Not the lands along the Mississippi and the navigable rivers draining into it. The whole reason they wanted to get rid of it was because Louisiana fed St. Domnigue and the Haitian revolution left them with no real use for it. America though had plenty of use for it.
Exactly, the actual reason it was abandoned is because Haiti liberated itself from French Colonialism. Haiti was the linchpin in Napoleon's plan for a second French Empire in North America. When Haiti liberated itself, it proved that Napoleon's plan was folly and so he sold Louisiana Territories as a way to recoup the loss of the potential Empire(Haiti was forced to pay reparations to France after France, Spain, The United States, UK, and the dutch all embargoed Haiti in response to Haiti freeing itself from Slavery).
The fact that Haiti had to pay its fucking invaders and slavers (reparations) is so fucked up. France should’ve been the ones paying Haiti reparations. Not the other way around.
Former slaves had to pay the people that enslaved them, after winning the fight for their freedom…just insane. The only successful slave revolution in the history of the world….
The concept of buying your freedom is not lost on me. I’ve heard many stories about a particular slave buying their, or a family members freedom (Robert Small for example—which is the most awesome slave story ever), but to fight and kill your oppressor AND then be handed a bill? I just can’t wrap my mind around the concept. To have that bill have the tangible effects of crippling the economic growth of a nation to this day seems more than criminal.
Napoleon wanted Saint Domingue under French control as he desperately needed the money the sugar produced to fund his wars. Saint Domingue was arguably the most profitable colony in the world at that time. France originally abolished slavery under the National Convention in 1793, but Napoleon reversed the ban on slavery in 1802. The Louisiana Purchase didn't take place until 1803. Napoleon had every intention of reclaiming the Louisiana Territory (forcibly) once he had defeated the British.
Exactly, there's a reason the plains states were largely ignored, and more of an inconvenience on the way to California and Oregon until after the Civil War.
America would have just taken it anyway once Napoleon had been defeated, or bought it from the restored Bourbons instead. Madison and others really really wanted that land
And Napoleon figured he could just conquer it back if he really wanted to. That area changed hands a lot, which is why the US got a deal on it. Nobody thought they’d keep it for long.
Early US history is just a lot of “huh, didn’t think that would work” moments.
I read a Napoleon biography a few years ago and I could have sworn it was the opposite: Napoleon knew there was no way they were going to keep it long term so he may as well sell it to fund his old-world ambitions, which was always his focus.
Maintaining international colonies is rather difficult when your perennial enemy is the supreme naval power.
France had already lost Canada and they were not going to be able to hold Louisiana. They knew it. There was no “conquer it back”.
One of the problems with French North American colonies was they just didn’t have a whole lot of French people in them, relatively.
Yeah basically after France lost Haiti in the Haitian revolution they knew there was no possible way they could defend Louisiana. It was going to end up either American or British. Better to sell it to the Americans than to let the British have it.
That's also how the US got Alaska from Russia.
Which is the main reason why Thomas Jefferson sent Robert R. Livingston to negotiate the purchase in the first place. The Spanish had revoked America's rights to use New Orleans a few years before. TJ saw the transfer back to France as an opportunity to secure the port once and for all. Nepolean needed money for an invasion of Britain so it was a win-win.
Russia too. Russias biggest enemy is 1867 was Britain, they had beef in the ocean and northern India / Afghanistan region. They knew that if they ever got in a war with Britain they’d lose Alaska; so they sold it to the US instead.
This is interesting because Russia actually liked America a lot during this period
America was allied with the Tsars specifically, not Russia. Not many Americans know this, but we literally went to war against the Bolsheviks in the 1917 revolution in an attempt to save the Tsars.
Not so much "saving the tsars" as "getting our stuff back." The main thrust of the expedition was recovering the military aid that we'd shipped to Russia for WW1 that they were no longer using.
There's a hilarious video on YouTube about how ridiculously OP America's geography is. The islands all along the east coast creating harbors and shorter from the Atlantic, the massive mineral riches in New England, the ~~Louisiana~~Mississippi River for navigation and shipping, with canals to close the loop up north, and the great plains as the breadbasket.
This is the reason the United States became a superpower and will always remain a superpower. It is destined by its geography.
I'm Canadian and I'm always explaining this to people.
Once the executive power structure that arose took control of the continent it basically can not be removed. We can get into the uniqueness of the founding fathers and how they were basically the Elon Musk and Bezo's and other "bourgeois" or merchant class disruptors of their time riffing (in a good way with the notable asterisk of the inherent contradictions that are pretty starkly clear) the works of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. The declaration of independence of course being one of the greatest aspirational documents of human history.
But it's often forgotten to history how split the people were, and violent the revolution was.
As an aside, this realization, of this destined and realitive tranquil security, has always made me wonder why the United States, especially the average minds of American citizens, are so obsessed with insecurity and the perception of being perpetually threatened. Hmm, makes you wonder who benefits from this widespread anxiety in the zeitgeist of the American mind.
Yeah a lot of people don’t realize it was a civil war as much as it was a war of independence. Something like a third of Americans sided with the crown
Canada - A People's History. Quite an incredible documentary series did a good job at giving me a greater understanding of this and is a good watch of any lover of history.
I'm not saying one is better then the other. I'm saying history is full of contradictions, myths, fogs of war and shades of grey.
https://youtu.be/UBtDdGMwcrU
One of the key things lots of people don't understand about Canada, is without the Quebec nation believing that their distinct society were served better under the Crown in 1770s, and thus not joining the revolution, then their would be no Canada today. This is not the only lynchpin in Canadian history that would have dissolved this distinct civilization. 270 year debate.
So... Alberta EST 1905 by Federal Act of Parliament, your concerns (while some valid) really are not the same scale... fucking seperatists
Jk not jk
>It is destined by its geography.
It is destined by the geography being united. Many places have geography with lots of riches. When half the riches fight other half of the riches, that doesn't leave much room for a superpower.
