Talk:Manifest destiny/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Copyright statement

Copyright (C) 2002 Bryce Harrington. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.

There was question regarding the copylefting statement used with this article, since most wikipedia articles do not have explicit copyright statements. The original statement included mention of the notice being an 'invariant section', which was confusing, and has been removed by the author to make it simpler. Since all work submitted to Wikipedia is by default copyrighted by its author, and licensed under the GFDL, this is exactly the same terms as all other Wikipedia material, except for being explicitly stated instead of implicit. It's exactly analogous to putting the boilerplate copyright and license grant in every source code file, as opposed to simply leaving it "assumed".

See Wikipedia:Copyright for more information.

It is the authors opinion that explicit statement of license grant is better for Wikipedia than leaving it merely assumed.

It was agreed by LDC and BryceHarrington that once suitable modifications to the Wikipedia software to include traceability to the original author and permanent attachment of explicit copyright notices to the article without making the original article appear "cluttered" with this extra info, this copylefting will be moved there.

---

I know nothing about the legalities of this question, so I can't comment on that aspect of it, but I can imagine a situation in which an initial article posted in this fashion could be edited to such a degree that it eventually is not recognizably derived from the original copyrighted material; meanwhile, the copyright notice (the "invariable" section) remains for the original source. This is an extreme case but is theoretically possible given the nature of Wikipedia. That means that the copyright notice becomes attached in perpetuity to an article name (and its editing history) rather than to the text itself, and bears no real correlation to the content of the article. Or am I misinterpreting what is going one with the copyright notice? soulpatch

Regarding having articles heavily edited to the point that they bear absolutely no resemblance to the original article, yes I agree that's a good question, and have wondered about that myself. Now, technically, in order for Wikipedia articles to be available under the GFDL, *someone* needs to hold ownership of the article copyright, so I suppose it makes as much sense that the article originator be that holder, as anyone. If Wikipedia were to be formally organized as a legal non-profit, it could receive transfer of copyright like GNU does, though this would be a lot of paperwork for someone (I wonder if GNU would be willing to accept transfer of copyrights for Wikipedia?) -- Bryce Harrington

--- Soulpatch commented "Article sas way too glowing in favor of Manifest Destiny. Tried to make it more balanced."

Hmm, while I am decidedly not a supporter of Manifest Destiny (is anyone?) I think the article will be difficult to make balanced. I may have made it too glowingly in favor of it to try to tone down my own opinions on it. I've revised it to hopefully eliminate aspects requiring balacing and to make it more neutral. For instance, I don't think the "supporters say / critics say" approach should be used, since its supporters have been dead for about a century.  ;-)

While I do agree and am of the belief that the effects upon the Native Americans by U.S. expansionism was genocidal and one of history's most (unfortunately) successful ethnic cleansing events, I'm uncertain if that's an appropriate slant for this article, and have toned down those statements. Like the Spanish-American War, while it was a direct outcome of Manifest Destiny, it's such a thick and deep subject that it really deserves its own article; I'd like this article to simply overview those issues and provide links to the more detailed topics.

Similarly, while I also agree and believe that a lot of the U.S.'s actions of the 20th (and unfortunately, 21st it looks like) century can still essentially be characterized by the philosophy of "Manifest Destiny", they're not conducted under that terminology anymore, so we probably don't want to go into details and instead leave those for Globalism or other appropriate topics, with links there from here. -- BryceHarrington

Proposal

Proposal... I am new to the Wiki community and would like your thoughts on this idea. Would it be appropriate to add a link to this online novel about Manifest Destiny: [[1]] which is also available as a Quanta magazine pdf at: [[2]].

In the pdf introduction the author states: 'This work concerns the first days of the Mexican-American War, except in this story, Mexico is the Moon, and it takes balloons to get there. I have sought to express the ideology of the "Young American" movement of the 1840s using the unusual model of the solar system of Tycho Brahe. In Brahe's system, all of the outer planets of the solar system - Mars, Jupiter, Saturn - orbit the Sun, but all the inner planets - Venus, Mercury, and our Moon - orbit the Earth, as does the Sun itself. I see this model as an unusual attempt to appease the contradictory ideologies of science and religion of Brahe's era. Similarly, I see the hyperbolics of Manifest Destiny a product of the contradictions of democracy and slavery.'

'During the war, there was much proud democratic sneering at European monarchies and her class slaves, but a bizarre blindness toward the chattel slavery in the USA. This contradiction skews the universe of latter-day Jacksonian Democracy, which repeatedly calls to the American Revolutionary Heritage, expressed not as a revolution within, not emancipation and civil war, but as pyrotechnics of patriotism, as a mob demand to push the uncertain national borders onward into well-defined foreign land. This Napoleonic styled imperialism was an attempt to resolve the intolerable national contradiction through expansion, but only served to make revolution-within inevitable.'

Organization needed

I was noticing that the article needs some major organization. It is entirely void of headlines, and needs some care and attention. I might get back to it later, but could someone pick this task up? - Pingveno 03:09, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Information missing

The war of 1812, and Canadian Confederation in 1867 should be mentioned in this article. The doctorine of Manifest Destiny was a driving force behind both events. See for example: National Library of Canada. I need to learn more about wikipedia and the historical details before making changes to the article myself.

From an American perspective, the War of 1812 was fought to prevent the British from kidnapping Americans of American-flagged ships, and to make the British leave the Northwest Territory, which they had ceded to to the US following the American Revolution. Of course, a former friend of mine, raised in Canada, said that she was taught that the war was fought to keep America from conquering Candada. Make sure that you do this in an NPOV fashion. RickK 03:22, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Interesting. Britain banned the slave trade in 1807 nearly sixty years before Lincoln. In 1815 in "The War of 1812 and Slavery" John Quincy Adams specifically complains that the War of 1812 was instigate by "British Naval Commanders" who "carried away from the United States " and liberated slaves". In 1856 Benjamin Drew documents the practices of the British giving refuge to slaves in the War of 1812 in "Narratives of Fugitive Slaves in Canada. Related by Themselves, with an Account of the History and Condition of the Colored Population of Upper Canada".

I can't imagine able to put that into the Wiki and it staying though! --Daedelus 10:20, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Britain and the United States officially banned the external slave trade at the same time (1807), though the extent to which the laws were enforced is questionable. Slavery itself was not abolished in the British Empire until 1834, following a massive Jamaican slave revolt. Canada never had slavery, but this had less to do with moral goodness of the people and a lot more due to the fact that its cold climate did not support cash crops like cotton, rice and tobacco. (This is also why slavery did not catch on in the Northern states.)

Section/Subject headings?

It seems to me that this article is long enough to be arranged by sections or subsections; does somebody want to perhaps restructure it and put the formatting in? Then it woud have a spiffy table of contents to make the article much more useful. Matt gies 21:17, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Divine?

that stated the United States was divine A preposterous remark!!. Wetman 07:51, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

What is so preposterous about it? Although "divinely-ordained" would perhaps be more appropriate. (Sept.)

People call it devinely inspired - that doesn't make it true. Peter Grey 13:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Not Dead

Some *@$%^!s will not give up the idea. 142.177.24.253 14:18, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Did you check that site out? It's interesting to read. It gives you the pros and cons of Canada being annexed into the Union. You have to admit, annexation is a mixed bag. It wouldn't be *all* bad for Canada--or else 20% of Canadians wouldn't support the idea, now would they? (see 51st state.)

What a ridiculous idea that would be. Also I know it states that 20 or so percent of Canada wouldn't mind joining the United States, but that depends on where you ask. There is a lot of Canada and with so few people spread across so much country, different regions have different opinions. The only way you could ever get a good estimate on this is to ask every single person in Canada, till that happens, I won't trust any poll from any company done in any part of Canada.

Large, mainly irrelevant section

Most of "Westward Expansion" does not actually fit under the headline of Manifest Destiny. In fact, the opposite is true. --YixilTesiphon

Philosophical Underpinnings

Its obvious to the most casual observer that the JudeoChristianization of the European colonies, including the New World, during the Age of Exploration was a result of a fundamental tenant of JudeoChristianity reflected first in the Covenant with Abraham, which is also the foundation of Zionism. My edits were toward this end but were reverted without comment. If it needs to be made more neutral that's fine but to ignore the referenc to the doctrine of world-wide dispersion and dominion make the section on philosophical underpinnings lack any real depth of philosophical underpinnings at all.

Here is the section I added and I'd appreciate it if people would describe how it could be more neutral and/or appropriate to the article.

The divine imperative of Manifest Destiny was rooted in the seminal Judeo-Christian_tradition tradition of Zionism as evidenced by this quote from the chief rabbi of Amsterdam, Menasseh Ben Israel, in his letter to Oliver Cromwell, petitioning for readmission to the United Kingdom:

My second Motive is, because the opinion of many Christians and mine doe concurre herein, that we both believe that the restoring time of our Nation into their Native Countrey, is very neer at hand; I believing more particularly, that this restauration cannot be, before these words of Daniel, Chap. 12. ver. 7. be first accomplished, when he saith, And when the dispersion of the Holy people shall be compleated in all places, then shall all these things be compleated: signifying therewith, that before all be fulfilled, the People of God must be first dispersed into all places and Countreyes of the World. Now we know, how our Nation at the present is spread all about, and hath its seat and dwelling in the most flourishing parts of all the Kingdomes, and Countreys of the World, as well in America, as in the other three parts thereof; except onely in this considerable and mighty Island. And therefore this remains onely in my judgement, before the Messia come and restore our ration, that first we must have our seat here likewise.

Indeed, the Puritans, who would prove instrumental in prevailing upon Cromwell to readmit Jews to the United Kingdom, were the first Protestant sect to settle in the New World, and they did so after having taken refuge, from religious persecution, in Amsterdam. Amsterdam was the same refuge taken by Jews when they were expelled by the Spanish Inquisition coincident with the start of Christopher Columbus's New World exploration in 1492. Thus Manifest Destiny's spiritual origin is to be found in the competition between Catholics vs the alliance between Protestant separtists and Jews seeking refuge in the religious tolerance of Holland at the dawn of the Age of Exploration.

