Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Chapter 6-Believing and Doubting: "What Means this Carnage?"
Shortly after the Confederate surrender at Appomattox, the northern clergyman and theologian Horace Bushnell celebrated northern victory. He made comparisons between the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and that of the union soldiers who had lost their lives during the Civil War. Bushnell went further and stated that manifest destiny demanded that the United States expand throughout North America as the God-given spoils of the North's hard fought victory. Do you agree with Bushnell that manifest destiny justifies the expansion of the United States at the expense of Native Americans? Also, do you agree with Bushnell when he states that expansion must occur to justify the carnage and sacrifice of the Civil War? Why or why not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Horace Bushnell justification of the Civil War and Expansion was simple. Manifest Destiny justified the expansion, and expansion justified the carnage & sacrifices. However, I do not entirely agree with Bushnell's views.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of Manifest Destiny justifying the expansion of the United States is understandable. But when it has major affects against the Native Americans, it is a different story.
Bushnell's ideas also extended towards that of being justification for carnage. "The mournful offering of war's death had ' brought a really stupendous chapter of History'. And the Blood that had been shed to achieve God's design of freedom, and emancipation, and inspired nationhood." (191). Bushnell put not only a religious perspective onto justification, but also a controversial one. I do not agree with the idea that 'expansion must occur to justify the carnage and sacrifice of the Civil War'. The men who died in the Civil War were no fighting for expansion but rather the ideas of slavery and a nation. There is no doubt that Manifest Destiny was an important part of this time period, but it wasn't what they fought for. I believe that Bushnell needed something to understand the carnage. As Faust said, "he too sought 'higher aims' to balance the flow of such blood." (191). It would have been inconceivable to have lived in the period after the Civil War and try to understand the deaths and devastation of it all.
I do understand some of what Horace Bushnell intended as he attempted to justify the War. His words conveyed hope to some, but I do not feel as though his justification was always understandable.
I disagree with Bushnell’s idea that manifest destiny justifies the expansion of the United States at the expense of the Native Americans. Americans do not have the right to annihilate Native Americans just to fulfill their “destiny”. He believed “Death was not loss, but the instrument and the substance of victory.” (190). However this war was not fought for land, it was fought to save the nation.
ReplyDeleteI also disagree with Bushnell’s belief that expansion must occur to justify the carnage and sacrifice of the Civil War. Slaughtering Native Americans for land does not justify the slaughtering of America’s own people. Although the war was terrible, it “had guaranteed that ‘we are not the same people that we were, and never can be again.’” (191).
It seems that Bushnell was unable to understand the real reason of the war. He sought land as compensation for all of the carnage that had happened. Part of the reason why Bushnell might have been unable to understand the war was due to the fact that “he had spent the war in Connecticut, distant from the battlefields ‘black with dead’ that he described.” (191). Although I disagree with what Bushnell believes, I think he was only trying to recompense citizens for the tragedies they had faced by endorsing expansion. “Bleeding, he asserted, was necessary to God’s expansive- and expensive purposes for America” (190).
Hank Hammond
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with Bushnell that it is our god givin right to fulfill our manifest destiny. Of course you need to expand to create a country, and maybe it was the right thing to do for America, but not for humanity. I do think that expansion would of justified the carnage because we need to be a nation to create a nation.
Hank Hammond
ReplyDeletein response to Sarah Welton
I agree with Sarah welton that Bushnell had some good points about the justification of the civil war. It was pretty much the best justification that the people could come up with at the time. And still, it does not completly create justification for this dreaded war. But he is right, we did need to bring this nation together to expand this is what the civil war helped do.
Horace Bushnell believed in the "'right of this whole continenet to be an American world, and to have its own American laws, liberties, and institutions'" (191). He believed that the bloodshed of so many Americans might it right for a national expansion at the price of the Native Americans inhabiting the remaining land. His thoughts were that the expansion of the United States made up for all the destruction resulting from the war.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with this mindset completely. Taking land from Native Americans to make up for the loss of so many American lives does no good. If anything, it just causes more unnecessary deaths. I believe that such expansion does not justify the carnage and sacrifice. The war was over differing perspectives and ways of life- not land. Claiming that land gain justifies what happened during the war is inaccurate because that was not the purpose for fighting.
C.J.-
ReplyDeleteYou made a very good point about Bushnell. He did not seem to grasp the concept of why the war was fought. His attempt to show Americans that fair compensation for the war was land gain means that he did care about the suffering and sacrifice. I think he was merely trying to find a reason to give Americans hope in such horrible times, but his reasoning was off. I also agree that he was not a good representative of the war's values because he remained in Connecticut for most of the war and didn't see the destruction first-hand. Very good points C.J.