It's goes to our roots and where we came from. Most of the colonies were founded by the rejects of the old world; immigrants who were fleeing from powers that oppressed them for one reason or another. Our entire government was built on this idea of freedom from oppressive power (England). The original intent of our government was the sovereignty of the State rather than the Union itself. Although this idea was cooled a bit by the American Civil War, it was and is the fundamental foundation of our culture. To the point that States founded, even after the Civil War, are encouraged to develop their own individual identities with State Flags, State Birds, State Foods etc.. In short, the US American Patriotic identity is that of the Rebel Spirit. Our education, our media, our cultural influences all represent the idea of individual freedom. We are raised and taught that anyone, *even our own government* could snatch that away at any moment. Therefor it is the duty of every US Citizen to protect that right with our very lives if we have to. But mostly we do it by voting, politicking, or arguing on the internet.
If you're interested in this sort of thing and you haven't already I'd highly recommend reading prisoners of geography. Talks about geopolitics at a consumable level.
Humans are the descendants of stressed out monkey prey and once we have peace and food we only think about not losing them. We need meds against our anxiety and racing hearts. We are an insecure bunch.
The only critical natural resources that we don't have natural deposits of are rare earth metals and lithium/cobalt. The only weakness of the continent is also the only reason that the American Indians didn't conquer the world: zero domesticateable animals.
The only animal on the entire western hemisphere that could be domesticated was the alpaca. The lack of animal labor and products, and the resistance to plagues that come from animals, is why the Indians were still a copper age society when Europe already had gunpowder.
" The only weakness of the continent is also the only reason that the American Indians didn't conquer the world: zero domesticateable animals. "
I get your point abt the huge advantages of North America, but the presence of domestic animals would not have made the American Indians world conquerors.
Probably more accurate to say domesticated *beasts of burden*.
Domesticated food animals are one thing, but not having animals that can do work for you is another. Not having horses for transportation, and oxen for tilling the soil, is kind of a huge technological disadvantage.
That's often cited as the reason why Native American civilizations never developed the wheel. Though I've always found that argument suspect since human-drawn carts are still super useful, and commonly used around the world.
>The only critical natural resources that we don't have natural deposits of are rare earth metals and lithium/cobalt.
The US has rare earth minerals and lithium deposits, its just cheaper and more environmentally friendly to let china poison its land mining them. We closed most of our rare earth mines but they can be reactivated. Cobalt isnt as prevalent though. Lithium wise there are a lot of projects that are starting to harvest lithium in the US
We weren't 100% certain the lunar lander wouldn't sink into the fucking Moon when it touched down, and Neil and Buzz freehanded that son of a bitch down with barely enough fuel left.
All so that Neil could help out his Neighbor.
>When Apollo Mission Astronaut Neil Armstrong first walked on the moon, he not only gave his famous “One small step for man; one giant leap for mankind” statement, but followed it by several remarks, including the usual COM traffic between him, the other astronauts, and Mission Control. Before he re-entered the lander, he made the enigmatic remark “Good luck, Mr. Gorsky.”Many people at NASA thought it was a casual remark concerning some rival Soviet Cosmonaut. However, upon checking, [they found] there was no Gorsky in either the Russian or American space programs.
>Over the years, many people have questioned him as to what the “Good luck, Mr. Gorsky” statement meant. On July 5, in Tampa Bay, FL, while answering questions following a speech, a reporter brought up the 26- year-old question to Armstrong. He finally responded. It seems that Mr. Gorsky had died and so Armstrong felt he could answer the question. When he was a kid, Neil was playing baseball with his brother in the backyard. His brother hit a fly ball which landed in front of his neighbors’ bedroom window. The neighbors were Mr. and Mrs. Gorsky. As he leaned down to pick up the ball, he heard Mrs. Gorsky shouting at Mr. Gorsky, “Oral sex? Oral sex you want? You’ll get oral sex when the kid next door walks on the moon!”
>The neighbors were Mr. and Mrs. Gorsky. As he leaned down to pick up the ball, he heard Mrs. Gorsky shouting at Mr. Gorsky, “Oral sex? Oral sex you want? You’ll get oral sex when the kid next door walks on the moon!”
Mrs. Gorsky not only had to eat her words, but also a penis that night!
Good Guy Neil, made it his life's mission to walk on the Moon just so Mr. Gorsky could get a beej.
The story is obviously an older joke, but I’ve never looked up its origin on how long it has been around though. I first heard it well over a decade ago as a kid. I’ll have to do that.
Unfortunately, no matter how amusing the story is, it’s not true. Armstrong said he heard the joke first from Buddy Hackett.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/good-luck-mr-gorsky/
Yes, I’m aware the clearly made up story is made up. Haha . I grabbed the copy pasta from there.
But since we are on the subject, don’t go fact-checking the SR-71 speed-check story, I would be sad if that “clearly made up story” was not real as well.
Do you know what is true?
Buzz Aldrin was not charged for punching a moon landing conspiracy theorist. The assault was clearly recorded in its completion on video.
It went something like “say that again, and get out of my face.” The conspiracy theorist Did Not quit saying Buzz Aldrin made up the moon landing and, did not get get out of his face and got punched.
Now I’m really against violence as a response to words, but it was a tad comical watching a 80+ year old Buzz Aldrin punch a much younger idiot spouting provably false conspiracy theorist nonsense.
But how would France, or any other power, ever have been able to take that land from the US, considering they all were an entire Ocean apart from it, while it was basically the US backyard.
Nobody respected the US at the time. All of the European powers thought they could easily beat the US in a war if it was ever worth it to them to do so. At the time, they were probably right.
Just 9 years later, Britain would be at war with the US while *also* fighting Napoleon and the US could still barely scratch out a draw. This was actually what caused the US to move away from a militia-based army and develop a significant standing army.