Wikipedia does not publish original research, which includes novel interpretations and syntheses of primary sources. This is not a reflection on the merit of any given interpretations — Wikipedia is simply not the proper venue. We have to stick to material and interpretations already well-established in traditionally reviewed publications. —Steven G. Johnson 21:29, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

I'll agree that the section I added requires citations but so does the rest of the article. To call it uncited POV may be somewhat reasonable but to call it "original research" is rather ludicrous. Its de rigeur to link JudeoChristianity to western expansionism. Moreover Columbus's voyages in conjunction with the Spanish Inquisition's expulsion of Sephardic Jews to Holland, primarily Amsterdam, is frequently cited as the seminal event of western, hence, JudeoChristian expansionism. Jim Bowery 17:42, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree. (Sept.)

Jane McManus

There should be a reference to Jane McManus - Also known as Storms or Cazneau or often all three. She is sometimes credited with the phrase "manifest destiny" and is closley linked with the Young American movement in the 1840's. Yet there is no reference to her in Wikipedia. Perhaps someone can fill the gap.

There's a bit on her in the article on John L. O'Sullivan. She's an interesting figure, though perhaps a bit marginal for this short overview of Manifest Destiny (most full-length books on the subject don't even find the space to mention her). There's room for her in filibuster (military), the Young America movement article (still a stub, and a misleading one at that), and an article on her could be written as well. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 18:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

what?

How could the Madison administration hold that "doctrine" when the phrase was coined decades later?

Short answer: Because the article isn't very good and needs to be rewritten. --Kevin Myers 16:27, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Another answer: because the doctrine existed before 1845. People just called it different names.

An Active practice?

In the former years the U.S. spread from one sea to another. My grandparents may recall Hawaii and Alaska - but I've never researched that. It seems that Replication of government style is the only thing that's active. In my opinion, there's a lot of "white noise" the USA is harboring. I'm probly rambling, but is it important that Manifest Destiny stay alive, or is it truly fullfilled? Is this why recent wars have incited the media to imply new teritories will be developed? clearly not if we're only leaving them with their a copy of our government style.

Interesting analysis. What happens to a nation that has no expansionist ideals (or any other reason to "make progress")? Does it not flounder, without the driving energy to support and maintain it, or fight a failing battle to "maintain the status quo"? Also, what forces motivated the "innocent" (and supposedly "peaceful") native peoples to maintain the force and energy of their societies? Is not "contraction and decline" the opposite of expansion? What is so noble about these "decline and fall" values? There can be no doubt that competition, and self-interest are effective human motivators. (Sept.)

Shouldn't there be some more about more recent examples of Manifest Destiny? Manifest Destiny could also be interpreted by being an idealism of spreading a republican democracy over wider stretches of land. This does not specifically have to be about North America. The Vietnam and Korean wars showed Manifest Destiny because of the will of the people to expand democracy to prevent communism, just like how the U.S. expanded to spread democracy and to prevent European nations from colonizing North America. Even currently, the War in Iraq could be interpreted as a result of the Manifest Destiny idealism. The US is trying to spread democracy to other lands to spread "liberty" and "freedom."

Space

there isnt anything about intentions of taking the manifest destiney attitude into space . . .

The CSA and Manifest Destiny

Although the CSA was only around for 5 years, they managed to also expand westward with the "Confederate Territory of Arizona". Would this fall under Manifest Destiny? Actually what about the American Civil War itself? How long did this idea last?

POV

From article:

Some commentators believe that aspects of Manifest Destiny still form an underlying part of American outlook and policy.

And:

In actual fact, many American Indians already practiced democratic self government. They were slaughtered wholesale, rounded up, and stuck in camps or reservations where they would suffer from malnutrition, disease, and starvation. The American Bison were brought to the edge of extinction purposely in order to get rid of the food supply of large numbers of Plains Indians. This was part of a strategy of Total War learned in the American Civil War that was then applied to the Indians by many of the ex-civil war American military leaders.

As for non-whites they certainly were not encouraged to go forth and prosper. In fact the entire American Civil War could be argued to have centered on the question of how Manifest Destiny would apply to black people. This led to Bloody Kansas, the Missouri Compromise, and a whole host of other wranglings that brought the nation to its bloody knees in 1865.

Another desire of Manifest Destiny was the acquisition of new lands, since land could represent potential income, wealth, self-sufficiency, and freedom for the crowded urban masses pouring into the docks of New York City and other eastern harbors. Of course the fact that people were already living in the 'new lands' acquired was excused by racist depictions of Native Americans as 'savages' who were 'wasting' the land, and thus the whites were justified somehow in stealing this land from them.

Manifest Destiny as far as continent-to-continent wound down after 1907, when the last of the continental territories, Indian Territory, was invaded by whites seeking oil, and then turned into a state in 1907. This was soon after the government had stolen the land it gave to the Civilized Tribes living in Indian Territory via the scam known as the Dawes Commission.

Oh and:

Some can argue that Manifest Destiny still drives American politics.

Even as the policy wound down in the late 1800s, with the end of the Spanish American War and the statehood of Oklahoma, the US still felt the idea was a good one.

In the Cold War the idea of 'taking territory' was not quite so popular anymore, as colonialism had become rather unpopular among the intellectual elites of the time. However the principle of invading 'ignorant' and 'savage' peoples and 'converting' them to the 'american way of life' was used on dozens of occassions right on up to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. And in place of 'taking territory' many American corporations instead simply set up extractive businesses to remove oil, minerals, rubber, and other natural resources from nations, frequently with the help of corrupt dictators who would suppress workers strikes and so forth.

In the 20th century this modified Manifest Destiny philosophy also came to include a large dose of anti-communism. Communism was considered a kind of 'savagery' and America was suposed to 'save people from themselves', just as it was supposed to save the Native Indians from their savagery. During the Cold War this philosophy led the US to murder or help the murder of many foreign leaders and foment coup d'etats in nations such as Chile, Angola, Zaire, Indonesia, East Timor, Vietnam, and so forth and so on.

This in order to combat Soviet Expansionism, a 'manifest destiny' of the Soviet's own making.

This too:

It should also be noted that the doctrine almost always described the white man as "God's chosen" who was bound to displace the "primitives" in his way.

In the 1840s young settlers started leaving the U.S. for the Oregon Territory because of economic difficulties in the U.S. Life on the trail was extremely difficult for them, with most people walking the 2000 mile journey as only pregnant women, the sick, and the elderly rode in the wagons.

And maybe this too :

The term "Manifest Destiny" is still sometimes mentioned in Canada when the subject of Canadian-American relations is discussed. Some Canadians believe that the United States has never fully abandoned its goal of fulfilling its Manifest Destiny by annexing Canadian territory. (See also: 51st state.)

So basically the whole article. Let's see what we can do. Most of this was added by this anon user. I'm going to assume good faith and not blindly revert. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and reverted the recent POV additions. Much work elsewhere still needs done. This article is still not as bad as the POV essay known as American exceptionalism. --Kevin Myers 19:49, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Well I guess that's fine. Some of the info was okay, it just needed to be worded better. If I have time, perhaps I will re-visit this article and try to incorporate the content, without the intent. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

removed "claimed by"

The article had said "lands claimed by American Indians." But objectively, it was their land, as their people had lived on that land for thousands of years. "Claimed by" implies that it was land they coveted, and puts it on the same level as colonial powers "claiming" territories far away from their homelands.

How is Manifest Destiny special?

The article should say something about how Manifest Destiny is supposed to be different from any other form of imperialism. After all, just about every imperialist power justified its expansion with the same rhetoric, from ancient civilizations to Nazi Germany and Israel. Peter Grey 13:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Assuming this is a serious question, before answering it must be pointed out that you frame it with three debatable assertions, two of them mutually contradictory. To wit:

1. Manifest Destiny is a form of imperialism
2. Manifest Destiny is supposed to be different
3. Others have used the same rhetoric

If we clear away the muddle and just ask, "How is Manifest Destiny special?", the answer is: because it was of a particular time and place, and had certain specific effects. Basically, the same answer for many topics. How is Tony Blair special? After all, there have been lots of Prime Ministers, and lots of people who were leaders, from Pericles to Hitler. Answer: because Blair is a particular one, and did certain specific things.

Hope that helps. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 15:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Is it an ordinary expansionist rationalization, or is it something new? Peter Grey 21:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Manifest Destiny....MYTH or REALITY?

what do you guys think? was the United States truly destined to govern and expand from sea to shining sea? were the natives destined to be pushed off their land? did america really have the god given right to push the natives off their land, and run over their rights, all in the name of "progress?"

~angrodnenharma~

Talk pages are not the appropriate place discuss what we personally think about a subject. This space is meant to be used for discussing how to write a good article. Thanks. --Kevin

sorry about that, is there a place on wiki to do that? ~angrodnenharma~

Maybe Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities? --Kevin

do i sense a little bit of sarcasm? :P thanx, kevin. ~angrodnenharma~

Nope, that's really the right place, as you found out! --K

Untitled

• Talk:Manifest Destiny/Archive 1, archive of discussions from 2002 to March 2006.

What?

Is anyone else seeing what I am seeing? the entire page is most gibberish, Mario is being talked about! I need to know about Manifest Destiny NOW! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.115.28 (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

More recent uses

Came to this article after conversation with two really nice elderly Americans I met on a train. They said they were explicitly taught Manifest Destiny (apparently as a live issue, not history) at school in (I guess) the 50s/60s. And they certainly linked it with race rather than US borders. Anybody know anything about this? Cheers, JackyR | Talk 12:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Modern day groups

This is a well-written and researched article. The last section on Modern day groups however seems out of place. It essentially is trivia, and the organizations described there are not particularly notable. The article is an overview of the concept, not a description or listing of each group which may be influenced by, or seeks to implement, that concept. More to the point, the fact that some contemporary Canadian parties or groups seek to join the US may have nothing to do with their adherence to the concept of Manifest Destiny-- instead their members may seek anticipated economic advantage or other perceived benefits by such a union. Would anyone object if we deleted this section? Kablammo 15:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Having seen no response, I will delete this section in the next day or so. This is an article about Manifest Destiny, not about groups which want their provinces, nations, or commonwealths to join the United States. There is nothing in this section which indicates that Manifest Destiny has anything to do with their motives or inspiration, and absent that connection, the information seems out of place here. Kablammo 21:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. The link in this section to the BC movement disclosed no connection to Manifest Destiny; there were no other links or sources for this section which indicated that the concept was a motivation for any foreign group to seek admission to the US. Kablammo 03:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Good job, couldn't agree with you more. -- WGee 21:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

This article receives a remarkable amount of vandalism. Its subject is taught in history classes, which may explain the amount of attention it gets. Some form of protection would be appropriate.

