The Benevolence of the Manifest Destiny

[bill_torrens]

Neil,

I think it is important to emphasise that I am not criticising anything pertaining to religion in America. I am merely interested in exploring one area of it which I think is relevant to the shaping of the Union cause. And that pertains, in part, to Manifest Destiny.

Please remember that: no criticism at all.

Don't go overboard on the reference to Iran. That is a country where religion plays a central role in the national consciousness. I suspect that it plays an important, although quite different, role in American consciousness as well. Whereas it plays virtually no role in British and many other European psyches (except amongst some immigrant groups - how topical!).

Bill

[johan_steele]

"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.]"


Perhaps now I see the rub, I was referring to a host of incidents in India and in China in the 19th Century from Wellingtons troops onto the end of the century. I simply did a quick look at International similarities between Manifest Destiny and European Colonialism and frankly learned quite a bit about the Russians I didn't care to know. While British & French troops in particular received a better reputation by the time of the CW the French in Spain and the handful of nasty incidents by the Brits in China and India were not unknown. Were these on par w/ German and Russian actions of WW2? No. Nations did not restrict their 19th Century problems to wartime... When referencing liberation I have read reference to British troops "liberating" towns and then being given carte blanche. I connecting this w/ Manifest Destiny I see US politicians seeing this and perhaps seeing a bit of precedent.

When I mentioned the Italians of 1944 preferring liberation by US troops it was because the US troops fed them whereas no other allied troops had that ability. When referencing the modern UN & NATO; their efforts to curb any Manifest Destiny like attitudes by Nations in Africa or the Balkans have been laughable.

[johan_steele]

Everyone please switch to actually typing out Manifest Destiny instead of using MD... I keep looking for references to Maryland.

[dawna]

Originally Posted by 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.

Ole:

I suppose it's unfortunate then that the logical consequence of such an abstract ideal is death, suffering, and extermination.

"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."

Post # 23 was written expressly for the purpose of discussing Northern Capitalism at the time of the Civil War, but I would heartily support any efforts you might wish to make in starting a new thread titled "The Sins of Southern Profiteers."

"Why insist on slave states where slavery would have a tenuous existence, if any?"

I find it highly absurd that slave holders would have risked their investments in new states where loss of crops were frequent, especially with so much capital tied up in food and clothing. I think that the obsessive feelings and beliefs on both sides of this issue were based on fear and self preservation. The South was certainly put on a 'political defensive,' and I can't help but wonder - why insist on a right that you can't actively use, if it is not to maintain or defend political strength?

"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."

As I've previously stated, my interest in starting this thread was to discuss the Manifest Destiny as it applied to all of the United States, and from a religious/moral point of view; along with Northern Capitalism at the time of the Civil War. At the top of Post # 23, I stated the subject matter, so if my post was too lengthy or held no interest for you, all you needed to do was avert your eyes.

But I am surprised Ole that this particular post didn't capture your attention, since it was 'those greedy Northern capitalists' whose very actions were compromising the lives and injuring the boys who died for the Union cause.

Dawna

[bill_torrens]

Originally Posted by 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.

Oh, this is fascinating.

Taking land from “aboriginals”, with the eventual consequence of their virtual extinction, was not sinful because it was a logical concept at the time.

So, if Americans regarded Negroes as “aboriginals”, it might well follow that they would regard slavery as “a logical concept” in regulating their relationship with white people. In which case, Q.E.D., it wasn’t sinful!

No? Oh dear.

All of which goes to prove that “a crime against humanity”, when perpetrated by Southerners, is nothing more than “a logical concept” when Northerners are involved.

Double standards. Don'tcha love ‘em?

[ole]

Bill:
There's no double standard. When it comes to slavery and eliminating aborigines, both are now viewed as a bad thing. At the time, they were not (almost universally).

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.

Dawna:
My point was that both sides had war profiteers. Why bother to list their sins? And I would have the same lack of interest in a thread on southern war profiteers. By the way. Isn't this thread dedicated to Manifest Destiny (there you go, Shane)? What do war profiteers have to do with that?
Ole

[unionblue]

Bill,

My apologies, what I meant to say in my post #30 was 'I would not liken the Civil War era US to on the same religious footing as Iran is today.' I was not clear in my response to you and I know very well you are not criticising anything pertaining to religion in America. No overboard reactions were intended on the reference to Iran.

Again, what I was trying to get across to you was that experiences in the lifetimes of nations might be the same as the experiences in the lifetimes of people. When a person is a baby or small child, it makes mistakes, bad assumptions and stupid actions based on little or no experience at that early stage of its/'her/his life.

It is the same with all nations as far as I know, although my knowledge is limited to what I have read and studied on my own and in various schools. Religion was a crucial factor in the development of all nations, at times, the dominating factor in determining a nation's actions towards its neighbors, citizens and its world-view.

