How did U.S. expansion compare to European expansion during this time?

The assertion that U.S. expansion was "no worse than other European expansion" captures the complex and often tragic nature of territorial growth during that era. U.S. expansion, especially through the doctrine of Manifest Destiny in the 19th century, involved not just the acquisition of land but also the violent displacement of Indigenous peoples and the annexation of territories through conflicts, such as the Mexican-American War. This mirrors European expansionist practices, which frequently led to colonization, exploitation, and the marginalization of native populations in the Americas, Africa, and Asia.

European powers employed similar tactics, including warfare, treaties that were often imposed under duress, and coercive diplomacy to secure territories and resources. By arguing that U.S. expansion was no worse, the statement highlights the shared imperialistic tendencies of both U.S. and European endeavors, where the consequences for Indigenous populations were significantly detrimental, and ethical justifications for expansion were often deeply flawed.

In contrast, the other options do not accurately portray the nature of U.S. expansion. The claim that it did not involve Mexico is misleading, as significant territorial expansion came through the annexation of Mexican land. The notion that it did not expand beyond the west coast is also incorrect; U.S.