Huh… from the thread title and the phrasing in the OP, I though the phrase on the shirts was “Manifest Destiny is controversial” which struck me as amusingly understated, like saying “World War Two was contentious”.
Honestly, that always struck me as a bit too close to Lebensraum.
From the article, the shirt’s designer had this to say:
Honestly, I’m offended by this guy’s ignorance more than anything. If you can’t manage to remember what a phrase means, maybe don’t put it on a t-shirt, you idiot.
Nice citation. For those who might need reminding, John C. Calhoun was hugely influential in the shaping of the country. In looking for the motive that drove national policy, Calhoun’s words should be given substantially more weight than those of most other politicians.
Oh, your land? Are you Apache?
Such a blatantly skewed understanding of the debate. What you’ve failed to realize is that Calhoun was opposed to the war with Mexico, and sought to undermine the effort in Congress, an effort which diminished his political standing. He was afraid the balance of power between free and slave states would be upset (and he would be correct; California was admitted as a free state, and the Missouri Compromise line was not extended to the Pacific). But the US Army kept winning and eventually occupied Mexico City and most of Mexico, at which time they began debating further military measures. Calhoun had not wanted to go that far into Mexico proper in the first place:
*"When I suggested a defensive line, at the last session, this country had in its possession, through the means of its arms, ample territory, and stood in a condition to force indemnity. Before then, the successes of our arms had gained all the contiguous portions of Mexico, and our army has ever since held all that it is desirable to hold—that portion whose population is sparse, and on that account the more desirable to be held. For I hold it in reference to this war a fundamental principle, that when we receive territorial indemnity, it shall be unoccupied territory.
In offering a defensive line, I did it because I believed that, in the first place, it was the only certain mode of terminating the war successfully; I did it, also, because I believed that it would be a vast saving of the sacrifice of human life; but above all, I did so because I saw that any other line of policy would expose us to tremendous evil, which these resolutions were intended to guard against. The President took a different view. He recommended a vigorous prosecution of the war—not for conquest: that was disavowed—but for the purpose of conquering peace; that is, to compel Mexico to sign a treaty making a sufficient cession of territory to indemnify this Government both for the claims of its citizens and for the expenses of the war." *
But with most of Mexico under our possession, there were calls to turn it into a client state, or annex it outright. But that would be biting off more than we could chew - there were about 8 million people in Mexico proper at the time. As Calhoun argued, and you conveniently left out:
“Mr. President, there are some propositions too clear for argument; and before such a body as the Senate, I should consider it a loss of time to undertake to prove that to hold Mexico as a subjected province would be hostile, and in conflict with our free popular institutions, and in the end subversive of them. Sir, he who knows the American Constitution well—he who has duly studied its character—he who has looked at history, and knows what has been the effect of conquests of free States invariably, will require no proof at my hands to show that it would be entirely hostile to the institutions of the country to hold Mexico as a province. There is not an example on record of any free State even having attempted the conquest of any territory approaching the extent of Mexico without disastrous consequences. The nations conquered have in time conquered the conquerers by destroying their liberty. That will be our case, sir. The conquest of Mexico would add so vast an amount to the patronage of this Government, that it would absorb the whole power of the States in the Union. This Union would become imperial, and the States mere subordinate corporations. But the evil will not end there. The process will go on. The same process by which the power would be transferred from the States to the Union, will transfer the whole from this department of the Government (I speak of the Legislature) to the Executive. All the added power and added patronage which conquest will create, will pass to the Executive. In the end, you put in the hands of the Executive the power of conquering you. You give to it, sir, such splendor, such ample means, that, with the principle of proscription which unfortunately prevails in our country, the struggle will be greater at every Presidential election than our institutions can possibly endure. The end of it will be, that that branch of Government will become all-powerful, and the result is inevitable—anarchy and despotism. It is as certain as that I am this day addressing the Senate.”
Emphasis mine. I need but look at Vietnam and Iraq to know the wisdom of what he said. And maybe you find it offensive that he would claim that Mexicans couldn’t be trusted to share our democratic principles, but seeing as how Mexico was ruled by a generalissimo, I don’t consider such wariness to be unfair.
It would certainly be convenient to those arguing for a primarily racist motive to overstate Calhoun’s importance in this debate. But his political fortunes at this time were on the wane because of his opposition to the war.
If you knew anything about me, the child of Holocaust survivors, you’ll understand what a shock looking up that definition was.
Oh, and one more thing. If America’s desire for Texas and the Mexican territory were based on a racist goal of establishing white supremacy, then what explains our desire for the Oregon territory?
Decent seafood?
I’d buy that before I’d buy the racism explanation.
Or I don’t know…could it possibly have been all the GOLD ???
I’m kinda curious whether you think we have to convince you to “buy” anything at all.
Huh?
You announced you aren’t buying it. I doubt anyone actually cares what you believe or don’t at this point in this thread.
What’s your purpose for posting this? Are you mad because I’m actually expecting people to support their arguments with evidence and context, rather than just-so stories of racist motives predominating American westward expansion? Because you can just go type up a lame rant in the Pit if you’re too lazy or lack the confidence to attempt to refute what I’ve said. Whatever you decide, please don’t remain in this thread if all you’re going to do is passive-aggressively snipe at me with the other drones.
I think this thread illustrates that US schools have a tendency to treat subject matter that makes the US look bad lightly. I remember my history teacher covering Manifest Destiny and he was careful to lay out facts and quotes without ever explicitly emphasizing the negatives. I do recall a sidebar in our textbook about the Trail of Tears though. I think many schools might be even more conservative and paint Manifest Destiny in a positive light because, you know everything the US does has to be awesome.
I also now recall some recent controversy about Texas schoolbooks and how the history texts are slanted with conservative opinion. Since we all obviously went to different high schools, I wonder if the difference in opinion is how Manifest Destiny was taught. And I’m sure the same can be said about other historical events. I grew up in the northeast. I’m sure my history class coverage of the Civil War was very different from a history class in the South.
BTW, Manifest Destiny is an Attribute bestowed upon the American Civilization in Sid Meyer’s Civilization.
My purpose for posting it is actually to get YOU to back up your snide comments with something other than “I don’t buy it.” You don’t buy it. So what? Your opinion is not particularly valuable. Other people have shown the racist origins of the phrase, so your buying or not buying is absolutely immaterial.
It’s not like I haven’t made several posts supporting my position or anything. You could read them and refute my arguments if you’d like. This is a GD thread, after all.
Asserting racism because “Well…it just was,” isn’t much of an argument.
I guess the argument being made is that it’s not totally racist, it’s only partly racist?
Whereas denying racism by saying Americans have benefited from it is actually asserting racism.
I allowed that racist motivations were part of the mix, and that Native Americans have a real historical grievance against the US. What I’m contesting is the idea that Manifest Destiny was a primarily racist idea, as opposed to a nationalistic and imperialistic idea, and that Mexicans have a legitimate grievance today because they lost a war in 1848.
It’d be like saying that we were primarily motivated by the desire to keep California’s gold out of the hands of Mexicans, while the desire to acquire the gold ourselves was of secondary importance. It’s nonsensical.
I really can’t understand what you’re trying to say.
That’s exactly the phrase I thought about when I heard “Manifest Destiny”.