Compare And Contrast Manifest Destiny

Jake Teran

Ms. Bruno

U.S 1H

3/26/23

Manifest destiny

Manifest destiny is a term used to describe the belief prevalent in the 19th century and the United States that it was the destiny of the nation to expand its territorial boundaries and influence from coast to coast. The idea of manifest destiny was popularized during the 1840s, and it played a significant role in shaping US foreign and domestic policies during that time. However, the view of manifest destiny was not uniform, some supported it, and those opposed it. In this essay, I will compare and contrast the different views of manifest destiny.

One view of manifest destiny is that it was a divine mission that the United States had to fulfill. This view held that the U.S. was uniquely

They argued that it was unjust and that it violated the rights of the native people who already inhabited the territories that the U.S. saw to expand into. Critics of manifest destiny argued that the U.S. had no right to take land from other nations and peoples and that such actions were a violation of international law.

Another point of contrast between the views of manifest destiny was the question of whether it was a legitimate foreign policy objective or pretext for aggression. Supporters of manifest destiny argue that it was a legitimate foreign policy objective that was necessary for the U.S. to fulfill its destiny as a great nation. They argued that the U.S. was expanding to new territories peacefully and that it was only when provoked by other nations that it was forced to defend itself through War. Critics of manifest destiny, however, argued that it was a pretext for aggression and imperialism. They pointed to the U.S. annexation of Texas and the Mexican-American War as examples of how the U.S. used Manifest Destiny to justify its expansionist policies. Critics argue that the U.S. was using Manifest Destiny as a cover for its desire for territorial expansion and that it was not a legitimate foreign policy