Talk:Louisiana Purchase/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Misleading

The opening paragraph is very misleading. the total cost of the deal was 15 million dollars.

Adjusted cost

The opening paragraph's use of a $2 billion figure for cost based on relative share of GDP is enormously misleading. Figures based on the price of gold are also fairly misleading the other way, and simple inflation adjustments are a bit controversial; but this $390 billion figure is entirely too high. In large part because much of the national GDP now has to do with states within the Purchase, and trade between them; and also because US economic and population growth has been strong since the Purchase. As well as additional reasons that others could likely point out if they cared to take the time.

In any event, Livingston and Monroe would not have been so eager to purchase land beyond their initial authorization from Jefferson, or have been willing to offer $10 million for New Orleans+surrounding in the first place, if the financial burden on the US government was nearly as great as this $390 billion figure implies. Especially since annual government revenues of the time tended to be significantly smaller relative to the national economy than they've been in recent decades.

The location of this figure in the opening paragraph lends it a credence that is unwarranted. It would be appreciated it if was either moved elsewhere in the article, preferably to a specific section that considers the subject in a bit more depth. This would be warranted because a large part of the interest in the Louisiana Purchase focuses on its cost in modern terms. --Kadri

I agree. Maybe adjusted by the value of GDP per inhabitant. Or adjusted by relative real-estate value. Purchasing power of 4 cents in 1800. As a percentage of federal budget, or maybe federal+state budget, since the States paid a higher proportion of public expense in 1800. At any rate, whatever figure is dreamed up should be buried in the article, and put in its proper context. Tafinucane 00:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Page 31 of The Department of State ISBN 0-87754-846-3 says, "They decided to go ahead and accept it anyway—obtaining Louisiana for $11 million, only $1 million more than they had hoped to spend on the port of New Orleans." --Midnightcomm 21:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Some websites list 825,000 sq. mi. and others 900,000 sq. mi. Anyone know which is more acurrate and why we list it as 800,000 sq. mi.? --rmhermen

The Louisiana Territory included a good bit of territory that was claimed but not yet occupied or mapped. The exact boundries, especially in the north west, were rather vague. -- Infrogmation

---

I'm rather amazed that this article went for so long with the mistatement that New Orleans was not included in the Louisiana Purchase. -- Infrogmation 02:00 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)

---

This is from November 30 and 1803. I'm not sure how to integrate it into this article:

On November 30, 1803 at the Cabildo building in New Orleans, Spanish representatives Governor Manuel de Salcedo and the Marqués de Casa Calvo, officially transfered Louisiana Territory to French representative Prefect Pierre Clément de Laussat.

The odd thing is that, according to the above, the French sold the Louisiana Purchase to the US before France officially held the land! If this is true, please update this article, if it is not true or somehow wrong, then please fix November 30 and 1803. --mav 06:15, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

• Notice that the passage says 1803, not 1830. Someone probably transposed the dates. I'll remove it from 1830 and put it on 1803, which is the correct date for the transfer from Spain to France. - VerbalHerbal

The transfer to the French was signed on October 1, 1800, and the Spanish officials had been ordered by their king to hand the province over on October 15, 1802. However, France assumed control of the government in New Orleans only on November 30, 1803. On December 20, 1803, the French then transferred possession to the Americans. - Andre Engels 10:37, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Was it $15 million or $22.5 million? The article lists both.

Also it would be fantastic if someone could calculate the inflation-adjusted value in today's dollars, if such a calculation can be made. Tempshill 18:58, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

• For US$ before 1933, $20 = 1 ounce of gold. -- Infrogmation 19:42, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Current price of gold. As I write this, the cost of gold is almost exactly $410/ounce. Therefore, $15 million * (($410/ounce)/($20/ounce)) = $307.5 million. --Raul654 21:13, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

• The current value listed, 193 million, is far too low when adjusted for inflation. 1 dollar in 1800 had value far greater than 12 dollars today. jshultz dec.2 2005

.. ok i have a question, how did monroe pay napoleon? gold?? US dollars? french francs? did the US dollar exisst then??? again , how did they pay for it?? pioneer_g Pioneer g 00:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Pierre Samuel du Pont de Nemours

I recently read a book; "The DuPonts, Portrait of a Dynasty", 1976, By Marc Duke, which stated that Pierre_Samuel_du_Pont_de_Nemours was engaging in informal diplomacy between France and the U.S. on the behalf of Jefferson. According to this book Pierre originated the idea of the Louisiana Purchase as a way to avoid impending conflict between Napoléon and the U.S. regarding New Orleans. It goes on to say that Pierre laid the groundwork for James Monroe prior to his trip to France. It also stated that neither DuPont or Jefferson would understand in their lifetime the magnitude of the land deal.

