Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
You may have the support of American troops after the Mexican War began confused with the idea on how many actually supported the actual idea of a war with Mexico.
From a speech to Congress concerning the Mexican War and Whigs, July 27, 1848:
"...The declaration that we (Whig Party) have always opposed the war, is true or false, accordingly as one may understand the term "opposing the war"--If to say "the war was unnecessarily and unconstitutionally commenced by the President" be opposing the war, then the whigs have very generally opposed it--Whenever they have spoken at all, they have said this; and they have said it on what has appeared good reason to them-- The marching an army into the midst of a peaceful Mexican settlement, frightening the inhabitants away, leaving their growing crops, and other property to destruction, to you may appear a perfectly amiable, peaceful, unprovoking procedure; but it does not appear so to us--So to call such an act, to us appears no other than a naked, impudent absurdity, and we speak of it accordingly--But if, when the war had begun, and had become the cause of the country, the giving of our money and our blood, in common with yours, was support of the war, then it is not true that we have always opposed the war-- With few individual exceptions, you have constantly had our votes here for all the necessary supplies-- And, more than this, you have had the services, the blood, and the lives of our political bretheren in every trial, and on every field-- The beardless boy, and the mature man -- the humble and the distinguished, you have had them-- Though suffering and death, by disease, and in battle, they have endured, and fought, and fell with you-- Clay and Webster each gave a son, never to be returned-- From the state of my own residence, besides other worthy but less known whig names, we sen Marshall, Morrison, Baker, and Hardin, and they all fought, and one fell; and in the fall of that one, we lost our best whig man-- Nor were the whigs few in number, or laggard in the day of danger-- In that fearful, bloody, breathless struggle at Buena Vista, where each Man's hard task was to beat back five foes or die himself, of the five high officers who perished, four were whigs---
In speaking of this, I mean no odious comparison between the lion-hearted whigs and democrats who fought there-- On other occasions, and among the lower officers and privates on that occasion, I doubt not the proportion was different-- I wish to do justice to all-- I think of all those brave men as Americans, in whose proud fame, as an American, I too have a share-- Many of them, whigs and democrats, are my constituents and personal friends; and I thank them-- more that thank them -- one and all, for the high, imperishable honor they have confered on our common state--
But the distinction between the cause of the President in beginning the war, and the cause of the country after it was begun, is a distinction which you can not perceive-- To you the President, and the country, seems to be all one-- You are interested to see no distinction between them; and I venture to suggest that possibly your interests blinds you a little-- We see the distinction, as we think, clearly enough; and our friends who have fought in the war have no diffculty in seeing it also-- What those who have fallen would say were they alive and here, of course we can never know; but with those who have returned there is no difficulty-- Col. Haskell, and Major Gaines, members here, both fought in the war; and one of them underwent extraordinary perils and hardships; still they, like all other whig here, vote, on the record, that the war was unnecessarily and unconstitutionaly commenced by the President-- And even Gen. Taylor himself, the noblest Roman of them all, has declared that as a citizen, and particularly as a soldier, it is sufficient for him to know that his country is at war with a foreign nation, to do all in his power to bring it to a speedy and honorable termination, by the most vigorous and energetic operations, without enquiring about it's justice, or any thing else connected with it--"
So it seems Dawna, that one could oppose the war, with vigor, but once it was claimed by President Polk that American troops had been fired on, no one did nothing to interfere with support of American soldiers in combat. Seems like the country's mood went from not wanting a war, to that of supporting the troops, more than coming over to the idea of President Polk justifying annexation and conquest.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
"…the right of our manifest destiny to over spread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federaltive development of self government entrusted to us. It is right such as that of the tree to the space of air and the earth suitable for the full expansion of its principle and destiny of growth.
"We must onward to the fulfillment of our mission-to the entire development of the principle of our organization-freedom of conscience, freedom of person, freedom of trade and business pursuits, universality of freedom and equality. This is our high destiny, and in nature's eternal, inevitable decree of cause and effect we must accomplish it."
The Inaugural Address of James Knox Polk:
"Foreign powers do not seem to appreciate the true character of our Government. Our Union is a confederation of independent States, whose policy is peace with each other and all the world. To enlarge its limits is to extend the dominions of peace over additional territories and increasing millions. The world has nothing to fear from military ambition in our Government…Foreign powers should therefore look on the annexation of Texas to the United States not as the conquest of a nation seeking to extend her dominions by arms and violence, but as the peaceful acquisition of a territory once her own, by adding another member to our confederation, with the consent of that member, thereby diminishing the chances of war and opening to them new and ever-increasing markets for their products."
The Manifest Destiny was not a novel concept in the early 1800's - it's very notion had been around for hundreds of years. What I find curious in President Polk's Inaugural Address is his belief that foreign powers did not understand that the U.S. acquisition of land was meant to promote peace; but after the Mexican War, rather than gaining momentum, the very foundation of the Manifest Destiny was severely weakened, and the slavery issue further convoluted 'expansion.'
1837 letter to Henry Clay, by William E. Channing:
"…We are a restless people, prone to encroachment, impatient of the ordinary laws of progress…We boast of our rapid growth, forgetting that, throughout nature, noble growths are slow…It is full time that we should lay on ourselves serious, resolute restraint. Possessed of a domain, vast enough for the growth of ages, it is time for us to stop in the career of acquisition and conquest. Already endangered by our greatness, we cannot advance without imminent peril to our institutions, union, prosperity, virtue, and peace…"
I was intrigued by the above letter, because it clearly shows a concern for the dangers of Manifest Destiny - acquisition of land from Mexico opened a Pandora's Box and added fuel to an already existing fire. In believing that America had dominion over it's surroundings, and that the American way of life was superior to all others (and it must expand), it was a simple task to justify the slaughter of Native Americans, and to promote racial meliority.
