Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Ladybranch, post: 40597, member: 44&quot;]&gt; What is now the south belonged mostly to France till the US bought Louisiana and a whole lot more from the French in the Louisiana Purchase. Paid millions in real gold and silver for it,too.&lt;</p><p><br /></p><p>We bought the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 for $15 million, 4 cents and acre. Today it is considered the greatest real estate deal in history. Napoleon needed money badly because of you British! We thank you British from the bottom of our cotton pickin&#039; hearts. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/smilies/wink.png" class="mceSmilie" alt=";)" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>Spain still owned the lower tier of the states of Alabama and Mississippi and all of Florida. Later after Col. then Gen. and&nbsp; later Pres. Andrew Jackson &quot;whopped&quot; the pants off the British and sent them running at New Orleans,</p><p><br /></p><p>[MEDIA=youtube]VL7XS_8qgXM[/MEDIA]</p><p><br /></p><p>he proceeded in trying to wipe out the NA (Seminoles) because of their raiding up into Georgia then escaping down into Spanish held Florida. Our govenment complained repeatedly to Spain but they turned a blind-eye to the NA behavior. Really, Spain didn&#039;t have the where-with-all in Florida to even try to control the NA. It was also found at the same time that British agents were working with the Seminoles. The powers to be in the US though these agents were arming and instigating the &quot;Indian&quot; attacks. I don&#039;t believe the aiding and abeting the NA has been proven. &quot;Ole Hickory&quot; Andy Jackson, never one to turn down a fight, used this as an excuse to follow the NAs down into Florida. He rounded up the British agents and executed at least one of them and decimated the Seminole tribe. Jackson really had the heart of an Imperialist after the fashion of the British Empire. Kind of ironic for he detested the British. He held the British responsible for the death of his mother and brothers during the Revolution. His father died a few days before he was born. His mother died of cholera while nursing POW on 2 British ships in Charleston Harbor. As only a boy of 13 he was taken prisoner by the British along with an older brother. On refusing to clean British officers boots he was slashed with a sword causing scars on his hands and face for the rest of his life. His brother contracted smallpox as a POW and another brother died fighting. He was an orphan at the age of 14.</p><p><br /></p><p>Getting back to the Louisiana Purchase, Pres. Thomas Jefferson gets all the credit for that deal in the history books. A little know fact is that a woman, yes a woman, is responsible for that great land deal. The wife of William C. Clairborne (Governor of the Mississippi Territory from 1801-1803) was on a shopping visit to New Orleans from Natchez Mississippi (the seat of the the MS territory government). While being entertained at a ladies tea in New Orleans, Mrs. Clairborne heard from the French ladies, wifes&#039; of the French governing powers, that Napoleon was desperate for money and was thinking about getting rid of the New World possession for cash. On getting back to Natchez, she told her husband what she had heard. Gov. Clairborne immediately called Pres. T. Jefferson on his cell phone with the news. On hearing this Jefferson sent emissaries to France with an offer to buy.</p><p><br /></p><p>&gt;If the British had not been at war with the French at the time,it is quite likely they would have bought the Louisiana deal and slavery would have been abolished at that time, leading to a very different North American history.&lt;</p><p><br /></p><p>Hmmmmm.... if the British and French hadn&#039;t been at war, Napoleon would not have needed money so there would be no need to sell the Louisiana. As to slavery, can&#039;t deny the possibility that slavery might have been abolished sooner in the south; however, with the advent of the Eli Whitney&#039;s cotton gin in the late 1700s was a big spur to slavery. If it hadn&#039;t been for the cotton gin, slavery would have been abolished much sooner in the US. Here&#039;s a bit of irony. The British Slavery Act of 1833 abolished slavery through out the British Empire ***except*** in &quot;the territories held by The East India Company, the Island of Ceylon and Saint Helena&quot;. Now look at that, they allowed slavery to continue in most of the empire that was growing cotton. If cotton could have been grown in the British Isles, they would not have banned slavery there either. I know sometime in the 1840s they amended that act to include all of the empire.</p><p><br /></p><p>What surprises me when I hear the British saying how moral they were to have abolished slavery so much sooner than us is that they were prepared to support/recognize the slavery South during the our Civil War!! Yes, the British were more on the side of the South with slavery rather than the North. Reason, purely economics, they wanted the South&#039;s cotton for their textile mills. Also wanted the North to lose because our North was stiff competition for the British. Our North was chuck-full of textile manufacturing. It wasn&#039;t until after the defeat of the South at Gettysburg that the hope of the South in getting British recognition were dashed.</p><p><br /></p><p>--- Susan[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in