The Manifest Destiny?
Manifest Destiny was a major influence on how the frontier developed. Manifest Destiny is the doctrine that our land was one that was destined to stretch from sea to shining sea. The reason that this was influential in the frontier's development is that when plans were being made, instead of slowly expanding outwards, the country exploded out living a middle frontier that was neither as developed as California or the East. Manifest Destiny was a major factor in the actions of our 11'th President James K. Polk. Polk was directly responsible for the Mexican-American war which resulted in the addition of California and Texas and can be seen as the culmination of the Manifest Destiny. Without this Manifest Destiny ever present in the thoughts of frontier going Americans, Texas and California would be Mexican and the Midwest would be much more developed.
How did the ideology of manifest destiny contribute to the mid-19th century drive for expansion?
In many ways, Manifest Destiny was a pragmatic justification and a hysterical response to the "need" to recognise Texas as a state separate from Mexico, its original nationality. The term appeared in public print for the first time in 1839. In 1836, the Republic of Texas declared independence from Mexico and sought to join the United States as a new state. This posed a problem for Congress because it would add another slave state at a time when slavery generally was being condemned. By 1845, the argument had settled into two camps and it came down to a journalist [John O'Sullivan in the July–August 1845 issue of the Democratic Review] to apply the principle of Manifest Destiny. For many Americans, it became an aspect of the Christian religious belief in their country, alongside the Star Spangled Banner and the oath of allegiance. But actually, it was a political ploy to gather public opinion behind blatant imperialist expansion into another country; Mexico in that instance. For 20 years or so, it was a slogan to justify the continued westward expansion of the USA and, in particular, the subjugation of native peoples. It had much in common with Hitler's concept of Lebensraum [living space] 100 years later, and was applied in the same way. It had positive outcomes such as the building of the great railroads, extraction of essential minerals and the development of new agricultural technologies. By the end of the Civil War in 1865, the term had fallen out of use and many Americans were shame-faced to have followed it in the first place. However, it came back into crude journalistic use during the Spanish-American war and the colonisation of the Philippines in 1899. Also, it appeared in newspapers again to justify the invasions of Cuba and Puerto Rica during the same year. Today, it is viewed as a cynical use of quasi-religious attitudes to justify political shenanigans and the commercial aggrandisement of a certain class and certain families in the USA. Despite this, it is still being applied in an unnamed way to justify USA actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and seems to be behind policy towards Iran, Northern Korea, Pakistan, Venezuela, Colombia and elsewhere. Of course, there is now the UN resolution system to backup USA attitudes but, even so, the USA belief in its modern crusade sounds very like the original Manifest Destiny.
Does the United States still believe today that it has a special destiny in the world?
It depends on who you ask. Decades ago, before human interaction (especially commerce) was not so dependent on technology, it was easier to defend this claim. Nations were separated geographically, and that separation proved to be a difficult obstacle to overcome to reach a higher level of interconnectedness with one another. Not anymore. With a push of a button, we can video-chat with people on the other side of the globe now; companies are outsourcing work to other countries and abiding by the labor laws of those countries to run their businesses; European nations to an extent diluted their sense of nationalism by forming the European Union. Bottom line: to answer your question, I'm sure there are many in high positions of power in the United States that will say "yes" to your question, and will site how the US is still the financial and cultural epicenter of the world. As a result, it still has much to do in order to secure that position and introduce the concept of democracy to parts of the world where it doesn't exist yet. On the other hand, there are many who will say "no" to your question, citing the interconnectedness of nation-states thanks to technological advancements in business and trade, as well as a deterioration of America's power over the past decade (with the lackluster economy and a crumbling infrastructure domestically).
Do you think the Manifest Destiny was fair or unfair?
Are you asking for now or back in the 1840's? Well if we're talking about now then it depends on the where, when and why they are expanding. If it means death for the innocent and the destroying of life for no good purpose then it is not good, but if it's for something like finding a cure for a disease there is some justification. "No nation ever existed without some sense of national destiny or purpose. Manifest Destiny — a phrase used by leaders and politicians in the 1840s to explain continental expansion by the United States — revitalized a sense of "mission" or national destiny for many Americans. And while the United States put into motion a quest for its Manifest Destiny," While the expansion of America was good for the US, it wasn't done the best way. We destroyed lives and types of animals... but where would we be if it weren't for the expansion? For many reason's the expansion was a bad thing but in others a good thing. So this is not exactly a yes or no question... and I don't see how the quote made you feel so strongly against Manifest Destiny....maybe we're thinking of two different things.
Can anyone give me a good explanation of manifest destiny?
The idea behind Manifest Destiny is that God had led the colonists to the Americas and that he was directing and blessing them in their quest for supremacy. This "blessing" allowed many questionable actions that were perpetuated upon Mexicans, Natives and others in the name of God. This became more and more politicized to the point where America would go into other nations under this guise for self protection and also spreading the gospel of democracy. America who was so greatly blessed had the mantle placed upon it to be the John the Baptist to spread this gospel of progress and democracy throughout the world. Back to the spiritual ideal America viewed itself as the scripture says as a "holy nation a royal priesthood" This is a little of my perspective on "Manifest Destiny"
Does the idea of manifest destiny still exist today? Why or why not?
yes in that america believes it should extend it's influence into any corner of the world that may be of some interest politically or economically. Although this differs from the original idea of manifest destiny which was westward expansion the principles behind it remain- we take what we want/need usually in complete disregard of the interest of other involved parties such as with Iraq. Today a country can't really get away with the genocide that occured with the american natives so super powers go about it in a more tactful, underhand sort of way. I believe manifest destiny has always been an ideal of any super power throughout history such as with Macedonia, Mongolia/China, the whole imperialism phase, and many others.