Talk:Manifest destiny/Archive 1

message: I was noticing that the article needs some major organization. It is entirely void of headlines, and needs some care and attention. I might get back to it later, but could someone pick this task up? - Pingveno 03:09, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Organization needed

message: It seems to me that this article is long enough to be arranged by sections or subsections; does somebody want to perhaps restructure it and put the formatting in? Then it woud have a spiffy table of contents to make the article much more useful. Matt gies 21:17, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section/Subject headings? 

message: that stated the United States was divine A preposterous remark!!. Wetman 07:51, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: People call it devinely inspired - that doesn't make it true. Peter Grey 13:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divine? 

message: Its obvious to the most casual observer that the JudeoChristianization of the European colonies, including the New World, during the Age of Exploration was a result of a fundamental tenant of JudeoChristianity reflected first in the Covenant with Abraham, which is also the foundation of Zionism.  My edits were toward this end but were reverted without comment.  If it needs to be made more neutral that's fine but to ignore the referenc to the doctrine of world-wide dispersion and dominion make the section on philosophical underpinnings lack any real depth of philosophical underpinnings at all.
Here is the section I added and I'd appreciate it if people would describe how it could be more neutral and/or appropriate to the article.
The divine imperative of Manifest Destiny was rooted in the seminal Judeo-Christian_tradition tradition of Zionism as evidenced by this quote from the chief rabbi of Amsterdam, Menasseh Ben Israel, in his letter to Oliver Cromwell, petitioning for readmission to the United Kingdom:
My second Motive is, because the opinion of many Christians and mine doe concurre herein, that we both believe that the restoring time of our Nation into their Native Countrey, is very neer at hand; I believing more particularly, that this restauration cannot be, before these words of Daniel, Chap. 12. ver. 7. be first accomplished, when he saith, And when the dispersion of the Holy people shall be compleated in all places, then shall all these things be compleated: signifying therewith, that before all be fulfilled, the People of God must be first dispersed into all places and Countreyes of the World. Now we know, how our Nation at the present is spread all about, and hath its seat and dwelling in the most flourishing parts of all the Kingdomes, and Countreys of the World, as well in America, as in the other three parts thereof; except onely in this considerable and mighty Island. And therefore this remains onely in my judgement, before the Messia come and restore our ration, that first we must have our seat here likewise.
Indeed, the Puritans, who would prove instrumental in prevailing upon Cromwell to readmit Jews to the United Kingdom, were the first Protestant sect to settle in the New World, and they did so after having taken refuge, from religious persecution, in Amsterdam. Amsterdam was the same refuge taken by Jews when they were expelled by the Spanish Inquisition coincident with the start of Christopher Columbus's New World exploration in 1492. Thus Manifest Destiny's spiritual origin is to be found in the competition between Catholics vs the alliance between Protestant separtists and Jews seeking refuge in the religious tolerance of Holland at the dawn of the Age of Exploration.
:Wikipedia does not publish original research, which includes novel interpretations and syntheses of primary sources.  This is not a reflection on the merit of any given interpretations — Wikipedia is simply not the proper venue.  We have to stick to material and interpretations already well-established in traditionally reviewed publications. —Steven G. Johnson 21:29, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
::I'll agree that the section I added requires citations but so does the rest of the article.  To call it uncited POV may be somewhat reasonable but to call it "original research" is rather ludicrous.  Its de rigeur to link JudeoChristianity to western expansionism.  Moreover Columbus's voyages in conjunction with the Spanish Inquisition's expulsion of Sephardic Jews to Holland, primarily Amsterdam, is frequently cited as the seminal event of western, hence, JudeoChristian expansionism. Jim Bowery 17:42, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophical Underpinnings 

message: There should be a reference to Jane McManus - Also known as Storms or Cazneau or often all three.  She is sometimes credited with the phrase "manifest destiny" and is closley linked with the Young American movement in the 1840's.   Yet there is no reference to her in Wikipedia.  Perhaps someone can fill the gap.
:There's a bit on her in the article on John L. O'Sullivan. She's an interesting figure, though perhaps a bit marginal for this short overview of Manifest Destiny (most full-length books on the subject don't even find the space to mention her). There's room for her in filibuster (military), the Young America movement article (still a stub, and a misleading one at that), and an article on her could be written as well. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 18:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Jane McManus

message: Is anyone else seeing what I am seeing? the entire page is most gibberish, Mario is being talked about! I need to know about Manifest Destiny NOW!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.115.28 (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: What?

message: Came to this article after conversation with two really nice elderly Americans I met on a train. They said they were explicitly taught Manifest Destiny (apparently as a live issue, not history) at school in (I guess) the 50s/60s. And they certainly linked it with race rather than US borders. Anybody know anything about this? Cheers, JackyR | Talk 12:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More recent uses

message: This is a well-written and researched article.  The last section on Modern day groups however seems out of place.  It essentially is trivia, and the organizations described there are not particularly notable.  The article is an overview of the concept, not a description or listing of each group which may be influenced by, or seeks to implement, that concept.  More to the point, the fact that some contemporary Canadian parties or groups seek to join the US may have nothing to do with their adherence to the concept of Manifest Destiny-- instead their members may seek anticipated economic advantage or other perceived benefits by such a union.  Would anyone object if we deleted this section? Kablammo 15:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having seen no response, I will delete this section in the next day or so.  This is an article about Manifest Destiny, not about groups which want their provinces, nations, or commonwealths to join the United States.  There is nothing in this section which indicates that Manifest Destiny has anything to do with their motives or inspiration, and absent that connection, the information seems out of place here.   Kablammo 21:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  The link in this section to the BC movement disclosed no connection to Manifest Destiny; there were no other links or sources for this section which indicated that the concept was a motivation for any foreign group to seek admission to the US.  Kablammo 03:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job, couldn't agree with you more. -- WGee 21:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern day groups

message: This article receives a remarkable amount of vandalism.  Its subject is taught in history classes, which may explain the amount of attention it gets.  Some form of protection would be appropriate.
The article itself seems to be a very good summary of the subject, and with more attribution to sources, would be an excellent FA candidate.  Kablammo 16:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that about half of the last fifty edits are vandalism and the other half reverts, semi-protection is certainly warranted.  If you have the time, perhaps you could request semi-protection at WP:RPP. -- WGee 23:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: Why was this part of the Native American section removed?
In the Age of Manifest Destiny, this idea, which came to be known as "Indian Removal", gained ground. Although some humanitarian advocates of removal believed that Indians would be better off moving away from whites, an increasing number of Americans regarded the natives as nothing more than "savages" who stood in the way of American expansion. As historian Reginald Horsman argued in his influential study Race and Manifest Destiny, racial rhetoric increased during the era of Manifest Destiny. Americans increasingly believed that Native Americans would fade away as the United States expanded. As an example, this idea was reflected in the work of one of America's first great historians, Francis Parkman, whose landmark book The Conspiracy of Pontiac was published in 1851. Parkman wrote that Indians were "destined to melt and vanish before the advancing waves of Anglo-American power, which now rolled westward unchecked and unopposed".
This quote above came from the "good article" assessment listed on the top of this discussion page, where it said that this was listed as a good history article with this quote included. However, the change I noticed between the current article right now and the one it was before, when it was assessed as a good article was this quote missing. 
Can someone please reinsert this one in, then put the page on protection from vandalism? I think a lot of sections on this and other Wiki articles on Native Americans and their interaction with European colonists and the United States have had similar incidents such as these happen to them. 
However, if you can find that this source is not valid or something is improper with it, please tell how or why this part was removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.234.139 (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect it was probably just simple vandalism, without any particular agenda. I'll look at the page history and see if I can figure out what happened. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Katr67 18:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was not, in fact, vandalism but a great deal of material removed here. A bunch of that stuff was added after the good article review. I'll restore the part that you mentioned above and if anyone is concerned about the rest s/he can bring it up here. Katr67 19:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added back more material deleted last year.  The deletion did not specify what specific parts were objected to, and why, other than an assertion that the material was unsourced.  Much of it is sourced from several authorities.  In any event it can be discussed here if there are objections to specific assertions in it.  Kablammo 22:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Native Americans section

