In 3-5 sentences, present a case for or against Manifest Destiny. Your writing should include the following words: Providence, democracy, expansion

The essence of these concepts was initially that the US should stretch from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean (a kind of expression of romanticism with which the colonists explored the continent). "Our clear destiny is to fill the entire continent, destined by Providence for the free development of the millions of our people that are multiplying annually." This idea was used to cover the seizure of a number of territories in Mexico (Upper California and New Mexico), as well as part of the territories inhabited by Indians (modern Oregon).

At the present stage, the content of these doctrines consists in the proclamation and spread of freedom and democracy (that is, messianism), since namely the United States is the "zone of freedom" (which at that time had to be extended to all of North America), in which divine principles prevail (they permeated the Declaration of Independence), and, at the present stage, these are the principles of equality and inalienability of rights (in fact, the same thing). Moreover, the adoption of freedom and democracy is promoted not only among Americans, but also among other peoples around the world. These ideas are presented under the guise of "spreading democracy", "establishing world peace", "international cooperation" or "new world order", etc. Naturally, this is possible only with the actual adoption of American values, followed by the gradual adoption of a corresponding ideology. The right of an "exclusive nation" to its distribution is justified by the selectivity of this people, starting a "new history" in which the Americans are destined from above to become a great people.

The expansionist tendencies in US foreign policy were especially intensified during the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, who professed the Mahan doctrine of the superiority of the Anglo-Saxons at sea and claimed to be the guide of the whole world by Anglo-Americans.

When the United States finally established itself as a world leader, they naturally ceased to be neutral in European affairs. More often this happened due to the fact that if any international conflicts arose, its parties tried, if not to enlist the support of the most powerful state in the world, then invite America as an arbiter to resolve the situation.

The US Doctrine of Preventive Self-Defense sometimes considers regime change as a strategic goal of humanitarian intervention. It includes a claim to the use of force unilaterally, which has clearly received more legitimacy since when NATO forces bombed, for example, Serbia and Kosovo in 1999.