Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
tommy
Colonel
Joined: 13-Sep-2005
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 545
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Louisiana purchase--good deal to American? Posted: 02-Jun-2006 at 06:08 |
1803, Jefferson bought Louisiana from Napoleon, historians stated that it was a good deal to american. But really, may be the land along the Mississippi was good, but how abut the interior,the great plain, which was dry pasture, at that time, people hardly to carry out any agriculture acticvities, which was known as green desert, so immigrants rather went to Oregon or California ,they never stayed in the great plain,so Famous Oregon trail existed. Of course, in earky 20 century, still to technology improvement, the grat plain might be developed. But even today, people moved out from the great plain.At that time, was jefferson really got the prize, or Napoleon took advantage from the deal<
|
leung
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
Emperor Barbarossa
Caliph
Joined: 15-Jul-2005
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Jun-2006 at 06:49 |
Napoleon got a few million, not that much. He probably got the better end of the deal, however, because territory in America was of no real strategic importance to him. Jefferson got some land, but it had to be explored. I would say at the time Napoleon got the better end of the deal, but years later, it was the United States that got the better end of the deal.
|
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
Illuminati
General
Joined: 08-Dec-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 949
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Jun-2006 at 07:33 |
After Napoleon's troops were defeated by rebel forces in Haiti, he realized that his dream of a North American empire was over. Overall, i'd say that the US made out pretty well in the Louisianna purchase.
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
pikeshot1600
Tsar
Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Jun-2006 at 08:17 |
Everyone who had a map could see that the Mississippi River and its tributaries were the main transportation systems in the middle of this continent. The future of the country lay west and south and those rivers were the pathways. In order to secure that, Jefferson and du Pont arranged for a doubling of the United States without a war (and cheaply).
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
tommy
Colonel
Joined: 13-Sep-2005
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 545
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Jun-2006 at 10:52 |
But at first, Jefferson only wanted to buy New Oreleans,and some land of West Florida, not the whole Louisiana, it was french asked America to buy the whole area,in order to double the country, Jefferson made the deal, but he did not know much about the whole area, especially the land in the interior.So he needed to sent Lewis and clark to explore.I still think that those land in the interior, or Great plain, was not very good, even in today standard, you may know that today, people move out from the Great plain.
|
leung
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
edgewaters
Sultan
Snake in the Grass-Banned
Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Jun-2006 at 18:17 |
The US and France both got a great deal - most of the territory exchanged didn't belong to either of them, but the French walked away with millions for selling land they had never been to and the US got title to a massive tract of territory for a very low price. In fact, some of the territory exchanged was actually British: they were the only ones who had been there and had forts established there.
Edited by edgewaters - 02-Jun-2006 at 18:18
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
Paul
General
AE Immoderator
Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Jun-2006 at 18:32 |
Originally posted by edgewaters
.............British: they were the only ones who had been there |
There were one or two Indians there too.
|
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
Lord Ranulf
Consul
Joined: 28-Mar-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 309
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Jun-2006 at 19:05 |
Originally posted by Paul
Originally posted by edgewaters
.............British: they were the only ones who had been there |
There were one or two Indians there too. |
stop that Paul......your making my stomach hurt by laughing so hard in agreement ![Big smile](http://www.allempires.com/forum/smileys/smiley4.gif)
........but seriously that is a great original question that has already been answered by some good posts....yes the French got some cash and didn't have to worry about any more expense in the region.....and yes.....the later Native American problems and tragedies aside for a moement.... the American governement in the long run made out like 'rats in the cheese factory'...
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
tommy
Colonel
Joined: 13-Sep-2005
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 545
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Jun-2006 at 09:09 |
Of course, in the deal, no one cared about the interest of native american. In the imperial age ,every land deal in North american among white people neglected the interest of Native american.
|
leung
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
pikeshot1600
Tsar
Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Jun-2006 at 10:40 |
Originally posted by tommy
Of course, in the deal, no one cared about the interest of native american. In the imperial age ,every land deal in North american among white people neglected the interest of Native american. |
Equating Indian relations with the Louisiana Purchase is a non sequitur. The two had not a thing to do with one another. Please stay on point with the topic.
What about the exploration of Lewis and Clark? Was this to explore the territory recently purchased? Were there other "motives?"
Any thoughts?
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
tommy
Colonel
Joined: 13-Sep-2005
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 545
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Jun-2006 at 10:56 |
I do not think that I miss the point. Indian interest was one important part of the Louisiana purchase. Native American lived there for many years, they were the real owner of the land, although they might not claim officially. At the time of purchase, Jefferson also thought about this problem,the interest of Native American tribes in this area, but he thought that he could slove the problem"later on".meant after the deal.Of course he could not slove, no one could.He encourged people to buy land from Native amerivan, and "encourging"the tribes to move west.
|
leung
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
Genghis
Caliph
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2656
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Jun-2006 at 22:43 |
They obviously both thought they were making a wise decision or else they wouldn't have done it. America got land they badly desired, and France got cash for land they weren't going to use anyway, and America might have even invaded at a later date.