And to have the temerity to want to leave a kingdom as perfect as the United States of America, would be nothing short of a cardinal sin.
Photo of the bodies of Native Americans being carted away in the name of Manifest Destiny.
"The Irony of Democracy" by Thomas R. Dye and T. Harmon Zeigler:
"The importance of the Civil War for America's elite structure was the commanding position that the new industrial capitalists won during the course of the struggle. . . . The economic transformation of the United States from an agricultural to an industrial nation reached the crescendo of a revolution in the second half of the nineteenth century.
"Civil War profits compounded the capital of the industrialists and placed them in a position to dominate the economic life of the nation. Moreover, when the Southern planters were removed from the national scene, the government in Washington became the exclusive domain of the new industrial leaders."
"[T]he industrial elites saw no objection to legislation if it furthered their success in business. Unrestricted competition might prove who was the fittest, but as an added precaution to insure that the industrial capitalists themselves emerged as the fittest, these new elites also insisted upon government subsidies, patents, tariffs, loans, and massive giveaways of land and other natural resources."
The Northern industrialists used increased capital to build the system of transcontinental railways, linking the Northeast with both the South and West. The labour for this venture was from recently freed slaves and poor immigrants from Europe and China, who suffered under living conditions which were often little better than those which existed under the slave system just a few years before.
These capitalists shared the same racial supremacy attitudes as the rest of the United States, and it was apparent that they did not want to compete in the West with slaveholders for land and wealth. The North had little moral conscience with respect to the institution of slavery and there are numerous stories of slaves who escaped to the North, only to be met by further racial hatred.
Industrialists and capitalists, with their own insular and selfish enconomic visions, were not crying 'unfetter the negroe from human bondage;' but rather preserve the Union at all costs, and keep the West 'racially unclouded.'
Dawna
"Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people, by the people, for the people." ~Oscar Wilde~
-----------
Dawna,
I humbly apologize for my absence over the last few weeks. I've skimmed this thread and frankly I must say I'm a bit confused as to your overall thesis, and others may have been confused as well, which led to that little dustup I read about in the thread.
If I read your last comment to Neil correctly, you are saying that Manifest Destiny was embraced by the entire country. Is that correct?
Then I must ask, to what end? What, specifically, are you saying about Manifest Destiny and what drove it? Again, I must apologize if I'm asking you to replow land you've already seeded and cultivated, but as I said, I'm mightily confused about what you're trying to show.
No need to apologize. The 'dust-up' that you referred to had nothing to do with the original thesis of this thread. We were derailed for a time in defense of accusations that this thread was little more than an excuse to bash America, and I found my own country needlessly under attack...these complaints I took rather seriously.
You asked: "Then I must ask, to what end? What, specifically, are you saying about Manifest Destiny and what drove it? Again, I must apologize if I'm asking you to replow land you've already seeded and cultivated, but as I said, I'm mightily confused about what you're trying to show.
I hadn't meant this to be quite so complicated and I'm loathe to repeat myself, but in this instance I wanted to be specific regarding my comments and questions; so please bear with summaries from my previous postings:
"My interest in starting this thread was to further explore the arrogance and dangers of a concept such as the Manifest Destiny, the volatile situation in the West, and the hyprocricy of Northern Capitalism, as these issues pertain to all of the United States. Obviously, Northern Capitalism is an inclusive topic."
"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."
"I'm hugely fascinated by a concept that embraces expansion and conquest, but then pulls up the drawbridge once you're in."
"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."
"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?"
"A better life and God to the heathens' must have been a flash in the pan ideal, since death seemed to be the end result, regardless of original motives. I see the terms manifest destiny and capitalism as being synonymous, with religion as the bogus moral authority behind the principles of these two phrases. Moral superiority and a greater sense of worth stokes the insatiable fire of Manifest Destiny, and can rationalize almost anything; whether it is to fuel the slaughter of innocent people, theft of land, or government by coercion. The 'will of God' can and does express itself in many strange shades of 'nationalism."
"For those who did not meet the standards of "God's chosen," ideals such as liberty, human dignity, and self-determination were suffered as little more than lip service from those who carried the Manifest Destiny torch. And as a result of this, religion, white supremacy, and capitalist expansionism worked together to create an able, exclusive empire."
Expansion and land availability seem to guarantee opportunity and democracy for those who clutch the Manifest Destiny scrolls, but render the inheritors of such an ideal as little more than mute incumbents. Where is the moral and social conscience behind such a lofty concept?
A midwestern politician had this to say regarding Native Americans:
"Is one of the finest portions of the globe to remain in a state of nature, the haunt of a few wretched savages, when it seems destined by the creator to give support to a large population and to the seat of civilization, of science, and of true religion?"
Don't you find this just a bit audacious Cash - that the proponents of the Manifest Destinty conveniently viewed Native Americans and Mexicans as lazy by nature, and economically/morally inferior?
To summarize, I believe that white supremacy, religion, and capitalist expansionism were the driving forces that fuelled and spawned the American Manifest Destiny.
Dawna
"A chief event of life is the day in which we have encountered a mind that startled us." ~Emerson~
Riverrat: I would like to see some source material on the idea that industrial capiltalists were trying to "keep the West 'racially unclouded.'"
