He views the growth of the nation then as being motivated not by expansionist aims, but by a sense of national direction to shape first the nation, then the world along the lines of goodness as divined by God. If the resulting action was expansionist, then so be it, and if war was required to get there, then it could be explained by this preordained plan. Stephanson then follows this concept into the twentieth century and theorizes that the stage has gotten bigger, but that little has changed since the early times. Both books then discuss growth of the empire with Stephanson explaining the motives as being driven by manifest destiny , and Weeks by a sense of holding the nation together. Perhaps this is a fine line of difference that can be further understood by examining the books thematically, as they discuss materialism, race and militarism.
Weeks approach to materialism is through the use of the word self-interest.
He cites early leaders as believing that it is the one thing that all people possess, that it cannot be regulated, and that it is the basis on which men make all decisions. Stephanson s approach is somewhat different, in that he believes materialism was less of a motivating factor than race and expansion for expansion sake, but that it wasn t until after the Civil War that the U.S. began to build the most efficient economic juggernaut in the world , while other nations were constructing alliances and empires all over the globe, often by force. A third approach by Thomas Hietala in Manifest Design views materialism in the Jacksonian era as prominent, though historians have traditionally viewed this era as one of laissez-faire economics. Hietala believes, for example, that Tyler and Polk were extremely active in promoting tariff and mercantile opportunities, and attempted to provide monopolies over cotton and food, to the betterment of U.S. farmers. What has made the United States unique, perhaps, is the zeal with which this trait is pursued.