(a) Briefly explain ONE major difference between Wilentz's and Hahn's historical interpretations of Manifest Destiny

One major difference that lies in the interpretation of these two person's is that Hahn saw the manifest destiny policy as an injustice that the settlers committed while Wilentz saw it as a rise to the democracy in the US.

According to Wilentz, the manifest destiny was the Americans trying to implement their concepts in the new areas that they now dominated. Wilentz absolved the US of blame because he felt that Americans had to ensure that democracy was respected.

According to Hahn the manifest destiny was not different from what the Europeans did to the settlers. He argued that the idea was out of the need to provoke and take from others. He called it imperialistic.

Read more on link

Wilentz considers that Manifest Destiny was democratic in certain moments. While Hahn believes that Manifest Destiny had imperialist concepts of control.

Explanation:

Wilentz considers that the Manifest Destiny had a democratic nature, most of the time, since the Ameiran empire considered implementing its concepts in the regions it dominated, so, since the USA was democratic, so was the Manifest Destiny presented an ambivalent nature, where democracy was sometimes not respected.

Hahn, on the other hand, believed that Manifest Destiny was imperialistic in nature and arose out of a desire to provoke in other regions, which the English colonists did in America.

i beleive a. is the only possible answer

nzkjfdhkdoxrvf

explanation: