0
Want this question answered?
Be notified when an answer is posted
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Manifest Destiny and imperialism different?
imperialism is when a militarily stronger country overtakes a militarily weaker country and colonizes it. manifest destiny is the belief in the God-given right to move as far as possible to settle new land.
Was fulfilling our manifest destiny a glorious American achievement or an American tragedy?
It was most definitely an achievement! Most media will tell you manifest destiny means expanding America from sea to shining sea but there is so much more to it than that. When the founders talked about manifest destiny they were referring to the destiny to be "an example and a blessing to the entire human race." - Cleon Skousen, The 5000 Year Leap America was meant to spread from sea to shining sea in order to be an example and a blessing. However, today America is no longer fulfilling it's destiny.
How is the Mormon migration part of the manifest destiny?
The migration of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to Utah helped the idea of Manifest Destiny progress in that a new territory was settled by the Church. However, there is a subtle distinction between the two migration patterns. Manifest Destiny was the idea that the United States had the moral privilege of expanding from coast to coast; the Church migration, on the other hand, was done out of necessity to escape persecution and was done as a group of colonists rather than as agents for United States expansion.
What did manifest destiny specifically want to spread?
The US propaganda that expanding the US border all the way to the Pacific Ocean was the country's "destiny". There is nothing to support this silly idea other than to justify taking what isn't yours.
What was manifest destiny used to justify other than American expansion into the west?
The Spanish-American war and US occupation of Cuba and the Phillipines, among other things.
Manifest Destiny and imperialism different?
imperialism is when a militarily stronger country overtakes a militarily weaker country and colonizes it. manifest destiny is the belief in the God-given right to move as far as possible to settle new land.
What made Mexico stop wanting more land than the US?
Mexico never had a "Manifest Destiny" belief.
Was fulfilling our manifest destiny a glorious American achievement or an American tragedy?
It was most definitely an achievement! Most media will tell you manifest destiny means expanding America from sea to shining sea but there is so much more to it than that. When the founders talked about manifest destiny they were referring to the destiny to be "an example and a blessing to the entire human race." - Cleon Skousen, The 5000 Year Leap America was meant to spread from sea to shining sea in order to be an example and a blessing. However, today America is no longer fulfilling it's destiny.
How is the Mormon migration part of the manifest destiny?
The migration of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to Utah helped the idea of Manifest Destiny progress in that a new territory was settled by the Church. However, there is a subtle distinction between the two migration patterns. Manifest Destiny was the idea that the United States had the moral privilege of expanding from coast to coast; the Church migration, on the other hand, was done out of necessity to escape persecution and was done as a group of colonists rather than as agents for United States expansion.
What did manifest destiny specifically want to spread?
The US propaganda that expanding the US border all the way to the Pacific Ocean was the country's "destiny". There is nothing to support this silly idea other than to justify taking what isn't yours.
What was manifest destiny used to justify other than American expansion into the west?
The Spanish-American war and US occupation of Cuba and the Phillipines, among other things.
What reason was given by settlers as to why they had a greater right to western lands than the Native Americans?
They believe it is part of their Manifest Destiny to move westward. This is based on their beliefs that God has entitled this task for them to accomplish
What economic benefits could the US get from following the ideals of Manifest Destiny?
Economics is all about growth. The more your company grows, the better it does. Growth is good.Manifest Destiny was the idea that it was America's most important (manifest) destiny to grow from shore to shore. As the country expanded, new markets were formed for goods and services. Those new markets in turn provided resources such as coal, oil, precious metals, and later on food and their own manufactured goods and services. All this boils down to one thing: economic growth.Today, we believe that it is America's Manifest Destiny to "Americanize" the world in terms of freedom and democracy and capitalism. If other countries shared these ideals, American business and, by default, its people, would prosper. But there is a downside, too. If the whole world were to "Americanize," then competition would grow exponentially greater than it is now. The consumers would prosper, but America as a whole might not.With all that said, however, the main benefit of Manifest Destiny principles is economic growth.
How did the manifest destiny affect the Mexican Americans?
Manifest destiny was a flawed theoretical justification for U.S. expansion an taking over of territory that was not theirs, Same as Abraham's Lincoln's: Lincoln made a speech on the House floor in which he pointed out that the Mexicans had made no hostile acts toward the United States and had been attacked in an area which was rightfully theirs
How did Manifest Destiny benefit White Society more than Native American Society?
"Manifest Destiny" refers to the American belief that it was the nation's destiny to expand their borders from their position on the eastern coast of America to the Pacific Ocean; it is mentioned in the line, "from sea to shining sea" in the American National Anthem. The natives were already living in the west, and had been for hundreds and hundreds of years. Thus, Americans forced the natives into reservations and took their ancestors' land from them, resulting in the achievement of Manifest Destiny. Native Americans lost their homes, their food sources (buffalo and other plains animals), and even [some of] their lives while America gained said land, gold from California, and completed a task they'd dreamt of since the anthem was written - possibly before that. Not to mention the oil they later discovered there.
Is the Colonialism era is more similar to present day than Puritanism?
Yes.