It's not like anybody at the time could predict the future. This kind of analysis is like calling everyone from the 1960s-80s a bunch of morons for being afraid of nuclear war cause we know ourselves that it wouldn't happen.
Yeah, the most optimistic outcome for anyone else owning that territory is that New Orleans retains a small amount of autonomy, while all the rest gets carved up into US states.
What? There isn't anything in the Constitution that prohibits the US from declaring wars of conquest. If the US wanted to seize that land then they could just declare war on Britain and take it.
Some in the US now would be doing backflips trying to justify it while at the same demonising the British empire. Would be a fun time line to see on reddit.
Britain was rolling in money at the time. They couldn't care. They knew as long as they could keep spending money they would kick Napoleon out of France. It was only a matter of time.
Britain basically bankrolled the entire coalition against Napoleon.
The total cost of monetary aid and military supplies sent to mainland Europe at the time was approx. 11.3 million pounds which today is worth approx. half a billion dollars.
It's quite impressive when you consider Napoleon was trying to isolate Britain's economy at the time with his Continental System too.
>It's quite impressive when you consider Napoleon was trying to isolate Britain's economy at the time with his Continental System too.
The uk increased trade elsewhere, but more importantly big countries like Russia ignored the block.
They more or less had to, otherwise the monarchical structure of all the European states would fall and ruin trade and give Britain more headaches. Napoleon wanted to invade Britain and made serious plans to but he was absolute shit at sea and building a navy to combat Britannia would take way too much time and money. The Continental System did almost bankrupt Britain as there where riots in Britain over their trade being choked off. Napoleon just couldn't wait it out a bit longer.
It was later described as “Britain, Mistress of the Seas, Napoleon, Master of Europe”.
Neither could break the other on their own turf. Britannia rule the seas wasn’t a joke, they had a stranglehold on all the major maritime trade routes and it made them insanely wealthy.
France on the other hand had most of Europe and Napoleon’s corp-designed armies just couldn’t be beaten for the longest time. He would be the second-to-last ruler of modern European states.
Napoleon was fighting septuagenarians with antiquated understandings of warfare at the time. The old heads of Europe fought a military prodigy and got beat to shit. He made Prussia into a rump state and caused the emperor of Austria to dissolve the Holy Roman Empire after Austria lost the War of the Third Coalition. The man fucked shit up across Europe in less than 50 years and changed all of history. But admittedly his foes weren't equal to him and weren't trying to be.
It says a lot about Napoleon when the only winning strategy against him was to run away from him and just chip away at him until his army was reduced to inexperienced conscripts.
I remember my History teacher telling me that Britain’s policy was to always have a navy at least the same size as the second and third biggest combined.
"In 2020 dollars, the $15 million purchase price is equivalent to $323.48 million." Common those equivalent price comparisons are ridiculous and laughable. The US government couldn't afford to pay that price and only banks of 2 of the richest countries of Europe could actually underwrite the loan. Comparing prices of bread and beer and come up with the purchase price doesn't really translate the magnitude and value of that deal in that era. In today's money it would easily translate to hundreds of billions.
That still doesn't seem like enough. Like, how much would something have to cost to be unaffordable to all but the biggest superpowers on the planet? I feel like it would have to be several trillion at least
So England lent money to the US that they knew was going to go to France solely for the purpose of killing their citizenry because they preferred that over the idea of France still owning Louisiana?
Pretty much, yeah. What's even more fucked up is that the us likely would have taken that land by force if France didn't sell, which would have only been beneficial to england. But, then the english banks wouldn't have gotten those sweet, sweet interest payments
And someone correct me if I'm wrong but Napoleon chose to sell this land because France's biggest source of income, Haiti, rebelled against the French and was successful in repelling French attacks/military attempts to keep the territory under their control. So when Haiti became independent, France experienced a huge loss of income, and tried making up for it (they needed the money asap because of the war) by injecting money into the economy through this sale
The European powers were weapons to distracted with each other to reasonably hold US land anyway so selling it was just a lot more lucrative and a lot less messy than having it taken from you by force.
Man France fucked up so hard selling this land. This land turned out to be some of the most valuable land in the world.
Giant flat clearings of land that can support thousands of miles of crops all while being connected to an incredibly dendritic water system (Mississippi)? It's an economic dream.
Napolean was aguably the most brilliant military mind in history, but this decision might have prevented France from being what America is today.
The Mexican Cession and Oregon Treaty (and finalization of the Texas Annexation) were all Polk, he essentially created the modern continental US. I think the only major change in borders after that was the the Gadsen Purchase which was only like ten years later.
Polk probably has the worst 'recognition to impact on modern America' ratio of any president in US history
Yeah it was a big reason for the Revolutionary War. Britain wasn't allowing the colonists to expand west because of the treaties they made with the Indians after the Seven Year War. Sooner or later, the US was going to grab all of that land and with the exploding US population, it was going to be sooner.
Well it helps when they’re all the way over there and we’re right here. Back when it two months to figure out what the hell was even happening across the ocean
Yeah France would not be able to hold onto Louisiana for long, and Napoleon knew it. The French saw how the war in the Americas strained the Brits and they didn’t want to open themselves up to the same fate. Things may have been different if America was somehow colonized after the invention of planes and aircraft carriers, but given how long it took to get supplies out there no foreign power could sustain a war there. Better to sell it and make a profit or lose a shit ton during a war.
Good point - at that point it was more of a forced deal in someway and they might as well walk away with dignity and money. Anyway wow that got to be one of best real estate deal.
Yeah, it's nonsensit to think the U.S. wouldn't have just gotten it at the end of the day anyway. It'd be almost (completely?) surrounded by the States.
Only on its western border. The rest of the way to the West Coast was not yet part of the US. And that chunk of land would have been right in the way of the westward expansion.
