"Manifest destiny" appears nowhere in the founding documents. According to Google AI, the phrase was coined by journalist and editor John O'Sullivan in 1845 to justify American expansionism. The name O'Sullivan appers to indicate Irish ancestry. I wonder how he would feel about England's manifest destiny to rule Scotland, Wales, and Ireland.
Thanks for the additional information! Many times somebody will make a modest, qualified claim and extremists will grab the phrasing and turn it into an excuse for theft and brutality.
The Notion is older. If you read William Cullen Bryant's "The Prairies" (1833), for instance, he works out a logic by which the Mound Builder civilization was not "Red Indian" but American classicism of the age of the Greeks, and so, by virtue of translatio imperii, white Americans are the rightful inheritors of the land.
Bryant, btw, was a fierce abolitionist.
Native peoples had no claim to the land because (following Lockean logic) as hunter gatherers they had not mixed their labor with it. News, of course, to the many tribes who did farm and were nevertheless removed.
That he wasn't addressing. But he was manifestly a destinarian avant la lattre.
It's a fascinating poem whose logic is appropriated by Cather for The Professor's House, which has strong anti-immigrant themes, though I think it's problematic to say the novel fully endorses them.
I am challenged on Manifest Destiny. I very specifically talk about continuing to support. That covers Manifest Destiny.
Ed continues to focus more on whether or not the US should be a Christian nation, not so much on whether it is already.
I maintain my view that the reality is that the US is drenched in Christianity.
Is this being immutably forced on people? No. The First Amendment is very clear: freedom to worship, provided any religion does not become state-established. Christianity is not state-established.
But what about all those SCOTUS decisions supporting alleged discrimination on the basis of religion - gay cakes and condoms?
I say those decisions were supporting the First Amendment. No one is saying you can’t get a gay cake or get condoms on insurance, just not with folks who hold particular religious views.
The whole point of the First Amendment is to enable freedom, not to enhance imposition — of any kind. It’s the transgender argument. You’re free to have any identity you like, but you’re not free to demand that others pander to it.
The fact is the US is drenched in Christianity. But the First Amendment continues to allow everyone — including Ed — not to be drenched, if they so choose.
Of course our secular government does allow individuals--including me and my deeply religious neighbors--to be drenched in as much Christianity, from inheriting every moment of our lives to none at all, as we wish. But it does not allow me to direct government power at my neighbors to dissuade them (even if I could marshal strong majorities of citizens in the effort).And vice versa. There's much more to this--stay tuned. (Anyone who wants a preview of the next two Fridays can track down a copy of our book.)
Manifest Destiny isn't an especially Christian idea (theistic? probably) and it is unrelated to our founding or governing documents. The US has of course been more drenched in Xtn religiosity in some eras than in others (arguably less so nowadays than many others), but it manifestly doesn't make it OK for a prez and secy of war/defense to declare xtn armageddon in my name. And the FA does the opposite.
Manifest Destiny was specifically framed within Protestant ethics. The idea that WASP’s were a chosen people, destined to expand across North America, and replace the heathen indigenous people. Biblical narratives were used to justify the Destiny, including Genesis 1:28 on dominion.
As I said in the comment that you post in your original article, the Christian ‘drenching’ of which I speak is not only found in the original governance documents, but in the approach taken after founding, of which Manifest Destiny forms a significant part.
I do not suggest that the ‘drenching’ makes war, conquest, or dominion acceptable. I say it should make it unsurprising. We believe we are an exceptional people, and in large part that exceptionalism derives from Christianity.
As to whether or not it is being done on your behalf, the current President was legitimately elected. Just as with every other President, he acts for the country. But, you’re free to disagree with him. That’s why we have democracy.
Is it? By the time V-Dem and Freedom House published their date it was already out of date, and the results of both were, Barely. Bright Line Watch agrees; their result drops this week.
& by the way, Iran is more free than out Saudi friends.
"Manifest destiny" appears nowhere in the founding documents. According to Google AI, the phrase was coined by journalist and editor John O'Sullivan in 1845 to justify American expansionism. The name O'Sullivan appers to indicate Irish ancestry. I wonder how he would feel about England's manifest destiny to rule Scotland, Wales, and Ireland.