Not just industrialists, but also their elected representatives sought to keep the west ‘racially unclouded.’
“Slavery is wrong in its effect upon white people and free labor; it is the only thing that threatens the Union….If you give up your convictions and call slavery right as they do, you let slavery in upon you---instead of white laborers who can strike, you'll soon have black laborers who can't strike…. Wrong as we think it, we can afford to let it alone where it of necessity now exists; but we cannot afford to extend it into free territory and around our own homes. Let us stand against it!”—A. Lincoln, Speech at Hartford, March 5, 1860
"Whether slavery shall go into Nebraska, or other new territories, is not a matter of exclusive concern to the people who may go there. The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people. This they cannot be, to any considerable extent, if slavery shall be planted within them. Slave States are places for poor white people to remove FROM; not to remove TO. New free States are the places for poor people to go to and better their condition. For this use, the nation needs these territories.” –A. Lincoln, Oct. 16, 1854, Peoria, Ill
Russ: I don't understand your apparant connection between MD and the ACW
Neil: …equates to the causes of the American Civil War in what way?
I am not sure how one could miss the direct connection between Manifest Destiny and the causes of the sad war.
The primary battleground over influence and dominance of the federal government was in the New Territories as North and South fought to create allies of prospective States to be admitted into the Union.
No need to apologize. The 'dust-up' that you referred to had nothing to do with the original thesis of this thread. We were derailed for a time in defense of accusations that this thread was little more than an excuse to bash America, and I found my own country needlessly under attack...these complaints I took rather seriously.
-----------------
For the record, I don't believe your intent was ever to "bash" the United States, and having been to your beautiful country several times I can attest that if I didn't live in the United States I would most assuredly wish to live in Canada.
"My interest in starting this thread was to further explore the arrogance and dangers of a concept such as the Manifest Destiny, the volatile situation in the West, and the hyprocricy of Northern Capitalism, as these issues pertain to all of the United States. Obviously, Northern Capitalism is an inclusive topic."
-----------------------------
That assumes the arrogance to be a fact, and it assumes hypocrisy of "Northern capitalism" to be a fact. And it brings up the question of what you consider "Northern capitalism" to be, and why don't you consider southerners to be capitalists or as hypocritical as Northern capitalists?
"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."
---------------------------
19th Century Americans were a religious people, and they believed God had led them to this continent and had laid out all this land. As they multiplied they had to expand because they were rapidly running out of room on the East Coast. So naturally, in fulfilling God's great commandment to "be fruitful and multiply," they connected God's bringing them to this continent with the vast tracts of land available to expand into. Hence the belief that God wanted them to expand across the entire continent. If the Indians opposed them, then weren't the Indians therefore opposing God's will [in the opinion of these 19th Century folks]? So the Indians would have to be made to submit to God's will, as they saw it. The era of Manifest Destiny, which didn't last beyond the Civil War, didn't involve exterminating a group of people. It involved setting aside areas for the Indians so the whites and the Indians would not come into conflict. Unfortunately the Indians didn't take too kindly to this encroachment by the whites. Some Indians then attacked white settlements, causing the settlers to complain to the government, asking for protection from and punishment of the Indians.
"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."
-----------------------
Manifest Destiny included not only the desire to expand west but also the desire to expand south. The filibusters of the 1840s were people who led expeditions into Central and South America for the purpose of acquiring those lands for the United States and expanding slavery into them. The Mexican War was a direct result of the desire for more land for slavery. It was opposed by Lincoln and the Northern Whigs. The Wilmot Proviso was an attempt to keep slavery out of that conquered territory we received as part of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, but it was defeated due to the hold the slave power had in Congress.
Free soilers, in fact, were roadblocks to Manifest Destiny.
"By 1848, ardent champions of a manifest destiny for the country looked upon the principle of free soil as the surest way to stop the further enlargement of the United Stats." [Major L. Wilson, "Manifest Destiny and Free Soil: The Triumph of Negative Liberalism in the 1840s," The Historian, Vol XXXI, No. 1, Nov, 1968, p. 36]
"I'm hugely fascinated by a concept that embraces expansion and conquest, but then pulls up the drawbridge once you're in."
----------------------
Then you appear to be looking at only a small part of Manifest Destiny and giving a pass to the rest of it.
"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."
--------------------
As I said before, slavery was in fact the driving force behind Manifest Destiny. As Timothy Jenkins of New York said, "Slavery is an aggressive institution. Notwithstanding its incapacity for self-defence, it forever lusts for conquests and expansion." [Congressional Globe, 30th Congress, 2nd Session, Appendix, p. 101 (17 Feb 1849)]
"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?"
----------------------
You're talking about a time after the Civil War, after the era of Manifest Destiny was over. I take issue with your claim the Indians were willfully destroyed. In the words of military historian Edwin P. Hoyt, the Indians gave as good as they got. They were responsible for their share of massacres, and as a result the United States fought wars against the aggressive tribes. That led to the reservation policy as the most humane way to deal with the Indians by setting aside land for their exclusive use and keeping whites away from that land. There were times when some Indians refused to stay on the reservation because it was not the way of life they had grown up with and it was not a part of their culture. When that happened, the U.S. Army was sent to force them back to the reservations. In many cases this led to battles and more deaths. That is also a major reason for the destruction of the buffalo herds--denying the Indians their traditional food source on the plains so they would be forced onto the reservations. Perhaps that policy wasn't as enlightened as its authors thought it was. They were, after all, fallable humans. I'm not making claims either way, simply showing their thought process.
