Talk:Louisiana Purchase

Problems

This article on a major event in U.S. history (which is locked) really is very poorly contructed. There are gaps in logic and very few of the stats/figures are cited!

There is what seems to be a serious conflict between the amount of money actually paid to France as well as the actual amount cancelled as a result of debt.

In the introduction: The cost was 60 million francs ($11,250,000) plus cancellation of debts worth 18 million francs ($3,750,000). Including interest, the U.S. finally paid $23,213,568 for the Louisiana territory.[1]

then in financing section:

part of the 80 million Francs (approximately $15 million) sale price was used to forgive debts owed by France to the United States. In the end, France received $8,831,250 in cash for the sale. So, which is correct? Is it 15 million or 3.75 million? Also, there is a great descrepancy between what was paid (it says 23 million and the 8 million or so france actually received).

Evan1261 (talk) 08:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

There are three different things here: total cost ("[i]ncluding interest"), sale cost, and cash paid (part of sale price was debt-forgiveness rather than cash payment). Sale-cost and cash-paid are self-consistent (sale-cost is the total of cash-paid and debt-forgiven, which is a non-cash cost). The ~$25M value in the lead is cited to a US govt document that states "$23,213,568" but does not mention how that value is determined or what costs it includes. However--and here's a serious problem--none of the other values are cited at all! Per WP:V, we need to report what reliable sources say. DMacks (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

claimed land

how much actual power did the french have over the lands they claim? or other than new orleans was it very limited in its authority? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.74.140 (talk) 01:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Was this ever a purchase? what legal right over this land did the French Republic have, and as the size and boundaries seem to be unknown at the time how could such a transfer of tenancy be completed? I've no wish to instigate a debate over the legitimacy of European empire building in previous centuries, but I'm genuinely interested to understand the legality of the purchase under the law of the time? Markb (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Key for the map

The colours/colors used in the maps are not explained in a key. JMcC (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Inflation Adjusted

Couldn't find this in the article. What would the purchase be equivalent to in 2008 USD? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.26.62 (talk) 23:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I have serious trouble believing 14 M became 217 B (for an inflation rate of 15,500x, 1,550,000% over the period, or 4.8% annually) is pretty high. This would mean that, back in the day, a dollar would buy $15,500 worth of goods, which before the industrial revolution, was similar to an American's yearly income. This also means that a mil, which if I remember correctly was the smallest unit of currency at the time, equaled 15.5 dollars. I find the concept that 14M ~ 217B today highly dubious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.44.128.167 (talk) 10:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It really depends on the question you're asking. You can't directly compare prices from 1800 with prices now, because things are so different. http://www.measuringworth.com/ has a lot of good explanations of this, including a bunch of calculators. It's quite a bit more complicated than it seems. On topic, if we want to know how expensive the purchase was in terms of what $15M would buy if used today, we should use the "GDP deflator", which converts to about $268M in today's dollars. However, the US produces a *lot* more as a country now than they did 200 years ago. $15M in 1803 was about 3.7% of the GDP at the time. 3.7% of today's GDP is about $430 billion, which roughly corresponds to the figure in the article. I suspect that's the measure of worth they intended. CecilPL (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think a good comparison so people can get a feel for what the purchase cost is the following: http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/11/the-100-million-health-care-vote.html

Louisiana Purchase I cost roughly the same as Louisiana Purchase II —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.255.18 (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't "purchase transaction" a bit redundant?

It sounds sort of silly to me, the first sentence could be revised to be more concise. 76.190.152.7 (talk) 02:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Here's what seems to have happened: on 8 December 2008 removed several words from the lead, leaving it ungrammatical and a bit nonsensical. Then on 20 December 2008 somebody fixed it, making the lead make sense again but introducing the "purchase transaction" wording. I've changed it back to the way it was earlier ("... was the acquisition by ..."). -- Why Not A Duck 03:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Native Americans

A while ago I added a paragraph explaining how the Louisiana Purchase was a transfer of rights between imperial powers, necessarily ignoring the Native American Indians who lived there, and that the actual ownership of the land was purchased a second time, piece by piece, from the Indians, mostly via treaties. I thought this was useful information in part because oft heard statements like "great real estate deal", "three cents an acre", etc. These kind of statements, along with the very name "purchase", suggest that the land passed into the hands of the US federal government and could be put up for sale to settlers without further efforts. I myself believed this for a long time until learning of the complex process the federal government engaged in over many decades of "clearing Indian titles". The actual price paid by the government for the lands of the Louisiana Purchase, in total before being able to sell it to settlers, while very hard to calculate, far exceeds three cents an acre. I felt this was worth pointing out, if only because it is so often overlooked. I suspect many people do not realize that it was not absolute land ownership that was purchased from France. Of course this is true for neary all US territorial acquisitions, but in this case the very name has misleading connotations, as "purchase" implies ownership. I backed up the paragraph's claims with two references.

