Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Chapter Six-Believing and Doubting: "What Means this Carnage?"
Shortly after the Confederate surrender at Appomattox, the northern clergyman and theologian Horace Bushnell celebrated northern victory. He made comparisons between the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and that of the union soldiers who had lost their lives during the Civil War. Bushnell went further and stated that manifest destiny demanded that the United States expand throughout North America as the God-given spoils of the North's hard fought victory. Do you agree with Bushnell that manifest destiny justifies the expansion of the United States at the expense of Native Americans? Also, do you agree with Bushnell when he states that expansion must occur to justify the carnage and sacrifice of the Civil War? Why or why not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I do not agree with Bushnell's ideas about the expansion of the United States. "Bleeding was..." not "necessary to God's expansive...purposes for America.”(pg.190) Believing that it is your destiny to expand does not make it your right to steal the land from other human beings. Expansion does not justify the carnage and sacrifice of the war. Nothing does. The war happened because of man's pride and ignorance. The amount of death and sacrifice involved in this war is nearly incomprehensible. To try and justify all that death through expansion and manifest destiny would be ridiculous. I disagree with Bushnell and all that he believes.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with Bushnell’s ideas. “he had spent the war in Connecticut distant from the battlefields”. [191] This man could only see the dead union soldiers as “’ the price and purchase money of our triumph’”. [190] “Death was not loss, but both the instrument and the substance of victory” [190] He could not see the purpose of death during the civil war as keeping a torn country together. He saw it as an excuse to take land from others. The men in the civil war were not even fighting the Native Americans, the Native Americans just had land that this man wanted.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe Bushnell's ideas about expansion of the United States. Bushnell says that the slain were "the price and purchase-money of our triumph." [pg. 190] He thought that the United States now deserve to have more land because they lost so many in war. I don't agree with Bushnell when he says that expansion has to occur to justify the carnage and sacrifice of the Civil War. I don't believe this because although it was a victory, they should not be thinking about expnding. Like Jamie said, the amount of death was incomprehensible. You can't expansion and manifest destiny and expect everything to be right.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Bushnell, “Bleeding, was necessary to God’s expansive—and expensive—purposes for America, and ‘in this blood our unity is cemented and forever sanctified.’” (190) To him people loss was substantial to the overall victory to the expansion of America. That does not justify the thousands of Native Americans, who were here long before us, to loose land because of this belief. The manifest destiny does not justify kicking people out of their homes for your own personal benefit. Bushnell “spent the war in Connecticut, distant from the battlefields…” (191) It is horrific how many people died because of the Civil War but to justify the carnage and sacrifice when he himself did not see death is not right. To rationalize killing is nearly impossible. I understand he justified the losses of the war for a greater purpose, but despite this, how does that justify stealing land from Native Americans who were here longer? The Native Americans did not deserve to have their land taken away yet, he believes it is God’s wish. I do not agree with Bushnell’s beliefs.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with Bushnell’s attitude towards the northern victory. Expansion of the U.S. would not make things better for Americans. Winning the war should have been a reward in itself. The soldiers died for the abolition of slavery, and to slaughter Native Americans in order to expand the United States would go against everything they fought for. The victory over the south was all that the north deserved for their efforts, because that is all they were fighting for in the first place. I do not believe the deaths needed to be explained as, "part of a larger purpose and a grander plan" (191) for northerners to feel satisfied. I think the north came through and won the war like they had hoped, and that is all they could ask for. To me asking for the rest of North America as though it was a reward seems selfish when the rest of the world had nothing to do with the war.
ReplyDeleteHorace Bushnell was an opportunist who saw a chance to play on the emotions of American citizens during the Civil War. He tried to manipulate them at a time when emotions ran high, whether one had just won a great battle or suffered a great loss. He recognized an opportunity to expand America, and used religious propaganda to persuade people of his convictions. "Bleeding, he asserted, was necessary to God's expansive - and expensive - purposes for America, and 'in this blood our unity is cemented and forever sanctified'" (190). Bushnell maintained that it was God's plan, and America's destiny, to expand at whatever cost. He reasoned that America needed "to wind up and settle this great tragedy in a way to exactly justify every drop of blood that has been shed in it" (191). The cost, he believed, was American bloodshed, and the reward would be national expansion. He "sought still 'higher aims' to balance the flow of 'such blood'" (191). Bushnell thought that such sacrifice should not go unrewarded and that "war's destructiveness called for broadened purposes" (191).
ReplyDeleteWhatever his personal motivation, Bushnell had good intentions, I think, as he did wish to better a nation which had suffered so much; I do not agree with his ideas and justifications, however. He was too far removed from the situation to have a good understanding of it, and he tried to play on the unstable emotions of people during the war using extreme ideas and propaganda. He was unconcerned about the ramifications which might accompany the expansion of America, and he seemed to care even less about the people who had died and would later die to facilitate his ideas.