The article itself seems to be a very good summary of the subject, and with more attribution to sources, would be an excellent FA candidate. Kablammo 16:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering that about half of the last fifty edits are vandalism and the other half reverts, semi-protection is certainly warranted. If you have the time, perhaps you could request semi-protection at WP:RPP. -- WGee 23:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

North American Union

Certainly North American Union is a continuation by other means of this thread running through American history. Just because the USA has not annexed anybody in the local neighbourhood for a few decades (as opposed to the Old World neighbourhoods) does not mean the urge has been fully laid to rest. NAFTA has laid the groundwork for it. It deserves mention. BeeTea 22:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The article on the Independent Task Force on North America indicates that it aims at a cooperative association of three independent nations for the purpose of economic and social integration. Manifest Destiny however was the philosophical rationalization for the acquisition of territories by the United States, rationalizations which were based in the concept of American exceptionalism. The former is (at least notionally) multilateral, while the latter was decidedly unilateral. It therefore seems too far afield for the scope of this article. Kablammo 05:19, 1 June 20

Majority intent and meaning

Senator John C. Calhoun from South Carolina said this to the US Congress as it was believed by most Americans in that era, and by some today, and was the moral basis for the justification of the taking of Mexican lands DonDeigo 19:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I know that we Americans have never dreamt of incorporating into our Union any but the Caucasian race—the free white race. To incorporate Mexico, would be the very first instance of the kind of incorporating an Indian race; for more than half of the Mexicans are Indians, and the other is composed chiefly of mixed tribes. I protest against such a union as that! Ours, sir, is the Government of a white race. The greatest misfortunes of Spanish America are to be traced to the fatal error of placing these colored races on an equality with the white race. That error destroyed the social arrangement which formed the basis of our society. The Portuguese and ourselves have escaped—the Portuguese at least to some extent—and we are the only people on this continent which have made revolutions without being followed by anarchy. And yet it is professed and talked about to erect these Mexicans into a Territorial Government, and place them on an equality with the people of the United States. I protest utterly against such a project.

This is already covered and directly quoted in the article. And as mentioned, Senator Calhoun's quote was made in opposition to thoughts of annexing Mexico, not in support of such annexation. Such annexation would incorporate many non-white or mixed-blood peoples into the US-- something that Calhoun, with his racialist attitudes, could not countenance. Kablammo 23:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Kablammo, you don't understand what I'm saying....The retoric of the southern democrats profigated the belief that integration into the American society of the non-white peoples of Mexican lands would not be a course to take, hence, take the lands by force, drive the inferior peoples out of their lands and inslave the ones who choose to remain..manifest destiny was a racial, superiority tool used to enhance the image that all things white are good, therefor, all things white are God given, hence white must rule all lands and rule over all non-white peoples....this methodology still exists today...California was an integrated colony of non-white peoples, governed by themselves, and eventually were overtaken by white Americans, through the express reasoning and justification steming from the doctrine of manifest destiny DonDeigo 21:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification and for your comments. There is no doubt that there were strong elements of racism and a belief in white Anglo superiority in Manifest Destiny. That is covered in the article. If there was in fact an intent to annex territories from Mexico and then "ethnically cleanse" them by forcing out the residents, the latter point could be added if properly sourced.

As a general matter, we have to be careful about introducing strong language in the article, as it could then become a debate like too many articles on Wikipedia dealing with ethnic and national issues. Moreover, strong adjectives are not needed, as the facts speak for themselves. (Understand I am not accusing you of using such language in the article; I am just noting it is not necessary to do so to make the point.) I cannot imagine anyone reading this article and being aware of some of the results of Manifest Destiny defending it as a belief. Kablammo 21:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Native Americans section

Why was this part of the Native American section removed?

In the Age of Manifest Destiny, this idea, which came to be known as "Indian Removal", gained ground. Although some humanitarian advocates of removal believed that Indians would be better off moving away from whites, an increasing number of Americans regarded the natives as nothing more than "savages" who stood in the way of American expansion. As historian Reginald Horsman argued in his influential study Race and Manifest Destiny, racial rhetoric increased during the era of Manifest Destiny. Americans increasingly believed that Native Americans would fade away as the United States expanded. As an example, this idea was reflected in the work of one of America's first great historians, Francis Parkman, whose landmark book The Conspiracy of Pontiac was published in 1851. Parkman wrote that Indians were "destined to melt and vanish before the advancing waves of Anglo-American power, which now rolled westward unchecked and unopposed".

This quote above came from the "good article" assessment listed on the top of this discussion page, where it said that this was listed as a good history article with this quote included. However, the change I noticed between the current article right now and the one it was before, when it was assessed as a good article was this quote missing.

Can someone please reinsert this one in, then put the page on protection from vandalism? I think a lot of sections on this and other Wiki articles on Native Americans and their interaction with European colonists and the United States have had similar incidents such as these happen to them.

However, if you can find that this source is not valid or something is improper with it, please tell how or why this part was removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.234.139 (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I suspect it was probably just simple vandalism, without any particular agenda. I'll look at the page history and see if I can figure out what happened. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Katr67 18:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It was not, in fact, vandalism but a great deal of material removed here. A bunch of that stuff was added after the good article review. I'll restore the part that you mentioned above and if anyone is concerned about the rest s/he can bring it up here. Katr67 19:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I have added back more material deleted last year. The deletion did not specify what specific parts were objected to, and why, other than an assertion that the material was unsourced. Much of it is sourced from several authorities. In any event it can be discussed here if there are objections to specific assertions in it. Kablammo 22:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Chronology vs. Analysis

This interesting essay was originally the history of an idea rather than history of events. It is organized somewhat thematically, and leaves the detailed description of American westward expansion to other articles. There is of course an overlap, but the scope of this article should be kept in mind.

I have deleted some material from the intro, and restored it to a form similar to the version of 21 December 2006. In doing so I deleted the following:

Opponents such as Abraham Lincoln wanted vertical modernization with greater complexity and specialization, instead of the horizontal expansion of simple farms. As Lincoln explained, he "did not believe in enlarging our field, but in keeping our fences where they are and cultivating our present possession, making it a garden, improving the morals and education of the people." Nonetheless, Lincoln passed a law known as the "Homestead Acts" that became vital to westward expansion by offering free land in the west to those willing to farm it. Historian David M. Potter concludes that in 1854 the Ostend Manifesto and the Kansas-Nebraska Act were "the two great calamities of the Franklin Pierce administration.... Both brought down an avalanche of public criticism." More importantly, says Potter, they permanently discredited Manifest Destiny and popular sovereignty.

--

This appears to have valuable material in it, but is not entirely clear, and expresses several different thoughts. It is too detailed for an introduction. WP:LEDE.

Moreover the former intro went from the 1840s to the 1890s, then back to Lincoln and then back to Pierce, which is confusing; mentioned the homestead act (which Lincoln did not "pass"; the Congress does that) without tying that law to Manifest Destiny; and did not explain the Pierce administration material. If such content is specifically relevant to the history of the idea (as opposed to the history of westward expansion) it should be integrated into the body of the article. Kablammo (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Factual error

John L. O'Sullivan's essay on Manifest Destiny was published first in the November 1839 issue of the United States Magazine and Democratic Review. He published again on Manifest Destiny in 1845. This fact is in many history textbooks and document collections. Examples: A Documentary History of American Thought and Society by Charles Robert Crowe (1965) page 175; and The American Revelation: Ten Ideals That Shaped Our Country from the Puritans to the Cold War by Neil Baldwin (2006) page 79.--Tintle (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you know if the 1839 essay is online? It would be a valuable addition. I found this: [3] which dates it in 1845. Kablammo (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be the 1839 article (or excerpts of it): [4] Kablammo (talk) 03:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

O'Sullivan's essay of 1839 is printed in several document collections, here is one of several places to find the text online: http://www.civics-online.org/library/formatted/texts/manifest_destiny.html --Tintle (talk) 03:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you know if Manifest Destiny was in fact the title of the earlier article? The articles differ and the 1839 one does not have the term in the text, whereas the 1845 one does. There seems to be little doubt that the concept comes from the earlier piece. Kablammo (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The title of the 1839 article appears to be A Divine Destiny for America. So while the concept originated in the 1839 (or earlier) the first use of the phrase Manifest Destiny may have been in 1845. Is this what your sources say? We can easily add mention of the earlier article to the page. Kablammo (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I will look at the microfilm of the November 1839 issue of the United States Magazine and Democratic Review and make a note here of the actual title of O'Sullivan's essay. --Tintle (talk) 15:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It may be a situation where everybody's right-- the first use of the actual phrase may have been in 1845, but the concept predates it. The 1839 article seems to be the conceptual framework and the 1845 essay is its applicaton to the situation then presented. The 1839 article should be mentioned, perhaps by rewriting and expanding the following sentence in the Origins paragraph:

O'Sullivan did not originate the idea of Manifest Destiny: while his phrase provided a useful label for sentiments which had become particularly popular during the 1840s, the ideas themselves were not new.

