Penny, I have always been conflicted by my understanding of "Manifest Destiny." On the one hand, I agree with what I understand it means to the extent to which it applies to westward territorial expansion within what are our current borders. It is hard to conceive of a geographic alternative to our current borders other than our present borders, but that is a 20th-21st century mind speaking.

However, using "Manifest Destiny" to justify the mass relocation of indigenous peoples within our borders or the movement of those same peoples from their traditional home geography to far less desirable, distant geographies gives me personal problems that I am unable to resolve - probably because it taints "Manifest Destiny" with racial/ethnic overtones.

Last, I sense that the entire notion of "Manifest Destiny" is at work in the background today to justify or explain our posture with respect to America's role and responsibilities in the entire Western Hemisphere.

There was a time when that also bothered me. Nowadays, however, and for national security-related reasons, I find myself welcoming the doctrines (if it exists anywhere other than in the mind of man) of "Manifest Destiny," in combination with the Monroe Doctrine (neither of which I consider myself too knowledgeable on) to protect our Hemispheric interests and existence - both of which are currently being severely tested by several countries in our Hemisphere (Cuba, Venezuela, et al). I guess that is an example of how time and changing circumstances alters the meaning and interpretation of long-held notions and words such as slavery, state's rights and - "Manifest Destiny."