Response to Rachel:
ReplyDeleteYou said that "to justify the carnage and sacrifice when he himself did not see death is not right." But we do that today as Americans. As civilians who have never been to war, and have never seen so much death up close, and cannot possibly grasp all of the complicated, difficult logic and decisions that send our soldiers to war, we still try to provide justification and reasoning to why people die and are killed because of war. Are we wrong to do that? Does that make us like Bushnell in some ways?
Response to Abbey,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point of Bushnell's good intention. Bushnell saw an oppurtunity for the nation to expand and prosper. I also agree with your disagreement in Bushnell. He wanted to expand but he didn't think of the Native Americans or the difficulty of expansion.
I disagree with Bushnell's sudden ideas about expansion. Bushnell asserted that the "Bleeding was necessary to God's expansive-and expensive- purposes" He was too ambitious upon expansion. America was still in its worst was ever and could not deal with expansion at the moment. The soldiers did not die for expansion. They died to preserve the Union and abolish slavery. Also, expanding and fighting the Indians was not moral because Americans should have tried to be peaceful to the Natives instead of being forceful.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree that expansion should come at a cost to Native Americans and that it was “demanded … as the God-given spoils of the North’s … victory.” Expansion had nothing to do with the Civil War. The main reasons for the fighting were 1) abolition of slavery, 2) preservation of a nation, and 3) preservation of a way of life. Native Americans had no part in the Civil War and should not be punished needlessly. They were the first people to inhabit this continent, and should not be kicked off simply because Americans believed the land was rightfully theirs (under God’s will). In Bushnell’s mind, “the slain were the price and purchase – money of our triumph,” (p. 190) and “death was not loss, but both the instrument and substance of victory.” (p. 190) Bushnell also believed that “history must feed itself on blood.” (p.191) Manifest destiny had no role in the Civil War, so it does not make much sense that it is required after such enormous losses. I also think that Bushnell was rather cold-hearted in his comments: he seems to have had no regard for the fallen and their families, only in the results of their fighting and death. I also disagree that history must feed itself on blood: sure, plenty of history is shrouded in blood and fighting, but many things also happened without it such as the construction of things such as the Great Pyramids, Statue of Liberty, etc.)
ReplyDeleteHorace Bushnell was yet another example of someone who was trying to find better justification for all the fighting and death. Obviously he believed that the war’s original purposes weren’t good enough for the death tolls they created. Bushnell described the dead as “the price and purchase-money of our triumph.”(190) So if the dead were the ‘price’ that was paid, Bushnell wanted better compensation, or a reason for fighting, and he thought mass expansion, or manifest destiny, provided it. I disagree with Bushnell that the idea of manifest destiny justifies taking land from the Native Americans. It doesn’t make sense to me why Bushnell would think that in order to justify their war Americans should go west, and take someone else’s land, even though they had nothing to do with the war. I also disagree with Bushnell’s idea that expansion justified all the deaths in the war. Although Bushnell may not think keeping one nation together and abolishing slavery provided enough justification for all the carnage I do, and I don’t think the third reason of expansion is necessary in order to justify the war.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with Horace Bushnell when he says that manifest destiny is an excuse for the expansion of the United States, at the expense of the Native Americans. He says "manifest destiny of national expansion, impelled in no small part by the need to compensate for war's cost." Even if the U.S. wanted to expand, Manifest Destiny is not a good enough reason to steal land from the Native Americans. The justification of all the lives lost during the war should not be that we expanded. It should be that their is no longer slavery and there is peace between the North and the South. I do not agree with Bushnell when he says that a good justification is expansion. He simply wants to take advantage of those who have lost loved ones and want there to be a reason for their death, and that he will have died for a purpose. But, that is not what the purpose was at all.
ReplyDeleteIn Response to Ben Grote:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that manifest destiny basically had nothing to do with the war. It was not justification for the war at all. I also agree that the nation staying united and the end of slavery is plenty of justifiction for the deaths of the Civil War.
