Was the Westward expansion of the US morally justified?

No. The U.S. is an (((Anglo))) abomination which has no right to rule of the mostly Germanic Western settlers.

Attached: 1520778652282.jpg (945x709, 177K)

manifest destiny?

The German fears the Anglo

The Germanics successfully cleared the West of subhumans, the Western U.S. would be a paradise if it wasn't for the (((Eternal Anglo))) constantly flooding our lands with kikes, niggers, gooks and spics.

Attached: AncestryMap.jpg (1484x1108, 372K)

Germans make good cannon-fodder but I don't think you want the US to be a military dictatorship.

Yes, much of it was bought from France, Spain. Straight up fucking bought.
Indians didn't have a real state, so nothing was stolen.
Manhattan was bought for fucking beads
Indians btfo

>retarded faggot whose country was founded by anglos and their enlightenment values hates anglos

i don't think i'll never not hate americans, you guys are so fucking stupid

>Yes, much of it was bought from France, Spain. Straight up fucking bought.
Good point. The left-wing histories don't mention that at all, which really reveals their agenda to portray the US as bad.
aeon.co/essays/how-were-1-5-billion-acres-of-land-so-rapidly-stolen

The Indians had this land for thousands of years and did fuck all with it.

Ironic considering all fags do is complain about it while at the same time benefitting from that manifest destiny which they hate so much. Without it they'd have no home or any of the comforts they enjoy

Morality can justify literally anything. Manifest Destiny was considered moral. The Holocaust was considered moral. The Great Purge was considered moral.

That doesn't mean moral truth doesn't exist tho

Yes, yes it does you retard.

How does people disagreeing mean moral truth doesn't exist?

Attached: ....jpg (267x400, 135K)

Because you can never have a universal moral system that fits any place, any time, and any context. Morals are specific to a given culture at a given time, and in a specific context.

>Because you can never have a universal moral system that fits any place, any time, and any context.
Why not?
People disagreeing doesn't show this; it just shows they disagree.
Slavery isn't acceptable just because people used to think so.

How is it a moral truth, it they thought it was a good idea at that time period? Why is your sensibilities in the here and now somehow the "truth" but for them was "false"?

Maybe they were wrong and we are right.
Proving that I'm right would take a lot longer than I'm willing to spend, but don't you think that I might be able to?

Of course.

It killed american republicanism actually and caused civil war

>It killed american republicanism
What u mean by this

Not really but who cares

Big countries can't be self-governing countries. All big countries are empires and need imperial organisation. Centralization, bureaucratization, juristocracy. Wasn't Jefferson against expansion towards West?

>"Not really"

How many Indians do you think their were?

They were corraled into a fee tiny 10,000 acre reservations.

The land was literally empty.

Wouldn't larger countries tend to have more federalisation and less centralisation? Seems rational to me

...

First prove that it needs to be.

>Wouldn't larger countries tend to have more federalisation and less centralisation? Seems rational to me
Nope. Look at what happened in the US. They expanded westwards, had a civil war, and then the centralization of the USA began. Southern secession was the last act of republicanism

Look at Russia - it's all centralized

And then look at Switzerland - it's decentralized on the other hand

Switzerland is decentralised because it's filled with people from all different cultures. It's just a way of keeping the peace.
Russia is really the Russian federation. Doesn't really help your case.
This isn't something I know that much about, I just know that empires tend to have a lot of federalism compared to the average nation state

>Russia is really the Russian federation
in name only, the reality is that Russia is hypercentralized

>Switzerland is decentralised because it's filled with people from all different cultures. It's just a way of keeping the peace.
It's decentralised because it can be decentralised. Jean Jacques Rousseau thought Switzerland is a perfect state for practicing republicanism/democracy

Yes, the stupid feather niggers had no use for it.

>in name only, the reality is that Russia is hypercentralized
What are you basing this on? Like I said I don't know much but there are lots of different minorities that have their own governments

>It's decentralised because it can be decentralised
A large state could also be decentralised. Like the Roman Empire, the British Empire, the Ottoman Empire, etc.
In general I think a large state would have a more diverse population so would adopt more decentralisation.
I can't think of many small states that aren't fake countries that have multiple different languages, but let's say Poland, how much decentralisation is there where you are, compared to the US?

>What are you basing this on?
windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2017/11/hyper-centralization-killed-byzantium.html

>Like the Roman Empire, the British Empire, the Ottoman Empire, etc.
Roman Empire was founded only after Julius Caesar and Augustus collected almost all offices in one hand. Didn't you hear about the phrase "comedy of the republic"?

>the British Empire
imperial colonies weren't ruled by local people but by appointees from some far away and I suppose they were given many restrictions as to what they can do

>but let's say Poland, how much decentralisation is there where you are, compared to the US?
Barely any, but it's because Poland is a fake country created by the Germans and Soviets so you can barely call that Poland