I do not agree with Bushnell’s views concerning manifest destiny’s justification of the carnage of the Civil War, and our subsequent treatment of the Native Americans. In my opinion, suggesting that so many lives were lost simply to increase the size of our nation was absurd. However, it is understandable that Bushnell sought to provide our wounded nation with material justification of the war. After the amount of death that took place, it is only natural that someone would seek visible proof that the countless soldiers that were killed did not die in vain.
ReplyDeleteBushnell’s blatant disregard for the damage expansion would cause Native Americans is, to me, appalling. He seemed to view death as an object, or as a statistic. Bushnell stated that, “Death was not loss, but the instrument and the substance of victory.” (190). I completely disagree, and feel that the loss of a single Native American life was too high a price to pay for manifest destiny, let alone the thousands that were lost.
I also disagree with Bushnell’s statement that expansion must occur to justify the carnage and sacrifice of the Civil War. I believe this because the Civil War was fought to hold the nation together, and in the later stages, to abolish the horrors of slavery. “More than 600,000 soldiers lost their lives in the American Civil War” and none of them would have been willing to make that sacrifice simply to expand our nation. They fought and died for something they truly believed in, and that was all the justification the nation required.
Horace Bushnell’s justification of the Civil War and the Expansion was quite simple. Manifest Destiny had justified the expansion. Carnage and sacrifices were what had made up the expansion. I do not agree with Bushnell’s ideas at all. The thought about the destiny of man and expanding throughout the United States was thought to be ok before they found Indians already living on the land. Bushnell’s idea to extend towards justification of carnage was what he thought was God’s design of freedom was achieved by the blood shed on the battlefield. Bushnell put two kinds of perspectives on justification, one was religion and the other was controversial. The men that had died on the battlefields of the civil war were not fighting for expansion, but for freedom to the slaves and for their nation. The soldiers didn’t fight for Manifest Destiny, even though that was an important part of that particular time period. Some of Horace Bushnell’s ideas I really didn’t understand so therefore it was very hard to understand what he was trying to accomplish with justification and expansion.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Sarah had said. You could understand some of Horace Bushnell’s ideas but, most of the time, hid justification was hard to follow at times.
Nick
ReplyDeleteI agree with your opinions of Bushnell's ideas. The way that he considered the Native Americans was awful. Most Americans of the time had that same disregard of them. It's the most understandable idea. I also agree that the expansion as justification for carnage was a stretch. The Civil War was fought for the ideas that each side believed in. They didn't die fighting to "simply expand our nation".
I greatly disagree with Horace Bushnell's view on manifest destiny. It is just the Native Americans God given right to be there as ours. Just because many people believe they are allowed to expand and harm everything in their way, they are not. A problem was the Native Americans could not show the Americans their wrong. They did not have guns and could not put up a good fight. They were forced to do what we say and fled further west without hope. If they made it west, they could not stay for long because we soon caught up. We tricked them with false treaties and massacred them. I understand how a country would like to make itself bigger, but at the cost of almost an entire nation, it is not ok.
ReplyDeleteI also disagree on Bushnell's views on why expansion must occur. Slaughtering many Native Americans does not "compensate for war's cost."(191) He believed that after the carnage of the Civil War, the North owed it to themselves to expand. Killing many of our country's men does not justify killing even more Native Americans. He wanted to make sure, it seemed, that all the men that died, did not die in vain. That they died to expand toward the west. But they did not. The north died for their belief in preserving the Union, and to abolish slavery. The South died to keep slavery, and to defend their land. The Civil War was not fought so we could expand to the west.
Evan H,
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you explained. You said "The men that had died on the battlefields of the civil war were not fighting for expansion, but for freedom to the slaves and for their nation." That is exactly right and what I mainly don't understand what Bushnell was thinking. He stated that we must expand to compensate for the Civil War's dead. The Civil War already accomplished that by keeping the nation together and abolishing slavery. It was a completely different matter. Our death's doesn't justify expansion and the deaths of Native Americans.
I disagree with Horace Bushnell’s view on manifest destiny for justify the civil war’s death. He believed that with all the deaths in the civil war destiny said that the nation must expand. He believed that the manifest destiny justified the carnage and deaths of the Civil War. I disagree with Horace Bushnell’s view on manifest destiny. That’s why I don’t agree with Bushnell that manifest destiny justifies the expansion of the United States at the expense of Native Americans.
ReplyDeleteThe manifest destiny also he said that the nation must expand not to justify the carnage and sacrifice of the Civil war not to go to vain. Which means that the carnage of the Civil war like the word manifest (to be evident) so they must do their destiny which means to expand.