"A better life and God to the heathens' must have been a flash in the pan ideal, since death seemed to be the end result, regardless of original motives. I see the terms manifest destiny and capitalism as being synonymous, with religion as the bogus moral authority behind the principles of these two phrases. Moral superiority and a greater sense of worth stokes the insatiable fire of Manifest Destiny, and can rationalize almost anything; whether it is to fuel the slaughter of innocent people, theft of land, or government by coercion. The 'will of God' can and does express itself in many strange shades of 'nationalism."
------------------------
I can't fathom how you can see "Manifest Destiny" and "capitalism" as synonymous terms. They mean vastly different things.
It seems as though you regard capitalism as an evil thing.
Expansion and land availability seem to guarantee opportunity and democracy for those who clutch the Manifest Destiny scrolls, but render the inheritors of such an ideal as little more than mute incumbents. Where is the moral and social conscience behind such a lofty concept?
----------------------
Is this thread about the morality of Manifest Destiny or is it about the driving force behind it? As I see it, we are getting off on several tangents, which most assuredly will lead to some confusion somewhere along the way.
A midwestern politician had this to say regarding Native Americans:
"Is one of the finest portions of the globe to remain in a state of nature, the haunt of a few wretched savages, when it seems destined by the creator to give support to a large population and to the seat of civilization, of science, and of true religion?"
Don't you find this just a bit audacious Cash - that the proponents of the Manifest Destinty conveniently viewed Native Americans and Mexicans as lazy by nature, and economically/morally inferior?
-------------------------
I don't see where he made that claim in your quote above.
To summarize, I believe that white supremacy, religion, and capitalist expansionism were the driving forces that fuelled and spawned the American Manifest Destiny.
----------------------------
Unfortunately you have not supported that claim.
Henry L. Benning, Georgia politician and future Confederate general, writing in the summer of 1849 to his fellow Georgian, Howell Cobb: "First then, it is apparent, horribly apparent, that the slavery question rides insolently over every other everywhere -- in fact that is the only question which in the least affects the results of the elections." [Allan Nevins, The Fruits of Manifest Destiny, pp. 240-241]
Albert Gallatin Brown, U.S. Senator from Mississippi, speaking with regard to the several filibuster expeditions to Central America: "I want Cuba . . . I want Tamaulipas, Potosi, and one or two other Mexican States; and I want them all for the same reason -- for the planting and spreading of slavery." [Quoted in James M. McPherson, [u]Battle Cry of Freedom[u], p. 106]
Thank you for the compliments on my country - we have finally found something to agree on!
"That assumes the arrogance to be a fact, and it assumes hypocrisy of "Northern capitalism" to be a fact. And it brings up the question of what you consider "Northern capitalism" to be, and why don't you consider southerners to be capitalists or as hypocritical as Northern capitalists?"
Again, John O'Sullivan's views on Manifest Destiny:
"…the right of our manifest destiny to over spread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federaltive development of self government entrusted to us. It is right such as that of the tree to the space of air and the earth suitable for the full expansion of its principle and destiny of growth.
"We must onward to the fulfillment of our mission-to the entire development of the principle of our organization-freedom of conscience, freedom of person, freedom of trade and business pursuits, universality of freedom and equality. This is our high destiny, and in nature's eternal, inevitable decree of cause and effect we must accomplish it."
And Mr. O'Sullivan's later words:
"Why, were other reasoning wanting, in favour of now elevating this question of the reception of Texas into the Union, out of the lower region of our past party dissensions, up to its proper level of a high and broad nationality, it surely is to be found, found abundantly, in the manner in which other nations have undertaken to intrude themselves into it, between us and the proper parties to the case, in a spirit of hostile interference against us, for the avowed object of thwarting our policy and hampering our power, limiting our greatness and checking the fulfillment of our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions."
Cash, I've read Mr. O'Sullivan's words numerous times and those of many other proponents of Manifest Destiny - the entire concept is based on arrogance. Please explain to me how you can read the above passages and not find the hubris to be an absolute fact.
"If the Indians opposed them, then weren't the Indians therefore opposing God's will [in the opinion of these 19th Century folks]? So the Indians would have to be made to submit to God's will, as they saw it."
As they saw it, the Indians were defending their land, homes, families, and their cultural and spiritual practices. In the process, thousands were slaughtered while many other thousands died from disease and starvation.
"Then you appear to be looking at only a small part of Manifest Destiny and giving a pass to the rest of it."
In truth Cash, I've studied the Manifest Destiny in depth, and my conclusions are based on the complete picture; and we are discussing this concept with respect to all of the United States...yes?
"You're talking about a time after the Civil War, after the era of Manifest Destiny was over. I take issue with your claim the Indians were willfully destroyed. In the words of military historian Edwin P. Hoyt, the Indians gave as good as they got. They were responsible for their share of massacres, and as a result the United States fought wars against the aggressive tribes. That led to the reservation policy as the most humane way to deal with the Indians by setting aside land for their exclusive use and keeping whites away from that land. There were times when some Indians refused to stay on the reservation because it was not the way of life they had grown up with and it was not a part of their culture..."
I have no wish to turn this posting into the 'plight of Native Americans,' but I stand by my claim that Indians were willfully slaughtered in the name of expansion and progress. And do you really find it ususual that "some Indians refused to stay on the reservation because it was not the way of life they had grown up with and it was not a part of their culture; or that according to Edwin P. Hoyt, "the Indians gave as good as they got?"
