i think we should each chose one document so that we don't all do the same thing.

we should each reply just saying which one were doing and then do the work.

if by 2 you mean doc.B, i think only one person has to do it. it seems to me the pictures are complimenting each other.

i'll take doc. B.

oh, hah. i didnt even bother counting them.

that was a battle i planed to avoid.

i'll do K.

s.bailey wrote:

---

  

Manifest destiny can be directly linked to the deterioration of Native American culture. As we can see in Document B, it forced the Americanization of Native Americans. In the first picture we see native Americans in their own traditional attire. In the next picture we find Native Americans dressed in American type clothing, showing their assimilation into the expanding American culture. Against the crushing tides of expanding America, the Native Americans had no choice but to allow the release of their culture because their was merely no place left to them in which they could be true to their traditional lifestyle. Laws placed on Native Americans as American moved west, such as the Dawes Act, forced Native Americans into this American mold. The Dawes Act forced Native Americans onto reservations which were split into farms, which were then given to individual families. This took their traditional lifestyle as hunters, and communal, shared living. It also forced them to send their children to American schools, thus Americanizing the children which left no one to carry on the old traditions. They forced to comply to these acts or be forced to live without medicine land, and other necessities.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and i even got in an outside source

I couldn't find any background information on The Saint Louis Weekly Reveille.

Document D which was written in The Saint Louis Weekly Reveille on March 9,1846 was given almost a month and a half before the first official battle of the war.  In the article they talked about how great California was and the wonderful things it had.  So we knew that we wanted California and that we had to beat Mexico for it so we provoked them by sending troops down there almost as bait. This was so that they would attack us and we would then have the right to defend ourselves and beat Mexico. 

Parts 1&2

Part 1.)   Document I is written by John L. O’Sullivan and it explains his viwes on Manifest Destiny. Sullivan believed that extending the U. S. from the East to the West was inevitable and was a necessary need by the U.S. This is where the orgin of the word Manifest Destiny arose. He explains that there is no stopping us from extending from the East to the West and becoming a very great nation.

Part 2.)    Sullivan stated this in 1839. He wrote this to express his ideas on the Annexation of Texas. He stated that now matter what the U.S. would continue. He said that the conflict betweeen the Annexation of Texas wasnt needed because eventually it would become part of the United States. He also supported the idea of a American-Mexican War (which would later occur).

Part 3.)     The intent of this statement was make people realize that the United States would eventually extend to the other coast and would become a strong nation. He was urging the people to join under the common cause that no matter what stood in our way we would become the "strong nation" everyone wanted and we would have all the land from our East coast to the Mexican West Coast. Today the message means the same thing. It was like a declaration of our views on what we wanted the nations to be. It was a statement that was to rally people to believe that we are the most powerfuland will remain that way.The funny thing is that due to this statement it did rally the idea of Manifest Destiny which eventually allow the U.S. to extend from East to West and to connect the nation (also led to the nation being what it is today).

Part 4.)      Document I is to be used in the means to defend the position of Manifest Destiny in both a political and social ways of means. This Document explains the views of not only the goverment but of the people. This means that the social effect of this was to strengthen our beliefs in it and also to try and put this idea into the ideas of the politicians.  So basically if this was to be included it would be a social issue and a small bit of a political issue. For social it explained the beliefs of the people and for political it strengthened their cause for the idea of Manifest Destiny.

The intent back in 1846 was to draw people to move westward because there was an abundance of land and there was a more comfortable climate than the east an south.  The message this document gives today is that America was arrogant and persisent when they wanted something.  America is arrogant because they knew that they were going to beat Mexico for California and they were encourgaing people to move west even though we hadn't even officially gone to war with Mexico yet.  Also, it shows that we were persistent because we wanted Califonia so we did whatever we needed to evoke Mexico into declaring war against us.

it blocked out my last comment so i changed the bad word.

My Fault.

Doc. J

1) David Wilmot was an abolitionist and a political figure. Wilmot was democratic and from Pennsylvania. He was a sponsor of the Wilmot Proviso whose goal was to ban slavery in the land gained from Mexico in the War of 1846. Wilmot thought that slavery should not exist at all in the new land the US had gained by the Mexican-American War. This caused major chaos. It caused the north and south to become bitter towards each other over the issue of slavery. The Wilmot Proviso was adopted by the United States House of Representatives but was defeated and put down.  The Senate adjourned without voting on it. In the next session of Congress a new bill was introduced and again Wilmot proposed anti-slavery. The Senate drew up the new bill but it excluded the proviso. The proviso pushed the country closer to civil war. It brought up many questions of rights. Wilmot also helped in the founding of the United States Republican Party in 1854.

  K]             1] The Philadelphia Public Ledger was the city’s most popular newspaper for a time up until its decline in the mid-1930’s.  It was the first paper to use the electromagnetic telegraph and the pony express.

               John L. O’Sullivan was an American columnist who created and  promoted manifest destiny.  This meant that we had the right to expansion, whether it was someone else’s or not.

               2]  John O’Sullivan wanted  to promote manifest destiny in the United States.  By having the removal of  “hostile” neighbors, having the command of the Pacific and the Gulf, and also having our benefits as a country, manifest destiny was a good idea.