message: This interesting essay was originally the history of an idea rather than history of events.  It is organized somewhat thematically, and leaves the detailed description of American westward expansion to other articles.  There is of course an overlap, but the scope of this article should be kept in mind.
I have deleted some material from the intro, and restored it to a form similar to the version of 21 December 2006.  In doing so I deleted the following:
:Opponents such as Abraham Lincoln wanted vertical modernization with greater complexity and specialization, instead of the horizontal expansion of simple farms. As Lincoln explained, he "did not believe in enlarging our field, but in keeping our fences where they are and cultivating our present possession, making it a garden, improving the morals and education of the people."Speech Sept 12, 1848, in David Donald, Lincoln (1995) 122 Nonetheless, Lincoln passed a law known as the "Homestead Acts" that became vital to westward expansion by offering free land in the west to those willing to farm it. Historian David M. Potter concludes that in 1854 the Ostend Manifesto and the Kansas-Nebraska Act were "the two great calamities of the Franklin Pierce administration.... Both brought down an avalanche of public criticism." More importantly, says Potter, they permanently discredited Manifest Destiny and popular sovereignty.  David M. Potter, The Impending Crisis, 1848 - 1861. (1976) p 193
:--
:
This appears to have valuable material in it, but is not entirely clear, and expresses several different thoughts.  It is too detailed for an introduction.  WP:LEDE.
Moreover the former intro went from the 1840s to the 1890s, then back to Lincoln and then back to Pierce, which is confusing; mentioned the homestead act (which Lincoln did not "pass"; the Congress does that) without tying that law to Manifest Destiny; and did not explain the Pierce administration material.  If such content is specifically relevant to the history of the idea (as opposed to the history of westward expansion) it should be integrated into the body of the article.  Kablammo (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chronology vs. Analysis

message: John L. O'Sullivan's essay on Manifest Destiny was published first in the November 1839 issue of the United States Magazine and Democratic Review.  He published again on Manifest Destiny in 1845. This fact is in many history textbooks and document collections. Examples: A Documentary History of American Thought and Society by Charles Robert Crowe (1965) page 175;  and The American Revelation: Ten Ideals That Shaped Our Country from the Puritans to the Cold War by Neil Baldwin (2006) page 79.--Tintle (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you know if the 1839 essay is online?  It would be a valuable addition.  I found this:  which dates it in 1845.  Kablammo (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: This appears to be the 1839 article (or excerpts of it):   Kablammo (talk) 03:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Do you know if Manifest Destiny was in fact the title of the earlier article?  The articles differ and the 1839 one does not have the term in the text, whereas the 1845 one does. There seems to be little doubt that the concept comes from the earlier piece. Kablammo (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The title of the 1839 article appears to be A Divine Destiny for America.  So while the concept originated in the 1839 (or earlier) the first use of the phrase Manifest Destiny may have been in 1845.  Is this what your sources say?  We can easily add mention of the earlier article to the page.  Kablammo (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks.  It may be a situation where everybody's right-- the first use of the actual phrase may have been in 1845, but the concept predates it.  The 1839 article seems to be the conceptual framework and the 1845 essay is its applicaton to the situation then presented.  The 1839 article should be mentioned, perhaps by rewriting and expanding the following sentence in the Origins paragraph:  O'Sullivan did not originate the idea of Manifest Destiny: while his phrase provided a useful label for sentiments which had become particularly popular during the 1840s, the ideas themselves were not new.  Kablammo (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for looking into this.  I am sorry I did not notice your comments earlier.  I have now revised the section to put it into chronological order, and have included the earlier article.  Regards, Kablammo (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual error

