Reference no: EM132417002

In 1845, New York newspaper editor John L. O'Sullivan gave a catchy name to the nation's aggressive expansion. "Our manifest destiny," he wrote, "is to overspread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions...[and for the] great experiment of liberty" O' Sullivan spoke for many who wanted to take control of all of North America: "Yes, more, more, more...until our national destiny is fulfilled." The idea of a "manifest destiny" assumed that the United States had a God-given mission to extend its Christian republic and capitalist civilization from the Atlantic to the Pacific-and beyond. It also took for granted the superiority of American ideals and institutions, including the opportunity to bring liberty and prosperity to native peoples. This notion of manifest ("self-evident") destiny offered a moral justification for territorial growth and the expansion of slavery. However idealized, though, manifest destiny was in essence a cluster of flimsy rationalizations and rac- ist attitudes justifying the conquest of weaker peoples.

Is 'manifest destiny" a quasi-religious ideology? Is it a racist ideology? Both? Neither? Why or why not?