“A little more than three months after Appomattox, Northern clergyman and Theologian Horace Bushnell celebrated Northern victory by placing the dead and their sacrifice at the center of wars accomplishment. The slain he declared, were “the price and purchase money of our triumph.”” [pg. 190] Faust later went on to explain that “Bushnell closed his oration by invoking a manifest destiny of national expansion.” [pg. 191] Bushnell later in the page goes on to explain that because of the Civil War’s sacrifice, Americans needed to settle out west. I completely agree with Bushnell’s comments here, even if it did mean that many Native Americans would be pushed out of their homeland. Since so many sacrificed their lives for the American Nation, there was a real need to honor them by expanding the nation. I think that this eventual expansion really united the nation both North and South. Before the war, the United States was practically two nations, split by the Mason Dixon line. By expanding the country out west, it made the United States whole again. It was exactly what the citizens needed at the time. Another reason that this needed to happen, was because of how much killing that had just taken place in the east. Many US citizens wanted to forget and get away from all of the death and carnage. Therefore many started settling west of the Mississippi River.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Brenna Hjelle:
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with Brenna Hjelle when she says that the “Expansion of the U.S. would not make things better for Americans. Winning the war should have been a reward in itself. The soldiers died for the abolition of slavery, and to slaughter Native Americans in order to expand the United States would go against everything they fought for.” In my opinion, I don’t think that the abolishment of slavery is the only thing that the Union soldiers were fighting for. Yes it was one thing, but the other main issue that the soldiers were fighting for, was freedom in itself. Even if it meant the killing of some Native Americans, I think that the country needed to move on from the war. And in my opinion, the only way to do this was to literally move away from all of the fields of killing. The west meant a better future, a future without the horrors of the Civil War.
Response to Austin Parr
ReplyDeleteI must disagree with Austin on the point that the white men had the right to take the land from the Native Americans. Just because the Americans had finished riddling their land with bodies didn’t mean that they could go and force the Native American’s off of the land that they had claimed first. “You get what you pay for, his oration implied”. [190] Couldn’t the product paid for have been unity? Did the Native Americans have to suffer because of what the states had brought upon themselves? “Death was not a loss, but both the instrument and substance of victory”. [190] Could the victory not have been a nation no longer divided? Why do we as a culture only see rewards as palpable substances?
In response to Ben:
ReplyDeleteI really like the point you came up with on how he was trying to justify the war. Although I disagree with what he said, I can understand why he was saying it. There were many people against the war, so he wanted to justify why the war was taking place. Bushnell is not the only one that tried to make others believe that any conflict was just fine. Throughout World history in every single tragedy, war, etc. there has been people that have tried to justify why this happened. They are trying to say that it was okay that the person or country did what they did. I think that this is wrong and incorrect for people that do horrible things be stood up for.
Like many of us, I strongly disagree with Bushnell's take on the civil war. He believed," bleeding was necessary to God's expansion." Well I believe that nobody's bleeding is necessary to God's expansion. From the first mention of Bushnell we knew he was a very radical man. "Horace Bushnell celebrated northern victory by placing the dead and their sacrific at the center of war's accomplishment." It takes a very mad man to be doing that. In every religious group and war group there are radicals amongst that group. Bushnell was definetly one of them.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Samantha Cook
ReplyDeleteI agree with your ideas. Bushnell wanted to give a reason for all the deaths in the Civil War. He could take advantage of all those people who lost their loved ones and try and explain it through manifest destiny. The War and all the deaths that resulted from it were no explanation to take the Native American's land. In reality, there was no reason for so many deaths to occur but they needed some reason for their soldiers to die.
In response to Abby:
ReplyDeleteI do agree Bushnell had good intentions. When I said, "to justify the carnage and sacrifice when he himself did not see death is not right" I meant he justified the killing as an expansion for the United States when to me, it felt like more. In response to your question about American's today to justify killing in the current war, I do not disagree with "we still try to provide justification and reasoning to why people die and are killed because of war." It is not wrong for people to do that. But in terms of Bushnell, he related it to the expansion of the United States which caused many Native American's to loose lives whereas we today justify it as safety to our country.
I disagree with Horace Bushnell’s idea that it was the United States destiny to expand to compensate for the war’s cost on the country. The war does not justify the right to remove and take land from the Native Americans. He went further and stated, “Bleeding, he asserted, was necessary to God’s expansive-and expensive-purposes for America (190).” I believe Bushnell did not understand the horrors and pain that the country was involved in and focused on his own wants and agenda. This was probably influenced by the fact he was well away from the war in Connecticut and had not seen the aftermath of the many bloody battles. It was selfish and naïve of him to disregard the massive tragedy the whole country was in for expansion. I also disagree with Horace’s statement that they must expand to justify the carnage and sacrifice of the soldiers. These soldiers fought and sacrificed themselves for freedom and patriotism, not to expand the country. The United States expanding wasn’t even a priority at this time and is not something considered during war.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Austin Parr:
ReplyDeleteAlthough it seems that expanding the country in honor of the fallen soldiers seems a justified action I still disagree with Horace Bushnell’s ideas. Honoring the dead who fell for what they believed in is honorable and respectful but it does not give a reason to expand and remove Native Americans from their land. However, you do make a good point that because of so much violence and death in the east many people were draw to expand in the west. This expanding helped reunite the country and to ease the pain and mourning.