The book painted a very different picture than this article. Any comments? Pud 03:43, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Some more facts from the book; Jefferson hated the idea of purchasing Louisiana, on a bunch of levels, when DuPont first suggested it. But he also knew from his spies that Napoleon had a Fleet ready to sail to occupy the Mississippi. So he instructed DuPont to impress on Napoleon and Tallyrand that occupying New Orleans would mean a U.S. alliance with Britain, and war with France. Jefferson chose Monroe because he was know to have no qualms about going to war with France, and his last diplomatic mission there had ended in a formal expulsion.

Pud 04:26, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cost of the Louisiana Purchase

This BLM document ACQUISITION OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, 1781-1867 states that the cost of the Louisiana Purchase was $23,213,568. Their source was: from U.S. Geological Survey, Boundaries, Area, Geographic Centers (Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1939), pp. 249-251. The Avalon at Yale: Louisiana Purchase--First Convention document seems to suggest 60 million francs (FRANCS 60,000,000) aka eleven millions, two hundred and fifty thousand Dollars ($11,250,000) was the cost, but that does NOT include the six percent interest included in the installment plan of twice yearly payments of three hundred and thirty Seven thousand five hundred Dollars ($337,500) The Negotiation of The Louisiana Purchase suggests that the $15 million number is the result of the $11,250,000 cost of the land itself plus America's acquisition of the cost of American claims against the French, i.e. France was washing its hands of everybody; the cost of the claims was twenty million francs (FRANCS 20,000,000), or $3,747,268. And then there's this scary business The Dutch Bank Documents which I daren't decipher as a fuzzy. jengod 03:35, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

I have problems with those numbers: The US allegedly paid 15 million, Barings bought them at 87,5 – why did Napoleon get the sum mentioned which is NOT 87,5% of 15 Millions? Some money went into hiding.

machno

To Do

1. I added TOC but the article really needs some re-organization.
2. Last paragraph, dispute with Spain, how was it resolved, anyone know?

Duk 16:06, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(Done) Duk 17:11, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

2 was finally resolved by the Adams-Onís Treaty in 1819, though the U.S. had been forcefully annexing portions up to that time. I added a mention of this to the article. older≠wiser 16:19, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

nearly all of Oklahoma, Kansas?

Since the very first version of this article, it has said the Purchase included nearly all of Kansas, I never noticed that before until Mulad just edited it to read nearly all of Oklahoma, Kansas. Now looking at the map, I can't see that there is any portion of either Oklahoma or Kansas that is not included in the Purchase area. Can anyone shed light on this? older≠wiser 13:23, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the Panhandle of Oklahoma and the southwestern corner of Kansas were originally part of the Republic of Texas. That'll need to be substantiated, though. - jredmond 16:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I tried to look into this a tiny bit. I think the confusion is over precisely where the western boundary was. I think the maps shown on this page are "optimistic" illustrations favoring the U.S., while Spain undoubtedly would have produced a very different map of the territory acquired by the U.S. in the Purchase. Essentially both claimed certaion portions and these disputed claims were not resolved until later treaties. I seem to recall seeing some maps that illustrated the disputed areas -- it's be nice if we could get a map that shows disputed areas (including West Florida as well as on the western boundary) with cross-hatch or something. older≠wiser 16:28, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. Here are two maps I found in a quick google image search:

http://www.mohonasen.org/grade5/lpurch1.jpg http://www.tlaupp.com/images/LPterritory.jpg

The first is the "American favored" one and the second is the "Spanish favored" one.

This is years late, but that's not quite right. The first, I believe, is the map of the LP as defined conceptually as the land drained by the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers. Most of this would have actually been unsurveyed at the time. The second is the actual surveyed border as established by the Adams-Onís Treaty, which is probably a better description of what the border was in practice by the time Spain and the US actually began to project more than theoretical sovreignty over the center of the continent. --Jfruh (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Monroe's Expulsion

This article mentions that one reason Monroe's presence late in the negotiations was such a pointed issue is that he had been formally ordered out of France after his last diplomatic mission there. I am just curious if more information might be provided on this matter, either here or on Wikipedia's page for James Monroe. It's more a matter of curiosity, but my thanks to anyone who could provide details on the subject. Pellinore 01:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I got this information from The Duponts: Portrait of a Dynasty, p. 80. But it just mentions his former expulsion in passing. The book has a good write up on the negotiations, P.77-83, focusing mostly on Pierre. --Duk 02:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Queued images

The overlay is nice, the post 1810 image does not seem to add anything to the discussion. --Belg4mit 15:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

im pretty sure these two maps are wrongCheesemaster123 (talk) 00:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Today's value of the purchase sum

If you check with this site the sum is significantly higher that what was previously listed [[1]]

and I have taken the liberty to insert the highest sum, as it is using the relative share of GDP. The other possible sums according to the site are:

• $242.72 using the Consumer Price Index
• $255.53 using the GDP deflator
• $3,958.54 using the unskilled wage
• $5,948.72 using the GDP per capita
• $390,621.12 using the relative share of GDP

-and from the top and down its millions, ending up in billions. Ulflarsen 00:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Paine's role in LP

I came across this little tidbit about the Louisiana Purchase while researching Thomas Paine.

