Manifest Destiny

When you hear talk of manifest destiny, what you’re hearing is someone discussing a policy of imperialistic expansion defended as necessary or benevolent. In fact, it was believed in the 19th century that God had given the United States of America not only a right, but a duty, to expand across North America even that expansion was at the expense of those who already inhabited the land.

Recently, the GAP offered T-shirts with the phrase Manifest Destiny emblazoned on them, and due to public outcry, they removed them from shelves quickly.  Why?  Because manifest destiny was the excuse used by non-Natives to abuse and destroy the livelihood, culture, heritage and way of life of the North American Indian who welcomed Europeans to North America’s shores.

In the book, “Providence and the Invention of the United States: 1607 – 1876” by Nicholas Guyatt and published in 2007, the author wrote:

Finally, and in the hands of more cynical exponents, manifest destiny could be used to make controversial objectives seem not only assured but consistent with the course of American history. During the Mexican War, as overzealous expansionists argued for the extension of the United States to the isthmus and even for the replacement of the existing Mexican population with a new wave of American settlers, this cynicism was assailed in the halls of Congress and threatened to contaminate the providential idiom entirely. But taken as a whole, manifest destiny proved remarkably durable over the ambiguousness and shifting ground on which manifest destiny’s proponents had briefly united.

In a speech by one-time Speaker of the House of Representatives, Robert Charles Winthrop (12 May 1809 – 16 November 1894), as representative for the state of Massachusetts, to the House of Representatives on January 3, 1846, the following was said with regards to a resolution that had been table with regards to the termination of the joint occupation of Oregon:

I mean that new revelation of right which has been designated as the right of our manifest destiny to spread over this whole continent. It has been openly avowed in the leading Administration journal that this, after all, is our best and strongest title — one so clear, so re-eminent, and so indisputable, that if Great Britain had all our other titles in addition to her own, they would weight nothing against it. The right of our manifest destiny!

The idiom was one that American columnist and editor, John L. O’Sullivan (15 November 1813 – 24 March 1895) used in an editorial he wrote for the New York Morning News entitled, “Manifest Destiny” published on December 27, 1845 — one week before the expression was first introduced to Congress by Robert C. Winthrop. The editorial read in part:

To state the truth at once in its neglected simplicity, we are free to say that were the respective cases and arguments of the two parties, as to all these points of history and law, reversed — had England all ours, and we nothing but hers — our claim to Oregon would still be best and strongest. 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.

John L. O’Sullivan had used the idiom earlier in an article he wrote for the United States Magazine and Democratic Review in the summer of 1845. The article was entitled, “Annexation.” In that editorial, he wrote that Americans had certain rights described as follows:

… by 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 federatative self-government entrusted to us.

Many believe that John L. Sullivan coined the phrase, and while it’s true that he used the idiom, he did not coin it.

When American preacher and theologian, Andrews Norton (31 December 1786 – 18 September 1853) published his book entitled, “A Discourse on the Latest Form of Infidelity” on July 19, 1839 — one that was entered according to Act of Congress in the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts — he had something to say about manifest destiny.

There is a favorite phrase, of frequent use in popular addresses — manifest destiny. It is said to be the manifest destiny of this race to spread over this whole continent, carrying with it its laws, institutions and enterprise. The expression is unfortunate, and requires qualification … Destiny implies a tendency to a fixed end without the power of any agent to prevent.

From this, the fact emerges that the idiom was used often in 1839 and with the expectation of being understood by those who heard it said or read it in published works.

Four years earlier, in a book entitled, “A Discourse Upon The Life, Character, and Services of the Honorable John Marshall” authored by U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Joseph Story (18 September 1779 – 10 September 1845) and published on October 15, 1835 — also entered according to the Act of Congress that year by the publisher, James Munroe & Co., in the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts — the following passage was included, attributed to Mr. Winthrop. The speech was made to the House being in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and having to do with appropriations for the improvement of specific rivers and harbors.

We rejoice, too, that the great West is waking up to a consciousness of her own interests, and her own rights, in relation to the exercise of this power. We rejoice that she is rapidly reaching a strength and a maturity, when these interests must be consulted, and these rights allowed. We hail her advent to the political mastery over our affairs as most auspicious,in this respect at least, to the general welfare of the nation. We will go with her in the fulfillment of her “manifest destiny” in this way, if in no other. We look to her mighty and majestic voice, as it shall come up, at no distant day, from a vast majority of the whole people of the Union inhabiting her rich and happy valleys, to command the resumption of a policy which has been too long suspended; to overrule both the votes and the vetoes by which it has been paralyzed …

Years before, with the publication in 1821 of a book entitled, “In Commemoration of the First Settlement of New England” by Congressman for Massachusetts, Daniel Webster (18 January 1782 – 24 October 1852) and dated December 22, 1820 the following not only speaks of manifest destiny but speaks passionately about its place American society.

