When expansion started westward, advocates thought the expansion would be peaceful (Goldfield #364). This could have worked, but the actions that were taken place did not let this happen. Along the way of expansion, some groups lost land and cultural independence due to the expansion. Mexican and …show more content…
Results of this would lead the Mexican and Indians as the inferior race. The earliest European settlers came to the New World for religious freedom, they are now taking religious freedom from others for not having the same beliefs as them. Americans were supposed to be the ones from God, they were spreading their beliefs, but it came to a point that is was more of a forceful way than a peaceful one. Americans had good morals as they wanted everyone to believe in the same God that they did and they were spreading his name, but the manner of doing this was not a manner that may not have shown their beliefs. From a reality perspective, forcefully controlling others to do what Americans needed them to do was the easier way. This may have been the more efficient way than trying to talk to the other groups about changing their ways and leaving their land. Americans were trying to do what was best for their people. From a moral point of view, Americans actions did not justify how they said they were. From a certain perspective it seems that they were doing what was best for them and were not worried how the Indians and Mexicans were affected. The doctrine justified the