Ask your own question, for FREE!
History 20 Online
OpenStudy (anonymous):

in manifest destiny do you think osullivan concept was right

OpenStudy (anonymous):

In a way yes not much was going to stop them from passing to the west maybe a few native tribes which i feel bad for but other than that i dont think so

OpenStudy (anonymous):

They did take down the mexican army and much of the industrail stuff pass on to the west

OpenStudy (jacobbenvenutty):

Manifest Destiny was the belief that American settlers were "destined" to expand throughout the continent. I personally dont think that anyone is "destined" to kill others for their land, but rather people are greedy enough to do so. This question has no definite answer and is all a matter of opinion. I would research the topic more and find the exact definition of manifest destiny then make an opinion on that

OpenStudy (anonymous):

i agree with jacob

OpenStudy (anonymous):

hey do you know if Americans did the right thing fighting for our land?

OpenStudy (anonymous):

be more specific

OpenStudy (anonymous):

killing off natives is un ethical

OpenStudy (anonymous):

yeah

OpenStudy (jacobbenvenutty):

Once again this is a matter of opinion, but depends at what time your referring to. Is this during WWI, the revolution, Civil war, etc?

OpenStudy (anonymous):

but protecting your self is ok like if a country dicided to attck the U.S right now its ok to fight

OpenStudy (anonymous):

civil war

OpenStudy (jacobbenvenutty):

So this has nothing to do with the natives. Thank you for clarifying the time. Assuming the north were considered "Americans" this debate comes down to slavery in a sense. The south believed that they needed slaves in order to have enough workers for farmland. Sadly instead of treating them like workers most treated their slaves poorly. The North wanted a more industrialized society like we have today. So which in your opinion was the better idea?

OpenStudy (anonymous):

ok thats kind of tuff the south was being kinda jerky and it was a whole union not two places that do what ever which is what happen so i say yes it was ethical to attack if they attacked first the south made the first shot

OpenStudy (anonymous):

i would go with machine they work better

OpenStudy (jacobbenvenutty):

When Abraham Lincoln won election in 1860 as the first Republican president on a platform pledging to keep slavery out of the territories, the Confederate States were formed. So technically the norths action of trying to rule out slavery sort of started the idea of civil war.

OpenStudy (jacobbenvenutty):

but yes the south did "attack" first

OpenStudy (anonymous):

true but the south made the first shots and the pre meditated war

OpenStudy (anonymous):

the battle of bull run wasnt it?

OpenStudy (jacobbenvenutty):

Yea I'm agreeing with you, I just wanted to clarify for samsyklar. and Gen. Pierre Beauregard fired on fort sumpter I believe was the first attack

OpenStudy (anonymous):

ok :)

Can't find your answer? Make a FREE account and ask your own questions, OR help others and earn volunteer hours!

Join our real-time social learning platform and learn together with your friends!
Can't find your answer? Make a FREE account and ask your own questions, OR help others and earn volunteer hours!

Join our real-time social learning platform and learn together with your friends!