Horace Bushnell felt that "like Christianity, history 'must feed itself on blood.'" He believed that the blood shed justified expansion and that expansion justified the blood that was shed. I do agree with the first part of his philosophy that expansion was necessary in order to make up for the blood shed. I don't believe that this must be done at the expense of the Native Americans. Bloodshed is not justified by more bloodshed. Also, I don't think that expansion meant that blood must be shed. Bushnell believed that in order to accomplish anything, death must be experienced. He went so far as to say that "'the slain...were the price and purchase money of our triumph.'" In my opinion, the slain were not the currency used to purchase victory, but that victory came to the side that was better equipped and better prepared for war. Anyone going into war with the expectation of winning through death will likely not win that war.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Austin:
ReplyDeleteI do not understand how you think that it was acceptable to "push Native Americans out of their homeland." They lived in peace and were not a part of the war. If they were a part of the fighting, it could be justified, but they were not. The Founding Fathers had already pushed them out of their homeland and they were already losing their space rapidly. Taking even more of it does not seem moral at all to me.
I disagree with Horace Bushnell's ideas that expansion of the United States was God's purpose for America, or that the blood of Union soldiers paid for our expansion. The Louisiana Purchase had been bought many years before, so it was already part of the US. The Mexican War had already been fought as well, so the Southwest was part of the US. The only parts of the US that weren't already part of the country at the time of the Civil War were Alaska and Hawaii. There wasn't much more in the way of manifest destiny, save for those two states and a few territories. I believe that even without the idea of manifest destiny, the US still would've pushed the country west into Indian territory, and we would've encroached on them anyway. But because of the idea of manifest destiny, many more people moved west than anyone could've predicted. How could anyone think that the blood of soldiers pays for the right to go take land from someone else. If the land was conquered by the soldiers whose blood was spilled, then yes. But to say that we could expand because our soldiers died for a different cause is twisted and wrong. The Civil War wasn't even about expanding America, but about keeping our nation whole and ending slavery.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Kaylie H.
ReplyDeleteHow could we expand any further? Except for Alaska and Hawaii, there was nowhere else for America to expand. Besides, there already had been blood shed over the expansion of America. But really, when you think about it, just because many men died fighting for the Union cause, or for any right cause, doesn't mean that you can just keep expanding. If that were true, then we would've taken over more land for the US after both World Wars, but that didn't happen.
I do not agree with Bushnell. Manifest destiny does not justify stealing land from Native Americans and killing them in cold blood. In my opinion, nothing does. I also do not agree with Bushnell when he states that expansion must occur to justify the carnage and sacrifice of the Civil War. Bushnell said that it was God's plan to expand America no matter what it takes. But to me that is sacreligious because one of the Commandments is to not kill. Why would God want blood to be shed in order to expand a country geographically? Nothing should really justify the killing of thousands of men in the Civil War. Bushnell said "the slain...were the price and purchase money of our triumph." I completely disagree with his ideas.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Orion-
ReplyDeleteI am with you when you said that "The soldiers did not die for expansion. They died to preserve the Union and abolish slavery." That was exactly my thought as I read this question and Bushnell's ideas. Why would the country be thinking about expansion right after the Civil War while it was dealing with the loss of thousands of people and the clean-up of the country? I was even a tiny bit confused as to what this had to do with the North winning the war and the justification of the deaths in the war.
In Response to Austin:
ReplyDeleteMost people in our country are not proud of how “Native Americans (were) pushed out of their homeland” in order to expand west. In fact the way the Americans treated Native Americans has been looked down upon for years. I would try to be careful when making a statement like, “even if it meant the killing of some Native Americans, I think that the country needed to move on from the war”, for you make it seem like you value the lives of the Native Americans less than US citizen’s quality of life. In my opinion Americans could have “honored soldiers” in a far better way than killing people who had nothing to do with the Civil War in the first place. If the comfort of Americans means more to you than the life of a person, I must strongly disagree.
Westward expansion shouldn’t have even been considered a reward for the Civil War for it didn’t have anything to do with the war in my opinion. Also, when you said, “many US citizens wanted to forget and get away from all of the death and carnage”, all throughout Faust’s book it was claimed that running away from problems did not solve them. For example the Civil War soldiers would have never been buried if Americans decided to move away. Running away from the battle sites was not what Americans needed because it didn’t solve anything, instead it turned into another war itself.
Response to Tanner:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, the war provides no justification for soldiers to continue marching west and then take land from Native Americans who weren’t involved in the war at all. Your point that Bushnell didn’t understand all the carnage and death in the war is probably correct. If Bushnell really understood all the pain the soldiers just experienced why would he then push them into a new war over more land? I also agree with your point that the soldiers died fighting for freedom and patriotism, but not expansion. When those soldiers died they believed they had died to end a war, not start another. It seems to me Bushnell’s ideas were clouded by his poor understanding of what the soldiers went through, and were not in the best interest for anybody at the time.
