In at least 150-200 words, discuss the pros and cons of westward expansion in the state of Georgia. Consider both the yeoman farmers and Native Americans in your response.

 Pros-  here was territorial expansion Proponents of the movement said that with Manifest Destiny, America became what it is today, one of the most powerful countries in the world. When our forefathers followed what was destined for America, the U.S. was able to acquire more properties as well as gold. This also made it possible for more immigrants to have chance to start new lives. It brought more land for farming and improvement.

Those who were in favor of the movement said that with more land area acquired, there were more agriculture land made available which was good for the economy and for supply of food and vegetables for the people. The Manifest Destiny made it possible for the merchants and farmers to produce more crops to consume and sell. It was good for trade and industry.

Proponents said that this opened new doors for trading to other countries. By acquiring lands from other places and even other countries, like Alaska which was bought from Russia, there will be more routes for trade and barter.As it doubled the land area of the U.S., it also increased goods, services and wealth.

Some advocates said that not only did the movement increase the size of the country, expanding to other countries and not just states, but it also added to farm lands needed to produce products and poultry. Moreover, with the territorial expansion not only in Asia but also in Europe, more ports for trade were opened and all these added to the reserves of the country, thus, it brought about more wealth. The gold rush of 1849 is one of the significant events in American history and this happened within the period where Manifest Destiny evolved. It paved the way for Americans to share their culture.

People who lived in the new territories were influenced with the way of life of Americans. It offered a chance for exploration.

One of the benefits advocates for Manifest Destiny claimed was that Americans were given the chance to discover other places other than the community they grew up in. This was not only great for economic improvement but also for personal gain, spiritually, emotionally and socially. By given the chance to be settlers, Americans were able to maximize their potential, discover new ways of living and learn to be innovative. As a whole, this was able to bring more benefits than drawbacks to the American people.

Cons-It brought conflict and war. Opponents of Manifest Destiny argued that this philosophy resulted to war between countries and even the civil war. As early as 1822, the U.S. was already in conflict with Great Britain over the division of Oregon. It also gave a reason for the U.S. to start a war with Mexico and Spain. It was a time of slavery.

One of the drawbacks of U.S. territorial expansion was the proliferation of slavery. Although the Americans made a promise that they will not be taking the land of other people, like the Native Americans, without their consent and other than through peaceful means, history showed that this did not really happen. It led to the death and suffering of many people, particularly, the Indians.

Opponents claim that Manifest Destiny brought about suffering to the people whose land were taken from them without their consent. Along the way, many people were killed and there was mass destruction of tribes. Indians were brought to reservations as well. It is unconstitutional.

Those who are not in favor of what the Manifest Destiny stood for said that what the Southerners did, which was spread slavery, was against the constitution and so is taking other territories that do not really belong to them. They also argued that those who pushed for territorial expansion already knew beforehand that the Native Americans will be uprooted to give way for white settlers and international railroad links and yet they still proceeded. For critics, this is clearly a violation of the rights of the people. Abolitionists said that the constitution did not give the country the right for acquisition of new land areas.

Explanation: I wrote more than 150-200 word but this is like 2-3 paragraphs

The answer is False

Pls mark brainliest