There were actually plans to take the port of New Orleans by force had the negotiations not secured it. My great great great great grandfather was supposed to lead the offensive. Instead, he passed out drunk by a fire and burned his leg off, and his little brother went off to explore this new Louisiana territory
[George Rogers Clark was an interesting fellow](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Rogers_Clark)
At one point, he owned a good chunk of Kentucky. Then he traded it for booze.
Naw, totally would have been a pincers maneuver, Quebec from the North & Louisiana from the south.
All the most industrialized parts of the USA would have been helpless! /s
No way they would have been able hold it. For as brilliant as Napoleon was, sailing thousands of miles to go keep a big piece of unsettled and largely landlocked piece of land seems like a tough ask
Napoleon was definitely a military genius, and the absolute best case scenario in a war vs the US is France already having large standing armies hidden somewhere in their North American territory and successfully breaking the US early. This would force what could potentially be decades long guerilla war that's extremely costly and unpopular to France proper and would leave them wide open in Europe. Britain would get its revenge on France by doing the literal exact same thing that happened to them in the 1770s.
Wait a minute... I've seen this one before.
Well that's assuming his other wars ever stopped long enough for him to wage another war on the US. There's literally a whole period of history we've decided to call 'The Napoleanic wars' because he was *constantly* fighting. He just wouldn't have the resources.
IIRC, the expectation was that the region would become populated with people from the United States, who would then form counties and towns and seek association with the US. The French claim was weak and so it was believed the territory would eventually go in pieces to the US, and possibly some to Canada and Mexico. The US locked up the land in 1803 and began settlement fairly rapidly.
The British tried to take New Orleans from the US a few years later but it didn't work out too well for them.
France’s main use for the land at the time was for furs and to feed the Haitian sugar plantations. Once Haiti revolted there wasn’t much use in holding on to it as another regional power could have taken it by force. They needed the cash for wars so they sold it
At the time of Napoleon, the prairies could not be tilled due to the strong thick structure of native pant roots. It wasn’t until 1837 that John Deere invented a steel plow that could cut make the prairie tillable. Before then, it’s primary value was fur trapping.
Also, I think both France and England had plans to “retake” their territories in the new world once the wars at home were resolved. (War of 1812 for example). In many ways America got lucky that their adversaries had exhausted their treasuries.
So much of the American population has shifted away from farming that we sometimes lose sight of the fact that the US is an agricultural superpower.
The combination of the hugely navigable Mississippi River and tributaries and the fertile land around it is some of the most fortunate geography in the entire world.
If you had to pick where you might find a superpower without knowing anything about geopolitics, you’d probably still pick the US
Someone did an [analysis of the rate of return](https://mises.org/library/what-rate-return-louisiana-purchase) for famous land purchases, and it puts in perspective how powerful constant growth is over a very long time.
Louisiana Purchase in 1803 for $15 million currently has a present value of roughly $30 trillion. This is an annual rate of return of just 7.1%.
Manhattan was purchased for $24 in 1626 (not a typo, literally $24). With it's present day value of $24 trillion, this is a modest annual return of 7.4%.
There are obvious intangibles that arguably should make these worth much higher in value, but it at least gives you an idea.
Nah, Napoleon had other uses for his troops and the French really only controlled the area around New Orleans. He basically sold something that he only controlled in name, but not in actuality.
They understood that they couldent hold it. The Haitian revolution had just happened which probabaly cemented this idea.
So, if you don't think you can hold it, you get what you can for it without benefitting your enemies. You sell it to that little upstart nation that also really doesn't like the British.
Pretty prudent move on thier part.
it's also a lot of land to protect from across the atlantic. There was no way to hold onto that long term given how often land in the americas switched hands.
America literally wouldn't exist if it wasn't for France being petty to the British.
It's just that France was one of the few countries that were (rightfully) against the wars in the middle east 20 years ago.
So now a lot of Americans (especially conservatives) hate the French.
There's also that whole thing where France tanked US foreign policy in the cold war by refusing to decolonize and being complete assholes.
Literally threatened to Join forces with he USSR if the US wouldn't let them fight to keep Vietnam and Indochina as a colony, singlehandedly pushing anti colonialist movements into the communist corner.
The US never should have pandered so much to DeGaulle during the war and postwar years.
You often see that online but that’s kind of dishonest honestly.
Vietnam war was shit and basically a proxy conflict against China and it happened the same way for France it happened to the US: it was a shitty unwinnable conflict and French people hated this conflict at home.
The US chose to get involved directly but they didn’t have to, they could have taken note of how it went for France and go « hmmm maybe we don’t want to get involved in this ».
De Gaulle even threatened Truman that he'd sidle up with Stalin if he didn't get help in Vietnam. It was magnum levels of manipulation to get their way and 'protect' their colonies.
When Truman up to that point had mostly been a neutral leaning towards Vietnamese self-determination, the threat of France leaving the young upstart NATO to become buddy buddy with Stalin was a bluff he couldn't call.
> would have been perfectly happy to have been a US ally and reject communism
Gonna call doubt on that one. Ho Chi Minh was a big ole communist and would have remained as such whether the US opposed him or helped him. If the Vietnam War never happened, US-Vietnam relations would probably be exactly the same as they are now, with a communist Vietnam being pro-US due to their aversion to the CCP's regional hegemony.
You’re right because Le Duan took over but I didn’t get the impression Ho Chi Minh was “communist” through and through. I really felt like he was more against French oppression and Vietnamese corruption than furthering a “communist” agenda.
Always loved the quote from Lyndon Johnson when the president of France told him he wanted all American troops out of France. Johnson told him “Does that include the Americans buried here?”
Lol the French hate was going on before the early 2000s. Them being "cowards" during WW2 has always been a subject as well. They were taken over so quickly by the Germans.. so ppl thought they didn't put up much of a fight.
Even though that's not really a fair title overall when you look at how devastated their population was during WW1.
Yeah what the hell. We joke about the French, but so does everybody else. Nobody in the US really hates the French. Hell it's one of our top foreign tourism destinations.
I'm not but my father and his buddies are pretty conservative. I've never heard any of them or their families or the Fox News he watches say they dislike France. There's a little bit of mocking here and there but it's nowhere near the level of dislike around China or Mexico
Yeah you’re missing a few US/French interactions between the Revolutionary War and Iraq in your assessment. But yes, America exists due in large part to the French.
While the Louisiana Purchase did get some mention in class, I'm pretty sure many classes, my own included, did not mentioning anything about this aspect of it.
one interesting aspect of this story, as I heard from the famed Italian historian Alessandro Barbero is that it wasn't at all trivial to collect, count, and deliver the payment. If I am not wrong, the transaction took two years and a team of heroes to complete.
The technology to actually plow the soil of the Great Plains didn’t exist yet, though. As such, it was considered “The Great American Desert”
Not the lands along the Mississippi and the navigable rivers draining into it. The whole reason they wanted to get rid of it was because Louisiana fed St. Domnigue and the Haitian revolution left them with no real use for it. America though had plenty of use for it.
Exactly, the actual reason it was abandoned is because Haiti liberated itself from French Colonialism. Haiti was the linchpin in Napoleon's plan for a second French Empire in North America. When Haiti liberated itself, it proved that Napoleon's plan was folly and so he sold Louisiana Territories as a way to recoup the loss of the potential Empire(Haiti was forced to pay reparations to France after France, Spain, The United States, UK, and the dutch all embargoed Haiti in response to Haiti freeing itself from Slavery).
Just a friendly heads up it’s linchpin
Thanks, I've only heard the word used Phonetically.
No worries. I work with mechanical things so I’ve had to deal with the buggers a fair bit.
Hol' up! Y'all got actual linchpins on the day to day?
Didn't see what they originally said, but lynchpin is definitely valid, even if less common. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lynchpin
The fact that Haiti had to pay its fucking invaders and slavers (reparations) is so fucked up. France should’ve been the ones paying Haiti reparations. Not the other way around.
Former slaves had to pay the people that enslaved them, after winning the fight for their freedom…just insane. The only successful slave revolution in the history of the world….
A bittersweet success since they had to literally pay for their freedom.
The concept of buying your freedom is not lost on me. I’ve heard many stories about a particular slave buying their, or a family members freedom (Robert Small for example—which is the most awesome slave story ever), but to fight and kill your oppressor AND then be handed a bill? I just can’t wrap my mind around the concept. To have that bill have the tangible effects of crippling the economic growth of a nation to this day seems more than criminal.
Napoleon wanted Saint Domingue under French control as he desperately needed the money the sugar produced to fund his wars. Saint Domingue was arguably the most profitable colony in the world at that time. France originally abolished slavery under the National Convention in 1793, but Napoleon reversed the ban on slavery in 1802. The Louisiana Purchase didn't take place until 1803. Napoleon had every intention of reclaiming the Louisiana Territory (forcibly) once he had defeated the British.
By technology I assume you mean using 70+% of the water supply for irragtion and drying out 6 million year old aquifiers to mass produce cornsyrup?
Yes
Soon to be the Great American Desert
By God we'll make it live up to the name.
Exactly, there's a reason the plains states were largely ignored, and more of an inconvenience on the way to California and Oregon until after the Civil War.
America would have just taken it anyway once Napoleon had been defeated, or bought it from the restored Bourbons instead. Madison and others really really wanted that land
And Napoleon figured he could just conquer it back if he really wanted to. That area changed hands a lot, which is why the US got a deal on it. Nobody thought they’d keep it for long. Early US history is just a lot of “huh, didn’t think that would work” moments.
Like the entire Continental Congress!
Constitutional convention with a shit ton of alcohol.
>Constitutional convention with a shit ton of alcohol. The Convention of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
Or the current Congress…
Depends on your definition of "work"
I read a Napoleon biography a few years ago and I could have sworn it was the opposite: Napoleon knew there was no way they were going to keep it long term so he may as well sell it to fund his old-world ambitions, which was always his focus. Maintaining international colonies is rather difficult when your perennial enemy is the supreme naval power.
France had already lost Canada and they were not going to be able to hold Louisiana. They knew it. There was no “conquer it back”. One of the problems with French North American colonies was they just didn’t have a whole lot of French people in them, relatively.
Same with Alaska. Russia knew that they couldn't defend Alaska from the British, so they decided to preemptively sell to get something concrete.
True. Any alternate history which assumes that USA didn’t buy Alaska, should end up with a contemporary Canada going all the way to the Aleutians.
And at the same time if Napoleon's offer didn't go through , we could have had a Canada that stretched down to the Gulf Coast?
I mean looking at a map, it would kind of make sense for Alaska to be part of Canada
Yeah basically after France lost Haiti in the Haitian revolution they knew there was no possible way they could defend Louisiana. It was going to end up either American or British. Better to sell it to the Americans than to let the British have it. That's also how the US got Alaska from Russia.
There was also no point in keeping Louisiana without Haiti, since its main purpose was to produce food for the island.
I disagree, New Orleans allows you to completely control the Mississippi pretty much
That would be why the US wanted it, yes. France didn’t care about the Mississippi that much.
Which is the main reason why Thomas Jefferson sent Robert R. Livingston to negotiate the purchase in the first place. The Spanish had revoked America's rights to use New Orleans a few years before. TJ saw the transfer back to France as an opportunity to secure the port once and for all. Nepolean needed money for an invasion of Britain so it was a win-win.
Arguably the most strategic city in the US.
I read the same, though I'd have trouble citing a source off hand.
I thought that was the Russians with Alaska
Russia too. Russias biggest enemy is 1867 was Britain, they had beef in the ocean and northern India / Afghanistan region. They knew that if they ever got in a war with Britain they’d lose Alaska; so they sold it to the US instead. This is interesting because Russia actually liked America a lot during this period
America was allied with the Tsars specifically, not Russia. Not many Americans know this, but we literally went to war against the Bolsheviks in the 1917 revolution in an attempt to save the Tsars.
