wk 13 ; manifest destiny

Manifest destiny was a term used to support the annexation of Texas. It was also used to justify and promote the Americans to settle on European and Indian land that was in the West and in the Great Plains. John l O’Sullivan sees a very clear connection between both manifest destiny and American freedom. He believes that the ultimate freedom for the Americans would be to take over the land to the West of them in California. One specific example of O’Sullivan’s views would be with Mexico. He believed that Mexico would be much better off governed by the Americans and become a part of the U.S. rather than stay its own country and also believed that “race” was the key to the “history of nations” (liberty 471). His ideas lead to continued conflict because some of the Southern states were still proslavery and the Americans wanted either proslavery or no slavery at all. Both the North and the South continued to conflict as the expansion of manifest destiny kept growing because it sparked the beginning of the Civil War. As the Southern states still expressed their proslavery views, the states in the West such as California did not support it. Manifest destiny was about the Americans “freedom” and both the North and South had different views of it, which eventually ended up being a battle between the two due to no compromise being made and congress trying to please both sides of the country.

Wk 12; Beecher and Grimke

In response to Beecher’s views, Grimke had a totally different view of how a person’s sex should determine his or her rights. Grimke believed that whether you were a male or female. She states “Now if naturally occurred to me, that if rights were founded in moral being, then the circumstances of sex could not give to man higher rights and responsibilities, than to woman” (freedom 219). Angela believes that everyone should have the same rights because nobody was built better than the other. Beecher’s ultimate argument was that women were considered the “subordinate” and men were considered the “superior” of the two, therefore women’s rights were in the home doing domestic deeds. She believed that women should express their rights in the home. She also believed that women should be teachers and teach the young society. It was the woman’s job to teach the children right and wrong, and the ways of life. Women’s rights were very important in this time period because of the abolitionist movement. Fighting for the rights of the slaves in America could possibly mean that one day women may have rights in the U.S. While the slaves were always being beaten and disrespected, women were treated in a less harsh, but similar matter. Although they were not beaten nor scorned in society, they were expected to follow what their husbands or other men in society said.

Fitzhugh and Proslavery

Paternalism is the idea supported by Fitzhugh that states “the master, has a right to the obedience and labor of the slave, but the slave has also his mutual rights in the master” (Liberty 299). He argues that this whole concept is necessary to for slavery because it also gives “rights” to the slave. Fitzhugh also has a very strong opinion on the “free market”. He believes that slavery is better because although African American individuals were called slaves, the slave-owners and the slaves both shared a “community of interest” (403). This community of interest that both the owners and slaves had was unheard of in a free market. He also goes on to explain how the slaves in the southern states were some of the happiest and “freest” people in the world. Writers went on to explain how freedom would not have been possible without slavery, and this statement could not be any truer. George Fitzhugh’s view of women compared to slavery was based on dependence. He compares women and slaves by saying that they are weak, dependent, and helpless. Slaves depend on their owners for guidance and protection just as a woman and children would look up to her husband or father for security and protection in the home.