ultimately fighting Mexico during the time of the Manifest Destiny? Why or why not? (I have my own views and opinions)
2007-12-02 10:46:32 · 3 answers · asked by koolkid776 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
J&CH - are you saying that one act of aggressive conquest is justified by other acts of aggressive conquest by the same expansionist power? Interesting idea.
2007-12-02 11:20:58 · answer #1 · answered by iansand 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It was, I believe, just fulfillment of destiny. Mexico was unable to take care of things anyway. Remember, Mao said Right comes from the Barrel of a gun. Might makes right. If we criticize it we must then criticize buying Alaska, annexing Hawaii, annexing Florida from the Seminoles, Illinois from the Illini, N. and S. Dakota from the Souix. Where would it end? And what good does it do to rehash it?
Yes, I am saying that. And I believe history has proven it to be so. After all, the Victors write the history. Not a popular notion in our politically correct little circle, but still I believe it was okay then.
2007-12-02 19:07:54 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Of course not; it was flat-out a war of aggression and conquest.
Edit - iansand9: Consider the source. Here we have a person using a Chinese communist to justify American imperialism.
Speaking of empires - America looks to be learning the hard way about the dangers of underestimating the durability and fecundity of a supposedly vanquished people.
2007-12-02 18:50:57 · answer #3 · answered by Hera Sent Me 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