"Is this thread about the morality of Manifest Destiny or is it about the driving force behind it? As I see it, we are getting off on several tangents, which most assuredly will lead to some confusion somewhere along the way."
Yes, this thread is about the 'morality of Manifest Destiny' and the driving forces behind such a concept; and racism and capitalism. I've mentioned before that if anyone wished to start a new thread on "Southern Profiteering," I would be more than happy to participate.
I believe that Manifest Destiny is the point at which white supremacy, religion, and capitalism meet to create a combined facade. It places the responsibility of the destruction of a people on the victims rather than on the perpetrators; which is easily done when you label a society as morally inferior. And if your 'theory' is supported by Almighty God, this further removes human will or intent.
When you decide to rid a population of their land and food source in the name of expansion, the only way this can be accomplished (unless you have no conscience at all) is to be absolutely convinced that a group of people have no rights to life, freedom, or the land that they originally occupied. Otherwise, you can't possibly justify the pain and suffering that you are inflicting upon the lives of innocent people.
Pit this together with the Language of Coercion i.e. U.S. aggresssion was seen as virile and brave, whereas Native Americans were depicted as savage and barbaric; and a suitable logic is further fashioned to justify 'the benevolence of expansion.'
Dawna
"Of course America has often been discovered before Columbus, but is was always hushed up." ~Oscar Wilde~
And here I thought you'd given on up me! :-)
----------------
No, Ma'am, not I.
Thank you for the compliments on my country - we have finally found something to agree on!
----------------
Canada is a wonderful country. I've been to Montreal and to various places in New Brunswick, and a few years back I spent a couple of weeks at Cold Lake in Alberta, near the border with Saskatchewan.
And about 20 years ago I had the opportunity to spend a month in Bill's fine country, Merry Olde England, and enjoyed it tremendously. Everywhere you turned, throughout the country, there was history.
"That assumes the arrogance to be a fact, and it assumes hypocrisy of "Northern capitalism" to be a fact. And it brings up the question of what you consider "Northern capitalism" to be, and why don't you consider southerners to be capitalists or as hypocritical as Northern capitalists?"
Again, John O'Sullivan's views on Manifest Destiny:
"…the right of our manifest destiny to over spread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federaltive development of self government entrusted to us. It is right such as that of the tree to the space of air and the earth suitable for the full expansion of its principle and destiny of growth.
"We must onward to the fulfillment of our mission-to the entire development of the principle of our organization-freedom of conscience, freedom of person, freedom of trade and business pursuits, universality of freedom and equality. This is our high destiny, and in nature's eternal, inevitable decree of cause and effect we must accomplish it."
And Mr. O'Sullivan's later words:
"Why, were other reasoning wanting, in favour of now elevating this question of the reception of Texas into the Union, out of the lower region of our past party dissensions, up to its proper level of a high and broad nationality, it surely is to be found, found abundantly, in the manner in which other nations have undertaken to intrude themselves into it, between us and the proper parties to the case, in a spirit of hostile interference against us, for the avowed object of thwarting our policy and hampering our power, limiting our greatness and checking the fulfillment of our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions."
Cash, I've read Mr. O'Sullivan's words numerous times and those of many other proponents of Manifest Destiny - the entire concept is based on arrogance. Please explain to me how you can read the above passages and not find the hubris to be an absolute fact.
----------------------
As I said before, they were a religious people. They felt God had brought them to this continent, God had told mankind to "be fruitful and multiply," in mulitplying they had to expand to avoid overcrowding, and there was a vast continent available to them into which they could expand. What else could they think, given their perspective, except that God wanted them to expand across the continent? Is that hubris or is that simply a wish to fulfill what they thought was God's will?
And how does "Northern capitalism" fit into all this? And why weren't "Southern capitalists" as hypocritical as "Northern capitalists," if indeed any of them were hypocritical?
"If the Indians opposed them, then weren't the Indians therefore opposing God's will [in the opinion of these 19th Century folks]? So the Indians would have to be made to submit to God's will, as they saw it."
As they saw it, the Indians were defending their land, homes, families, and their cultural and spiritual practices. In the process, thousands were slaughtered while many other thousands died from disease and starvation.
-------------------------
I agree the Indians were defending their way of life. They didn't really conceive of land ownership, so they weren't really defending their land. The plains Indians were mostly nomadic, so they also weren't really defending their homes. But I agree with the other things they were defending. So essentially what we had was an irresistable force, people who saw themselves as fulfilling God's will, against an obstacle, Indians who were defending a way of life. It was a tragic collision because how can either side really compromise? If you see yourself as God's servant fulfilling His will, how can you say you'll stop fulfilling His will? If you see yourself as defending your way of life, how can you say you'll freely give it all up without a struggle?
"Then you appear to be looking at only a small part of Manifest Destiny and giving a pass to the rest of it."
In truth Cash, I've studied the Manifest Destiny in depth, and my conclusions are based on the complete picture; and we are discussing this concept with respect to all of the United States...yes?
---------------------
Yes, but the United States consisted of a Northern region and a Southern region, and you appear to be concentrating solely on one of those regions to the exclusion of the other.
"You're talking about a time after the Civil War, after the era of Manifest Destiny was over. I take issue with your claim the Indians were willfully destroyed. In the words of military historian Edwin P. Hoyt, the Indians gave as good as they got. They were responsible for their share of massacres, and as a result the United States fought wars against the aggressive tribes. That led to the reservation policy as the most humane way to deal with the Indians by setting aside land for their exclusive use and keeping whites away from that land. There were times when some Indians refused to stay on the reservation because it was not the way of life they had grown up with and it was not a part of their culture..."
