy of conquest”.) To put it another way, the United States appears to be unique in that it is the only democracy possessed of the widespread belief that God is whispering in its ear and directing its course. And although in the WBTS both sides were equally convinced that they had God on their side, only one of those sides was attempting to conquer and absorb the other. And so it is the way in which the wartime North adapted the spirit of Manifest Destiny to justify taking Southern territory out of Southern hands on which I really wish to concentrate.

[unionblue]

Bill,

I would not liken the US to be on the same religious footing as Iran today, but I would be willing to concede that religious intolerence was a factor in the Civil War era US and before.

But, would you please look at the idea that at the timeframe you are contemplating, the US was a very young nation. Did not England have its religious problems at around the same age or at sometime during its begining as a nation? Could not the two be compared in the relative lifetimes of nationhood in its experiences of religion taking a center, and not too all positive, stage in effecting the course of a nation towards others of different religious backgrounds and orders?

Unionblue