I then also disagree with Bushnell when he states that expansion must occur to justify the carnage and sacrifice of the Civil War. I believe that the wounds and deaths of the Civil War were justified by the reuniting of the nation. The soldiers were fighting this war to unite the nation or to keep it apart and not fighting to expand the nation. So I believe that the United States does not have to expand to not have the carnage and sacrifice of the Civil War not go in vain because they did not fight to expand the nation.
Tanner,
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said in you comment. I like that you said “It is just the Native Americans God given right to be there as ours.” That was a good point. I like that you said that the Native Americans could not show the Americans what they did wrong. I also like this sentence “understand how a country would like to make itself bigger, but at the cost of almost an entire nation, it is not ok.” You said that you disagree with Bushnell was a good point. Nice job on your comment it was a good post.
I do not agree with Bushnell’s views on expansion. I understand the idea of Manifest Destiny, but not at the expense of other human beings. I feel that it is wrong to take land away that rightfully belongs to the Native Americans. I also disagree that expansion justifies carnage and sacrifice. I agree with Sarah when she states that the war was not for expansion. In fact, the war had nothing to do with expansion. Taking the Native Americans’ land may have even led to yet another war. I think that to try to justify carnage and suffering with expansion is ridiculous considering nothing can justify that in the first place. I think Bushnell had it completely wrong.
ReplyDeleteTanner,
ReplyDeleteWhile I think Bushnell’s views are wrong, I believe that you have it right. I like how you brought up the idea that you cannot justify bloodshed with killing more people. It is not right to take away land that does not belong to you in the first place. We did not fight for expansion, but to abolish slavery, or keep it for the south. I do not believe Bushnell understood that.
The Idea of manifest destiny is a flawed one but we have to look at the fact that most people did not want to have the natives killed or to steel land they just wanted the best for their families and the best at the time was the west also recent events like the Minnesota massacre (look it up it was a massive attack by Sioux Indians on a unarmed town in Minnesota) made people less than sympathetic to the natives plight the tragic story of the culture clash between the Indians and the whites. Two radically different cultures that refused to understand each other until it was far too late. What I think Horace Bushnell was trying to do was to provide somewhere for people to strive for in order to blot out the trauma of the war. Manifest destiny was an Idea shared by some but the real factor was people wanting to start a new life for themselves in the ashes of carnage.
ReplyDeleteI would have to disagree with Bushnell’s idea that manifest destiny justifies the expansion of the United States at expense to the Native Americans. Who was here first; Native Americans or white men? Nobody should lose their life just to please or fulfill the ‘destiny’ of another. Despite the fact that we just came out of a costly war, some, like Bushnell, wanted to go to war with the Indians just to acquire pieces of land that were not rightfully ours to take. To kill some more and spill more blood is not the way that we should make up for all the American blood that was spilt during the Civil War.
ReplyDeleteI would also have to disagree with Bushnell when he states that expansion must occur to justify the carnage and sacrifice of the Civil War. Killing more people after the war doesn’t justify carnage, it just adds to it. The Civil War wasn’t fought for the right to claim more land, it was fought for human rights and the unification of one nation. The expansion of the United States would not make up for all the lives lost in the war.
Re: Golight
ReplyDeleteNicely put. I would have to agree with you when you said that the wounds and death of the Civil War were justified by the reuniting of the nation. The war’s sole purposes were to unify the nation and end the horrific event of slavery. I don’t get why Bushnell thought that the only way to justify death was with more death. In my opinion, he was completely wrong.
I disagree with Bushnell's view that manifest destiny justifies expansion. The reason for this is because the Native Americans already have the western land, and to take that away from those people would not be ideal to a country that just lost thousands in a war.
ReplyDeleteIt is not necessary to say that expansion must occur to justify carnage and sacrifice. I think that Horace Bushnell was trying to bring good out of the Civil War by expanding the country. He believed that since the war was hard for so many to get through, maybe manifest destiny could bring a new start to many who are suffering. Except when you think of the Native Americans already claiming that territory, it changes the "good" coming from it. I disagree with his views, because during the Civil War the U.S had already shed so much blood, why should we shed more only for land? The North had already achieved freedom and emancipation; it would be controversial to take the Native American's freedom away.
Larissa
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your statement,” Taking land from Native Americans to make up for the loss of so many American lives does no good. If anything, it just causes more unnecessary deaths.” I fail to see how death can be justified by even more death. While it is clear Bushnell was just seeking material compensation for the war, his views are appalling to say the least.