That relationship would bring Paine one last moment in the sun, and to the very center of an international crisis. In 1795, Spain had signed a treaty permitting American access to the port of New Orleans; six years later, Bonaparte acquired Louisiana, and on October 16, 1802, the territory’s acting intendant cancelled the agreement, closing the Mississippi to American traffic. This was a catastrophe for the area’s settlers, and the response was frenzied: Alexander Hamilton wrote that the only answer would be to immediately seize New Orleans and the Floridas by force, and then negotiate a new arrangement with France . . . or declare war against her forthwith. Paine, knowing something of France’s eternal financial woes, suggested there was another answer; Jefferson had entered negotiations to purchase New Orleans when Paine recommended the United States instead acquire the entire territory, at a bargain rate. On May 2, 1803, the United States bought Louisiana for $15 million, more than doubling the country’s size. [2]

--24.152.195.50 03:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Ceded more territory than you think

I grew up in southwestern Saskatchewan and I can verify that our water flows south. Most years it's internal drainage but in wet years it does flow into the Missouri River basin. The original boundaries were probably politically motivated. Here's a link to a recent drainage basin map done by our federal government. website[3]. 198.166.246.150 21:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

i cant believe that it doubled the U.S.Cheesemaster123 (talk) 00:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

previous inhabitants

So, were the French from the area instantly citizens or did they have to go to the nearest major cities to accept American citizenship? - signing off as the Drama King from Texas! 18:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Basically, yes. The vast majority of the population (not counting Indians of course!) was in New Orleans and its hinterland. This area already had a long established representational government readily assimilated into the American system. One problem was that Louisiana's government was based on Civil Law rather than Common law, as in the rest of America. An attempt was made to enforce common law systems on Louisiana, but they failed, with Lousiana's "Digest of Civil Law" being formally accepted by the US in 1808. Another snag was that Louisiana law gave wives much greater authority than American law, which at the law basically merged couples under the authority of the husband. A more difficult snag was that Louisiana law gave free person of "whatever color" all the rights of citizens, while in American common law there was a major denial of human rights to anyone with even a fraction of "colored blood". But anyway, the answer is basically yes. The Louisiana Purchase was settled in 1803, and the Louisianans almost immediately petitioned for statehood. It took a few years, but Louisiana became a state in 1811. Pretty quick. Pfly 07:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Finance contribution

Sorry folks, forgot to sign in before I added the finance bit. Bad. The finance was actually even more complex than this - my friend was working on it for her PhD, but the main points are in the article, referenced from Wikipedia... Duncan 22:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

With all due repect but what are you talking about? I posted an entire section on the finance angle of this purchase -- facts, figures, names, dates, citations, etc., and come to find out the entire section has not only been pulled, but it wasn't even incorporated into any other section of this subject; none of the facts and/or figured were complicated. Did it get yanked b/c it sheds a less than favorable light on Jefferson who paid for the vast bulk of the purchase in 15 year non-redeemable bonds (rather then in the early redeemable bonds as his Sec. if Treasury urged) thus doubling the final cost of the purchase when the non-redeemable compound interest paid on those bonds were factored in?Malplaquet 14:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Jefferson's Reasoning

I think this article could really use a mention of Jefferson's motivations behind the purchase. It was obviously a difficult decision for him to make, considering his belief in the constitution (which could be debated, since he was also in favor of abolishing the constitution, and writing a new one every generation / perpetual revolution).

Everyone knows Jefferson opposed a powerful central government, and favored states rights. He was also a strong believer in the importance in local governance, since it was closest to the people and most likely to affect them directly. For this reason, he wanted to see more power available to local government, and power focused at that small scale, the scale at which democracy is most effective (vs. the republic necessary to govern effectively a territory as large as the US). In order to encourage this focus of power at that local level, Jefferson hoped to see America as a nation of farmers, or land owners. With such a society, we could avoid the same consolidation of power into the hands of the few that we see in cities, and throughout much of old world Europe (where peasants lived and worked on land not their own, forced essentially into servitude to their landowner). America was a unique opportunity to create this egalitarian society, since it had abundant land (never mind those pesky natives) available for agricultural development. A land-owning, self-sufficient man would be able to realize those freedoms Thomas Jefferson described in the Declaration.