I have no wish to turn this posting into the 'plight of Native Americans,' but I stand by my claim that Indians were willfully slaughtered in the name of expansion and progress. And do you really find it ususual that "some Indians refused to stay on the reservation because it was not the way of life they had grown up with and it was not a part of their culture; or that according to Edwin P. Hoyt, "the Indians gave as good as they got?"
---------------------
Oh, I don't find it unusual at all. I find it completely understandable, 160-odd years later and looking back with perfect hindsight. If I were to look at it from the standpoint of a white settler in the 1840s, though, I'd see the Indians had just murdered my neighbor and his whole family, and therefore the Indians were a threat to me and to my family, and I'd be demanding that the government do something about that threat.
"Is this thread about the morality of Manifest Destiny or is it about the driving force behind it? As I see it, we are getting off on several tangents, which most assuredly will lead to some confusion somewhere along the way."
Yes, this thread is about the 'morality of Manifest Destiny' and the driving forces behind such a concept; and racism and capitalism. I've mentioned before that if anyone wished to start a new thread on "Southern Profiteering," I would be more than happy to participate.
------------------------
Manifest Destiny itself was neither moral nor immoral. Some moral things were done in its name and some immoral things were done in its name.
I'd like to see you expand your conception of capitalism as a driving force behind it. Racism doesn't appear to me to be a driving force behind it. It's essentially the idea that we have to expand, and that God wants us to expand across the continent, and to do so would fulfill our manifest destiny to occupy the entire continent. While racism did exist and did express itself in attitudes about the Indians, I don't see it as a driving force behind the goal of expansion.
Slavery, on the other hand, needed expansion, and thus slavery became a major driving force behind that expansion across the country.
I believe that Manifest Destiny is the point at which white supremacy, religion, and capitalism meet to create a combined facade. It places the responsibility of the destruction of a people on the victims rather than on the perpetrators; which is easily done when you label a society as morally inferior. And if your 'theory' is supported by Almighty God, this further removes human will or intent.
------------------------
I think I will have to disagree with your interpretation, unfortunately, but before I commit myself I would still like to see the capitalism theme developed.
When you decide to rid a population of their land and food source in the name of expansion, the only way this can be accomplished (unless you have no conscience at all) is to be absolutely convinced that a group of people have no rights to life, freedom, or the land that they originally occupied. Otherwise, you can't possibly justify the pain and suffering that you are inflicting upon the lives of innocent people.
--------------------
Once again, I believe you are conflating what happened post-Civil War with the Manifest Destiny movement that was an Antebellum phenomenon.
Pit this together with the Language of Coercion i.e. U.S. aggresssion was seen as virile and brave, whereas Native Americans were depicted as savage and barbaric; and a suitable logic is further fashioned to justify 'the benevolence of expansion.'
----------------------------
Now here I think we might find an area of agreement. I think you accurately depict the feeling about expansion and the feeling about the Indians.
You state as fact, though, that the actions of the US were aggression. Maybe looking backward we can see that today. Looking at it from their point of view, though, they were humble servants of God doing His will, which could not be aggression, and they were defending their lives and the lives of their families as they moved west against the Indians who were attacking them.
Okay Cash,
This is one segment that I have to disagree.
The Indian 'problem'! I would like to ask you, Do you believe that it was good vs evil, in the U.S. defeating the Indians? I'm not sure just what part of our US of A that you live in, but as I've lived in Montana, and through my association with tribal members of a few tribes that have reservations there, I know of no one, of those tribes, that would even remotely consider your observations on it being God's will that they be conquered and sent away to a reservation. I still know members of the Flathead, Salish-Koonteni, Northern Cheyenne, in Montana, and some Blackfeet members in Idaho, and I know that they would disagree with you. I'm not sure just how you can say that they didn't fight for their 'homes', and families. As far as being nomadic, that was because they followed their food source. The land they roamed, was their home. It was not a home as we perceive it, for theirs was one far larger than what the white man considers a 'home'.
Did they commit atrosities on the white man? Sure they did. But what you must keep in mind is, is that they didn't instigate them, the white man did. They retaliated in kind, because the white man wanted what they had, and that being, their land. Did the Native American consider it truely 'their' land? Not really, for the land really belonged to all. They were here to manage it, to take care of it. They were on the land long before any white man set foot into it. It's not for me to say how the whites took possession of the land, for that was done long before my time. But, it was done because, as the whites moved westward, they considered the Indians, savages. What, or where, is it said, that the whites are, or were, BETTER than the Indians? Didn't most whites say the same thing about the blacks? Imagine if that were said today! What made it worse for the Indians, than the Blacks, is that the Indians were already here. This was their native land.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You're talking about a time after the Civil War, after the era of Manifest Destiny was over. I take issue with your claim the Indians were willfully destroyed. In the words of military historian Edwin P. Hoyt, the Indians gave as good as they got. They were responsible for their share of massacres, and as a result the United States fought wars against the aggressive tribes. That led to the reservation policy as the most humane way to deal with the Indians by setting aside land for their exclusive use and keeping whites away from that land. There were times when some Indians refused to stay on the reservation because it was not the way of life they had grown up with and it was not a part of their culture. When that happened, the U.S. Army was sent to force them back to the reservations. In many cases this led to battles and more deaths. That is also a major reason for the destruction of the buffalo herds--denying the Indians their traditional food source on the plains so they would be forced onto the reservations. Perhaps that policy wasn't as enlightened as its authors thought it was. They were, after all, fallable humans. I'm not making claims either way, simply showing their thought process."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I like this statement: They gave as good as they got! Excuse me! Going into the lands that the Indians called their own, and taking it, because they (the white man), thought that he was better, and the Indians didn't deserve it? The white man just took it because they wanted it. Who was the great white leader who said: The only good Indian is a dead Indian? Just what kind of talk is that? It becomes extremly difficult to reconcile my stand on the slavery issue, when the whites wanted to destroy the Indian, or Native American. At least the Southerners didn't annihilate the black man, or stick him on a reservation. As far as the indians being 'aggresive', well, what do you expect. They, the whites, came on like gangbusters, and took away their lifestyles, their very way of finding food, and why?...........because they wanted the land for themselves. Custer, in addition to being an idiot, got exactly what he deserved, a haircut. So much for boastful trash talking.