The only losers were the Indians in those territories.
|
Member of IAEA
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Jun-2006 at 06:23 |
Who got the better deal over Manhattan, the Indians or the Dutch?
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
tommy
Colonel
Joined: 13-Sep-2005
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 545
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Jun-2006 at 06:36 |
Indians were cheated
|
leung
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
Emperor Barbarossa
Caliph
Joined: 15-Jul-2005
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Jun-2006 at 06:55 |
Originally posted by gcle2003
Who got the better deal over Manhattan, the Indians or the Dutch? ![Smile](http://www.allempires.com/forum/smileys/smiley1.gif) |
As it was said, definitely the Dutch. To these moneymakers, $24 was nothing for that land.
|
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
pikeshot1600
Tsar
Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Jun-2006 at 17:27 |
Originally posted by Emperor Barbarossa
Originally posted by gcle2003
Who got the better deal over Manhattan, the Indians or the Dutch? ![Smile](http://www.allempires.com/forum/smileys/smiley1.gif) |
As it was said, definitely the Dutch. To these moneymakers, $24 was nothing for that land.
|
They needed a realtor to represent the interests of the seller. ![Smile](http://www.allempires.com/forum/smileys/smiley1.gif)
Seriously, we all know the Indians had no concept of ownership of land. They probably thought those white men were idiots giving away stuff for land. The Indians could always go to some other land. Long Island was nicer then than it is now.
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
Emperor Barbarossa
Caliph
Joined: 15-Jul-2005
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Jun-2006 at 20:09 |
Originally posted by pikeshot1600
Originally posted by Emperor Barbarossa
Originally posted by gcle2003
Who got the better deal over Manhattan, the Indians or the Dutch? ![Smile](http://www.allempires.com/forum/smileys/smiley1.gif) |
As it was said, definitely the Dutch. To these moneymakers, $24 was nothing for that land.
|
They needed a realtor to represent the interests of the seller. ![Smile](http://www.allempires.com/forum/smileys/smiley1.gif)
Seriously, we all know the Indians had no concept of ownership of land. They probably thought those white men were idiots giving away stuff for land. The Indians could always go to some other land. Long Island was nicer then than it is now.
|
However, Tecumseh said "Sell a country! Why not sell the air, the clouds, and the great sea?" They did have some idea of land ownership, but land was unimportant to them.
|
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
pikeshot1600
Tsar
Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Jun-2006 at 20:12 |
That was (in great part) because there was so much of it in relation to the population.
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
edgewaters
Sultan
Snake in the Grass-Banned
Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Jun-2006 at 05:34 |
Originally posted by pikeshot1600
Seriously, we all know the Indians had no concept of ownership of land. They probably thought those white men were idiots giving away stuff for land. |
Kind of mythical, that. The Indians had a system of tribute paid to local powers or strongmen for use of a tract of land, which seems to me to be analogous to tenant's rent, or perhaps taxation. Typically this meant that a family hunting on a piece of land would send a gift to the local chief (who usually redistributed it to those unable to care for themselves, typically the elderly, the sick, etc, so perhaps closer to taxation than rent). In return there was a kind of feudal imperative upon the chief, to protect the group on his turf - either by keeping the peace, or keeping them from starving to death. These groups often moved around, but the chiefs stayed on their tract (at least, for many groups in the northeast like the Micmaq, Algonkian, etc).
What they didn't recognize was exclusive rights to land, and they apparently assumed payments made were for access to (not ownership of) land. Why they were excessively happy about some deals is probably because the individual(s) who received the sum were not owners of that particular tract in question, in some cases, or in other cases had assumed that only the individual actually paying the fee (and perhaps his companions) intended to use the land - and if they understood many more were coming, figured that would mean many more payments.
Also there may have been other factors at work. As Jefferson wrote in Notes on the State of Virginia, "It is true that these purchases were sometimes made with the price in one hand and the sword in the other."
Edited by edgewaters - 13-Jun-2006 at 05:41
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
Tobodai
Tsar
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4310
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Jun-2006 at 20:25 |
If Napoleons plans in Europe and Haiti had gone well France would have had the better deal. France could sell land for money knowing that once they had beaten their enemies they could conquer it back from weak early America with ease. Its only because of Russia, Prussia, and Britain that the Lousinna purchase turned out to be a good deal for the US.
|
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |