manifest destiny?

Question

is manifest destiny justified? why or why not?

Answer 1

Manifest Destiny was a phrase that expressed the belief that the United States was destined to expand from the Atlantic seaboard to the Pacific Ocean; it has also been used to advocate for or justify other territorial acquisitions. Advocates of Manifest Destiny believed that expansion was not only good, but that it was obvious ("manifest") and certain ("destiny"). It was originally a political catch phrase or slogan used by Democrats in the 1845-1855 period, and rejected by Whigs and Republicans of that era. Manifest Destiny was an explanation or justification for that expansion and westward movement, or, in some interpretations, an ideology or doctrine which helped to promote the process. This article is a history of Manifest Destiny as an idea, and the influence of that idea upon American expansion.

Answer 2

1

Answer 3

It should be remembered that all the original states claimed all lands westward of themselves straight out to the Pacific. In adopting the Constitution, they gave up their western claims but only to the national government. The US had already taken such steps as the Louisiana Purchase prior to "Manifest Destiny". So as far as "manifest destiny" is considered in relation to mainland USA, there is some basis for this aggressive belief (though rather flimsy). But in relation to lands outside what became the mainland USA, there can be no pretense that Manifest Destiny was anything other than a cover for imperialist ambitions.

Answer 4

It is not justified, except in the mind of the conqueror to alleviate the truth of the matter which is that they are usurping what is right in order to feel good about the sin of subjugating others and coveting what doesn't belong to them.

Answer 5

Of course it is. We were meant to expand the territory of the U.S. from the East coast to the Pacific West coast. After all, if we didn't, who would? Mexicans? Indian tribes with casinos? I think not!