This is what I meant to imply, that yes, at a point in its lifetime, religion can be a powerful force, just as it was in England, France, Italy, and the United States. In the course of my being a living history docent at the Historical Ohio Village, and at the recent conversion of my wife to Catholicism, I researched the history of religion in the US at the time before and during the Civil War. I read of Catholic churches being burned and Catholics being descriminated against, etc. It wasn't until after the Civil War that the Catholic Church could draw a sigh of relief in America and not a loud one at that.

My main thrust is, the concept of Manifest Destiny has appeared in all nations at one time or another at a stage in its lifetime. In Rome's quest for a secure border, I'm sure the 'gods' figured in there somewhere. 'The white man's burden', etc. Was Manifest Destiny wrong, immoral or even fattening? By today's, 21st century standards, many of us might be inclined to answer yes. But I have been chastized more than once that this is not fair to the people who actually lived in the time.

Donna seems to me to want to lay Manifest Destiny and its sins at the door of Norhtern Capitalists, if I read her posts right. My contention is I do not see how it is possible to do such a thing without taking in the whole picture. The Whig Party and Congressman Abraham Lincoln protested the Mexican War and who did the Whig Party represent at the time? U.S. Grant said the Mexican War was without justification and just naked conquest. So who pushed for it, wanted it, had to have it?

I ask the question without really knowing the details, but I do have a general idea. Hope this long ramble helped a bit.

Unioblue

[dawna]

Originally Posted by unionblue

Donna seems to me to want to lay Manifest Destiny and its sins at the door of Norhtern Capitalists, if I read her posts right. My contention is I do not see how it is possible to do such a thing without taking in the whole picture.

Neil:

I lay the original sins of the Manifest Destiny at the doors of the religious zealots, who like John Winthrop (Pilgrim leader) believed "that the eyes of the world would be on America because God had given us a special commission so it is our duty to shine forth." This was no different than John O'Sullivan's message over two hundred years later, and not contrary to the handful of politicians who orchestrated the Civil War. It stands to reason that if an army has received "God's blessing," then He is obviously against your enemy, and with such divine and focused leadership, who also happens to believe in white supremacy, it becomes effortless to cut a swath from 'sea to shining sea.'

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.

Using the American West as an example, when you consider that a people and it's culture were willfully destroyed and that a land was stripped bare of it's most plentiful food source, it is difficult to understand when the wheels of progress became more important than the failures and shame of how prosperity was achieved. Was it really God's plan to build the American dream by glossing over an event such as genocide?

I understand President Lincoln was against the Mexican War and that he viewed it as a 'war of unprovoked U.S. aggression,' and this position helped get him defeated after his only term in Congress. And also how Grant admitted later that the war had been "unjust" and his regret of not having the courage to resign. President Polk made his beliefs regarding territorial expansion quite clear in his Inaugural Address.

But there's something about the treatment of Mexican Catholics (civilians) in the name of Manifest Destiny, and that old saying "there's no good Indian like a dead Indian," that still kind of sticks in my craw.

Dawna

.

[unionblue]

Dawna,

I lean more towards Russ's views on this thread. I simply do not see how the concept of Manifest Destiny, the American Civil War and Northern Capitalists equate to the real reasons behind the Civil War.

Unionblue

[bill_torrens]

Neil,

I have some sympathy with the idea that nations grow, mature and decline in much the same way as people. If that is the case, Britain is propped up in a chair with a blanket over its knees, gently drooling. America is still a young man but (if you don’t mind me saying so) sporting a formidable paunch from too much easy living.

I can’t say whether countries like Britain exhibited the same belief in walking hand-in-hand with destiny when their own imperial stars were in the ascendant. I don’t know enough about the relevant period(s) of history. It’s an interesting thought, though.

But I’m not convinced that the prominence of religion in American politics was a passing phase. America stands miles apart from other western countries on this issue. I’ve just located figures suggesting that “53% of Americans consider religion to be very important in their lives. This compares with 16% in Britain, 14% in France and 13% in Germany.” This is a really remarkable difference, don’t you think?

So try this little test. It is an historical fact that the United States played a pioneering role in propogating democracy in the modern world. But there are two ways of interpreting this.

One is to say that it was simply an historical accident. Yes, the U.S. happened to play this role but, in principle, it could have been one of many other countries. And the fact that the U.S. has played this role in the past has absolutely no bearing on whether it does so now or will do so in the future. There is no cosmic plan behind any of it.

The other interpretation is that the United States was created for the express purpose of being the vessel to carry the torch of liberty throughout the world, and the hands that created it were divine. Your country will always be first in the ranks of the defenders of the common man.

Do you react viscerally to the second interpretation? Does it speak to you? If it doesn’t, I’ll bet you anything you like it’s speaking to plenty of board members! This second way of seeing things is actually an expression of religious faith rather than a form of political or historical analysis.

The relevance of all of this to the CW/WBTS is simple. No other democratic government has ever decided to force people (excluding colonial “subjects”) to be its citizens against their will. The same impulses which lead to embracing democracy usually resist the idea of employing violent compulsion. So something very powerful and probably unique must have motivated the people of the North to impose their will on their Southern neighbours. 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


Bill