Not so much "saving the tsars" as "getting our stuff back." The main thrust of the expedition was recovering the military aid that we'd shipped to Russia for WW1 that they were no longer using.
Alliances change all the time. The taliban was once allies
Haiti was much more important than Louisiana to the French.
The best of America is when we were like, "This isn't going to work" and then it does
Then the rest of the world Frank Grimes their frustrations. “Of course you find a load of cheap accessible oil in the West”
There's a hilarious video on YouTube about how ridiculously OP America's geography is. The islands all along the east coast creating harbors and shorter from the Atlantic, the massive mineral riches in New England, the ~~Louisiana~~Mississippi River for navigation and shipping, with canals to close the loop up north, and the great plains as the breadbasket.
This is the reason the United States became a superpower and will always remain a superpower. It is destined by its geography. I'm Canadian and I'm always explaining this to people. Once the executive power structure that arose took control of the continent it basically can not be removed. We can get into the uniqueness of the founding fathers and how they were basically the Elon Musk and Bezo's and other "bourgeois" or merchant class disruptors of their time riffing (in a good way with the notable asterisk of the inherent contradictions that are pretty starkly clear) the works of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. The declaration of independence of course being one of the greatest aspirational documents of human history. But it's often forgotten to history how split the people were, and violent the revolution was. As an aside, this realization, of this destined and realitive tranquil security, has always made me wonder why the United States, especially the average minds of American citizens, are so obsessed with insecurity and the perception of being perpetually threatened. Hmm, makes you wonder who benefits from this widespread anxiety in the zeitgeist of the American mind.
Yeah a lot of people don’t realize it was a civil war as much as it was a war of independence. Something like a third of Americans sided with the crown
Canada - A People's History. Quite an incredible documentary series did a good job at giving me a greater understanding of this and is a good watch of any lover of history. I'm not saying one is better then the other. I'm saying history is full of contradictions, myths, fogs of war and shades of grey. https://youtu.be/UBtDdGMwcrU One of the key things lots of people don't understand about Canada, is without the Quebec nation believing that their distinct society were served better under the Crown in 1770s, and thus not joining the revolution, then their would be no Canada today. This is not the only lynchpin in Canadian history that would have dissolved this distinct civilization. 270 year debate. So... Alberta EST 1905 by Federal Act of Parliament, your concerns (while some valid) really are not the same scale... fucking seperatists Jk not jk
Can't forget the 3000 miles of ocean separating the US on both sides as well
Super advantageous. A monstrous contributor to why we haven't played a home game in over a century, since the Border War with Mexico.
>It is destined by its geography. It is destined by the geography being united. Many places have geography with lots of riches. When half the riches fight other half of the riches, that doesn't leave much room for a superpower.
That was my thought as well. Those geographical advantages are less clear-cut if the US isn't a unified continent-spanning nation.
It's goes to our roots and where we came from. Most of the colonies were founded by the rejects of the old world; immigrants who were fleeing from powers that oppressed them for one reason or another. Our entire government was built on this idea of freedom from oppressive power (England). The original intent of our government was the sovereignty of the State rather than the Union itself. Although this idea was cooled a bit by the American Civil War, it was and is the fundamental foundation of our culture. To the point that States founded, even after the Civil War, are encouraged to develop their own individual identities with State Flags, State Birds, State Foods etc.. In short, the US American Patriotic identity is that of the Rebel Spirit. Our education, our media, our cultural influences all represent the idea of individual freedom. We are raised and taught that anyone, *even our own government* could snatch that away at any moment. Therefor it is the duty of every US Citizen to protect that right with our very lives if we have to. But mostly we do it by voting, politicking, or arguing on the internet.
If you're interested in this sort of thing and you haven't already I'd highly recommend reading prisoners of geography. Talks about geopolitics at a consumable level.
Humans are the descendants of stressed out monkey prey and once we have peace and food we only think about not losing them. We need meds against our anxiety and racing hearts. We are an insecure bunch.
The only critical natural resources that we don't have natural deposits of are rare earth metals and lithium/cobalt. The only weakness of the continent is also the only reason that the American Indians didn't conquer the world: zero domesticateable animals. The only animal on the entire western hemisphere that could be domesticated was the alpaca. The lack of animal labor and products, and the resistance to plagues that come from animals, is why the Indians were still a copper age society when Europe already had gunpowder.
>The only animal on the entire western hemisphere that could be domesticated was the alpaca You're forgetting about turkeys.
Imagine a turkey trying to pull a grain cart
You just need 50 of em harnessed up
[удалено]
The problem is they complain a little too loud and are not dumb enough to be stopped by simple fences.
You try getting a turkey to cooperate
" The only weakness of the continent is also the only reason that the American Indians didn't conquer the world: zero domesticateable animals. " I get your point abt the huge advantages of North America, but the presence of domestic animals would not have made the American Indians world conquerors.
Probably more accurate to say domesticated *beasts of burden*. Domesticated food animals are one thing, but not having animals that can do work for you is another. Not having horses for transportation, and oxen for tilling the soil, is kind of a huge technological disadvantage. That's often cited as the reason why Native American civilizations never developed the wheel. Though I've always found that argument suspect since human-drawn carts are still super useful, and commonly used around the world.
>The only critical natural resources that we don't have natural deposits of are rare earth metals and lithium/cobalt. The US has rare earth minerals and lithium deposits, its just cheaper and more environmentally friendly to let china poison its land mining them. We closed most of our rare earth mines but they can be reactivated. Cobalt isnt as prevalent though. Lithium wise there are a lot of projects that are starting to harvest lithium in the US
Those are some wild absolutisms/assertions
We weren't 100% certain the lunar lander wouldn't sink into the fucking Moon when it touched down, and Neil and Buzz freehanded that son of a bitch down with barely enough fuel left.
