Manifest Destiny was the belief that it was the United States' destiny and duty to expand its control and influence from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The primary sources attached to this question provide different perspectives on whether Manifest Destiny was justified.
The first primary source, a speech given by John L. O'Sullivan in 1845, is in support of Manifest Destiny. O’Sullivan argues that the United States has a right and a duty to expand its control and influence, as the country was founded on the principles of freedom and democracy. He states that it is the United States' "manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions."
The second primary source, a speech given by Chief Seattle in 1854, is in opposition to Manifest Destiny. Chief Seattle argues that Manifest Destiny is an imperialistic endeavor that will bring destruction and death to the Indigenous peoples of North America. He states that the "White Man” will take their land and resources, and that their culture will be destroyed in the process.
It is difficult to determine whether Manifest Destiny was justified, as it depends on the individual's perspective. Some may argue that Manifest Destiny was justified, as it allowed the country to expand its influence and spread democracy throughout the continent. Others may argue that Manifest Destiny was not justified, as it brought destruction and death to Indigenous peoples and their cultures.
The question is incomplete. No options are given (for which of the following) to answer the question.
Your question incomplete
This question does not have sufficient information to enable me answer it. Kindly provide me with the choices to enable me answer this question correctly.
Answer this question… Creole
When you ask a question in the form "Which of the following", you must provide some options.
The manifest is unrealistic and therefore the question cannot be answered..
It is an extremely subjective question to ask if violence can ever be justified and everyone has a different answer. The question has been argued about in philosophy for centuries.
what is your question, please be more specific
The above question is wrong.
That's not a question.
Everything can be justified in someone's mind, no matter how barbaric. Those guilty of murder often think that they were justified in what they did. So the question is not does any one person think that the Holocaust can be justified, it is does society think it can be justified... the mass of people thinking as a unit. And the answer to that is always a resounding No.
Response to what? At present the question cannot be answered.
This is an opinion question, there is not a specific answer. Look at the reasons that Germany and Japan went to war, and then you can determine for yourself if they were justified.
No, oppression is NEVER justified. This begs the question of who makes them superior. What may seem superior for you may not be for someone else.
/The-following-means-the-list-after-the-questionthere-is-no-list-following-this-question
I don’t understand the question
What? Can you repeat the Question? I wasn't listening. No. Never.