User:Mattscards has twice removed the text. I asked why and received this reason (from my talk page): This belongs in another category. Yes, it is a part of US history but in no way should this article take away the great feat the United States accomplished from the Louisiana Purchase. The Indians were not an organized country. If you feel that there is merit in this paragraph, you may paste the article in "Native Americans in the United States" section. The Indians were not a part of the Louisiana Purchase. I will remove this paragraph again.

I don't want to be a pain or argue over this, and I hope this doesn't sound like I'm picking on you, Mattscards. But I'm not convinced that this paragraph does not belong on this page. I agree that the Louisiana Purchase was a great moment in US history. But I think it only helps to point out what the purchase actually entailed and what further steps were needed before the land could be sold to American settlers, and how this means the total cost (before homesteading and land sale to settlers) was much higher than the sum paid to France. I have the sense that there is a general understanding that actual land ownership in full title was purchased, and that it would be useful to mention that the actual history was more complex. But my sense may be wrong. Perhaps this point is widely understood and need not be said. Or perhaps it is not widely understand and still not need to be said. I don't want to fight over it, but I thought it worthwhile to at least post to this talk page the deleted paragraph, the reason for its deletion, and my reasons for having added it in the first place. Others can decide or debate whether it merits mentioning or not. Here's the deleted text; it had been the final paragraph of the "Negotiations" section:

Almost all of the land was occupied by American Indians, from whom the land was acquired a second time, piece by piece. The actual price paid for the land of the Louisiana Purchase was thus much higher than the sum paid to France. It was not the ownership of the land that was acquired so much as the right to acquire the land from the Indians who already occupied it. Neither seller nor purchaser consulted with any Native Americans before the sale, and most Native Americans did not know it had taken place.

The two footnote references were:

• Miller, Robert J. (2006). Native America, Discovered and Conquered: Thomas Jefferson, Lewis & Clark, and Manifest Destiny. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 71–72. ISBN 9780275990114. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

• Rodriguez, Junius P. (2002). The Louisiana Purchase. ABC-CLIO. pp. xxv–xxvi. ISBN 9781576071885.

That is all! Pfly (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

financing the Louisiana Convention

I have copies of the wills of both a James and Peter Whiteside (not related to myself). They are circa 1830 and serve as indications that these two brothers were ignored yet closely involved with the Revolution. A family story (unproven at the time) talks about these brothers putting shoes on the feet of the army at Valley Forge. The will of James verifies through an estate inventory that he owned "shoe making tools" which tends to lend credence to that family story. Peter was described in his Philadelphia obituary as a "patriot", confidant and business partner of Robert Morris. Upon retrieving a copy of his will it is noted that although he was penniless he leaves as his estate "a debt owed to him by the United States" government for costs he incurred financing the Louisiana Convention. The originals of all these documents rest in the Pennsylvania Archives along with copies at various historical societies but they indicate a story of brother patriots that has gone untold. This is a first for me so I am not sure where to upload the above citations which I have as .jpg format files.

(Whitey2 (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC))

You could upload them to Commons. There is a category there at Commons:Category:Wills. I'm not real clear on how you plan on using them though. Wknight94 ^talk 13:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The Napoleon quote

upon completion of the agreement, stated, "This accession of territory affirms forever the power of the United States, and I have given England a maritime rival who sooner or later will humble her pride."[4]

I think the reference for this quote is not precise enough. Is it a true quote or a myth ? If it is not a myth, we should know who is the direct witness who recorded it. Teofilo talk 09:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

When was the treaty signed?

In two places the article says it was signed on May 2. In one place it says it was signed on April 30. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.198.123.232 (talk) 21:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Importance and slavery

What are some good reasons that the purchase was important (I'm doing a research paper) and this will sound really stupid, but was there slavery in America at the time of the purchase?

Napoleon Bonaparte

Why didn't Napoleon sign the treaty (it didnt say he did) thats kinda ridiculous on account that he is the one that made the offer and sold it - it was his to sell and he didnt get to sign the treaty??? that seems really unfair just saying