Kablammo (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Kablammo, I am sorry to report that the microfilm we have is so bad I cannot read the title of O'Sullivan's article. But within the article he uses the term "destiny" repeatedly. I do not actually see the term "manifest destiny." But O'Sullivan was adamant (in 1839) about American's shore-to-shore destiny and he writes about how he does not want to hear any more complaints about the ownership of Texas.--Tintle (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this. I am sorry I did not notice your comments earlier. I have now revised the section to put it into chronological order, and have included the earlier article. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have made a change concerning this factual error, which is still stated as a factual error. Although the idea behind the term Manifest Destiny was a very common theme with O'Sullivan and writers of the Review, the term did not appear as "Manifest Destiny" until the 1845 article "Annexation." It did appear in close iterations like "destiny manifest" before the 1845 article, but never as it is known now. Other important articles that show early iterations of the ideology are the "Introduction" to the first issue of the Review in October 1837; "The Great Nation of Futurity," November 1839; "Democracy," March 1840; and "Democracy and Literature" August 1842. I am also considering a change in the prevalence with which the Linda S. Hudson argument is presented. Hudson's argument has gained no academic traction whereas the prominence that it is given in the introductory section of this article suggest that it is an ongoing argument within the scholarship of Manifest Destiny. Both Sampson and Edward Widmer have dismissed it and few if any other scholars have embraced and developed her ideas. For those of you still looking at microfilm and other soures of the Democratic Review, consider accessing it through the Cornell University Library's "Making of America" project, where you can access clean, readable pages of the magazine. Gannster (talk) 14:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I just wasted a good hour searching through Google Books for earlier citations of the phrase "manifest destiny," and wanted to leave this word of warning: Yes, a Google Books search on the phrase will turn up several dozen pre-1845 citations. BUT, every single one of those citations is false. The unfortunate fact is that Google Books does not verify the publication date of the books it scans, and it is up to the user to wade through one false positive after another. Many of the seemingly legit citations from the 1830s occur in books that compile pamphlets from different dates; the phrase itself occurs in published sermons and speeches published after 1845 that just happen to be sewn together with pamphlets from the 1830s. A word to the wise! --Potosino (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

There is one valid earlier citation in Google Books for "manifest destiny." In the book "Science of Government" by Nathaniel Beverly Tucker (published in 1845), the author quotes a speech he delivered to the Literary Societies of Randolph-Macon College, Virginia, in June 1840, in which he said: "God has given him [man] dominion over the earth, and all that it contains, and to conquer and possess it, like the Israelites of old, is his appointed task and his manifest destiny."Ekconklin (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is another location for the 1839 manuscript: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/osulliva.htm I do not understand why this manuscript is not on the reference page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian Franklin McLean (talk • contribs) 00:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

{{AmericanEmpire}}

This template seemed perfect for this page but the leadin was so nice I dropped it into the See Also section. I played around with the See Also entries till I got a good combo and a nice format for the template. How it's pleasing. Alatari (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Delisted

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the requirements of the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. I am specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. Unfortunately, as of February 26, 2008, this article fails to satisfy the criteria. While reviewing the articles, I made several corrections. The article was passed as a GA back in 2006 without a review, and since then, the criteria have changed significantly. The article currently lacks inline citations for multiple quotes and several statistics that should have them. If you can find sources online, feel free to include those, although book sources are always great. The following are several issues that should be addressed before renominating the article at WP:GAN:

1. The lead should be expanded to three paragraphs to better summarize the article. It should touch on all of the main sections within the article; for guidelines, see WP:LEAD.

Needs inline citations:

1. "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." Needs an inline citation to directly follow the quote.
2. "I suppose the right of a manifest destiny to spread will not be admitted to exist in any nation except the universal Yankee nation."
3. "We have it in our power to begin the world over again. A situation, similar to the present, hath not happened since the days of Noah until now. The birthday of a new world is at hand...."
4. "Whigs especially argued that the "mission" of the United States was only to serve as virtuous example to the rest of the world."
5. "Thomas Jefferson initially did not believe it necessary that the United States should grow in size, since he predicted that other, similar republics would be founded in North America, forming what he called an "empire for liberty.""
6. "Many began to see this as the beginning of a new "mission"—what Andrew Jackson in 1843 famously described as "extending the area of freedom.""
7. "The Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny were closely related ideas: historian Walter McDougall calls Manifest Destiny a "corollary" of the Monroe Doctrine, because while the Monroe Doctrine did not specify expansion, expansion was necessary in order to enforce the Doctrine."
8. "Before 1815, writes Stuart, "what seemed like territorial expansionism actually arose from a defensive mentality, not from ambitions for conquest and annexation.""
9. "The latter slogan is often mistakenly described as having been a part of the 1844 presidential campaign."
10. "Although elected by a very slim margin, Polk proceeded as if his victory had been a mandate for expansion."
11. "Merk wrote that, while belief in the beneficent "mission" of democracy was central to American history, aggressive "continentalism" were aberrations supported by only a very small (but influential) minority of Americans. Merk's interpretation is probably still a minority opinion; scholars generally see Manifest Destiny, at least in the 1840s, as a popular belief among Democrats and an unpopular one among Whigs."
12. "Prompted by John L. O'Sullivan, in 1848 President Polk offered to buy Cuba from Spain for $100 million."
13. "Pierce backed off, however, and instead renewed the offer to buy the island, this time for $130 million."
14. "Indians were encouraged to sell their vast tribal lands and become "civilized", which meant (among other things) for Native American men to abandon hunting and become farmers, and for their society to reorganize around the family unit rather than the clan or tribe."
15. "Thomas Jefferson believed that while American Indians were the intellectual equals of whites, they had to live like the whites or inevitably be pushed aside by them."
16. "As historian Reginald Horsman argued in his influential study Race and Manifest Destiny, racial rhetoric increased during the era of Manifest Destiny."
17. "Parkman wrote that Indians were "destined to melt and vanish before the advancing waves of Anglo-American power, which now rolled westward unchecked and unopposed"."
18. "In the 1892 U.S. presidential election, the Republican Party platform proclaimed: "We reaffirm our approval of the Monroe doctrine and believe in the achievement of the manifest destiny of the Republic in its broadest sense."
19. "For example, when President William McKinley advocated annexation of the Territory of Hawaii in 1898, he said that "We need Hawaii as much and a good deal more than we did California. It is manifest destiny." On the other hand, former President Grover Cleveland, a Democrat who had blocked the annexation of Hawaii during his administration, wrote that McKinley's annexation of the territory was a "perversion of our national destiny.""
20. "Wilson led the United States into World War I with the argument that "The world must be made safe for democracy." In his 1920 message to Congress after the war, Wilson stated:"
21. "However, the term is sometimes used by the political left and by critics of U.S. foreign policy to characterize interventions in the Middle East and elsewhere."

For these reasons, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you disagree with this review, you can seek an alternate opinion at Good article reassessment. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article's history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Territorial expansion

This article is not about the territorial expansion of the United States, but rather about the concept of Manifest Destiny. Commercial treaties, the free trade union, the purchase or attempted purchase of other territory, are not relevant to this article unless motivated by the concept of Manifest Destiny. To avoid overlapping or swallowing up the existing article on Territorial acquisitions of the United States this article should be limited to its stated purpose. Consequently, the addition of attemps to acquire land for purposed of defense and efforts of some groups in Canada to join the US (both discusssed in previous sections of this talk page), are too far afield of this article's focus. Such material is good and belongs on Wikipedia; I suggest however that it not be located here. Kablammo (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Changes to introduction

In recent days there have been changes to the introduction, which I have reverted. The reason I have done so is that those changes state that Manifest Destiny was "originally" a belief that the US was destined to expand to cover North America, and "later" expressed a destiny to expand to the Pacific ocean. This is confusing, and is not accurate-- as early as 1846 it was used to predict expansion to the Pacific, while as late as the 1870s it was the basis for efforts to take Canada west of Superior. And as mentioned in the article, it was used in the 1890s to advocate for expansion outside the continent. So it is not accurate to suggest that an orginally expansive concept became more limited in application; O'Sullivan did speak of a destiny "to overspread and to possess the whole of the continent"; that did not attenuate with time, but instead expanded further. Kablammo (talk) 13:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

God and Manifest Destiny

The introduction now contains a specific reference to the "God of Christianity" as having ordained America's Manifest Destiny. I have several concerns here.

1. I have previously removed references to the Christian God as overly specific. Certainly the concept had its antecedents in the Puritan conception of the City of God mentioned in the article, but the language employed in the middle decades of the nineteenth century in connection with the use of the phrase "Manifest Destiny" employs the more general "Providence" or "Divine Providence". This need not mean the Christian God, particularly given the influence of Deism in U.S. history (as, for example, Thomas Paine, whose writings are also cited as an antecedent). While more specific reliance Christian beliefs was asserted later, is there support for the contention that in is orginal usage, "Manifest Destiny" relied specifically on the "God of Christianity", rather than a more general conception of Divine Providence?
2. The phrase "The God of Christianity" is itself a piped link to God in Christianity. The use of this link implies that there is a specifically Christian god; most Christians likely hold that this is the same God as the Hebrew god, and many also hold it is the same as that of Islam.
3. The introduction is to be a summary of the article only; statements in the introduction should summarize sourced material in the text.
4. A string of citations is unnecessary; one or two will suffice, to reliable sources.
5. It would be best if page numbers are given for books.

"Manifest Destiny" was, as the article states, a catch phrase, and it has had multiple uses by many groups. But it goes to far to suggest that it is specifically an outgrowth of Christianity; while Christian groups were powerful influences, the concept was also influenced and embraced by Deists, freethinkers, and others. Kablammo (talk) 13:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• With a whole article on the specifically Christian god, you're saying that the existence of the wikilink in this article to that article is an implication that a specifically Christian god exists at all (theologically or otherwise), and questioning that very "implication"? (That was a rhetorical question meant for others here.)

Deism eschews ideas such as "divine ordination". But if you can find and want to add sourced information about whatever influence it or other beliefs had on Manifest Destiny, then by all means please do so. I wouldn't claim that it was a concept completely without any non-Christian influences at all. But the number of citations is meant to show, from a wide variety of sources and with no doubt that "Manifest Destiny" was indeed a notion not only commonly subscribed to, but borne of these Christians and *their* Christianity.