message: This template seemed perfect for this page but the leadin was so nice I dropped it into the See Also section.  I played around with the See Also entries till I got a good combo and a nice format for the template.  How it's pleasing. Alatari (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: <nowiki>{{AmericanEmpire}}</nowiki>

message: In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the requirements of the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. I am specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. Unfortunately, as of February 26, 2008, this article fails to satisfy the criteria. While reviewing the articles, I made several corrections. The article was passed as a GA back in 2006 without a review, and since then, the criteria have changed significantly. The article currently lacks inline citations for multiple quotes and several statistics that should have them. If you can find sources online, feel free to include those, although book sources are always great. The following are several issues that should be addressed before renominating the article at WP:GAN:
#The lead should be expanded to three paragraphs to better summarize the article. It should touch on all of the main sections within the article; for guidelines, see WP:LEAD.
Needs inline citations:
#"And that claim is by the right of our manifest destiny to overspread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federated self-government entrusted to us." Needs an inline citation to directly follow the quote.
#"I suppose the right of a manifest destiny to spread will not be admitted to exist in any nation except the universal Yankee nation."
#"We have it in our power to begin the world over again. A situation, similar to the present, hath not happened since the days of Noah until now. The birthday of a new world is at hand...."
#"Whigs especially argued that the "mission" of the United States was only to serve as virtuous example to the rest of the world."
#"Thomas Jefferson initially did not believe it necessary that the United States should grow in size, since he predicted that other, similar republics would be founded in North America, forming what he called an "empire for liberty.""
#"Many began to see this as the beginning of a new "mission"—what Andrew Jackson in 1843 famously described as "extending the area of freedom.""
#"The Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny were closely related ideas: historian Walter McDougall calls Manifest Destiny a "corollary" of the Monroe Doctrine, because while the Monroe Doctrine did not specify expansion, expansion was necessary in order to enforce the Doctrine."
#"Before 1815, writes Stuart, "what seemed like territorial expansionism actually arose from a defensive mentality, not from ambitions for conquest and annexation.""
#"The latter slogan is often mistakenly described as having been a part of the 1844 presidential campaign."
#"Although elected by a very slim margin, Polk proceeded as if his victory had been a mandate for expansion."
#"Merk wrote that, while belief in the beneficent "mission" of democracy was central to American history, aggressive "continentalism" were aberrations supported by only a very small (but influential) minority of Americans. Merk's interpretation is probably still a minority opinion; scholars generally see Manifest Destiny, at least in the 1840s, as a popular belief among Democrats and an unpopular one among Whigs."
#"Prompted by John L. O'Sullivan, in 1848 President Polk offered to buy Cuba from Spain for $100 million."
#"Pierce backed off, however, and instead renewed the offer to buy the island, this time for $130 million."
#"Indians were encouraged to sell their vast tribal lands and become "civilized", which meant (among other things) for Native American men to abandon hunting and become farmers, and for their society to reorganize around the family unit rather than the clan or tribe."
#"Thomas Jefferson believed that while American Indians were the intellectual equals of whites, they had to live like the whites or inevitably be pushed aside by them."
#"As historian Reginald Horsman argued in his influential study Race and Manifest Destiny, racial rhetoric increased during the era of Manifest Destiny."
#"Parkman wrote that Indians were "destined to melt and vanish before the advancing waves of Anglo-American power, which now rolled westward unchecked and unopposed"."
#"In the 1892 U.S. presidential election, the Republican Party platform proclaimed: "We reaffirm our approval of the Monroe doctrine and believe in the achievement of the manifest destiny of the Republic in its broadest sense."
#"For example, when President William McKinley advocated annexation of the Territory of Hawaii in 1898, he said that "We need Hawaii as much and a good deal more than we did California. It is manifest destiny." On the other hand, former President Grover Cleveland, a Democrat who had blocked the annexation of Hawaii during his administration, wrote that McKinley's annexation of the territory was a "perversion of our national destiny.""
#"Wilson led the United States into World War I with the argument that "The world must be made safe for democracy." In his 1920 message to Congress after the war, Wilson stated:"
#"However, the term is sometimes used by the political left and by critics of U.S. foreign policy to characterize interventions in the Middle East and elsewhere."
For these reasons, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you disagree with this review, you can seek an alternate opinion at Good article reassessment. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article's history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps Review: Delisted