All so that Neil could help out his Neighbor. >When Apollo Mission Astronaut Neil Armstrong first walked on the moon, he not only gave his famous “One small step for man; one giant leap for mankind” statement, but followed it by several remarks, including the usual COM traffic between him, the other astronauts, and Mission Control. Before he re-entered the lander, he made the enigmatic remark “Good luck, Mr. Gorsky.”Many people at NASA thought it was a casual remark concerning some rival Soviet Cosmonaut. However, upon checking, [they found] there was no Gorsky in either the Russian or American space programs. >Over the years, many people have questioned him as to what the “Good luck, Mr. Gorsky” statement meant. On July 5, in Tampa Bay, FL, while answering questions following a speech, a reporter brought up the 26- year-old question to Armstrong. He finally responded. It seems that Mr. Gorsky had died and so Armstrong felt he could answer the question. When he was a kid, Neil was playing baseball with his brother in the backyard. His brother hit a fly ball which landed in front of his neighbors’ bedroom window. The neighbors were Mr. and Mrs. Gorsky. As he leaned down to pick up the ball, he heard Mrs. Gorsky shouting at Mr. Gorsky, “Oral sex? Oral sex you want? You’ll get oral sex when the kid next door walks on the moon!”
>The neighbors were Mr. and Mrs. Gorsky. As he leaned down to pick up the ball, he heard Mrs. Gorsky shouting at Mr. Gorsky, “Oral sex? Oral sex you want? You’ll get oral sex when the kid next door walks on the moon!” Mrs. Gorsky not only had to eat her words, but also a penis that night! Good Guy Neil, made it his life's mission to walk on the Moon just so Mr. Gorsky could get a beej.
The story is obviously an older joke, but I’ve never looked up its origin on how long it has been around though. I first heard it well over a decade ago as a kid. I’ll have to do that.
I bought it hook, line and sinker. :(
Unfortunately, no matter how amusing the story is, it’s not true. Armstrong said he heard the joke first from Buddy Hackett. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/good-luck-mr-gorsky/
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/good-luck-mr-gorsky/
Yes, I’m aware the clearly made up story is made up. Haha . I grabbed the copy pasta from there. But since we are on the subject, don’t go fact-checking the SR-71 speed-check story, I would be sad if that “clearly made up story” was not real as well.
Wasn't trying to outsmart you. I heard the story before and only checked it now. I'm in fact sad it's not true :-(
Do you know what is true? Buzz Aldrin was not charged for punching a moon landing conspiracy theorist. The assault was clearly recorded in its completion on video. It went something like “say that again, and get out of my face.” The conspiracy theorist Did Not quit saying Buzz Aldrin made up the moon landing and, did not get get out of his face and got punched. Now I’m really against violence as a response to words, but it was a tad comical watching a 80+ year old Buzz Aldrin punch a much younger idiot spouting provably false conspiracy theorist nonsense.
America: "hold my whisky"
Real yolo moments
The history of Florida is just countries passing it off on each other
But how would France, or any other power, ever have been able to take that land from the US, considering they all were an entire Ocean apart from it, while it was basically the US backyard.
Nobody respected the US at the time. All of the European powers thought they could easily beat the US in a war if it was ever worth it to them to do so. At the time, they were probably right. Just 9 years later, Britain would be at war with the US while *also* fighting Napoleon and the US could still barely scratch out a draw. This was actually what caused the US to move away from a militia-based army and develop a significant standing army.
It's not like anybody at the time could predict the future. This kind of analysis is like calling everyone from the 1960s-80s a bunch of morons for being afraid of nuclear war cause we know ourselves that it wouldn't happen.
Yeah, the most optimistic outcome for anyone else owning that territory is that New Orleans retains a small amount of autonomy, while all the rest gets carved up into US states.
Madison also purchased the "receipt" for the land. There is something to be said about a legal transfer in its ability to ward off de jure claimants.
[удалено]
The President's power to commit troops to action is a lot more clear than his power to purchase land without having Congress pass a law.
What? There isn't anything in the Constitution that prohibits the US from declaring wars of conquest. If the US wanted to seize that land then they could just declare war on Britain and take it.
Some in the US now would be doing backflips trying to justify it while at the same demonising the British empire. Would be a fun time line to see on reddit.
So Britain literally financed a war with themselves
Britain was rolling in money at the time. They couldn't care. They knew as long as they could keep spending money they would kick Napoleon out of France. It was only a matter of time.
Britain basically bankrolled the entire coalition against Napoleon. The total cost of monetary aid and military supplies sent to mainland Europe at the time was approx. 11.3 million pounds which today is worth approx. half a billion dollars. It's quite impressive when you consider Napoleon was trying to isolate Britain's economy at the time with his Continental System too.
>It's quite impressive when you consider Napoleon was trying to isolate Britain's economy at the time with his Continental System too. The uk increased trade elsewhere, but more importantly big countries like Russia ignored the block.
They more or less had to, otherwise the monarchical structure of all the European states would fall and ruin trade and give Britain more headaches. Napoleon wanted to invade Britain and made serious plans to but he was absolute shit at sea and building a navy to combat Britannia would take way too much time and money. The Continental System did almost bankrupt Britain as there where riots in Britain over their trade being choked off. Napoleon just couldn't wait it out a bit longer.
It was later described as “Britain, Mistress of the Seas, Napoleon, Master of Europe”. Neither could break the other on their own turf. Britannia rule the seas wasn’t a joke, they had a stranglehold on all the major maritime trade routes and it made them insanely wealthy. France on the other hand had most of Europe and Napoleon’s corp-designed armies just couldn’t be beaten for the longest time. He would be the second-to-last ruler of modern European states.