I think most would agree that since the vast majority of people who developed and supported the idea of Manifest Destiny were Christians, and considered themselves "divinely ordained", it's pretty obvious that their supposed destiny/divine ordination came from their god (as opposed to from some other non-Christian divine source). But that apparently not being obvious enough is the reason I added references for good measure.

Whether or not it was also adopted by some non-Christians, the idea of Manifest Destiny, which the sources illustrate, developed from an influence more specific than just "religion" in general. It was an idea which came from Christians of European descent who colonized North America. Evidence of this is the professed mission of "christianization", which as I pointed out in a previous edit summary, is quoted in the article (as well as referenced in sources). And that, whether or not there may have been non-Christians who might have decided to adopt it, is pretty strong evidence that when those colonizers referred to God, they were referring to their interpretation of god--that god being the god of Christianity. Furthermore, since these people were not accepting of--and in fact, often violently opposed to--the beliefs of others (non-Protestant Christians, generally), it's at best unlikely that they subscribed to the notion of some sort of an interfaith "shared god".

I've never heard or read any evidence that the white Christian majority who comprised the non-natives of North America and supported/subscribed to (if not invented) the idea of Manifest Destiny nevertheless believed that their god was the same, as you seem to want to argue, as the gods of those other cognate yet distinct religions, but if this was in fact common and can be proven, then I suppose its mention in the article would probably be valid. Without strong evidence that its almost entirely Christian supporters believed such, it's merely an assumption which at this point otherwise only unjustifiably disburdens if not exonerates them by lightening their load of culpability for its/their transgressions. As does attempting to simply omit reference to these Christians'/Christianity's tremendous and intrinsic role in it.

I'm not the only editor who has reverted your omission. However, further references to Christianity using the sources cited can certainly be added to the main article's content to make his/its mention in the heading even more "worthy" of inclusion there.Adrigon (talk) 11:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Adrigon, thank you for your response. What I am working toward here is consensus. At the risk of repetition:

• The introduction is a summary of the article. Detail belongs in the text, not in the introduction.
• Are there references that "Manifest Destiny", as initially used, was a specifically Christian conception? I have looked at the online references you added. They speak more generally of the deity or providence, or relate to use of the phrase decades after it was coined.
• On the demographic argument: Most Freemasons may be Christians, and many may associate their God with the Great Architect of the Universe but that does not make that entity the God of Christianity (despite the powerful Christian influences). But:
• Clearly Christianity was a powerful influence and can be addressed with the proper nuance. But we should not make assumptions beyond that, nor assume that all who saw a manifest destiny for the US saw it as something ordained by Christianity. (Cf. the quote from Thomas Paine.)
• The assumpion that the Christian deity is different than the deity of Judaism or Islam seems to be assumed by your comments. That is not a position which need be taken here.
• If the IP addresses that reverted my "omission" (and I am not the author of this article, having contributed little to is substance) without other contributions to the article wish to participate, they are certainly welcome to join in this discussion.

While I believe that the present first sentence is both too specific and too limiting, I suspect we are in substantial agreement on the substance, but differ mainly in expression. I will do a revision which will incorporate the sources into the article, under "Themes and influences" and "Later usage", as appropriate. I will also attempt to come up with a formulation for the lede to which we can both agree. Kablammo (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Intro

"It has also been used to advocate and justify other territorial acquisitions, as well as to justify the genocide of the Native American populations who were standing in the way of its believers and supporters."

Un-cited, inflammatory claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.215.248.202 (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

If you think so, justify it how you like - but you can't re-write history. Call me cynical if you want, but everyone knows it was just a determination to rule the whole of North America at any cost, and "manifest destiny" was simply the name of the excuse for the brutality. God had nothing to do with it, it was pure blood lust and ambition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.82.220 (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Any objective student of history will note that the expulsion of the "Five Civilized Tribes" from the southeast United States to open the land for settlement by "civilized" Caucasians and their African-American slaves was conducted with no more concern for the physical survival of the native-Americans, let alone for their human rights and property rights, than the Nazis showed in expelling Poles from the lands restored to Germany in 1939. Similarly, the Nazi view of the "wild East" (Poland and European Russia) as a place to cleared of its sub-human inhabitants and settled by productive Germans was remarkably similar to (white) American views of the "Wild West" and the fate the "sub-human" native-Americans who already lived there. We Americans believed it was our destiny to take possession of the "Wild West" and do what we wished with it. The Nazis felt the same about their "Wild East."

But why should we be surprised that many Americans find it convenient to condemn Nazi racism but ignore the racist aspects of our own national history?

The tone of this article should be every bit as neutral and objective in tone an as article about Hitler or Nazi race theory or the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, but the racist aspects of the theory of Manifest Destiny should be included somewhere in it -- in neutral and objective terms (71.22.47.232 (talk) 08:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC))

Post-colonial (pre-19th century) American expansionism by conquest

This edit popped up on my watchlist, and caused me to dig up this source, which remarks on American expansion across the continent through conquest. Though this article is on my watchlist, I'm not focused on it and don't have the time to pursue further the thought that something related to this might be an appropriate addition to the article. I just thought to mention it here in passing in case someone more focused on this article might find it useful. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

At one time there was what would be called a "scoping statement", which clearly defined the article as concerning the belief, and not its application or execution. That was thought unnecessary by an editor, and removed. Nevertheless this article is about that belief. And the belief, or congeries of beliefs, that the new republic was destined to expand across the continent, does not necessarily specify conquest as the only means by which that would ocur. The territorial expansion took place by a number of means, including conquest, cession (whether compelled or otherwise), treaty, exchange, and outright purchase. The edit which I reverted changed the text to state that the US was divinely predestined to expand by conquest, which seems both an overstatement and unnecessary.

The new source which you mention compares other nations' colonial expansions, with the continental territorial acquisitions of the United States (which, although unsaid in that source, proclaimed opposition to colonalism while pushing into native territory in North America). The source mentions the US ability to make such acquistions through conquest, which in many cases it did. There were however other acquisitions by more peaceful means. In any event the history and methods of those acquisitions is best handled elsewhere, although the comparision in the source you list might be a useful addition here. Kablammo (talk) 12:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

German lebensraum

Ratzel made no reference to Manifest Destiny. His one statement on lebensraum was at the end of his life in one essay in a scholarly collection; , there is no evidence that this essay was ever read by Hitler. Ratzel's lebensraum idea was derived from Goethe; Ratzel visited America after Simms death and was is not likely indeed to have read the Simms private letter--unpublished at the time--that is quoted. In any case Ratzel's references to US related to the treatment of Chinese in California in the 1870s, which is not part of Manifest Destiny. See Harriet Wanklyn Friedrich Ratzel (1961). As for Hitler, he mentioned Indians a lot--American Indians were always popular in Germany--but no historian has reported he ever mentioned "Manifest Destiny", which is the topic of this article. Rjensen (talk) 22:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm no Ratzel scholar—I just came upon a source that quoted Ratzel and tied him to Hitler. I'm not a Hitler scholar, either, just a generalist.

I am, though, quite surprised at the history of this article in which some editors strive to separate the concept of American white expansionism from the various vehicles of actual expansion—this path leads to academic hair-splitting and intellectual dishonesty. I do not think that a "scoping statement" and a limitation of article text is necessary. The article can grow and flex with the material brought to it.

About American Manifest Destiny in particular, and expansionism in general, no matter the vehicle of expansion, one race will thrive and another will fall. Expansion by race is a zero sum game. The end result is the extermination or drastic diminution of the "inferior" race. Thomas Farnham said "Indians' bones must enrich the soil, before the plough of civilized man can open it..." The American white people who thought differently, the ones that believed in a gentler version of Manifest Destiny, were in the minority. Even so, the American whites who sought not the extermination but the resettlement of Indians were mirrored in the 1930s and early 1940s by Nazi Germans who uprooted and resettled millions of Slavic peoples. Here's a connection between SS extermination groups and Colorado's Volunteers.

Beyond Ratzel, there are more connections to German thought and American Manifest Destiny than I was initially aware of.

• This book by Hehn says that the German 19th century Grossraumordnung (System of Large Areas) was based on the Monroe Doctrine as well as Manifest Destiny, and included colonial themes. This idea stayed in circulation before and during WWI. In the 1930s, the idea changed to Grossraumwirtschaft (Economy of Large Areas) which was a colonial concept of a vast trading region with Germany in the center.
• This observer connects Nazi expansion with 19th century colonial movements including Manifest Destiny.
• Brian A. Weiner connects Hitler and the Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia and Poland with American Manifest Destiny, and offers the observation that subsequent American treatment of its indigenous Indians benefited from the comparison.
• This book connects Drang nach Osten, the German push to expand eastward, with American Manifest Destiny.
• Woodruff D. Smith ties together the concepts of American Manifest Destiny and European Realpolitik, Staatsräson, Weltpolitik, and Lebensraum, saying that each concept used similar imperialist arguments.
• Neil Levi and Michael Rothberg wrote that "the ideology of Manifest Destiny is itself founded on an implied intent to kill..."