Doc. J

2) The Wilmot Proviso came into action after the Mexican War, after land had been gained for the United States. It was the basis of the Free-Soil Party platform and later became a fundamental position of the new Republican Party. It caused the north and south to lean towards a civil war. Southerners saw their slaves as property and since their property rights were protected under the Constitution, they thought they could take their slaves anywhere they wanted. The amendment was never passed and was rejected continuously in the Compromise of 1850. Its content was declared unconstitutional in the Dred Scott case by the Supreme Court.

4) I think the question can be used in the topic of westward expansion by showing the different issues that were going along at the time such as the neutrality of the government, the issue of slavery, and sectionalism. This document would be able to be used as an insight to the measures that people took in order to get in play their interests for their land out west.

3] (second part)  The message today is that with manifest destiny, our country has control over most aspects of government.  We can control trade and manufacturing, prevent being controlled by other countries, and remove dangerous people.

Brandi wrote:

---

Samantha-

I think you did a really good job with your research and how you interpreted the document. I think it's actually really clever how Geoffrey C. Ward used two images to compare the drastic change of the Native Americans, instead of him just writing about it. It gives a whole new perspective. I liked how you used the Dawes Act to explain the changes in the Native Americans' lives. Do you think that if the Dawes Act would not have been put into play that the Native Americans would have been able to co-exist with the Americans, keeping their old traditions? Because you stated that they forced the children to go to American schools and that if they didn't follow these acts they would be forced to live without medicine land and other things they needed. I think that sending the children to American schools would have probably been one of the biggest factors in the changing of the Native American tradtitions.

ps. You draw amazing owls

---

B-randi, if you want - you can read an account of a young Native American boy going to American schools here.

kathryn wrote:

---

THESIS ASSIGNMENT:

 

Throughout the 19th Century, America continued to expand westward.  Just like the colonial era, opportunity to gain cheap land and use the property to make a livelihood was particularly popular.  However, there are several more factors which eventually led to further migration west, including: new jobs, the gold rush, new religious sects, the idea of manifest destiny, expansion of slavery, and establishment legislations.  The West would influence America socially, economically, and politically through manifest destiny, the use of land for business and plantations participating in economy, and political leaders, like Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln, who were rising from the West.

 

 

 

AHH I wish it werent so long^^   

 

---

2)         Document G was a statement made by former President John Tyler to President James Buchanan after the Bleeding Kansas crisis. Bleeding Kansas was started after the passing of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. This act allowed popular sovereignty, or the practice of allowing the people living in a territory to choose whether to have that territory to have slavery. In Kansas at the time there were three different groups: pro-slavers, free-staters, and abolitionists. There was a huge amount of fighting between these three groups and the period of 1854 – 1861 was known as Bleeding Kansas because of it. Violence was led in part by radical abolitionist John Brown and his sons who viciously murdered five pro-slavers.

1) Research the primary source who created the document.

Geoffrey C. Ward was a writer born in the 1940s (explained in Samantha’s above post regarding Doc B). In his work The West: An Illustrated History he included two quotes that related to America’s feelings upon entering the Civil War, which were related in an intriguing, contrasting fashion. The two true “creators” of the document are as follows:

Senator William A. Seward of New York - born in Florida, NY. Seward studied law at Union College, after some time in Georgia, he began to oppose slavery and the expansion of it. He was governor of NY from 1831-1834, and later became the Secretary of State under Lincoln and (Andrew) Johnson.

Senator David Atchison of Missouri - born in then Kirklevington, Kentucky. Atchison too became a lawyer after schooling (Transylvania University) and became vital in setting the stage for the “Bleeding Kansas” crisis while dealing with Missourians that were voting in Kansas. He supported slavery and desired to see Kansas become a slave-state.

2) Examine the context in which it was created.

Seward gave his strong statement to the South while believing that he and the North were morally correct. He used that mindset and the fact that the North had more men in an attempt to intimidate the southerners.

Atchison heavily supported slavery, so in response to Seward’s threatening statement he tried to encourage his fellow southerners, both through encouraging fighting hard and by dangling the possible result(s) of victory.

3) Explain what the intent then and the message is today.

Ward’s intent was to represent the North and South’s respective feelings toward each other and as to what their purpose/goal was.

The message today is that the North thought they were right in their fight, and the South was fighting primarily for their own (vastly economic) reasons.

4) Finally, describe how the each document can be used in the essay, by considering the question in detail.

This document can be used to support the South’s interest in the West (in regards to expansion of slavery), as well as the North’s desire to hold the West a free land to “choke out” the possibility of the expansion of slavery (and thus an increase of economic, political, and even social powers in the South).

Krystal wrote:

---

  K]             1] The Philadelphia Public Ledger was the city’s most popular newspaper for a time up until its decline in the mid-1930’s.  It was the first paper to use the electromagnetic telegraph and the pony express.

               John L. O’Sullivan was an American columnist who created and  promoted manifest destiny.  This meant that we had the right to expansion, whether it was someone else’s or not.

 

               2]  John O’Sullivan wanted  to promote manifest destiny in the United States.  By having the removal of  “hostile” neighbors, having the command of the Pacific and the Gulf, and also having our benefits as a country, manifest destiny was a good idea.

 

            3]  Back then, the intent was to expand our territory westward and to take land from our rivals.  It also stated that we would be able to expand our trade with Mexico and prevent the British monarchy from having any more power in our country.

---

how did john 'create' manifest destiny? that statement is a little misleading.

who were the hostile neighbors?