NationStates

Democratic Communist Federation wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:Ah, but this is quite wrong. Favoring things like freedom of speech and democracy is, strictly speaking, liberal.

I favor proletarian democracy, not bourgeois democracy (often advocated, or at least tolerated, by liberals of various types).

As to free speech, check out my own motto toward the top of this page.

I am not a liberal.

Newspeak

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:
And what, throw away an amazing opportunity for his country because of petty humanitarian sentimentalities?

Had he done so, the US is unlikely to have expanded very far beyond its initial territory within the Thirteen Colonies. Nevermind that Britain would have been the likely candidate to gobble up the Mississippi Basin if the US never bothered with it, and the British weren't exactly well-known for their treatment of the natives either.

The United States was already larger than the Thirteen Colonies.

Yes and no.

There was considerable disagreement between the US and Britain as to exactly how much territory was ceded to the newly created country after its war of independence.

The US more or less considered itself to have been given this much territory (see in brown):


Whereas Britain decided it had ceded this much territory (see in dark red):


With some debate being had over the exact boundaries of Northern Massachusetts (later Maine) and other territories.

All in all though, at least de jure from the American perspective, they already owned all the territory east of Louisiana by the time the purchase was made, with Spanish Florida being the only notable exception.

Naturally part of the reasoning for the later War of 1812 would be over who exactly owned territory in the Midwest (especially the Great Lakes region), but that's really neither here nor there, since the US already considered itself to de jure own the land.

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Sanctissima wrote: petty humanitarian sentimentalities

Mostly Christian sentiments at that time, but what is petty about them?

With the exception of the Quakers, and maybe a couple other minor sects, the majority of Christian denominations in the US at the time were not pacifistic in the slightest, so I don't really see your point.

Genivaria wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:Mostly Christian sentiments at that time, but what is petty about them?

Christian sentiments being petty, news at 11.
Also I very much doubt that it was the universal 'christian' view at the time to make nice with the heathens.

Sure was, the first major Indian rights activist was a judge who sentenced women to death for witchcraft. Also the first major abolitionist in thw U.S.

Or first in America. Before the colonies were independent, after all

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Genivaria wrote:Christian sentiments being petty, news at 11.
Also I very much doubt that it was the universal 'christian' view at the time to make nice with the heathens.

Sure was, the first major Indian rights activist was a judge who sentenced women to death for witchcraft. Also the first major abolitionist in thw U.S.

I don't think you know what the word 'universal' means.

till their Priests and Ancients have their throats cut, there is no hope to bring them to conversion.”-John Smith

Are you simply ignoring the forced conversions and the kidnapping of native children?

Sanctissima wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:Mostly Christian sentiments at that time, but what is petty about them?

With the exception of the Quakers, and maybe a couple other minor sects, the majority of Christian denominations in the US at the time were not pacifistic in the slightest, so I don't really see your point.

There are Christians, then there are conservative Christian moralists. I refer to the latter.

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:
With the exception of the Quakers, and maybe a couple other minor sects, the majority of Christian denominations in the US at the time were not pacifistic in the slightest, so I don't really see your point.

There are Christians, then there are conservative Christian moralists. I refer to the latter.

We really don't care about your Scotsmen.

Genivaria wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:Sure was, the first major Indian rights activist was a judge who sentenced women to death for witchcraft. Also the first major abolitionist in thw U.S.

I don't think you know what the word 'universal' means.

till their Priests and Ancients have their throats cut, there is no hope to bring them to conversion.”-John Smith

Are you simply ignoring the forced conversions and the kidnapping of native children?

No, but that hardly has anything to do with Christian moralism in U.S. politics.

Genivaria wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:There are Christians, then there are conservative Christian moralists. I refer to the latter.

We really don't care about your Scotsmen.

Whether you or not, it is a fact that abolitionism and Indian rights were motivated by Christian moralism, not humanism. John Brown would be blowing abortion clinics were he alive today.

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Genivaria wrote:I don't think you know what the word 'universal' means.

Are you simply ignoring the forced conversions and the kidnapping of native children?

No, but that hardly has anything to do with Christian moralism in U.S. politics.

You mean like the Civilization Fund Act ?

The benevolent societies were a combination of Christian missions and the federal government.

Federal funds were allocated to schools designed to educate Native Americans in the ways of the white man. The goal was to "civilize" Native Americans by getting rid of their traditions and customs and teaching them reading and writing in the missionary schools.[2]

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:
With the exception of the Quakers, and maybe a couple other minor sects, the majority of Christian denominations in the US at the time were not pacifistic in the slightest, so I don't really see your point.

There are Christians, then there are conservative Christian moralists. I refer to the latter.

Even then, it's not like violence was terribly uncommon even amongst conservative Christians. Most Americans were in favour of expansion for numerous reasons, religion most certainly being one of them.

The Parkus Empire wrote:Newspeak

Perhaps to a liberal. To me, it is communism.

Edit: Nothing personal, but we are in two different worlds.

Genivaria wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:No, but that hardly has anything to do with Christian moralism in U.S. politics.

You mean like the Civilization Fund Act ?

The benevolent societies were a combination of Christian missions and the federal government.

Federal funds were allocated to schools designed to educate Native Americans in the ways of the white man. The goal was to "civilize" Native Americans by getting rid of their traditions and customs and teaching them reading and writing in the missionary schools.[2]

Aye, that too.

Sanctissima wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:There are Christians, then there are conservative Christian moralists. I refer to the latter.

Even then, it's not like violence was terribly uncommon even amongst conservative Christians. Most Americans were in favour of expansion for numerous reasons, religion most certainly being one of them.

