This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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... 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.'
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)
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)
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)
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.)
Some *@$%^!s will not give up the idea. 142.177.24.253 14:18, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
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.
Most of "Westward Expansion" does not actually fit under the headline of Manifest Destiny. In fact, the opposite is true. --YixilTesiphon
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.
I agree. (Sept.)
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.
How could the Madison administration hold that "doctrine" when the phrase was coined decades later?
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."
there isnt anything about intentions of taking the manifest destiney attitude into space . . .
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?
From article:
And:
Oh and:
This too:
And maybe this too :
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)
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.
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)
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~
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
Kablammo ( talk) 16:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)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, 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)
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)
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)
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:
Needs inline citations:
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)
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)
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)
The introduction now contains a specific reference to the "God of Christianity" as having ordained America's Manifest Destiny. I have several concerns here.
"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)
"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))
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{
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/? title=Manifest_Destiny&oldid=347293033 Robertsjk ( talk) 01:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Canda was not part of the plan. Rjensen ( talk) 04:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
Response by ProfCjeSrPhD:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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'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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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.
Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I've finished the citation regularization pass through this article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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... 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.'
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)
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)
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)
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.)
Some *@$%^!s will not give up the idea. 142.177.24.253 14:18, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
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.
Most of "Westward Expansion" does not actually fit under the headline of Manifest Destiny. In fact, the opposite is true. --YixilTesiphon
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.
I agree. (Sept.)
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.
How could the Madison administration hold that "doctrine" when the phrase was coined decades later?
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."
there isnt anything about intentions of taking the manifest destiney attitude into space . . .
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?
From article:
And:
Oh and:
This too:
And maybe this too :
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)
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.
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)
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~
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
Kablammo ( talk) 16:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)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, 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)
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)
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)
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:
Needs inline citations:
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)
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)
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)
The introduction now contains a specific reference to the "God of Christianity" as having ordained America's Manifest Destiny. I have several concerns here.
"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)
"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))
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{
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/? title=Manifest_Destiny&oldid=347293033 Robertsjk ( talk) 01:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Canda was not part of the plan. Rjensen ( talk) 04:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
Response by ProfCjeSrPhD:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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'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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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.
Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I've finished the citation regularization pass through this article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)