There is one story that seems to capsulate the whole Indian story. It's one that brings tears to my eyes, almost every time I read or hear about it. It's the story of the Nez Perce tribe, and Chief Joseph. If you've never read about it, I suggest you do so. Our Great white fathers, and the U.S. Army, really did a number on them. Willfully destroyed? I don't think that it was a mistake, was it? Was that done because the Indians fought back?, or, wouldn't go on to the reservation when they were told to do so? Darn, now just what in heavens name would those Indians want to fight back, and be annihilated for?
Is this something our Government should be proud of? Is this something that our God, dictated to our government, that is should be for the betterment of all..........meaning, just the whites?
While we're on it, I see that you were showing just their 'thought processes'. Hummm, seems as if I brought that up on one of my posts a couple of months ago. You're right on one thing, their thought processes were different, just as the Souths' thought processes were so much more different than those of today. Our Government was wrong, no matter how you slice it. But then, they thought so much more different, than we do now, so it must have been okay.
Anyway, it was no more 'all right' for the government to jump in and subdue the Indians in any form. Why, is it different for the government to do what they did to the Indians, than for them to tell the South to do away with slavery? The government said the slavery was wrong, but trying to annihilate a people is okay, because they fought back?, and were heathens? Not that the blacks weren't, right? This was the Indians land, the blacks were shipped over here. Does that, or did that, mean that they (blacks) were more intitled to better treatment than the Indians, because they ( the blacks ), were slaves?
"What else could they think, given their perspective, except that God wanted them to expand across the continent? Is that hubris or is that simply a wish to fulfill what they thought was God's will?"
I think that's blatant arrogance and religious chauvinism in its finest form. Romans, Eyptians, Babylonians etc. all believed they were "God's chosen" and acted accordingly...what made Americans more exceptional...racial superiority and greed? And how dangerous and insane is it to believe that you can never be wrong because "God is on your side." After all, suicide bombers are absolutely convinced that they are dying for the glory of Allah.
"And how does "Northern capitalism" fit into all this? And why weren't "Southern capitalists" as hypocritical as "Northern capitalists," if indeed any of them were hypocritical?"
As an example of the hyprocricy of Northern Capitalism, I would like to suggest that you read Posting # 23.
"The allegations of superiority of race and destiny… are but pretenses under which to disguise ambition and cupidity" (Albert Gallatin - James Madison's Secretary of the Treasury).
"I agree the Indians were defending their way of life. They didn't really conceive of land ownership, so they weren't really defending their land. The plains Indians were mostly nomadic, so they also weren't really defending their homes.But I agree with the other things they were defending. So essentially what we had was an irresistable force, people who saw themselves as fulfilling God's will, against an obstacle, Indians who were defending a way of life. It was a tragic collision because how can either side really compromise? If you see yourself as God's servant fulfilling His will, how can you say you'll stop fulfilling His will? If you see yourself as defending your way of life, how can you say you'll freely give it all up without a struggle?"
Are you suggesting that the Plains Indians were so puerile that they didn't even have a fundemental grasp of their own tribal territories, so therefore the land they lived on was up for grabs? What exactly were the "Plains Indians" defending when Generals Sherman and Sheridan ("There's no good Indian like a dead Indian") destroyed their winter homes and food supply, which resulted in the deaths of many women and children? Please forgive me Cash as for a moment I forgot that meliority means you never have to say your sorry.
"Yes, but the United States consisted of a Northern region and a Southern region, and you appear to be concentrating solely on one of those regions to the exclusion of the other."
You'll have to be more specific because I really do not see where I've done this...I've repeatedly referred to all of the United States and made it clear that my interest in Manifest Destiny is not inclusive.
"Manifest Destiny itself was neither moral nor immoral. Some moral things were done in its name and some immoral things were done in its name."
I would be interested to learn some of the moral examples of the Manifest Destiny, and are you suggesting that the Divine backing behind this concept was somewhat ambiguous?
I'd like to see you expand your conception of capitalism as a driving force behind it. Racism doesn't appear to me to be a driving force behind it. It's essentially the idea that we have to expand, and that God wants us to expand across the continent, and to do so would fulfill our manifest destiny to occupy the entire continent. While racism did exist and did express itself in attitudes about the Indians, I don't see it as a driving force behind the goal of expansion.