Manifest Destiny even partly sights a 'divine mission from God'.

The third theme can be viewed as a natural outgrowth of the belief that God had a direct influence in the foundation and further actions of the United States. Clinton Rossiter, a scholar, described this view as summing "that God, at the proper stage in the march of history, called forth certain hardy souls from the old and privilege-ridden nations ... and that in bestowing his grace He also bestowed a peculiar responsibility". Americans presupposed that they were not only divinely elected to maintain the North American continent, but also to "spread abroad the fundamental principles stated in the Bill of Rights".[30] In many cases this meant neighboring colonial holdings and countries were seen as obstacles rather than the destiny God had provided the United States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_ ... influences

Sanctissima wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:There are Christians, then there are conservative Christian moralists. I refer to the latter.

Even then, it's not like violence was terribly uncommon even amongst conservative Christians. Most Americans were in favour of expansion for numerous reasons, religion most certainly being one of them.

Federalists (who were the moralist party for the most, often coming from Puritan stock) strongly opposed it.

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:
Even then, it's not like violence was terribly uncommon even amongst conservative Christians. Most Americans were in favour of expansion for numerous reasons, religion most certainly being one of them.

Federalists (who were the moralist party for the most, often coming from Puritan stock) strongly opposed it.

Your tendency to oversimplify things no longer surprises me.
And by the 'Federalists' I think you mean the Whigs who were pretty Federalist actually.

Genivaria wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:
Even then, it's not like violence was terribly uncommon even amongst conservative Christians. Most Americans were in favour of expansion for numerous reasons, religion most certainly being one of them.

Manifest Destiny even partly sights a 'divine mission from God'.

The third theme can be viewed as a natural outgrowth of the belief that God had a direct influence in the foundation and further actions of the United States. Clinton Rossiter, a scholar, described this view as summing "that God, at the proper stage in the march of history, called forth certain hardy souls from the old and privilege-ridden nations ... and that in bestowing his grace He also bestowed a peculiar responsibility". Americans presupposed that they were not only divinely elected to maintain the North American continent, but also to "spread abroad the fundamental principles stated in the Bill of Rights".[30] In many cases this meant neighboring colonial holdings and countries were seen as obstacles rather than the destiny God had provided the United States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_ ... influences

Believing in providence doesn't make a Christian moralist, do not be obtuse. Jefferson also invoked providence in his Jacobinism (which, as you show, is what Manifest Destiny is)

Genivaria wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:Federalists (who were the moralist party for the most, often coming from Puritan stock) strongly opposed it.

Your tendency to oversimplify things no longer surprises me.

I am not oversimplifying anything. John Jay did not even think non-Christian should hold office

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Genivaria wrote:Manifest Destiny even partly sights a 'divine mission from God'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_ ... influences

Believing in providence doesn't make a Christian moralist, do not be obtuse. Jefferson also invoked providence in his Jacobinism (which, as you show, is what Manifest Destiny is)

Then you have some strange definition of Christian which noone else in this thread shares.
Once again you misuse words when it's convenient.

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:
Even then, it's not like violence was terribly uncommon even amongst conservative Christians. Most Americans were in favour of expansion for numerous reasons, religion most certainly being one of them.

Federalists (who were the moralist party for the most, often coming from Puritan stock) strongly opposed it.

They were fairly irrelevant by the time of the Louisiana Purchase, and only really saw a brief minor increase in popularity towards the beginning of the War of 1812.

It's also worth noting that their pacifism and near-defeatist rhetoric during the War of 1812 is what killed them as a party, with them holding barely any sway outside of New England by the end of the war, and going completely extinct as a party by the mid-1820's.

The same moralism also established age of consent, outlawed prostitution and started Prohibition. It has always been a serious force in American politics, for good and ill

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Genivaria wrote:Your tendency to oversimplify things no longer surprises me.

I am not oversimplifying anything. John Jay did not even think non-Christian should hold office

John Jay was a POS yes.

Jay wrote, "Real Christians will abstain from violating the rights of others, and therefore will not provoke war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jay#Religion
Oh and look he used No True Scotsmen to!

Sanctissima wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:Federalists (who were the moralist party for the most, often coming from Puritan stock) strongly opposed it.

They were fairly irrelevant by the time of the Louisiana Purchase, and only really saw a brief minor increase in popularity towards the beginning of the War of 1812.

It's also worth noting that their pacifism and near-defeatist rhetoric during the War of 1812 is what killed them as a party, with them holding barely any sway outside of New England by the end of the war, and going completely extinct as a party by the mid-1820's.

If by Federalists he mean't the Whigs then he might have a point, the Whigs supported Manifest Destiny.
But wait he previously said he supports the Whigs.

Genivaria wrote:

Sanctissima wrote:
Even then, it's not like violence was terribly uncommon even amongst conservative Christians. Most Americans were in favour of expansion for numerous reasons, religion most certainly being one of them.

Manifest Destiny even partly sights a 'divine mission from God'.

The third theme can be viewed as a natural outgrowth of the belief that God had a direct influence in the foundation and further actions of the United States. Clinton Rossiter, a scholar, described this view as summing "that God, at the proper stage in the march of history, called forth certain hardy souls from the old and privilege-ridden nations ... and that in bestowing his grace He also bestowed a peculiar responsibility". Americans presupposed that they were not only divinely elected to maintain the North American continent, but also to "spread abroad the fundamental principles stated in the Bill of Rights".[30] In many cases this meant neighboring colonial holdings and countries were seen as obstacles rather than the destiny God had provided the United States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_ ... influences

To be honest, you can even see the religious influences in the artwork of the time.