The Melian Dialogue and Manifest Destiny

           Thucydides' account of the dialogue between the people of Melos and representatives of Athens has long been a touchstone of texts in International Relations.  The substance of the text and the historical events that transpired are not the important things here, however.  What is important is how the concepts of authority and submission play out between the Melians and Athenians.   Upon reading this dialogue we are quick to side with the Melians as the ones "in the right"; they are, in our opinion, the ones being unjustly coerced by a superior nation.   However, an interesting parallel can be drawn between the actions of the Athenians and the actions of the United States under Manifest Destiny.

            In the Melian Dialogue, Thucydides recalls that Athens is currently in the midst of the Peloponnesian War against Sparta and its allies.  The Athenians arrive in Melos, peacefully, to offer the Melians a deal: submit to Athenian rule and Athens will protect Melos.  Athens, because of its current bout against Sparta, cannot afford to perceived as “weak” as it fears that this perception would make the Athenian empire unstable.  Another major argument used by the Athenians revolved around justice; more specifically, since Melos was so dramatically weaker than Athens, they had no right to justice, stating that “when one side is stronger, it gets as much as it can, and the weak must accept that” (Thucydides, 103).  In the Athenians’ view, their military superiority usurps the Melians’ right to justice.  The Melians reject the offer, arguing that, mainly; they value their own sovereignty and wish to remain neutral in the Peloponnesian War.  Melos is steadfast in their verbal defense of their city and integrity, even in the face of aggression from more powerful enemies.  Athens eventually besieges and brutally conquers Melos.  This timeline of events may have taken place in Ancient Greece, but the perspectives and interactions between these two actors has been seen time and again in contemporary history, notably with regards to the United States and Manifest Destiny.

            Manifest Destiny echoes an eerily similar situation.  Under Manifest Destiny, touted by American presidents throughout the 19th century, the land west of the Mississippi River was seen by Americans as their god-given right to own and rule over and civilize.  American institutions and values were perceived as the "right" institutions and values - by expanding (read: conquering) westward, the Americans believed that they were in fact doing the people who were already living there a favor.  Much like Athens wanted to "preserve [the Melians] for [their] mutual advantage" (104), the Americans believed their conquest of land in the west to be not one of selfish greed, but rather one of nobility and redemption.  By bringing American society and ways of life to the so-called barbaric and uncivilized peoples of the west, many of whom had been living there for centuries, the Americans would be helping them out while also expanding the boundaries of the United States.  Additionally, like with Athens, there was a domestic pressure to conquer.  Just as Athens was afraid of being perceived of as weak, and losing its grasp on power, so too did the United States feel compelled to conquer weaker civilizations in order not to be perceived as weak.  During the post-independence time of Manifest Destiny, the United States was trying to assert itself as a world power, akin to that of Great Britain, France, etc.  Much like Athens was fighting a war against Sparta & Friends, it could be argued that the United States was fighting a war of its own, a war to establish legitimacy in the international sphere.  The only logical way to do this was to expand its boundaries and to conquer.  It did not matter that this campaign was unjust and cruel.  Just like with Athens, since the United States was vastly superior to those that stood in its way, justice was just a figment of their imagination.