When I get home from work this evening, I'll update my statements with actual primary source quotations to support these ideas. Please let me know what you think Seanherman 16:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Map of the Purchase

The map currently displayed on the site is inaccurate, or at least does not show the extent of the American claims to West Florida that came about through the Louisiana Purchase. President Madison in 1810 declared that French Louisiana's eastern boundary was at the Perdido River.--71.30.96.207 15:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

"Indian" Knowledge of

Is anyone going to add that the indigenous peoples who lived there had no idea that their land was sold? They had no idea that France was selling their land to the United States.

The first paragraph says: Almost all of the land was occupied by American Indians, from whom the land was purchased 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 purchased so much as the right to purchase the land from the Indians. Pfly 21:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

-One of the best places for information on this is the book "lies my teacher told me" by james w. loewen. here's a quote:

"All the textbooks tell how Jefferson 'doubled the the size of the United States by buying Louisiana from France'. Not one points out that it was not France's land to sell- it was Indian land." Ch.4 pg.123

==============================================

It was not "Indian land". The American aborginies in that part of the world were:

• Not a single group of people. To lump them all into one vague, huge amalagamation is not only foolish, but an affront.
• PC or not, on the whole, in that part of the world, the American aborginie was, as one historian described it, "becalmed in a hunter-gatherer stage". In all but the most intimate object at hand -- blankets, tools, women, etc. -- they had neither legal acknowledgement, nor, in some cases not even a concept of, either property right or private property, especially when it came to land. Malplaquet 15:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

In short, nothing was "taken" from them —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Malplaquet (talk • contribs) 15:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Surely no matter how advanced or primitive the Native American's understanding of property law and political sovreignty, individual tribal groups believed that (a) they had the right to live in and derive sustenance from the land they traditionally occupied and (b) other people living elsewhere did not have the right to displace them from it based on a transaction for which they were not consulted? --Jfruh (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Jillion?

not a number- might want to look into that

Serious Problem

There's an extreme problem with the culturally biased rhetoric on this page in regard to "purchasing the land a second time from the American Indians." This land was only "purchased" from Indigenous Americans with racism, bloodshed, suffering, cultural-violence, forced migrations to reservations, subjegation, oppression, and second-class citizenship. It was only "purchased" if the word is used in its most subjective and metaphoric possibility. Not to mention the fact that Napoleon didn't really possess the land and the fact that you cannot sell something that is not yours. Carlon 00:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Barings Bank involvement?

The Barings Bank article mentions the bank acted as a kind of intermediary, but the description is rather unclear. Can someone shed light on the matter? Who paid whom how? Renke 15:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Improvements

1- There needs to be a section that mentions the modern use of the term "Louisiana Purchase" in Louisiana since it has become and endeared term and is used for a lot of things, and even is the official name of Food Stamp debit cards. 2- There needs to be a mention of domestic reacion to the purchase and the affect on local government. 3- Specific facts about clauses in the actual document deserve mention since there has recently been some contention between Washington, Baton Rouge and Paris over whether or not certain clauses still apply in that it would seem that the U.S. government might have recently violated the treaty. I speak specifically of the clause in the document that mentions France's ability to trade with Louisian on a "most favored nation" status. I do not mean the break up of the territory that would seem to be counter to the document but was not raised as an issue by France when the U. S. government took that action. 4- There are several clauses in the document that the Louisiana Government uses to justify and legalize many variations between the way most Americans do things and the special Louisiana way that is very different. One specific area is the retention of Civil Law that the U. S. government can never take away.--Billiot 04:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Revert

I reverted to the last version post- my previous edit because the series of (un-)vandalism cropped out the Negotiation section. --Belg4mit 15:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

segregation background

was slavery in use in the US outside French Louisiana when Napoleon (Republic consul not yet emperor) restored it in 1802? and is there a link between this historical background for large Louisiana and the US segregation in southern US states? thank you. Paris By Night 10:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Why did Jefferson think the Louisiana Purchase was unconstitutional?

The Louisiana Purchase was a treaty between the United States and France for the purchase of land. Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution plainly says that the President "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur." It had long been commonplace for countries to acquire and cede land by treaty. Why did Jefferson think this treaty was unconstitutional? Pirate Dan 16:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

He didn't, several people did however. It was thought the unconstitutional part was the actual discussion before any treaty had been passed. And there really isn't any system that says the President can purchase land. Purchase X= Treaty. They're different. FinalWish 01:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Indian stuff - seems very pooly written

"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. The Indians were already occupying the land. Neither seller nor purchaser consulted with any Native Americans before selling. Most Native Americans never even knew of the sale."

This isn't referenced and it reads horribly - someone fancy sorting it out? Xipirho (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Protected

I re-protected the page for 3 weeks. The one-week protection didn't really help, as all the vandals came right back. Malinaccier (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)