Talk:Manifest Destiny

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manifest Destiny article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Good article Manifest Destiny was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Movie References

Manifest Destiny was referenced in the movie "Night at the Museum" and "Rules of Attraction".

[edit] 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)

Manifest Destiny- over the years, many Americans believed that they had the right to take over all of North America

In history lessons I learnt that Manifest Destiny is the belef that White Americans should control all land between the percific and the atlantic oceans and between Canada and Mexico...

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Protect this now.

Manifest Destiny is a serious topic and it's probably white supremacists and Christians constantly vandalising this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brazenhead (talk • contribs) 22:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] 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 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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."[1] 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. [2]
----------
  1. ^ Speech Sept 12, 1848, in David Donald, Lincoln (1995) 122
  2. ^ David M. Potter, The Impending Crisis, 1848 - 1861. (1976) p 193

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)

[edit] 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: [1] which dates it in 1845. Kablammo (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This appears to be the 1839 article (or excerpts of it): [2] 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)

[edit] {{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)

[edit] Tampering

I think this article has been tampered with. Other sources that I've used to try to confirm its validity does not site the term "homosexuality" as a means to convey "Manifest Destiny". I believe that revision is needed to restore factual content, and a level of protection be set to prevent further malice. Behälter (talk) 05:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)