I completely disagree with Horace Bushnell. I do not see how the idea of manifest destiny justifies taking the land and lives of Native Americans. “Bleeding, he asserted, was necessary to God’s expansive-and expensive- purposes for America,” (190). I also do not see how bleeding is so necessary to expand America. Bushnell “had spent the war in Connecticut, distant from battlefields,” (191). He obviously did not understand what was going on in the war. So many people were dying and he thought that it was important for expansion. In my opinion, this is disrespectful to families of soldiers who died. They were fighting for what they believed in, not to expand the United States anymore. Families were still getting over their losses and Bushnell was there saying it was important they died, so that America could expand.
ReplyDeleteMaybe Bushnell was upset over all of the things happening in the United States at the time and he tried to think of things that made them alright. If this was the case, I don’t think that he thought of very many good ideas to justify stealing land from Native Americas, and many people dying in the war. However, I don’t think there is anything that could justify these things.
In response to Nicole:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. Nothing can justify stealing land from Native Americans and killing them. Expansion of land can not justify the many deaths of the Civil War either. Life is far more important than land. You also make a great point by saying that one of the Commandments is to not kill, so why would the expansion of America justify the killing of the many Americans?
In response to Austin:
ReplyDeleteI can understand what you mean when you say ‘. I think that this eventual expansion really united the nation both North and South,” and “It was exactly what the citizens needed at the time. Another reason that this needed to happen, was because of how much killing that had just taken place in the east. Many US citizens wanted to forget and get away from all of the death and carnage.” After a war where thousands upon thousands of soldiers died, people probably needed some way to get past it. However, I disagree with your statements, “Since so many sacrificed their lives for the American Nation, there was a real need to honor them by expanding the nation,” and “even if it did mean that many Native Americans would be pushed out of their homeland.” How does expansion honor the slain soldiers? It is not as if the soldiers were fighting for expansion. I can understand that a unified nation might honor the soldiers, but I don’t think all of the soldiers would have wanted that, particularly the Confederates. Finally, why should the Native Americans be punished for a war they never had a part in?
I do not agree with Bushnell in that taking or stealing land from the Native Americans is wrong as they were not involved in the war at all. And marching into territory that would only cause more massacre is not the right thing to do. Cause many Americans wanted to get away from the carnage not make it. So why move into a land to start another war when we were trying to get over one. Enough bloodshed has already taken place in the Civil War. So I don't believe that Bushnell's manifest destiny is warranted in taking land from Native Americans just to expand. Soldiers died for a union and to abolish slavery not to steal land and create more lives lost. Bushnell stated that it was God's doing to expand, but I disagree because God's commandment states that we shall not kill.
ReplyDeleteCorrection the commandment is not to kill. Sorry
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Bushnell on this subject because he had no experience with what was happening in the Civil War. "he had spent the war in Connecticut, distant from the battlefields" (pg. 191) Also Horace Bushnell was a selfish man who only cared for himself and the North. "His dead, the northern dead, could be explained as part of a larger purpose and grander plan. But for the defeated South, war's terrible losses could only seem meaningless." (pg. 191) To use the excuse of death to take over Native American land was hypocritical because many more people died in the fights against the Natives anyway. Bushnell's thoughts were twisted and I strongly disagree with his plan.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with Bushnell. "The slain he declared, were "the price and purchase money of our triumph"" Bushnell was never really anywhere near the war he spent his time a good distance away. So why can a man that never got anywhere near the war say some thing like this. He also states, you get what you pay for, what does this statement mean? By having a war and lots of people dieing we should go take away land that doesn't belong to us and causing more to die. That's what he was saying, we should take all this land oh but wait, there's people on it already, well, lets just kill them to. I disagree we caused enough pain and suffering. Enough blood was shed why should we go off and hurt people even more? "We are not the same people that we were, and never can be again." "A new understanding of nationhood as the incarnation of God's design has been purchased by, "the acres of dead"" So all the men that had died was payment? Payment for new land really that's what he thought? This incredible how he used a war and the dead as a way to say, "hey all these people died well it must be a sign that we need to go take all that land". He was wrong and when he says that all those men that had died was pay meant it makes a person think, how can anyone be so disrespectful they could say something like this?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Celina.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you he had no concept of the war and he was never around it. He was very selfish he didn't care about the dead at all. He had no respect for the dead shouldn't have been allowed to speak the way he did. People that stood there and listened to him weren't right either. Anyone that was around him while he was talking the way he was should have hit him. He was disrespecting the people that had died for they're beliefs. What man can do that, well, what man can be respected and still do this. What he said was wrong and horrible.
I strongly disagree with Bushnell. Yes he was correct that it was a hard fought battle. But just because the North won it did not give the United States the rights to the rest of the land. It depends on what religion you believe in but in my opinion if God thought the U.S. deserved the rest of America he wouldn’t have put other people there. We pushed the Native Americans from the land that was originally theirs. Bushnell is saying because of how much the country suffered and how much blood was shed they deserved this land. But expanding the country only led to more fighting and more bloodshed. We did not need to expand to pay a “tribute” to the dead, “Bleeding, he asserted, was necessary to God’s expansive- and expensive- purpose for America.” (190). I think Bushnell had the wrong idea.
