Westward Expansion DBQ Essay

Permissiveness coupled with a self-righteous entitlement is not considered very flattering on anyone, much less a developing young country. The loose handle the US government had in the 1800s on its land-hungry constituents contributed to the worst (but among the most overlooked) genocide in recorded history. The few preventative actions taken by the federation to slow the quickening roll of excessive expansion were overruled or overlooked by the citizens. Deciding that the east coast was no longer enough to satiate their appetite for possession, they looked to the west. Imagining themselves to be Moses, claiming their promised land, the settlers surged westward, citing Manifest Destiny, a concept that suggested providence had intended the

One can list the boons of western expansion — more opportunities for innovation; trains; more land for the colonists; increased trade opportunities, in both products and transportation, but none of these benefitted natives. In fact, they harmed Amerinds, pushing them to the brink of total extinction, and seemed to soil everything in nature that they had nurtured. "My heart feels like bursting; I feel sorry," Santana, the Chief of the Kiowa, said of the changes wrought by the foreigners (document G). They had every right and more to feel hurt, as Westward Expansion and the outstandingly poor treatment of natives contributed the largest, but most under-discussed, genocides in the Common Era, if not history. At least 100 million North or South American natives were killed by white or European settlers, according to the Smithsonian, whether from battle, pestilence, dislodging, or some other tribulation. There was really no way for the natives to win. This persecution lasted several decades. "In 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed into effect the Homestead Act, which gave 160 acres west of the Mississippi, to any man who was willing to farm it," Northern Arizona University reported. Even the beloved sixteenth president contributed to the auctioning off of land that was not the US's to give away. Through increments of 160 acres, the natives' possession of land was chipped away,

This is generally (and most appropriately) used in regard to physics, but it is certainly applicable in a glut of subjects, perhaps most of all in history. This can be extrapolated to Western Expansion quite well. For every bit of land claimed for the new Americans, that same amount was taken from the natives. A buffalo had to die for a trader to profit from its fur. Dozens of trees had to be slashed down in order to slash the debts of a builder. When the US annexed yet another area, they lost potential allies. The opposite reaction matched the cause, the boons, of Western Expansion in power, even outrivaling them on some occasions. There's no official designation for the worth of a human life. Are they invaluable, or should they be considered dispensable when advances might occur? There is no way to appraise in true accuracy the value of the environment — but what is the worth of trees, of animals? Are reputation, unity, and agreement so inestimable? Moreover, are all of these things combined worth something so basic as land? The benefits of Western Expansion simply do not outweigh the numerous consequences. To say they do is to devalue the 100 million human lives lost, the very environment that it sought to expand, and the shaky economy it sought to sober. To dismiss it as an act of human error is appalling incorrect, and disregardful of everything that was sacrificed in order to build the