message: This article is not about the territorial expansion of the United States, but rather about the concept of Manifest Destiny.  Commercial treaties, the free trade union, the purchase or attempted purchase of other territory, are not relevant to this article unless motivated by the concept of Manifest Destiny.  To avoid overlapping or swallowing up the existing article on Territorial acquisitions of the United States this article should be limited to its stated purpose.  Consequently, the addition of attemps to acquire land for purposed of defense and efforts of some groups in Canada to join the US (both discusssed in previous sections of this talk page), are too far afield of this article's focus.  Such material is good and belongs on Wikipedia; I suggest however that it not be located here. Kablammo (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Territorial expansion

message: In recent days there have been changes to the introduction, which I have reverted.  The reason I have done so is that those changes state that Manifest Destiny was "originally" a belief that the US was destined to expand to cover North America, and "later" expressed a destiny to expand to the Pacific ocean.  This is confusing, and is not accurate-- as early as 1846 it was used to predict expansion to the Pacific, while as late as the 1870s it was the basis for efforts to take Canada west of Superior.  And as mentioned in the article, it was used in the 1890s to advocate for expansion outside the continent.  So it is not accurate to suggest that an orginally expansive concept became more limited in application; O'Sullivan did speak of a destiny "to overspread and to possess the whole of the continent"; that did not attenuate with time, but instead expanded further.  Kablammo (talk) 13:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to introduction

message: "It has also been used to advocate and justify other territorial acquisitions, as well as to justify the genocide of the Native American populations who were standing in the way of its believers and supporters."
Un-cited, inflammatory claim.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.215.248.202 (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: I reverted an unsourced edit by an IP naming Storm (apparently Jane McManus Storm Cazneau as the originator of the phrase "Manifest Destiny".  I only googled it enough to determine that it MIGHT be true -- someone, or the original IP, may want to properly source this and integrate it with the current text that emphasizes O'Sullivan's role.  Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Jane Storm

message: current text is "Journalist Manny Destiny, an influential advocate for the Democratic Party, wrote an..."  Per elsewhere in the article, correct journalist's name is John L. O'Sullivan, not Manny Destiny.
Vandalism was in this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Manifest_Destiny&oldid=347293033
Robertsjk (talk) 01:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fleetflame · whack! whack! · 01:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: revert vandalism -  John O'Sullivan -> Manny Destiny

message: Canda was not part of the plan. Rjensen (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Which "the plan" there were many different interpretations of Manifest Destiny, some of which did include the incorporation of Canada. --Khajidha (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: not according to Stuart--the RS used for the section explictly denied that  Man Dest was involved re Canada. Rjensen (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: But O'Sullivan did use it to include Canada. See the section on Context and Interpretations. --Khajidha (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Canada?

message: What is the reason behind the choice of Parkman as a source? Was it just simply for that quote? Surely there are better sources. What about Francis Jennings?  The guy who called Parkman a liar and called his work fiction. If it's about that quote I can understand. I sense the bias in this article so I understand. There was all kinds of unsourced usage and conjecture about anglo-saxons. For the treaty of 1818 an aka title was hand picked though it is most commonly called the treaty of 1818. So if it was just for the quote you have pulled off what you were trying to do. Non-white people will hate white people and white people will be instantly be filled with white guilt over something they didn't do to people they didn't do it to.
But if for some chance you want to stop trying to push a point of view and actually put history here and possibly make wikipedia a more reliable source that people who actually need an encyclopedia can use....
Well Parkman's not your best source. Try Jennings since a portion  of his career was spent correcting Parkman's contribution to history.70.15.191.119 (talk) 11:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true that Jennings violently disliked Parkman--but he is an outlier--Parkman has been cited and praised by many leading historians. In any case the issue is Parkman's highly influential views. Jennings complains that Parkman revised quotations and exaggerated the leadership role of Pontiac--not especially relevant to this topic. Jennings does not deal with the Manifest Destiny themes. On that see Nicholas Lawrence "Francis Parkman'S The Oregon Trail and the US-Mexican War: Appropriations Of Counter-Imperial Dissent," Western American Literature, Winter 2009, Vol. 43 Issue 4, pp 372-391, which shows Parkman opposed Manifest Destiny. Rjensen (talk) 12:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