I personally disagree with Horace Bushnell's views. I do not believe that manifest destiny justifies the expansion of the United States at the expense of Native Americans. The United States could have expanded without harming Native Americans. Killing Native Americans for land was not necessary and certaintly not moral. Manifest destiny says "it was the destiny of the U.S. to expand its territory over the whole of North America and to extend and enhance its political, social, and economic influences." (Dictionary.com) This does not justify the expense of the Native Americans at all, I don't think anything can do that.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I don't agree with Bushnell that expansion must occur to justify the carnage and sacrifice of the Civil War. To me, freeing slave states in the country there was at the time, would be a better justification than just expanding. Expanding America wouldn't help the families of the killed soldiers know that what they were fighting for was accomplished. Expanding seems extra during the Civil War, it was not the true purpose for fighting in the Civil War.
Danielle Sheehan,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, I also think Bushnell was trying to bring good out of the Civil War by expanding. I was ironic, he thought it would bring good to the country by expanding,l but he then just brought bad for the Native Americans. We should not have to shed so much blood after the all the Civil War carnage, just for someone elses land. Also the Civil War achieved freedom, and we would be taking the Native American's freedom away, like you said.
C.J,
ReplyDeleteYou have brought up some great things about Bushnell, that he did not understand the reason for the war. And when the text says he was in a different state during the war, that makes me believe that he did not understand. How can a man with such strong words about manifest destiny not understand the war's purpose? That is makes me disagree with Horace Bushnell's ideas just like C.J does.
I disagree with Horace Bushnell's idea that manifest destiny justifies the expansion of the Unites States. The killing and taking of Native American's land was unnecessary and immoral. It was unfair to force them to give up land they had been living on for hundreds of years and send them to reservations.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I disagree with him that the expansion must occur to justify the carnage and sacrifice of the Civil War. I do not think fighting another war with the Native Americans would in any way, justify all the killing that had taken place during the Civil War. The purpose of the Civil War was not to expand, so the families of killed soldiers would not receive any comfort in seeing the expansion.
I have to completely disagree with Horace Bushnell's idea that manifest destiny justifies the expansion of the United States. Unfortunately expanding our now unified nation to the coasts of present day California would create great carnage and loss to not only the United States, but also the innocent Native Americans that wanted nothing to do with war and fighting. To do this was wrong, and inhumane. These are a people, and at that time we seemed to struggle to understand that each man to inhabit this earth is equal. The last time we made that mistake it lead up to the worst war the United States has ever seen. No matter what your destiny is it is important that you never interfere with god’s plan for another, and that is exactly what we did.
ReplyDeleteOn the other side I’m somewhat torn on what Bushnell said about justifying the carnage of the Civil War with expansion. In my opinion I think he associates expansion with becoming a greater and stronger nation. The outcome of the Civil War was a stronger and greater union that wasn’t forced to be split by the opinions of different states, but it still wasn’t the great nation it is today. This nation’s role and destiny was to become the greatest nation the world has ever known. I don’t feel in any way that we should have forced Natives out of their land, but I can understand what he means when he say that expanding the country would make it greater and better. Ultimately without the sacrifice of those men that lost their lives this country wouldn’t be the great union it is today. I think Hank said it best saying “we need to be a nation to create a nation.” Without the sacrifice we never would have created the great union we have today.
In Response to Danielle Sheehan
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with what you are saying about how he was trying to create some good out of the death and loss of so many. But like you said expansion came at such a high price it lost its value almost entirely. It's hard to say that great sacrifice is ever a good thing, but as I said I think your right about him just trying to justify the horrific carnage this nation had to endure.
I disagree with Bushnell's idea that manifest destiny justifies the horrific treatment of the Native Americans. The treatment of the Native Americans was inhumane and unjust. I think it is wrong that he justifies the suffereing of the Native Americans with that the soldiers had suffered losses and it is our god-given right to expand. We interfered with thier lives so we could recieve a "gift" for the suffering that was done during the civil war.
ReplyDeleteBushnell believed that as we were now a stronger nation we should now be a bigger nation, and he believed that bigger would make us stronger. Bushnell should have made a pact or plan with the Native Americans so that we were strong with all races of our nation and this would include the Native Americans, African Americans , and whites. If he wanted a stronger nation and a bigger country he should have not caused a rift which could weaken the country instead of making it stronger.
I believe that Bushnell had the right idea that bigger is stronger but I do not agree with how he ended up hurting and acting in inhumane ways.
Danielle Sheehan-
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you aid that Bushnell was trying to do good but was taking the good out of it by pushing the Native Americans away. I agree with the fact that there was already so much blood shed and that the war was just won and to start another one over land wasn't worth it.
I strongly disagree with Horace Bushnell's manifest dynasty. I don't get how he thought expansion and slaying of many Native Americans lives would justifie the bloodshed of the Civil War. Why was he so focused on expansion when you can be focusing on the war which was probably more important at the time. Also why harm the Native Americans they did nothing wrong in the first place. Why not work with them because they knew the land very well. I mean thats great he want America to expand and all but how he tried to expand was wrong.