You can justify almost anything when you claim that non-white people are unable to govern themselves or look after the land that they live on; and that you are liberating people from their own ignorance, idleness, and stupidity (whether they want it or not)... in the name of God. The pomposity behind the belief that one has a direct calling from God is quite daunting, and this message seems to conveniently resonate when a society has been deemed "inferior."
"Once again, I believe you are conflating what happened post-Civil War with the Manifest Destiny movement that was an Antebellum phenomenon."
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.’”
William Duer (New York Representative) commented at the onset of theMexican War: "If you wish this plunder, this dismemberment of a sister republic, let us stand forth like conquerors and plainly declare our purposes…. Away with mawkish morality, with this desecration of religion, with this cant about Manifest Destiny, a divine mission, a warrant from the Most High, to civilize, Christianize and democratize our sister republic at the mouth of a cannon!"
President Van Buren, 1837: "No state can achieve proper culture, civilization and progress as long as Indians are permitted to remain."
William Medill (Commissioner of Indian Affairs 1845-1849) Described Indians as: "....ignorant, degraded, lazy, with no worthwhile cultural traits."
Luke Lea(Commissioner of Indian Affairs 1850-1853) denounced Indians as barbarians that needed to be conquered so that their lands may be given to good "Christian People."
Dennis Nelson Cooley (Commissioner of Indian Affairs 1865-1866) referred to Pueblo Indians as, "....miserable lizard eaters," and wrote that elimination of Indian culture was, "....a laudable objective."
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."
General Pope: "It is my purpose to exterminate the Sioux."
Andrew Myrick (referring to the starving Santee/Dakota): "So far as I am concerned, if they are hungry let them eat grass or their own dung."
General Sheridan: "We took away their country and their means of support, and it was for this and against this they made war. Could anyone expect less?
"You state as fact, though, that the actions of the US were aggression. Maybe looking backward we can see that today. Looking at it from their point of view, though, they were humble servants of God doing His will, which could not be aggression, and they were defending their lives and the lives of their families as they moved west against the Indians who were attacking them."
The above statements only serve to reinforce my acceptance that Manifest Destiny is merely justification to forcibly take what you want, and ..."places the responsibility of the destruction of a people on the victims rather than on the perpetrators; which is easily done when you label a society as morally inferior. And if your 'theory' is supported by Almighty God, this further removes human will or intent."
This is one segment that I have to disagree.
The Indian 'problem'! I would like to ask you, Do you believe that it was good vs evil, in the U.S. defeating the Indians?
------------------------
I didn't say that, did I?
I'm not sure just what part of our US of A that you live in, but as I've lived in Montana, and through my association with tribal members of a few tribes that have reservations there, I know of no one, of those tribes, that would even remotely consider your observations on it being God's will that they be conquered and sent away to a reservation.
-----------------------
I didn't say it was my observation. I said that's how whites in the Nineteenth Century viewed it.
I still know members of the Flathead, Salish-Koonteni, Northern Cheyenne, in Montana, and some Blackfeet members in Idaho, and I know that they would disagree with you. I'm not sure just how you can say that they didn't fight for their 'homes', and families.
-------------------------
I said the Plains Indians were nomadic. As they were nomads they had no homes to fight for. I agreed they were fighting in part for their families.
As far as being nomadic, that was because they followed their food source. The land they roamed, was their home.
---------------------
No, it was the land. They had no homes. That's the very core of being nomadic.
Did they commit atrosities on the white man? Sure they did. But what you must keep in mind is, is that they didn't instigate them, the white man did.
-----------------------
Some they did, some they didn't. It was give and take.
They retaliated in kind, because the white man wanted what they had, and that being, their land. Did the Native American consider it truely 'their' land? Not really, for the land really belonged to all. They were here to manage it, to take care of it.
------------------
They had no concept of managing the land, so that statement is simply not so.
"You're talking about a time after the Civil War, after the era of Manifest Destiny was over. I take issue with your claim the Indians were willfully destroyed. In the words of military historian Edwin P. Hoyt, the Indians gave as good as they got. They were responsible for their share of massacres, and as a result the United States fought wars against the aggressive tribes. That led to the reservation policy as the most humane way to deal with the Indians by setting aside land for their exclusive use and keeping whites away from that land. There were times when some Indians refused to stay on the reservation because it was not the way of life they had grown up with and it was not a part of their culture. When that happened, the U.S. Army was sent to force them back to the reservations. In many cases this led to battles and more deaths. That is also a major reason for the destruction of the buffalo herds--denying the Indians their traditional food source on the plains so they would be forced onto the reservations. Perhaps that policy wasn't as enlightened as its authors thought it was. They were, after all, fallable humans. I'm not making claims either way, simply showing their thought process."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I like this statement: They gave as good as they got!
------------------
It's not my statement, it's Edwin P. Hoyt's statement. And I think he's right. Some tribes were peaceful, others were not. Indians were having wars with each other long before the white man showed up, and when the white man came some were friendly and others saw a new enemy to attack.
Excuse me! Going into the lands that the Indians called their own,
---------------------
You just said above they didn't call the land their own land. Please make up your mind.
Who was the great white leader who said: The only good Indian is a dead Indian?
-----------------
None.
As to the rest of your rant, you appear to have this idyllic picture of all the Indians sitting around the campfire singing "***baya" together when all of a sudden white men showed up and started killing them. It just wasn't so, Sarge. Sure, the Indians weren't treated fairly, but we should also look at events from the standpoint of people in the Nineteenth Century to understand why they did what they did. And you may want to read a good biography of Custer to dispell the mistaken notions you have of him.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