Three things:
1. Almost certainly a Protestant; his mother was English.
2. His argument for MD was written in opposition to British claims in North America.
3. MD as he first conceived it was of settlement followed in time by petition for statehood, not government-led conquest.
Thanks for the additional information! Many times somebody will make a modest, qualified claim and extremists will grab the phrasing and turn it into an excuse for theft and brutality.
The Notion is older. If you read William Cullen Bryant's "The Prairies" (1833), for instance, he works out a logic by which the Mound Builder civilization was not "Red Indian" but American classicism of the age of the Greeks, and so, by virtue of translatio imperii, white Americans are the rightful inheritors of the land.
Bryant, btw, was a fierce abolitionist.
Native peoples had no claim to the land because (following Lockean logic) as hunter gatherers they had not mixed their labor with it. News, of course, to the many tribes who did farm and were nevertheless removed.
Ha! To whom would Cullen attribute the Mayan ruins? Babylonians? Sheesh.
That he wasn't addressing. But he was manifestly a destinarian avant la lattre.
It's a fascinating poem whose logic is appropriated by Cather for The Professor's House, which has strong anti-immigrant themes, though I think it's problematic to say the novel fully endorses them.
Also, Bryant opposed the Mexican War.
As always, thank you dr. Ed,
I am challenged on Manifest Destiny. I very specifically talk about continuing to support. That covers Manifest Destiny.
Ed continues to focus more on whether or not the US should be a Christian nation, not so much on whether it is already.
I maintain my view that the reality is that the US is drenched in Christianity.
Is this being immutably forced on people? No. The First Amendment is very clear: freedom to worship, provided any religion does not become state-established. Christianity is not state-established.
But what about all those SCOTUS decisions supporting alleged discrimination on the basis of religion - gay cakes and condoms?
I say those decisions were supporting the First Amendment. No one is saying you can’t get a gay cake or get condoms on insurance, just not with folks who hold particular religious views.
The whole point of the First Amendment is to enable freedom, not to enhance imposition — of any kind. It’s the transgender argument. You’re free to have any identity you like, but you’re not free to demand that others pander to it.
The fact is the US is drenched in Christianity. But the First Amendment continues to allow everyone — including Ed — not to be drenched, if they so choose.
Of course our secular government does allow individuals--including me and my deeply religious neighbors--to be drenched in as much Christianity, from inheriting every moment of our lives to none at all, as we wish. But it does not allow me to direct government power at my neighbors to dissuade them (even if I could marshal strong majorities of citizens in the effort).And vice versa. There's much more to this--stay tuned. (Anyone who wants a preview of the next two Fridays can track down a copy of our book.)
Precisely.
Precisely--but there is much more to it, as we shall see.
Manifest Destiny isn't an especially Christian idea (theistic? probably) and it is unrelated to our founding or governing documents. The US has of course been more drenched in Xtn religiosity in some eras than in others (arguably less so nowadays than many others), but it manifestly doesn't make it OK for a prez and secy of war/defense to declare xtn armageddon in my name. And the FA does the opposite.
Manifest Destiny was specifically framed within Protestant ethics. The idea that WASP’s were a chosen people, destined to expand across North America, and replace the heathen indigenous people. Biblical narratives were used to justify the Destiny, including Genesis 1:28 on dominion.
As I said in the comment that you post in your original article, the Christian ‘drenching’ of which I speak is not only found in the original governance documents, but in the approach taken after founding, of which Manifest Destiny forms a significant part.
I do not suggest that the ‘drenching’ makes war, conquest, or dominion acceptable. I say it should make it unsurprising. We believe we are an exceptional people, and in large part that exceptionalism derives from Christianity.
As to whether or not it is being done on your behalf, the current President was legitimately elected. Just as with every other President, he acts for the country. But, you’re free to disagree with him. That’s why we have democracy.
Is it? By the time V-Dem and Freedom House published their date it was already out of date, and the results of both were, Barely. Bright Line Watch agrees; their result drops this week.
& by the way, Iran is more free than out Saudi friends.