text: I'll comment from the sidelines that it looks like there's a WP:DUE issue here. Perhaps Jennings ought to be mentioned and viewpoints contrasted using something like this. I hasten to add that I don't know anything at all about the specifics here. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Jennings would agree with the use of Parkman here.  Parkman was an influential writer on Indian issues, which is not in dispute by Jennings. Rjensen (talk) 04:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Alas  our anonymous 70.15.191.119  does not appreciate how Wikipedia works.  Our job is to report what the reliable sources, such as Horsmen and the many other people cited in the bibliography say about Manifest Destiny.   The concept of Anglo Saxon was very important in 19th century America, and it did not include the Irish or French or Germans or Scandinavians or Spanish,  who were also white  but were not seen --and did not see themselves--as carriers of the particular value system that manifest destiny supposedly represented.Rjensen (talk) 10:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The use of Parkman as a source 

message: lebensraum's inclusion in this article is without merit. American expansionism existed before "manifest destiny" was coined. The thought of countries expanding and the expansion of countries existed before the founding of America. If you are going to include lebensraum you should include every other piece of history on expansionism. Why not include Osman's Dream? Is it because Osman 1 wasn't Anglo-Saxon. Of all expansionism to pick it interests me why you chose to include Lebensraum. Choosing Lebensraum allows you to say Nazi but I can't see any other reason for it's inclusion. Napolean? Genghis Khan? Rome? No expansionism involving them or mention of how common expansionism is historically but you have room for German expansionism? Ya this isn't bias. You know it's real hard to assume good faith when the bias here is so blatant.70.15.191.119 (talk) 10:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: lebensraum is included because 1) like MD it is an Ideology or theory of expansion and 2) RS talk about the possible linkage with MD. Rjensen (talk) 10:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: actually it's about the world of ideas and scholarship--entry is free: you just have to read some of the items that are listed. Staying on the outside runs the risk of producing hateful, ignorant, useless gibberish. Rjensen (talk) 11:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In the 19th century when people wanted to speak about whites, they use the word " white".  when they use the term "Anglo-Saxon"  they were referring to the language now called Old English, and had in mind people of English descent, both in England and in America. see White Anglo Saxon Protestant  for more details.   Mexicans, Irishmen and French were not included in the term Anglo-Saxon. Manifest destiny was a highly controversial issue, with support and opposition about evenly balanced in the US.Rjensen (talk) 13:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 70.15.191.119 is not following the Wikipedia rules regarding NPOV.  if he thinks there is an alternative viewpoint then he should add the alternative viewpoint, giving his reliable sources.  He is not allowed to a erase fully sourced information because of his personal political views.  thus far 70.15.191.119  has found no reliable sources that support his opinions. Rjensen (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

text: lebensraum should be in there cause it is the same concept 95.208.187.120 (talk) 10:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  lebensraum should be removed 