If otherwise, who is there in the whole breadth and length of the land, that will care for the consistency of the present incumbent of the office? There will then be new objects. Manifest destiny will have pointed out some other man. Sir, the eulogies are now written, the commendations of praise are already elaborated. I do not say everything fulsome, but everything panegyrical, has already been written out, with blanks for names, to be filled when the Convention shall adjourn. When manifest destiny shall be unrolled, all these strange panegyrics, wherever they may light, made beforehand, laid up in pigeon-holes, studied, framed, emblazoned and embossed, shall all come out, and then there will be found to be somebody in the United States whose merits have been strangely overlooked, marked out by Providence, a kind of miracle, while all will wonder, that nobody ever thought of him before, as a fit and the only fit man to be at the head of this great Republic!

It is most probable that with the use of the idiom in 1820, that it comes from some time after the American Revolutionary War between the United States and Great Britain when the Treaty of Paris was signed on September 3, 1783. Five years later, the United States Constitution was adopted after New Hampshire ratified it. The concept of manifest destiny began to be seen in earnest with the Louisiana Purchase of 1803 (thereby doubling the size of the United States), the manifest destiny expansion of the North American continent was in full swing.

Idiomation pegs the idiom to sometime between 1783 and 1803, although the concept seems to have been around considerably longer. Unfortunately, Idiomation was unable to find an earlier published mention of manifest destiny than Daniel Webster’s use in 1820.

Beat The Dutch

The phrase beat the Dutch has been replaced by other expressions over the years such as beat the band and beat all.  However, it’s a strange phrase indeed and one wonders why beat the Dutch would mean that what is being spoken about surpasses anything else those speaking have ever seen or read, especially in a strange, incredible or amazing way!

The phrase beat the Dutch, was  referred to by the writer as a less than complimentary expression, in a piece published in the New York Times on February 16, 1953.   The piece reflected on the manner in which expressions have marginalized those from Holland.  The piece began by stating:

It is unfortunate — and remarkable — that in our English language the adjective generally has an opprobrious or uncomplimentary connotation — especially since the residents of the lowlands of Holland have time and again demonstrated their courage and tenacity in the face of tremendous odds.

On September 27, 1899 the New York Times published an article entitled, “Dewey Arrives Ahead Of Time: The Olympia, Two Days Early, Anchors In The Lower Bay.” It was a very lengthy news story which included part of a conversation overheard on the streets between foot patrolman, an elderly lady, a pretty girl and a bystander on the street.  It had to do with the Dewey triumphal arch and other works of art in Admiral Charles Dewey’s honour that were being completed at Madison Square.

It’s the Metropolitan Museum ya mean, Mum.  Take this care, and tell the conductor to transfer ye to the Fourt’ An’noo cars at Astor Place, and git off at Eighty-second Street and walk west.  Wait till the passengers gets off, Mum.  There you are all right — go ahead, Jack. Say, young feller, (to a bystander) don’t these here sightseers beat the Dutch?

Back on May 17, 1850 the Daily Evening Transcript published a theatre review of a play showcasing at the Boston Theatre.  The review was included in the column entitled, “Walks About Town.”  It stated in part:

Whether human or not, we wouldn’t like to say, but this much we do say, that Javelli comes as near, in deeds of deviltry, & c, the Luciferian gentleman as anybody ever seen in Boston; “and that’s something,” as Daniel Webster said of Old Tip’s honesty.  In fact, they all “beat the Dutch” and everybody knows the Dutch beat the Devil.

Essex Gazette published a delightful song parody in their December 7, 1775 edition that included this verse:

And besides all the mortars, bombs, cannon and shells,
And bullets and guns— as the newspaper tells,
Our cargoes of meat, drink and clothes beat the Dutch;
Now who would not tarry, and take t’other touch?

In the end, however, the expression came into vogue in the years following the purchase of the Island of Manhattan from the North American Indians living on the land by the first Dutch Governor of the Province of New Netherland, Peter Minnewit (1580 – 1638) on May 24, 1626.   The selling price was 50 guilders worth of trade goods, or just $24 USD.  From that point onward, anything that was more impressive than this transaction was said to “beat the Dutch.”