ReplyDeleteIn Response to Tori Kelly
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement and how Bushnell's idea was good at first until he started harming innocent Native Americans' lives. In my opinion i beleive he should have worked out an agreement or a treaty with the many Native Americans at the the time instead of killing them.
I do not agree with Bushnell that there had to be expansion to justify all of the lives lost or that it was right to expand at the expense of Native Americans. Bushnell believed that “a new understanding of nationhood…had been purchased by ‘our acres of dead.’” (191). He believed the America had a history now because of how much blood had been shed. I think Bushnell needed a way to justify all of the deaths, and he believed that it could be justified by manifest destiny. He said “…the Northern dead could be explained as part of a larger purpose and grander plan.” (191). He needed a way to “justify every last drop of blood.” He thought, ‘“to champion… the right of this whole continent to be an American world…”’ would make it all alright. (191). His reasoning does not make sense to me though. He didn’t seem to be thinking about the Native Americans’ lives at all. He was justifying the bloodshed by shedding more blood, which I do not agree with.
ReplyDeleteI also don’t think it was manifest destiny that so many lost their lives from. The soldiers went out onto the battlefield to fight for their nation and slavery, not manifest destiny.
Sarah,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your post. “The men who died in the Civil War were no fighting for expansion but rather the ideas of slavery and a nation. There is no doubt that Manifest Destiny was an important part of this time period, but it wasn't what they fought for.” Manifest destiny did create the nation that it is today, but that is not why the soldiers fought and it does not justify all of the lives lost in the war, or the Native Americans’ lives that were lost.
I don't think that "manifest destany" justified the U.S. expansion. We had no right forcing the native americans out of their land. People are just greedy for power. With more land comes more power. Poeple just wanted a reason to take more land and used the war as an exuse. I do not agree that the expansion helped justify the carnage. I base this off of the fact that we were obviously haveing trouble running ourselfs and ceeping it together with the little land that we had. How was gaining more possibly going to help. Don' get me wrong I love our country but we cant justify what we did to the native americans.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with Bushnell that manifest destiny justifies the expansion of the United States at the expense of the Native Americans. As Jeremiah pointed, in order to gain land we used war as an excuse. The killing of thousands of innocent people as a cover-up for one country's gain, especially for something as petty as land, is not only wrong but despicable as well. Although land represents much of a country's power, steeling land from many innocent, defenseless, and harmless people is immoral. I do not agree with his comment that expansion must occur to justify the carnage and sacrifice of the Civil War. I believe he was looking for an excuse to expand and used this tragedy as an excuse. I do not agree with either of his statements because both are corrupt and selfish.
ReplyDeleteCJ-
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your comment that "It seems that Bushnell was unable to understand the real reason of the war." This is definitely true. He looked for too many excuses to justify the war instead of owning up to the true reasons of the Civil War.
I totally disagree with Horace Bushnell's views on the manifest destiny at the expense of native americans. As many have said before me, I think he used the Civil War as an excuse to try to expand and get more land. Bushnell stated that, "Bleeding, he asserted, was necesary to God's expansive-and expensive-purposes for America, and 'in this blood our unity is cemented and forever sanctified" (page 190). He went on to say that "Death was not loss, but both the instrument and the substance of victory" (page 190). He believed that "War's destructiveness called for broadened purposes" (page 191). I do not think expansion must occur to justify the carnage and sacrifice of the Civil War because it seemed as if he used this nationwide tragedy in an attempt to expand, instead of focusing on something more important- the Civil War. Bushnell was using this tragedy for his own selfish reasons and that is disgusting to me. It's totally messed up, I do not agree with either of his points at all.
ReplyDeleteI strongly disagree with Horace Bushnell’s statement that manifest destiny justifies the expansion of the United States of America at the expense of Native American’s. It was within’ Bushnell’s plans to transform the continent of North America “to be an American world, and to have its own American laws, liberties, and institutions,” (191). Horace’s opinion of what should be done with the northern victory was blown way out of proportion, perhaps because “he had spent the war in Connecticut, distant from the battlefields,” (191). His ambitions for expansions of the United States of America were centered on American’s wants and need, not even slightly considering how the Native Americans might feel about this new goal.
ReplyDeleteBushnell also stated that expansion must occur to justify carnage and sacrifice of the Civil War. I see this proposition to be extremely far-fetched, seeing as expansion was not the war’s true goal. Soldiers entered the battlefield to fight for the preservation of our great American government, their freedom, their beliefs, and the freedom of others. Not once was it mentioned that the reason they were putting their very lives and their family’s happiness and wellbeing on the line for American expansion or acquisition of new land.