ReplyDeleteBushnell’s reasons for expansion were ridiculous. His orations implied that “you get what you pay for,” (pg 190). The problem with Bushnell’s idea is that he has forgotten that all he paid for was victory over the Confederate States of America. That’s it. Bushnell quotes that “the South’s terrible losses seem meaningless,” thus implying that there need to be justification of their death. Bushnell also must’ve forgotten that the Confederates lost the war. As soon as Lee surrendered, the South had accepted their defeat. There was nothing to be justified. Losing a war like that is a terrible thing, but when you go into a war in the first place, you are risking defeat. When the south finally lost, Bushnell needed to accept their defeat and not continue to kill more people because it is the United States’ destiny. Using the same principles as Bushnell did when he expected direct reward for the north’s victory as well as compensation for the south’s lost; God would’ve killed off the Indians himself if he really wanted the United States to expand at the expense of the Indians. God wouldn’t make more soldiers risk their life to justify the losses of their Civil War counterparts and offset the “balance flow of such blood,” (pg 191). I don’t agree with Bushnell at all.
ReplyDeleteThis question is kind of a catch 22. In some ways, I agree with Horace Bushnell on saying that the North deserved manifest destiny. They had won the war, so they should get the land. They unfortunately took the land from the Native Americans and shoved then on a reservation. I of course think this is appalling, but then again, I can see the justification of this. People in the United States during the Civil War time had still not gotten used to the fact that the only difference between them and African Americans was the skin color. They probably thought that way about the Native Americans, who they sometimes called savages. Their views of people and their social status were so skewed that their moral compass had no problem pointing to manifest destiny at the expense of the Native Americans. So basically I do not agree with Bushnell on pushing the Native Americans off their land for manifest destiny, or for the prize of winning the war, or justifying the carnage and sacrifice because he should have been pleased enough with just winning the war.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Nina Roy:
ReplyDeleteI agree that using “the excuse of death to take over Native American land was hypocritical.” You make a good point. I disagree, however, that his lack of “experience with what was happening in the Civil War,” had so much to do with his thoughts about manifest destiny. Although he was “distant from the battlefields,” (pg 191), and didn’t have nearly have as much knowledge as a person like Robert E. Lee about the happenings of the war, I think he had a pretty good idea about what was going on. After all, we live far away in Colorado, 1,000 miles and 150 years away from any of the battles; he was a lot closer than us, yet we still are able to educate ourselves about the war. Obviously, we live in a time where people have a lot easier access to that information. However, I think that his chronological proximity to the events makes up for the lack of access he had to every detail. I think that Bushnell’s thoughts were twisted merely because he doesn’t understand society.
I disagree with Bushnell. He thought that the war was a trail by God. After God had seen that America was ready, Bushnell believed that God gave us the right to Manifest Destiny. What Americans did to complete that destiny was wrong. We destroyed Native American cultures and more fighting. How is it that God gives people the right to take others land and make more violence? I do not believe that Bushnell's thoughts were right.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Blake:
ReplyDeleteIO agree with you totally. We didn't have the right to expand at the expense of the Native Americans, but could they have stopped the progress that American's wanted so much?
I agree with Jamie Baumgarten. "Bleeding was...."not" necassary to God's expansion...purposes for America" (pg 190) As much as I am a christian, I don't think God wanted us to take land from people who we had no right to take them from. Not only am I chirstian, I'm also Choctaw and the Choctaw were one of the first tribes nearly wiped out when our land was being taken from us through lying, cheating,and bribery. I disagree with everything that Bushnell shed. If there was a way to change things about all the bloodshed, I'm sure some people would've happily have found another way to compromise without a war.
ReplyDeleteHorace Bushnell believed that "Bleeding...was necessary to God's expansive-and expensive-purposes for America" (pg. 190). I disagree with Bushnell for the reason that expansion had nothing to do with the Civil War. Apparently, victory was not enough for Horace. He wanted to push his success to the fullest and find a justification for the war. Bushnell supported manifest destiny of national expansion and believed that the only way to settle the tragedy was to push the borders outward. To him, "War's destructiveness called for broadened purposes" (pg. 191). Bushnell was obviously greedy and therefore, his ideas were unusual and unsupportive.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jordyn Voegele,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the North did not have the right to own the rest of the land although it was a tough battle. The United States belonged to the Native Americans in the first place. We had already pushed them out of some land that was originally theirs, but Bushnell wanted more. Our sacrifice did not need to be rewarded by taking someone else's freedom away.
