- Joined
- Jul 21, 2004
- Messages
- 9,159
Bush sells Louisiana back to the French
- Thread starter denverappraiser
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2003
- Messages
- 22,161
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2003
- Messages
- 22,161
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2004
- Messages
- 9,159
We got a much better price when we aquired Texas from Mexico (we stole it). I think that one was put together by president Jackson.
Mexico seems to have an entirely different technique for getting it back.
Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ISA NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver
Mexico seems to have an entirely different technique for getting it back.
Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ISA NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver
Shay37
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2004
- Messages
- 3,343
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2004
- Messages
- 2,547
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2004
- Messages
- 9,159
At the time that the French seized it from the locals, I believe their position was that God gave them the right as evidenced by the fact that God gave them better ships and weapons.
That said, the concept is an interesting one so lets pursue it. The American Indians were hardly a homogenous group and the boundaries between the various tribes in the area during the 18th century were not a clearly defined issue. In addition, the political geography was very different from the boundaries in the same area 100 years before. For that matter, the whole concept of land ownership and national borders was not the same as the French understood it. In almost every case, the changes came about through military action exacted by one tribe against another. Who then, should it be given back to? Redrawing the map for a particular date seems terribly unfair to those who lost their land before that date. This problem is still important in the modern world. Who should be in charge of Iraq? It’s difficult to find a Sumerian lobby but they would clearly have a decent claim since they were there first.
Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ISA NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2004
- Messages
- 2,547
Neil:
You will note that I did not specify which tribes. I just said the American Indians.
However, to persue the issue in the fullest. The vast majority of what are considered "american''s" today are living on lands that were largely taken from the American Indians... (there were only a few initial agreements on the east coast that lived up to the standards of the day that were kept back then).
The later agreements have largly not been kept - but at least most of them were based on the fact of negotiation with the American Indians and not some other foreign country claiming to own land that the native people still lived on and controlled.
You are right that the tribal lands changed in the prevous 100 years; actually the previous 250 almost all of which was caused by the expansion of the "White" settlers largely from Europe with some servants and slaves from other parts of the world (most of the slaves were from Africa).
Prior to major imigration of the European culture and people to the America''s - the indian boundries were relatively stable for long periods of time (hundreds of years).
Perry
You will note that I did not specify which tribes. I just said the American Indians.
However, to persue the issue in the fullest. The vast majority of what are considered "american''s" today are living on lands that were largely taken from the American Indians... (there were only a few initial agreements on the east coast that lived up to the standards of the day that were kept back then).
The later agreements have largly not been kept - but at least most of them were based on the fact of negotiation with the American Indians and not some other foreign country claiming to own land that the native people still lived on and controlled.
You are right that the tribal lands changed in the prevous 100 years; actually the previous 250 almost all of which was caused by the expansion of the "White" settlers largely from Europe with some servants and slaves from other parts of the world (most of the slaves were from Africa).
Prior to major imigration of the European culture and people to the America''s - the indian boundries were relatively stable for long periods of time (hundreds of years).
Perry
MINE!!
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2005
- Messages
- 3,287
I find, when studying history, man tends to glorify a race or group of peoples that are in the past. Man tends to look at the past peoples and think of how heroic and wonderful they were. I have a prof who thinks that Celts were some of the most intellegent and amazing honorable people in the world. Whereas, I have heard some people talk about how American Indians were a peoples that were in constant harmony with nature. Yet these same people would also say that all peoples are equal and develop equally (which I too beleive) yet still refuse to accept the fact that American Indians have had the same technology, they would have done the same things.
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2004
- Messages
- 2,547
I am not glorifying them. In most cases they lived a very hard primitive life; which I have no desire to life (even though I had an option to claim tribal membership in the 70's when going "native" was popular based on the degree of ancestor blood: But did not want to live their life in modern times either. Of course, today I could be collecting casino income checks if I had).
Just stating that I feel that the French did not really have title to the land they "sold."
Some of the legal concepts of the past - and even today - are nothing to admire either.
Perry
Just stating that I feel that the French did not really have title to the land they "sold."
Some of the legal concepts of the past - and even today - are nothing to admire either.
Perry
- Status
300x240.png)