In response to jenni robinson:
ReplyDeleteYour comment on this topic was very thought-provoking. The statement you made "I do not think expansion must occur to justify the carnage and sacrifice of the Civil War because it seemed as if he used this nationwide tragedy in an attempt to expand," I agree with completely. It was as if he believed the Civil War was a trojan horse for the expansion of America's government. It was not once mentioned that a soldier was laying down his life for expansion of his country, the soldiers were fighting for their government's beliefs and their morals.
Horace Bushnell was publicly in favor of the manifest destiny even when this clearly affected the lives of the Native Americans in a big way. It seemed that all this man was doing was using the Civil War as justification to obtainin more land without thinking of those who would be directly distressed by this. Horace exclaimed that by expanding they would be justifying "every drop of blood that has been shed" (165) and gave an oration explaining to the people why this had to be done. He believed that this manifest destiny made all of the deaths and pain caused by the war okay.
ReplyDeleteI also do not agree with him about expansion serving as justification for the carnage of the Civil War. He said growing and expanding would validate the immense number of men killed and that this was why all those soldiers sacrificed their lives. This was not true because the actual reasons why North and South engaged in that costly war was because one side wanted to end slavery while the other one preferred to mantain it and because northerners called for a reunion of the nation when the South was okay with it beign divided. The lies that Horace told were just to convince people that expanding and taking over the Native American's land was the correct thing to do. I undoubtedly disagree with him.
Larissa,
ReplyDeleteI agree with everything you said. The fact that Horace believed that expanding was why the Civil War occured is entirely incorrect and like you wrote, saying that "land gain justifies what happened during the war is inaccurate". The two sides had gone to battle for conflicts and disagreements which had absolutely nothing to do with gaining more land going through a process of expansion. That simply did not have anything to do with it.
I disagree with Horace Bushnell that manifest destiny justifies the expansion of the United States at the expense of Native Americans. My opinion is that it was very wrong to take the native americans land. They were here first, and we had no right to make them move. I also disagree that the expansion would have justified all the sacrifices that the northern soldiers made. That is not the reason that the soldiers gave their lives. They wanted to end slavery, and if it came to an end, that would be enough justification.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Amy Bowman
ReplyDeleteI agree that Horace Bushnells proposition was very far-fetched. Expansion was not the intention of the war in any way, and it was ridiculous for him to have suggested as much.
I disagree with Bushnell. Yes, I am glad we expanded but I don't like how we were creedy enough to do that at the expense of the Native Americans. I do not think that we had to fulfill our manifest destiny.
ReplyDeleteI also disagree with Bushnell when he states that the expansion must occur to justify the carnage and sacrifice of the Civil War. We did not have the civil war to get more land. There were many other things involved too.
I agree with Mary Harris. I disagree with Horace Bushnells proposition too. Mary sums it up well when she states,"They were here first, and we had no right to make them move." Even though I am American and that I love America, I think what we did was horribly wrong we should find a way to make it up somehow.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jacob,
ReplyDeleteGood point about how “at the time we seemed to struggle to understand that each man to inhabit this earth is equal.” I couldn’t agree more, we were so materialistic, and would do anything in our power to get what we wanted, no matter who paid. I believe Bushnell encouraged this avaricious belief system by promoting the idea that “Bleeding… was necessary to God’s expansive- and expensive purposes for America.” He convinced Americans that they needed a tangible, palpable object such as land to compensate for all of the misery they had faced.
I don’t agree with Bushnell that manifest destiny justifies the expansion of the United States at the expense of the Native Americans. The Native Americans were an overall genocide and hunted like animals. I believe that there could have been a much more peaceful solution between the Native Americans and the Soldiers. I do not agree that it must occur to justify the carnage and sacrifice of the civil war, because the civil war in the end made the nation a stronger and better nation without expansion.
ReplyDeleteI completely disagree with Bushnell's view on Manifest Destiny. It was not right to push the Native Americans out of their land, especially since they did not have good equipment to fight back.
ReplyDeleteI also disagree with his justification of carnage for expansion of America. The soldiers were fighting to end slavery and keep the Union together, not to expand America.
Brent
ReplyDeleteYou make a very good point when saying that the war made America stronger without expansion. We have always been a strong nation; war only breaks us.
I do not agree with Bushnell that manifest destiny justifies the expansion of the United States at the expense of Native Americans. The Native Americans had resided in North America long before anyone else. The Civil War didn’t justify the killing of Native Americans and taking of their land. I cannot think of any reason that would make it right, it was greedy and not required.
ReplyDeleteI also disagree with Bushnell that expansion must occur to justify the carnage and sacrifice of the Civil War. He states that there is a need “to wind up and settle this great tragedy in a way to exactly justify every drop of blood that has been shed in it” (191). He was completely wrong because expansion led to even more bloodshed. The war was fought for slavery and the preservation of our nation, I have no idea how he thought expansion was a justification for all of the killing.
As with everyone else, i dissagree with Bushnell's belief that manifest destiny justifies the slaughter of native americans in the name of expansion. The Native american's were located in North America first, so america had no right to kill them and steal the land. Maybe if the Native Americans came second and had stolen land would fighting be justifiable. I disagree that expansion would justifie the carnage and suffering the war brought on. Neither sides fought for expansion; hey fought for their ideal nations. The war had naught to do with expansion, but that of developing and sustaining the nation.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Chris Huth-
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with what you have said. Who are we to forcefully take land from the native americans when they have resided there for hundreds of years? I also agree with you that families of lost soldiers would not recieve comfort from killing native americans for expansion.
Manifest destiny was a belief in the 19th century that it was the destiny of the United States to expand its territory over the whole of North America and to extend and enhance its political, social, and economic influences. This was a belief, so I disagree with Horace Bushnell, manifest destiny does not justify the expansion of the United States at the expense of Native Americans. We did not get special privileges from god to have the whole of North America. What right do we have to invade the space of a people that have been there for thousands of years? The answer to that is we do not have that right.
ReplyDeleteI also disagree with Bushnell when he said that expansion must occur to justify the carnage and sacrifice of the Civil War. This is not true for several reasons. For one thing, we did not wage war with the Native Americans; they had literally nothing to do with the Civil War. Also, we did not fight the war to expand the U.S., we fought the war simply to reunite the United States as a country. So the carnage and sacrifice was made to reunite The U.S. which happened. We got everything out of the Civil War that we were trying to, the fulfillment of manifest destiny was not one of those things.
Bushnells belief that the manifest destiny justified expansion at the cost of Native Americans contains good points and I believe is valid, however this does NOT justify the slaughter of Indians. The situation with the Native Americans could have been handled better, but the overall idea is that America was expanding no matter what, so the Manifest Destiny wasn't a mere idea rather than a future fact. America had just gone through a war with itself and had pulled through, so it the next big goal was to expand.
ReplyDeleteFarmer,
ReplyDeleteWhereas I see where you are coming from, the Manifest Destiny was not a justification for the slaughter of Native Americans. It was a goal for America to expand in every way, not some idea that was aimed at killing Native Americans. The situation with the Native Americans should have been handled better, but Manifest Destiny was something that could not be stopped.
In response to Nick Burns
ReplyDeleteI agree with your comments about the soldiers and how they "They fought and died for something they truly believed in, and that was all the justification the nation required." The soldiers sacrificed their lives to keep the country they loved so much together. I do not think the expansion of the U.S. even crossed most soldiers minds while they were giving their lives to save our country.
I agree with everyone who has stated that he/she believed Bushnell was extremely mistaken in his comments regarding the war’s connection to Manifest Destiny. Even when I try to put myself into an 1860’s mindset, when people actually believed in Manifest Destiny, I still can find no logical sense in Bushnell’s comments. Coming to terms with the deaths of over 600,000 soldiers, I cannot help but grieve and mourn the tremendous loss of the American’s well over a century ago. I ask myself this: Would I have been vulnerable and unintelligent enough to believe that somehow this horrible war was God’s way of telling me to move out west and settle in lands belonging to someone else? There isn’t a scrap of likelihood that would have happened; not with a fool like Bushnell presenting the strategy.
ReplyDelete“The blood that had been shed to achieve God’s design of freedom, emancipation, and inspired nation-hood, he explicitly recognized, was black as well as white, sacrificed at Fort Pillow and Fort Wagner as well as at Fredericksburg, Gettysburg, and Shiloh.” (191) What Bushnell was proclaiming was that the both black and white blood had been shed to carry out God’s intention of freedom. Even with these words said, Bushnell was still willing to compromise the Native Americans, a race just as harassed as the African Americans had been, by waltzing into their territory, conquering it, and robbing them of their human rights to it, as justification for the blood that had been shed during a war against slavery and racism! His comments were as utterly nonsensical in 1865 as they are today. I am strongly against Bushnell’s idea that manifest destiny justifies the expansion of the United States at the expense of Native Americans.
Another reason Bushnell was so misguided is that “he had spent the war in Connecticut, distant from the battlefields ‘black with dead’ that he described.” (191) If Bushnell had really been as passionately concerned about the soldiers as he professed to be, why didn’t he take up a bayonet and join them on the battlefield? He would have better served his country as a war casualty than as a pontificator of such empty and meaningless words. There is no way that Bushnell could know how to justify the carnage and sacrifice of the Civil War if wasn’t even in it. His method of mitigating the mortality of the Civil War is spurious and I strongly disagree with it.