In response to Cameron W.:
ReplyDeleteI do agree with you that Bushnell didn't understand society and that is why he said the things he said. You also made a good point about how "we still are able to educate ourselves about the war." Although Bushnell was closer to the battles than we are now, communication back then took a very long time. Bushnell might have been more educated about the war than us but his ideas were not right at all.
In response to Stephanie R
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of what you’re saying. But when you say, “They had won the war, so they should get the land,” Why do they deserve the land? They were fighting against each other. They didn’t fight for the land out west. It would have been different if they had fought the person that had already owned that land but that wasn’t what was happening at the time. I do like how you said the Native Americans and the Blacks were thought of the same because of their skin color. I had never really thought about it as the same situation. We took the black’s from their own home and it eventually led to fighting. In the Native American situation we pushed them from their land which eventually led to more fighting. I guess in this situation history really did repeat itself.
In response to Evan Lanz…
ReplyDeleteI agree with Eva’s quote stating, “Well I believe that nobody’s bleeding is necessary to God’s expansion.” This quote sort of points out the hypocritical side of Horace Bushnell. He claims to being a Christian and expanding for the will of God, but he is almost giving a reward because people were killed by the thousands. It’s like giving a kid some candy after he punched his dad. Bushnell wanted Manifest Destiny, so he used the excuse of the war to get what he wanted.
I see where Bushnell is coming from, but I think he has the wrong idea. I think that the way to justify the carnage in the Civil War would be to take pride in the emancipation of the slaves and the reunification of the Nation. I mean, this war sucked, but it’s important not to lose sight of the fact that the original justification of the war was freeing the slaves and reuniting the nation. So I will have to remain natural on this one. Do I think that America should spread from coast to coast? Absolutely. Do I think it should have been done differently, with as little native suffering as possible? Absolutely. Like I said there is no real justification to the carnage expect for the first reasons they went to war. But on the manifest destiny issue, I think that it was important for America to expand because as an influential democracy, it’s necessary for the US to be able to promote its ideals. Which would be impossible, had America not sought to increase in size.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Bushnell, his idea doesn't make any senesce. They had just fought in a war and had tremendous causalities now he wants to go and steal land from the natives and probably spark more fighting. And as almost every one else has said the civil war was fought to free the slaves and to reunite the nation not to justify more fighting to expand the country. I do believe eventually America did need to expand but not now. So I think Bushnell's idea was ridiculous and out of reach.
ReplyDeleteIn response to David,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you when you say "How is it that God gives people the right to take others land and make more violence?" David is right we should have followed a more peaceful manifest destiny. Not just kicking every one we see out of their land or killing them.
Jonah (Ultra nationalism and pure logic will lead you to Bushnell's theories) - Seeing as practically everyone has been disagreeing with Bushnell I must there unconditionally agree with all his ideas and theories. Bushnell needed to justify the blood that was lost in the Civil War to himself and all U.S. citizens. Every war has a victor at its end. Even today's wars always have spoils for the victorious side wither you can find them or not. If we didn't go into war to gain something why would we go into them? Jesus sacrificed his life so that everyone can repent of their sins. The Union soldiers sacrificed their lives so that we can expand our country rather then lose almost half of the land already acquired. Sure you can hide under the banner that the only thing to gain from the Civil War was the end of slavery, but for many such as Bushnell that wasn't enough to justify the death. Plus right after a large war a country is going to have many more loyal well trained prepared fighting machines ready to continue fighting and expanding. It only makes sense to use this inconvenience to everyone of your country's advantage. Bushnell's manifest destiny demanded that the US use their resources as easily as possible which happened to be expanding west through the land currently inhabited by Amerindians. Bushnell knew that he needed to justify the carnage to the people and knew the best way to do it, and in my mind pure genius. So much for the expense of the Amerindians; country comes first far before unindustrialized peoples that provide no mass product to ones own nation. So by simply think logically and with no emotion to ones fellow beings one can end at the conclusion that Bushnell's plan was not only logical, but economically beneficial, necessary and unavoidable.
ReplyDeleteJonah- in response to Jonah Duerst: Where do you get off? Amerindians owned the land to the west first and why does the U.S. have the right to take that land away from them. Bushnell was crazed about expanding to attempt to get rich in the west with no expense to his everyday life. If you only use logic and forget to involve emotion than you just need to get better logic. Logic is a very loose term and can be twisted and turned to any direction. The soldiers that fought during the Civil War and later against the Amerindians were in no way a resource. They are humans and so are the Amerindians and must be treated as such. Plenty of wars are fought now days and I see no spoils come home from them. They are fought solely to stop bad men from ruining my everyday life. We don’t gain anything and anyways freeing the black slaves and keeping the U.S. whole were fine enough reasons for the blood spilt in the Civil War.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Bushnell's idea that manifest destiny gave them the right to kill native americans, in order to expand their land. The Native Americans owned the land first, and therefore, they had no right to take the land from them. You can't really justify killing people for expanding your own land and benefit. I dont think that expansion justifies the death of the war. You can't really say that just because so many of your soldiers died, you deserve to expand your country, because the enemy could say the exact same thing. Although many people died, thats just part of the war, and you can't really do anything to justify it.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Steven:
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said about there being no real justification for carnage except the original cause of the war. I think that the justification is getting what you originally wanted out of the war. Although one side will end up without as much justification as the other, you can't really get justification for something that doesn't even have to do with the war.
In response to David White
ReplyDeleteYea, I’m going to have to disagree with you there. I think that although it was hard for the natives, Bushnell saw the importance of America becoming a great nation, and I think that democracy could not have been so easily promoted worldwide had America retained its original Civil War size. I think that without growth, America would have just been an insignificant country and the good democratic ideals would have been rejected by the world.
I do not agree with Bushnell’s belief of expansion. Even though the north had won the war, that does not give them the right to take the rest of America, from the Native Americans. We had pushed the Native Americans from their land that they had been on for much longer than the Europeans. “Bleeding, was necessary to God’s expansive—and expensive—purposes for America, and ‘in this blood our unity is cemented and forever sanctified.’” (190) Bushnell is saying because of how much the country suffered and how much blood was shed they deserved this land. That does not mean taking it from others. Also, by taking over the Native Americans land, it led to more fighting. Therefore I do not agree with Bushnell’s belief of expansion.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jamie:
ReplyDeleteI like how in your post you said that “The war happened because of man's pride and ignorance.” I had not thought about it in that way.
I do not agree with Horace Bushnell's idea of the expansion of the United States. I do not agree with his belief that "bleeding was necessary to God's expansive and expensive purposes for America" as Faust states on page 190. I do not think that war would ever have a purpose in America for anything other than fixing the reason there is a conflict in the war and helping America with what needs to be done according to the conflict.I also do not agree with Bushnell when he says that the expansion had to occur to justify the war's carnage. I do not think that expansion would have anything to do with that. There were many other ways to justify the war's carnage.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Kaylie:
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with you when you say that "the slain were not the currency to purchase victory, but that victory came to the side that was better equipped and better prepared for war." It does make a lot of sense. It was not death that paid the price of victory but instead the work of the soldiers and as you said how well they were prepared for the war.
I don't agree with Bushnell's ideas that manifest destiny justifies the expansion of the united states at the expense of the Indians because the Indians never did anything to deserve what happened to them and the Americans pushed them out of their country, claiming that that they had a right to manifest destiny and the indians were in their way. On the other hand i do agree with Bushnell when he says expansion must occur to justify the civil war because that is the main reason why the south said they wanted the war, in order to expand their territory, so when the war ended the north had the right to expand, but not at the expense of the native people.
ReplyDeleteTo believe, even for a second, that Native Americans can be sacrificed to promote "Manifest Destiny" is wrong. In fact, perhaps the whole concept of "Manifest Destiny" is based on inequality and elitism. Expansion that disregards the rights of others or the entitlement to expand is selfish and corrupt. To believe that God's "purposes for America" required murder and inequality was ignorant and elitist.
ReplyDeleteThe war was not started to promote expansion, nor at any time was that the overall goal of the conflict. No justification is needed for the war, as the reasons driving it were pure and strong enough alone. No postwar objective or entitlement was needed. Nor was any number of killed men the "price and purchase-money of our [country's] triumph." (pg 190)
In response to Steven Simpson,
ReplyDeleteI thoroughly disagree with your statement about promoting Democracy. The current state of our country is a success. And perhaps a smaller country would not have the global hold ours currently does. But the end does not justify the means. Think of what Nazi Germany believed. They taught that Jewish and non-Arian races needed to be eliminated. Even if one were to believe that these statements had been correct, the end would not justify the means. This very thing is true about the slaughter of the Native Americans. Even if the world is a better place today because of it, the acts Americans committed were still wrong.
I find it hard to make the connection between the Union Victory and expansion, except for maybe the expansion of the idea of “liberty for all”. But the United States was bound to expand and, while I feel bad for any suffering, the Natives were merely outplayed by a more capable opponent . . . survival of the fittest type of thing. And I also believe that the North should’ve been happy enough that they freed the slaves and that should’ve been the pay off for all the carnage.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jamie in disagreeing with Bushnell's ideas on expansion. Personally I don't anyone should of had the right to remove Native Americans from their homes and land centuries ago, or ever for a matter of fact, they were here first and therefore it will be their homeland forever regardless of who claims it... it is rightfully theirs.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Brenna:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the winning the war is enough help for the U.S. in itself and by expanding the U.S. it wouldn't help us at all. It's unfair to focus the North's winnings, after all of their hard work and all they went through, and turn it right around into another war, fighting against the Native Americans would be so unfair to them. They just need to give the North time to celebrate and expand America later.