Louisiana purchase--good deal to American?

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<

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. 

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.

Originally posted by edgewaters   .............British: they were the only ones who had been there

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.

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.

Who got the better deal over Manhattan, the Indians or the Dutch?

Originally posted by gcle2003 Who got the better deal over Manhattan, the Indians or the Dutch?

As it was said, definitely the Dutch. To these moneymakers, $24 was nothing for that land.

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? 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.   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.

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