So you can see where I'm coming from. Binksternet (talk) 23:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

ah yes but the Europeans get American history so badly mixed up. The Manifest Destiny theme was mostly about the Texas-California area and was highly controversial inside the USA (people like Lincoln and Ulysses Grant strongly opposed it-as did the Whig party). Manifest Destiny had little to do with Indians, but to the Europeans the American West = Indians, so they easily get confused. Furthermore the Europeans don't realize the space was so different--the population of these western areas in 1840s was pretty small (a few thousand Hispanics in Texas, about 10,000 in California) in vast areas as large as all of western Europe. They seem unaware that most of these Hispanics SUPPORTED the American invasion because they wanted to get rid of the nasty Mexican government, which kept killing its opponents. As for invading central Mexico to permanently take it over and send in settlers, the Spanish did that and the French tried it in 1860s --but not the Americans. Rjensen (talk) 03:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Mixed up? I'm quoting sources that are scholarly, not mixed up outsiders. The connection between German Lebensraum and American Manifest Destiny is easily found in the literature. Your deletion of the paragraph cannot be supported in the light of the array of sources. I won't put up with deletion of it, but I welcome a well-referenced edit to it. The content of the paragraph is flexible, as there are so many observers who could be given voice. We can choose which are the most notable. Binksternet (talk) 10:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I looked up each one of the reference and they are all badly garbled versions of history. I reread Ratzel in both English and German and in the 1890s he did not use Lebensraum to refer to Germany or to America--he refers to biological species. (the word Lebensraum appears 4 times in passing in his book). I rewrote the passage to use the best scholarly sources--Woodruff D. Smith, "Friedrich Ratzel and the Origins of Lebensraum," German Studies Review, and the biography by Wanklyn. Ratzel himself never used the term "manifest Destiny" nor did he refer to it; his ideas were closer to those of Frederick Jackson Turner (on the Frontier), whom he does cite. Rjensen (talk) 11:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The last paragraph seems out of place. Like an afterthought. It's possible the paragraph could be moved to the Lebensraum article and then add that article in the See Also section. I'm not knowledgeable enough to evaluate these sources so I just wikified it to show the reader that there are articles on Wiki relating to this subject and offer my stylistic opinion. (Alatari (talk) 07:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The last paragraph is there to clear up a misconception that the German Lebensraum was "just like" Manifest Destiny--sugginsting the Americans like Wilson and FDR were unfair to poor Germany in opposing its expansion. Rjensen (talk) 11:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a solid concise answer. So if it is supportable by proper sources then why not add that contrast to the paragraph? That makes for some interesting reading and clarifies the need for a paragraph on Lebensraum in this article. Is there some cultural/political movement painting America as hypocrites for having an identical Lebensraum philosophy in the Manifest Destiny? Alatari (talk) 03:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The talk of Lebensraum is proposterous and seems like propaganda, for all the reasons lifted above. Maybe there should be a page like "criticisms of manifest destiny."Tallicfan20 (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Jane Storm

I reverted an unsourced edit by an IP naming Storm (apparently Jane McManus Storm Cazneau as the originator of the phrase "Manifest Destiny". I only googled it enough to determine that it MIGHT be true -- someone, or the original IP, may want to properly source this and integrate it with the current text that emphasizes O'Sullivan's role. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

revert vandalism - John O'Sullivan -> Manny Destiny

{{editsemiprotected}} current text is "Journalist Manny Destiny, an influential advocate for the Democratic Party, wrote an..." Per elsewhere in the article, correct journalist's name is John L. O'Sullivan, not Manny Destiny.

Vandalism was in this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Manifest_Destiny&oldid=347293033 Robertsjk (talk) 01:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done Fleetflame · whack! whack! · 01:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Canada?

Canda was not part of the plan. Rjensen (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Which "the plan" there were many different interpretations of Manifest Destiny, some of which did include the incorporation of Canada. --Khajidha (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

not according to Stuart--the RS used for the section explictly denied that Man Dest was involved re Canada. Rjensen (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

But O'Sullivan did use it to include Canada. See the section on Context and Interpretations. --Khajidha (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit out Racism and conjecture

the United States (often in the ethnically specific form of the "Anglo-Saxon race")

This is a FACTUAL ERROR, racist and requires an edit to remove:(often in the ethnically specific form of the "Anglo-Saxon race").

At this time in American History there were far more continental Europeans in the US than islanders like "Anglo-Saxons".

comment added by: Prof. Christopher J. Ehrentraut, Sr. Ph.D.  14:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

the text says correctly that "Anglo-Saxon race" was often used. There were relatively few Germans and other continentals before 1840, when they started to arrive in numbers. The argument was introduced 3 decades ago in Reginald Horsman, Race and Manifest Destiny: Origins of American Racial Anglo-Saxonism (1981). Rjensen (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Response by ProfCjeSrPhD:

A high level of German immigration to America occurred between 1820 and World War I, during which time nearly six million Germans emigrated to the United States. From 1840 to 1880 they were the largest group of immigrants. Following the Revolutions of 1848 in the German states, a wave of political refugees fled to America, who became known as Forty-Eighters. They included professionals, journalists, and politicians. Prominent Forty-Eighters included Carl Schurz and Henry Villard.[Wittke, Carl (1952), Refugees of Revolution, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania press}

Do we need to add the French, Spanish and ESPECIALLY the IRISH immigrants who were Celtic, not Anglo-Saxon? Remember, the Irish were 50% of the immigrants in 1840 [5] —Preceding comment added by ProfCjeSRPhD 15:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC) One last comment: The concept of Manifest Destiny is associated with the Democrats in 1840. Attempting to obfuscate the issue with demographics before 1840 and labels affixed in the 20th century is ethno-political, revisionist and not in the interest of truth.—Preceding comment added by ProfCjeSRPhD 15:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey there. I added the text in question, and while I'm fascinated by this discussion of the real "racial stock" of United States citizens, the real issue here is whether believers in the idea of Manifest Destiny saw that destiny as a property of an "Anglo-Saxon race." ProfCjeSRPhD, the term Anglo-Saxon emphasizes the central European, Teutonic heritage of England, and is not designed in opposition to all contintental immigants, in particular Germans. We see that O'Sullivan--mentioned in the article and described by some as cointer of the phrase--put Anglo-Saxons as the protagonists of the Destiny he believed in. The same is true of historian John Fiske, who delivered a series of lectures on Manifest Destiny in the 1880s (American narcissism: the myth of national superiority by Wilber W. Caldwell, p. 96ff). Frederick and Lois Banister Merk observe "'Manifest Destiny', 'Anglo-Saxon Race,' 'All Mexico,' and 'Monroe's Principle' all rendered valiant service to Polk['s electoral campaign]." (Manifest destiny and mission in American history: a reinterpretation, p 227.) Racism and ethnic particularity are important parts of understanding Manifest Destiny and belong in the lead.--Carwil (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe that you are correct in your classification of Anglo-Saxons. Saxons were from Saxony in Northern France and Anglo's were on the other side of the channel. quoting a "reinterpretation" provides insight to racial-political intent.24.251.36.32 (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)ProfCjeSrPhD 7 October 2010

I have no idea what this sentence means: "quoting a 'reinterpretation' provides insight to racial-political intent." Maybe some pronouns would help; whose reinterperetation of what provides insight into whose political intent? If you mean the Merks' historical work, what are you suggesting? In short, what are you talking about?

John Fiske's classification of Anglo-Saxons' as described in the source quoted above, connects Germans and English folk in one "Anglo-Saxon race". Also, Old Saxony is in northwest Germany, and is said by that article to be the source of Saxon migrants to England. Anyhow, to re-emphasize, the only thing that matters for this page is the view of proponents of Manifest Destiny. Please keep the focus on them and cite sources. Cheers.--Carwil (talk) 05:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

RE MORE RECENT USES - I first heard this term also when I was in grade school in the 50s and 60s. I was stunned when I first ( and the only time I heard it ) and thought wow this is the most evil idea I have ever heard. From then on it made me think twice about the "goodness" of everyone, particularly in history class. American exceptionalism - a term I have only heard in the last few years - likewise makes me cringe. To paraphrase Lincoln ( the sob - I am still looking for a good bok that exposes the real reason (economic) for the Civil War)any country founded on these principles(manifest destiny and exceptionalism) can not( nor shouldn't) long last. 159.105.81.31 (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting point of view. Well not really. Anglo-saxons were the ones doing it eh? As above mentioned the Irish weren't anglo-saxons. They were Gaelic Celts. So are we forgetting how well the Irish were treated in the 1800's? What about the Italians? It's less talked about that during world war 2 they were interned to like the Japanese. Oh but both of these groups were white right (Irish and Italian). Anyone in the USA that was free to roam was apart of Manifest destiny. The Mexicans turned Texans that helped Texas become independent. Opps we don't want people to know that Mexicans were apart of manifest destiny. On a side note is anyone familiar with the African American historical figure Anthony Johnson? Great guy eh?

I agree that someone should Edit out Racism and conjecture. And that's all that it amounts to.70.15.191.119 (talk) 11:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The use of Parkman as a source

What is the reason behind the choice of Parkman as a source? Was it just simply for that quote? Surely there are better sources. What about Francis Jennings? The guy who called Parkman a liar and called his work fiction. If it's about that quote I can understand. I sense the bias in this article so I understand. There was all kinds of unsourced usage and conjecture about anglo-saxons. For the treaty of 1818 an aka title was hand picked though it is most commonly called the treaty of 1818. So if it was just for the quote you have pulled off what you were trying to do. Non-white people will hate white people and white people will be instantly be filled with white guilt over something they didn't do to people they didn't do it to.

But if for some chance you want to stop trying to push a point of view and actually put history here and possibly make wikipedia a more reliable source that people who actually need an encyclopedia can use....

Well Parkman's not your best source. Try Jennings since a portion of his career was spent correcting Parkman's contribution to history.70.15.191.119 (talk) 11:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It's true that Jennings violently disliked Parkman--but he is an outlier--Parkman has been cited and praised by many leading historians. In any case the issue is Parkman's highly influential views. Jennings complains that Parkman revised quotations and exaggerated the leadership role of Pontiac--not especially relevant to this topic. Jennings does not deal with the Manifest Destiny themes. On that see Nicholas Lawrence "Francis Parkman'S The Oregon Trail and the US-Mexican War: Appropriations Of Counter-Imperial Dissent," Western American Literature, Winter 2009, Vol. 43 Issue 4, pp 372-391, which shows Parkman opposed Manifest Destiny. Rjensen (talk) 12:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll comment from the sidelines that it looks like there's a WP:DUE issue here. Perhaps Jennings ought to be mentioned and viewpoints contrasted using something like this. I hasten to add that I don't know anything at all about the specifics here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I think Jennings would agree with the use of Parkman here. Parkman was an influential writer on Indian issues, which is not in dispute by Jennings. Rjensen (talk) 04:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Why lie? What is the point in lying? Just admit your intellectual dishonesty. Parkman is quoted here for one reason and one reason alone.

If that quote had not contained "Anglo-American" and it wouldn't have been used at all if it had not because there are far better sources.

Why not just replace Anglo-saxon with white since essentially that's what you are saying out right anyway? It doesn't seem that you would want to account for the other white ethnic groups that came to America. Irish people weren't made up of enough Anglo-Saxons to be labeled so. The French weren't Anglo-Saxon and there are still those in our country that can trace their roots to France. Horsman may note alot of things but I must note that all free citizens in the United States during the time of Manifest destiny where destined to cross ocean to Ocean. I say this because all free Americans at the time could do so. These free Americans were made up of non Anglo-Saxons. The reason Anglo-Saxon is being used is because simply saying white would show the bias of this article.

Anglo-american and anglo-saxon are being used here as power words.

In using Parkman you fail to recognize his limitations. One major limitation in particular. His Racial prejudice. He could not keep his bias out of his work at all. From the same book that this quote was taken from you see that Parkman felt Indians were "destined to melt and vanish before the advancing waves of Anglo-American power, which now rolled westward unchecked and unopposed." because they were were stopping progress. The "noble savages" had to be destroyed. There were others who felt the same. There were others who didn't. Notably John C. Calhoun spoke out against the annexation of all of Mexico. He didn't want to annex mexico because of the Indians there. He thought that at least half of the Mexican people were Indian and the others were mixed. This Anglo-American senator could have said lets take Mexico and kill the Indians there as Parkman would have wanted but didn't. John C. Calhoun created the BIA. See Parkman didn't recognize anything other than the superiority of "Anglo-americans" and there rights. But as history tells there where other free non-"anglo-americans". They were free in the north and the south. They were free in the territories. They were free everywhere on US soil. Horsman can take his notes but if they say anything other than free American citizens then he is doing so to envoke a reaction in his readers and not for any historical purpose. You using Parkman serves the same purpose.70.15.191.119 (talk) 10:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Alas our anonymous 70.15.191.119 does not appreciate how Wikipedia works. Our job is to report what the reliable sources, such as Horsmen and the many other people cited in the bibliography say about Manifest Destiny. The concept of Anglo Saxon was very important in 19th century America, and it did not include the Irish or French or Germans or Scandinavians or Spanish, who were also white but were not seen --and did not see themselves--as carriers of the particular value system that manifest destiny supposedly represented.Rjensen (talk) 10:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The sources are fine. I'm sure Horsman felt that way and the inclusion of Horsman and his opinion allow you to lambaste the page with the page with Anglo-Saxon. You could be intellectually honest and replace Anglo-Saxon with American and not go through extensive efforts to drop anglo-saxon when ever possible. I'm sorry if I confused you but by Irish and French I was referring to the Irish and French of America. They really existed. Non-Anglo-Saxon white people. Mexicans were involved. Mexicans who helped Texas gain independence and became citizens of America when Texas became a state. Anglo-Saxons didn't make up. They were apart of America. Many of these free Anglo-Saxons voted in the congress that went to war with Mexico. The term was coined in 1845 and the war took place in the 1840's. The beliefs was that The United States was destined to grow from ocean to ocean. Not the Anglo-Saxon Race but the land in the United States. I know this distinction doesn't jive with your push to say that all white Americans in that day were racist but you are intellectually dishonest so I'm not trying to jive with you. I don't recall any attempts to write laws to ban any non-anglo-saxon citizen from newly acquired territories or newly created states. As America grew so did the boundary at which her citizens could walk and live in.

O'Sullivan didn't predict that the United States would become a union of many Anglo-Saxons. He predicted a union of many republics. Further more O'Sullivan isn't a Anglo-Saxon surname. In case you missed it it's an Irish name. His mother was English and his Father was Irish. So he's half Anglo-Saxon. One thing I do see missing here are notable non-anglo-saxon Americans who opposed Manifest destiny. It says only Anglo-saxons supported this but other than Horsman saying so and a few others dropping anglo-saxon it doesn't represent the non-anglo-saxon American citizen POV. It does not show Horsman basis for pointing all blame to anglo-saxons or anyone else's basis for this including the editors of this page.

It does say, "a belief in the natural superiority of the English-speaking peoples (at the time often called the "Anglo-Saxon race")." There were English speaking free black people so I guess they are anglo-saxons as well. Anglo-Saxon seems to mean any free citizen who spoke English. That is how it is written. Especially in this situation Anglo-Saxon serves no purpose. Unless you are trying to get a certain word count it should be removed in all cases where it's contained in () and be switched to American where not.

Further more Horsman isn't properly sources. The second use of anglo-saxon "(at the time often called the "Anglo-Saxon race")" is unsourced completely.

"After "Anglo-Saxons" emigrated to new regions, they would set up new democratic governments, and then seek admission to the United States, as Texas had done" The source is cited to Robert Johannsen so I must ask if he used "Anglo-Saxons" or if it's just newspeak for the purpose of this article? Is this article intended to do more than get people inflamed at "Anglo-saxons"?70.15.191.119 (talk) 11:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

lebensraum should be removed

lebensraum's inclusion in this article is without merit. American expansionism existed before "manifest destiny" was coined. The thought of countries expanding and the expansion of countries existed before the founding of America. If you are going to include lebensraum you should include every other piece of history on expansionism. Why not include Osman's Dream? Is it because Osman 1 wasn't Anglo-Saxon. Of all expansionism to pick it interests me why you chose to include Lebensraum. Choosing Lebensraum allows you to say Nazi but I can't see any other reason for it's inclusion. Napolean? Genghis Khan? Rome? No expansionism involving them or mention of how common expansionism is historically but you have room for German expansionism? Ya this isn't bias. You know it's real hard to assume good faith when the bias here is so blatant.70.15.191.119 (talk) 10:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

lebensraum is included because 1) like MD it is an Ideology or theory of expansion and 2) RS talk about the possible linkage with MD. Rjensen (talk) 10:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

So it talks about ideology of expansion so it's included. And though the ideology for the ottoman empire expansion is available and consists of alot more history it won't be include because a racist individual like Adolf Hitler has nothing to do with it so it won't help you successfully enrage individuals on the subject of MD. Personally I think if you told people to hate white people it would you would get your opinion across just as successfully and you would have to typeless which could stave off carpal tunnel.70.15.191.119 (talk) 11:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

actually it's about the world of ideas and scholarship--entry is free: you just have to read some of the items that are listed. Staying on the outside runs the risk of producing hateful, ignorant, useless gibberish. Rjensen (talk) 11:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Entry is free and removal is free. I removed everything related to "Anglo-Saxon" as is amounted to hate promoting, ignorant, and useless gibberish. Someone put it back in. Looking at the article for Lebensraum and the lack of article dedicated to manifest destiny except in the blue links of the see also section I and no other reasonable person can but question the reason it's contained here. The information contained here holds more historic value to it than it holds to manifest destiny. The source used to show that Ratzel sympathized with manifest destiny only showed that in the opinion of Smith he sympathized but it failed to show that he actually did sympathize.

Now unless you are suggesting (as the article already suggests) that Anglo-Saxons for the purpose of this article are all English speaking free citizens of the time (which would include whites, blacks, Chinese, Mexicans, and anyone I may have missed) then the inclusion of Lebensraum on this page and the lack of inclusion of Manifest destiny on the Lebensraum page is highly questionable. But instead of making any further acusations i will attempt to fix this article. 70.15.191.119 (talk) 13:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

In the 19th century when people wanted to speak about whites, they use the word " white". when they use the term "Anglo-Saxon" they were referring to the language now called Old English, and had in mind people of English descent, both in England and in America. see White Anglo Saxon Protestant for more details. Mexicans, Irishmen and French were not included in the term Anglo-Saxon. Manifest destiny was a highly controversial issue, with support and opposition about evenly balanced in the US.Rjensen (talk) 13:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

70.15.191.119 is not following the Wikipedia rules regarding NPOV. if he thinks there is an alternative viewpoint then he should add the alternative viewpoint, giving his reliable sources. He is not allowed to a erase fully sourced information because of his personal political views. thus far 70.15.191.119 has found no reliable sources that support his opinions. Rjensen (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually that's my argument. This article isn't properly sourced to slap Anglo-Saxon on everything. The great potato famine happened in 1845 and Irish emigration started and lasted strongly til 5 years later. Irish aren't anglo-saxon. This article has suggested the Irish did nothing for and were not for manifest destiny. Yet there is nothing to show that they or any other non-anglo-saxon did not support or help with manifest destiny.

Now there's talk about Texas though. Texas is pretty much said to be a part of manifest destiny. Tejano fought beside Texans to get it's freedom. I know this breaks with the whole anglo-Saxon thing you had going but the Tejano aren't Anglo-saxon. But I can understand that you don't wan't your political message removed.70.15.191.119 (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

lebensraum should be in there cause it is the same concept 95.208.187.120 (talk) 10:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon and the repetition of use

The thought that Anglo-Saxons were the only race that was involved is the alternative point of view Scholarly or other wise. Read the article and you will see that a certain scholar has been smoking crack. And I quote," and a belief in the natural superiority of the English-speaking peoples (at the time often called the "Anglo-Saxon race")."

That says that English speaking people were at the time Anglo-Saxons. That would include Free people of color, Irish Americans, Actual Anglo-Saxons, slaves, and even a few Indians, and several other ethnicities in the USA at the time. This statement written out right away in the article is of course not correct.

The other uses refer to the 19th century philosophy that "Anglo-Saxons" ancestry or English ancestry made "Anglo-Saxons" superior to other people. This justified both Racism and imperialism. There were Anglo-Saxons in America but there were Anglo-Saxons in England. Manifest destiny never took the stand that Anglo-Saxons were destined to control the North American continent. Manifest destiny took the stand that the USA and it's citizens were destined to control north America. If Manifest destiny had been about Anglo-Saxons controlling north America then Oregon would be apart of Canada now. The UK was going for it and guess what the UK is full of: Anglo-Saxons.

We never thought that Anglo-Saxons would go to another land and annex it to the US. We thought that Americans would. We were not morons. There are plenty of lands Anglo-Saxons went to and they never considered asking us to let them join our country. Texas didn't ask the US to annex them because they were anglo-saxons (some where Mexican) they did so because they were Americans. Anglo-Saxons are everywhere and they where then to. The only Anglo-Saxons that came to us were: AMERICANS. Now some of these Americans were not anglo-saxon.

Now there is another use to Anglo-saxon. It doesn't refer to the Anglo-Saxon ethnicity. It refers to rich white people with high social standing. Rich white people with a high social standing really seems to connect well to this article. O'Sullivan was a well to do whiteman with abit of pull in his hey day. You can call him anglo-saxon.

If this article had an over use of Anglo-Saxon and a reference to the Nazi's it would look.. Oh wait it does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.191.119 (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

for the umpteenth time, Anglo=Saxon = people of English descent. Reginald Horsman, Race and manifest destiny: (1981) Page 62: "But in the first decades of the nineteenth century Englishmen and Americans increasingly compared the Anglo Saxon peoples to others and concluded that blood, not environment or accident, had led to their success." Rjensen (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

So what you are saying that even though various other races of people helped helped in the founding of our country and manifest destiny that their contributions are negligible simply because some Anglo-saxons (both English who did not take part in manifest destiny and Americans who did) thought that they were a superior race in the Early 19th century. Great logic. People involved shouldn't be mentioned while those uninvolved should be.

Oh and for the umpteenth time the article states, " and a belief in the natural superiority of the English-speaking peoples (at the time often called the "Anglo-Saxon race")." For the umpteenth time that doesn't mean people of English decent. That means exactly as it reads: People who speak English are Anglo-saxons. No where does it suggest that people of English decent are anglo-saxon. It's already known and written down in history that there were non-anglo-saxons (or people not of English decent if you will) made up a large enough portion of America to be mentioned for their parts in history. What about Dutch Americans? Did they just sit out of manifest destiny? Did they object or not? Did they first peoples who saluted out flag and recognize we were independent not take part in history during the time of manifest destiny? If they objected and weren't for it like the anglo-saxons were then surely you have a source. Do the Tejanos of Texas who helped liberate Texas and formed the country of Texas and became American citizens when Texas became a state not count? What were the thoughts of the Irish who had been here are started emigrating here is 1845 have to say. Did these people... Did all of these non-anglo-saxons just disappear?

You have given credit to the United Kingdom who didn't take part but the people who did don't seem to matter. Your article reads about the evil of the whiteman and that's how it's intended to be read. More than liberal history what can you call it?70.15.191.119 (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The term "English speaking PEOPLES" in the pre-1880 period meant people of English descent--it was an ethnic term; after about 1890 it was used more broadly to include others who spoke English. 90+% of ther folks who were active in the Manifest Destiny movement were of British descent--and they were split about 50-50 (Most Whigs, like Lincoln, opposed it as did some Democrats). American groups like blacks, French, Germans, Dutch and Hispanics etc are not much mentioned in the RS. Rjensen (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

"English speaking peoples" wasn't used. Anglo-Saxons was. Nothing when mentioning the superiority of English speaking people signified that you were just speaking about just descendants of those who came from the British isles.

As far as the research used to put this article together goes... Well I know the research used doesn't contain other ethnicities. That's obvious since this research was hand selected to say "Anglo-Saxons" everywhere. E.J. Potgieter wasn't adverse to to the ideology behind manifest destiny. He suggested to a friend that he should go to America. His major problem with America was Slavery and the abuse of Indians. He was not American but from 1837 to 1836 he introduced other Dutch to American literature in "Da Gid". There was an influx of Dutch immigration in 1840.

Auguste Davezac after 1840 avidly supported Manifest Destiny. Davezac as I'm sure you will recall was a Dutch Ambassador in those days. The dutch had a presence in America and at home were well aware of manifest destiny. You have chosen to use material that specifically ignores them and other individuals contributions during manifest destiny. When Texas joined the union the Tejanos who fought for Texas Independence didn't turn tail and run to Mexico. Though it's overly important to have Anglo-Saxon everywhere it is to negligible for you to mention the Tejanos and their contributions to both Texas and manifest destiny.

There's nothing in the research used because the research used was specifically used. All the other multitudes of research contain nationality (the American nationality referring to all free and naturalized citizens of the time)and couldn't be used because if they were you wouldn't be able to say white people of America at the time were evil racists. I'm only asking that Wikipedia use a Neutral POV.

Opinions should not be stated as facts. It is the opinion of horseman that the anglo-Saxons were the only race involved in Manifest destiny. In other areas, "After "Anglo-Saxons" emigrated to new regions, they would set up new democratic governments, and then seek admission to the United States, as Texas had done." Horsman opinion doesn't really do anything here. O'Sullivan didn't think that other Anglo-Saxons would ask for addition to the US after they emigrated else where. Your source doesn't say they would. O'Sullivan thought Americans would. O'Sullivan knew as John C. Calhoun pointed out that non-Anglo-Saxons would be involved in manifest destiny and become American citizens as the Tejanos had done in the case of Texas. The inclusion of Anglo-Saxons is only questionable here and nothing more.

Also Anglo-Saxons meaning differed during the described time period. In New York it would have been only descendants of English people. Irish were considered to be lowly like Native Americans and any other people who weren't white. In other areas it was all inclusive of English speaking white people.

To quote Josiah Strong in 1890,"In 1700 this race numbered less than 6,000,000 souls. In 1800, Anglo-Saxons (I use the term somewhat broadly to include all English-speaking peoples) had increased to about 20,500,000, and now, in 1890, they number more than 120,000,000."

To quote him again in 1893, " "This race is destined to dispossess many weaker ones, assimilated others, and mould the remainder until... it has Anglo-Saxonized mankind."

Assimilate. To take in. As they had taken in the Irish.

It's not that a majority of non-anglo-saxon American citizens were against manifest destiny or at least you haven't shown that it is. It's more that white people who speak English agreed with it. That's all that Horsman notes. Now Indians were against it of course but Indians didn't receive citizenship until 1924 as I recall. At the time they were Indians and not Americans.

But it's more than obvious I can not get the racism removed from this article but I hope then individual behind it can one day not be chained down by their hatred. Best Wishes. 70.15.191.119 (talk) 12:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Citation regularization

I chanced to take a look at this article today, and jumped in to link some page numbered refs supporting quotes to Google Books deep links showing the relevant pages. While doing this I noticed that some cited works had google books links and some did not, I added a couple of such links and/or added missing ISBNs to works I was looking at. While doing that, I noticed that some cited works are described in some detail outside of the References section, and others are not, and some works not cited in the reverences section are mentioned in the Notes section (e.g., "As shown by the wide ridicule of the Alaska Purchase in 1867. By Frederick Merk, Manifest destiny and mission in American history: a Reinterpretation (1995) p. 229", "Merk, pp. 144–47; Fuller; Thomas R. Hietala, Manifest design: American exceptionalism and Empire (2003)" -- that Hietala work is cited in the Further Reading section, not the References section). Also, I see that {{cite book}} is used a few times and the article also uses {{cite journal}} and {{cite web}}, but the citations in the References and further reading sections are hand-crafted.

I'll probably be trying to regularize some of this style-wise. As part of this, barring objection, I'll convert the citation style in the References and Further reading sections to use {{cite book}}, and I'll also use {{Harvnb}} for Notes section Refs to provide clickable links to the associated full citations in the references section (see example here). Comments? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Having seen no objection, I've placed an {{under construction}} hatnote in the article and begun work. I'm starting with the regularization of citation styles in the References and Further reading sections to use {{cite book}}. Where I can, I'll use Google Books and this tool to generate the cites. As I do each entry, I'll look for associated Refs and edit them as needed. If I come across specific cases where I think talk page comment is needed, I'll comment just below here as I go along.

• On (Greenberg 2005), I note that though the work is listed in the References section, the article contains no Refs to it.
• On (Haynes, Sam W. and Christopher Morris, eds), the URL given didn't match the cited work. I worked from the [ISBN given instead and got a match and have corrected the URL. On Google Books, that ISBN comes up with author Johannsen, Robert Walter instead of with the editors named in the handcrafted cite. I've changed the cite to use the Johannsen and changed the shortfoot Refs which said Haynes to say Johannsen instead and to link to the Johanssen cite. Also, there were a couple of shortfoot Refs to a Johanssen work in the article which didn't match any cites -- I've linked them to this Johanssen cite.
• On (Merk 1963), I've linked shortfoot refs for pp. 144-47, for p. 214, for p. 241, and for p. 257. I've left unlinked a longer ref'd cite to p. 229 which specifies a 1995 edition in some inline discussion of Merk which is not Ref'd.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• On (Fuller 1936), I moved the cite from the Further reading section to References and redid it with Cite book. I went back to this edit and got page number info.
• On (Hietala 2003), I moved the cite from the Further reading section to References and redid it with Cite book.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Excellent work! Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 04:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I ran the citation bot on the article in slow mode and it fixed a few things. It's not really tedious, like adding the ISBNs manually. Jsayre64 (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I've finished the citation regularization pass through this article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

American Progress caption too long

I think the caption for the main photo, the painting American Progress, is too long. It describes everything going on in the painting in over 70 words. I think if the reader wants to know more about the painting, he can read the file's description. The Events Leading to the Civil War box isn't even visible in my browser until I scroll down half a page. Attys (talk) 09:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem. This is a visualization of the Manifest Destiny theme that has been used in many textbooks. The caption merely tells what is happening in an a small image that is hard to make out in many browsers. The point is that the caption info helps readers see for themselves how Americans visualized Manifest destiny Rjensen (talk) 10:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Manifest destiny. Favonian (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Manifest Destiny → Manifest destiny – The capitalization of concepts for emphasis is not an uncommon style, but is not compatible with WP style; see WP:MOSCAPS and especially WP:DOCTCAPS. Also note that most sources, including the cited one that introduced the term, use lower case when in sentence context. Even when titles and headings are counted as here, it's about half and half, so it's certainly not the case that "consistent capitalization in sources" can be invoked to claim that it's a proper noun phrase. Dicklyon (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support per WP:MOSCAPS and rationale of Dicklyon.--JayJasper (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.