message: The thought that Anglo-Saxons were the only race that was involved is the alternative point of view Scholarly or other wise. Read the article and you will see that a certain scholar has been smoking crack. And I quote," and a belief in the natural superiority of the English-speaking peoples (at the time often called the "Anglo-Saxon race")."
That says that English speaking people were at the time Anglo-Saxons. That would include Free people of color, Irish Americans, Actual Anglo-Saxons, slaves, and even a few Indians, and several other ethnicities in the USA at the time. This statement written out right away in the article is of course not correct.
The other uses refer to the 19th century philosophy that "Anglo-Saxons" ancestry or English ancestry made "Anglo-Saxons" superior to other people. This justified both Racism and imperialism. There were Anglo-Saxons in America but there were Anglo-Saxons in England. Manifest destiny never took the stand that Anglo-Saxons were destined to control the North American continent. Manifest destiny took the stand that the USA and it's citizens were destined to control north America. If Manifest destiny had been about Anglo-Saxons controlling north America then Oregon would be apart of Canada now. The UK was going for it and guess what the UK is full of: Anglo-Saxons.
We never thought that Anglo-Saxons would go to another land and annex it to the US. We thought that Americans would. We were not morons. There are plenty of lands Anglo-Saxons went to and they never considered asking us to let them join our country. Texas didn't ask the US to annex them because they were anglo-saxons (some where Mexican) they did so because they were Americans. Anglo-Saxons are everywhere and they where then to. The only Anglo-Saxons that came to us were: AMERICANS. Now some of these Americans were not anglo-saxon.
Now there is another use to Anglo-saxon. It doesn't refer to the Anglo-Saxon ethnicity. It refers to rich white people with high social standing. Rich white people with a high social standing really seems to connect well to this article. O'Sullivan was a well to do whiteman with abit of pull in his hey day. You can call him anglo-saxon.
If this article had an over use of Anglo-Saxon and a reference to the Nazi's it would look.. Oh wait it does.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.191.119 (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: for the umpteenth time, Anglo=Saxon = people of English descent. Reginald Horsman, Race and manifest destiny: (1981) Page 62: "But in the first decades of the nineteenth century Englishmen and Americans increasingly compared the Anglo Saxon peoples to others and concluded that blood, not environment or accident, had led to their success." Rjensen (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "English speaking PEOPLES"  in the pre-1880 period meant people of English descent--it was an ethnic term; after about 1890 it was used more broadly to include others who spoke English.  90+% of ther folks who were active in the Manifest Destiny movement were of British descent--and they were split about 50-50 (Most Whigs, like Lincoln, opposed it as did some Democrats).  American groups like blacks, French, Germans, Dutch and Hispanics etc are not much mentioned in the RS. Rjensen (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anglo-Saxon and the repetition of use 

message: I chanced to take a look at this article today, and jumped in to link some page numbered refs supporting quotes to Google Books deep links showing the relevant pages. While doing this I noticed that some cited works had google books links and some did not, I added a couple of such links and/or added missing ISBNs to works I was looking at. While doing that, I noticed that some cited works are described in some detail outside of the References section, and others are not, and some works not cited in the reverences section are mentioned in the Notes section (e.g., "As shown by the wide ridicule of the Alaska Purchase in 1867. By Frederick Merk, Manifest destiny and mission in American history: a Reinterpretation (1995) p. 229", "Merk, pp. 144–47; Fuller; Thomas R. Hietala, Manifest design: American exceptionalism and Empire (2003)" -- that Hietala work is cited in the Further Reading section, not the References section). Also, I see that  is used a few times and the article also uses  and , but the citations in the References and further reading sections are hand-crafted.
I'll probably be trying to regularize some of this style-wise. As part of this, barring objection, I'll convert the citation style in the References and Further reading sections to use , and I'll also use  for Notes section Refs to provide clickable links to the associated full citations in the references section (see example here). Comments? Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent work! Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 04:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I ran the citation bot on the article in slow mode and it fixed a few things. It's not really tedious, like adding the ISBNs manually. Jsayre64 (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation regularization 

message: I think the caption for the main photo, the painting American Progress, is too long. It describes everything going on in the painting in over 70 words. I think if the reader wants to know more about the painting, he can read the file's description. The Events Leading to the Civil War box isn't even visible in my browser until I scroll down half a page. Attys (talk) 09:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a problem.  This is a visualization of the Manifest Destiny theme that has been used in many textbooks. The caption merely tells what is happening in an a small image that is hard to make out in many browsers.  The point is that the caption info helps readers see for themselves how Americans visualized Manifest destiny Rjensen (talk) 10:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: ''American Progress'' caption too long