It seems that some people somehow have to put a religious spin on political or economic issues whether or not the connection makes any sense. Some people have always done that and some probably always will. When people are hurting, confused, suffering, impoverished, or mourning horrible loss, that is the time to be most on guard for opportunists like Bushnell who attempt to sway people with nonsense masquerading in the form of religion. Some of you gave Bushnell credit for attempting to help people understand the reasons for the loss of so many lives. I give him no credit at all. I think he was nothing but a pretentious phony. He was a con who knew nothing about the issues he was talking about. To call him a clergyman and a theologian is an insult to both professions.
RE: Matt Coen
ReplyDeleteWhen I read your post I was really happy to see that you pointed out some of the things that I wanted to but did not. For example, when you wrote, “Who was here first; Native Americans or white men?” I wanted to take your side immediately. Stress the native in Native American, correct? Well you did a fine job in demonstrating how the idea of a new conflict with different people does not justify the carnage of the Civil War in any shape or form.
I disagree with Bushnell that manifest destiny justifies the expantion of the United States at the expense of Native Americans for a couple of reasons. First, the United States could have just as easily expanded without having to harm the Native Americans. For example, killing the Native Americans for their land was completely unecessary and unhuman. If anything they could have reasoned.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with Bushnell when he states that the expansion must occur to justify the carnage and sacrifices of the Civil War for a couple of reasons also. Slaughturing many Native Americans would and could not " compensate for wars cost."(191) What he didn't relize was that the Civil War was not fought to expand to the west. For the North the reason was to abolish slavery and save the union and for the South it was to defend their countryand keep slavery.
I strongly disagree with Bushnell on the fact that we should take over the Native American's land in order to complete our manifest destiny. It is not our god given right to use that land to make our nation stronger, even after the war. The Native Americans were there long before we even came to the Americas, and we cannot take their land. Since Bushnell was willing to do this to strengthen our nation, he would be doing just the opposite to the Native Americans who worked hard to establish their land.
ReplyDeleteI also disagree with Bushnell that the expansion must occur to justify the carnage and sacrifice of the Civil War. I might be able to understand his ideas if the Civil War was about land and establishing the nation, but it was more about slavery and citizen's rights.
In response to Jordan Farmer
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with your statement, "The Native american's were located in North America first, so america had no right to kill them and steal the land." I cannot believe that we killed Native Americans and took their land because we thought that it was our god givin' right.
Katie-
ReplyDeleteI agree with you when you say, "...he would be doing just the opposite to the Native Americans who worked hard to establish their land." Native Americans worked very hard to establish their land and we cannot, even to make the U.S. stronger, ruin their lifestyles.
Jared and Jordan-
ReplyDeleteI don't understand what we were thinking after a very large war in our country and seeing what it did to us that it was okay to kill more people simply because we were power hungry and selfish. Another war could've broken out after killing the Native Americans, and they were here first.
I disagree with Bushnell when he states that manifest destiny justifies the expansion of the United States at the expense of the Native Americans. I agree with Bushnell when he states that expansion must occur to justify the carnage and sacrifice of the Civil War because so much was lost as a result of the war (lives, money, property, etc.) I also disagree with him on this statement because the land wasn’t all rightfully theirs. The land belonged to the Native Americans, so it overtaking it in order to achieve manifest destiny was wrong.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Bushnell, that manifest destiny justifies the expansion of the United States at the expense of the Native Americans. I do not believe that it could be justified by taking their land. They are entitled to the land just as much or even more than we were. The Natives were working hard as is to keep their land.
ReplyDeleteI also disagree with Bushnell that the expansion must occur to justify the carnage and sacrifice of the Civil War. The Civil War was not to fight for the expansion of the United States, it was over slavery and rights. It is also not right to take the Natives life's to expand. He did not need to kill the Natives in order to expand to the west.
I agree with Kurtis, that the war was not to expand but to abolish slavery and for human rights. Bushnell had the wrong idea to kill the Natives to expand and I think that he took it in the wrong way.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree completely with Horace Bushnell and his views on manifest destiny and that expansion justifies sacrifice. I agree that we have to expand our land but that does not mean taking the native Americans land. Also I believe only a few things can justify carnage and sacrifice, and expansion of land is definitely not one. The killing of native Americans with not justify anything, and we have no right to go on native Americans land and kill them then take their land. So I disagree with Horace’s mindset. Besides being wrong, killing to justify killing will not get people anywhere.
ReplyDeleteLarissa
ReplyDeleteI also agree that he only thing that taking Native American land will do is cause more death. I also agree that the war was over different perspectives and ways of life and not land and was not the purpose for fighting.