What is the importance of manifest destiny?
the importance is: In the United States in the 19thcentury, Manifest Destiny was the widely held belief that American settlers were destined to expand throughout the continent. This concept, born out of "A sense of mission to redeem the Old World by high example ... generated by the potentialities of a new earth for building a new heaven". The phrase itself meant many different things to many different people, and was rejected by many people. Howe argues that, "Nevertheless American imperialism did not represent an American consensus; it provoked bitter dissent within the national polity." That is, most Democrats strongly supported Manifest Destiny and most Whigs strongly opposed it .Manifest destiny provided the rhetorical tone for the largest acquisition of U.S. territory. It was used by Democrats in the 1840s to justify the war with Mexico and it was also used to divide half of Oregon with Great Britain. But Manifest Destiny always limped along because of its internal limitations and the issue of slavery, says historian Frederick Merk. It never became a national priority. By 1843 John Quincy Adams, originally a major supporter had changed his mind and repudiated Manifest Destiny because it meant the expansion of slavery in Texas. Merk concludes: “From the outset Manifest Destiny — vast in program, in its sense of continentalism — was slight in support. It lacked national, sectional, or party following commensurate with its bigness. The reason was it did not reflect the national spirit. The thesis that it embodied nationalism, found in much historical writing, is backed by little real supporting evidence. “The legacy is a complex one. The belief in an American mission to promote and defend democracy throughout the world, as expounded by Thomas Jefferson and his "Empire of Liberty", and by Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and George W. Bush, continues to have an influence on American political ideology. Manifest destiny was always a very general notion rather than a specific policy. There were never a set of principles defining Manifest destiny. Ill-defined but keenly felt, Manifest destiny was conviction in expansionism alongside other popular ideas of the era, including American exceptionalism and Romantic nationalism. Andrew Jackson, who spoke of "extending the area of freedom", typified the conflation of America's greatness, the nation's budding sense of Romantic self-identity and expansion. To some 19th‑century Americans his presence rested upon the "whole territory" from the valleys of Oregon to the frontier of the Rio Grande. Yet Jackson would not be the only President to elaborate on the principles underlying Manifest destiny. Owing in part to the lack of a definitive narrative outlining its rationale, proponents offered divergent or seemingly conflicting viewpoints. While many writers focused primarily upon American expansionism, be it into Mexico or across the Pacific, others saw the term as a call to example. Without an agreed upon interpretation, much less an elaborated political philosophy, these conflicting views of America's destiny were never resolved. This variety of possible meanings was summed up by Ernest Lee Tuveson, who wrote: A vast complex of ideas, policies, and actions is comprehended under the phrase 'Manifest Destiny'. They are not, as we should expect, all compatible, nor do they come from any one source. John L. O'Sullivan, sketched in 1874, was an influential columnist as a young man, but is now generally remembered only for his use of the phrase "Manifest Destiny" to advocate the annexation of Texas and Oregon. Journalist John L. O'Sullivan, an influential advocate for Jacksonian democracy and a complex character described by Julian Hawthorne as "always full of grand and world-embracing schemes", wrote an article in 1839, which, while not using the term "Manifest Destiny", did predict a "divine destiny" for the United States based upon values such as equality, rights of conscience, and personal enfranchisement "to establish on earth the moral dignity and salvation of man". This destiny was not explicitly territorial, but O'Sullivan predicted that the United States would be one of a "Union of many Republics" sharing those values. Six years later, in 1845, O'Sullivan wrote another essay entitled Annexation in the Democratic Review, in which he first used the phrase Manifest Destiny. In this article he urged the U.S. to annex the Republic of Texas, not only because Texas desired this, but because it was "our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions". Overcoming Whig opposition, Democrats annexed Texas in 1845. O'Sullivan's first usage of the phrase "Manifest Destiny" attracted little attention. O'Sullivan's second use of the phrase became extremely influential. On December 27, 1845, in his newspaper the New York Morning News, O'Sullivan addressed the ongoing boundary dispute with Britain. O'Sullivan argued that the United States had the right to claim "the whole of Oregon”: And that claim is by the right of our manifest destiny to overspread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federated self-government entrusted to us. That is, O'Sullivan believed that Providence had given the United States a mission to spread republican democracy ("the great experiment of liberty"). Because Britain would not spread democracy, thought O'Sullivan, British claims to the territory should be overruled. O'Sullivan believed that Manifest Destiny was a moral ideal (a "higher law") that superseded other considerations. O'Sullivan's original conception of Manifest Destiny was not a call for territorial expansion by force. He believed that the expansion of the United States would happen without the direction of the U.S.government or the involvement of the military. After Americans immigrated to new regions, they would set up new democratic governments, and then seek admission to the United States, as Texas had done. In 1845, O'Sullivan predicted that California would follow this pattern next, and that Canada would eventually request annexation as well. He disapproved of the Mexican-American War in 1846, although he came to believe that the outcome would be beneficial to both countries. Ironically, O'Sullivan's term became popular only after it was criticized by Whig opponents of the Polk administration. Whigs denounced Manifest Destiny, arguing, "That the designers and supporters of schemes of conquest, to be carried on by this government, are engaged in treason to our Constitution and Declaration of Rights, giving aid and comfort to the enemies of republicanism, in that they are advocating and preaching the doctrine of the right of conquest". On January 3, 1846, Representative Robert Winthrop ridiculed the concept in Congress, saying "I suppose the right of a manifest destiny to spread will not be admitted to exist in any nation except the universal Yankee nation". Winthrop was the first in a long line of critics who suggested that advocates of Manifest Destiny were citing "Divine Providence" for justification of actions that were motivated by chauvinism and self-interest. Despite this criticism, expansionists embraced the phrase, which caught on so quickly that its origin was soon forgotten.