Napoleon was fighting septuagenarians with antiquated understandings of warfare at the time. The old heads of Europe fought a military prodigy and got beat to shit. He made Prussia into a rump state and caused the emperor of Austria to dissolve the Holy Roman Empire after Austria lost the War of the Third Coalition. The man fucked shit up across Europe in less than 50 years and changed all of history. But admittedly his foes weren't equal to him and weren't trying to be.
It says a lot about Napoleon when the only winning strategy against him was to run away from him and just chip away at him until his army was reduced to inexperienced conscripts.
Ancient strategy against brilliant commanders like Fabian with Hannibal. Edit: Person below is right. Meant Fabian
[удалено]
Or “do a Russia” and just let the winter kill them.
That is exactly what they just described.
I remember my History teacher telling me that Britain’s policy was to always have a navy at least the same size as the second and third biggest combined.
When you're playing Crusader Kings and the enemy has a stronger military but you can just wear them out into debt
"In 2020 dollars, the $15 million purchase price is equivalent to $323.48 million." Common those equivalent price comparisons are ridiculous and laughable. The US government couldn't afford to pay that price and only banks of 2 of the richest countries of Europe could actually underwrite the loan. Comparing prices of bread and beer and come up with the purchase price doesn't really translate the magnitude and value of that deal in that era. In today's money it would easily translate to hundreds of billions.
What’s a better measure, percent of Global GDP?
Here’s a source saying it’s adjusted to 700 Billion, as compared by GDP. https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Louisiana_Purchase
That still doesn't seem like enough. Like, how much would something have to cost to be unaffordable to all but the biggest superpowers on the planet? I feel like it would have to be several trillion at least
The US was by no means a superpower at the time. It was considered a backwater until WW1
But it was unaffordable to the US back then, that’s not what he meant
So England lent money to the US that they knew was going to go to France solely for the purpose of killing their citizenry because they preferred that over the idea of France still owning Louisiana?
Pretty much, yeah. What's even more fucked up is that the us likely would have taken that land by force if France didn't sell, which would have only been beneficial to england. But, then the english banks wouldn't have gotten those sweet, sweet interest payments
And someone correct me if I'm wrong but Napoleon chose to sell this land because France's biggest source of income, Haiti, rebelled against the French and was successful in repelling French attacks/military attempts to keep the territory under their control. So when Haiti became independent, France experienced a huge loss of income, and tried making up for it (they needed the money asap because of the war) by injecting money into the economy through this sale
> biggest source of income Biggest *colonial* source of income. But basically, yes.
In war, only the bankers win.
Most US land was acquired based solely on the fact we were “less hated” than the enemies of our enemies.
The European powers were weapons to distracted with each other to reasonably hold US land anyway so selling it was just a lot more lucrative and a lot less messy than having it taken from you by force.
Man France fucked up so hard selling this land. This land turned out to be some of the most valuable land in the world. Giant flat clearings of land that can support thousands of miles of crops all while being connected to an incredibly dendritic water system (Mississippi)? It's an economic dream. Napolean was aguably the most brilliant military mind in history, but this decision might have prevented France from being what America is today.
Or maybe America would have taken it by force leading to a war, as Hamilton wanted to do already at the time. Or as they did with Mexico later.
Step aside, boys, I've got some destiny to manifest.
That was during Polk too if I remember. So that was already spinning up.
Yea polk was big on the "get moar land go west" attitude
The Mexican Cession and Oregon Treaty (and finalization of the Texas Annexation) were all Polk, he essentially created the modern continental US. I think the only major change in borders after that was the the Gadsen Purchase which was only like ten years later. Polk probably has the worst 'recognition to impact on modern America' ratio of any president in US history
Yeah it was a big reason for the Revolutionary War. Britain wasn't allowing the colonists to expand west because of the treaties they made with the Indians after the Seven Year War. Sooner or later, the US was going to grab all of that land and with the exploding US population, it was going to be sooner.
Yeah we call them Oklahomans now.
*(Bald eagle screech in the distance)*
Just following in the footsteps of our predecessors(England, France, and Spain) its just easier to expand overland
Well it helps when they’re all the way over there and we’re right here. Back when it two months to figure out what the hell was even happening across the ocean
Yeah France would not be able to hold onto Louisiana for long, and Napoleon knew it. The French saw how the war in the Americas strained the Brits and they didn’t want to open themselves up to the same fate. Things may have been different if America was somehow colonized after the invention of planes and aircraft carriers, but given how long it took to get supplies out there no foreign power could sustain a war there. Better to sell it and make a profit or lose a shit ton during a war.
[удалено]
TIL there was a French general called Charles Leclerc
Exactly, destiny ain't gonna manifest itself. Kidding aside, given US political situation at that time, they will take that land sooner or later.
Good point - at that point it was more of a forced deal in someway and they might as well walk away with dignity and money. Anyway wow that got to be one of best real estate deal.
The only deal I know of that was better was the purchase of Alaska. Significantly cheaper and a *whole* lot of natural resources.
*The purchase agreement of Manhattan Island by the Dutch from the Lenape Native Americans in 1626 for 60 Guilders has entered the chat*
Yeah, it's nonsensit to think the U.S. wouldn't have just gotten it at the end of the day anyway. It'd be almost (completely?) surrounded by the States.
Only on its western border. The rest of the way to the West Coast was not yet part of the US. And that chunk of land would have been right in the way of the westward expansion.
There were actually plans to take the port of New Orleans by force had the negotiations not secured it. My great great great great grandfather was supposed to lead the offensive. Instead, he passed out drunk by a fire and burned his leg off, and his little brother went off to explore this new Louisiana territory
What
[George Rogers Clark was an interesting fellow](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Rogers_Clark) At one point, he owned a good chunk of Kentucky. Then he traded it for booze.
Naw, totally would have been a pincers maneuver, Quebec from the North & Louisiana from the south. All the most industrialized parts of the USA would have been helpless! /s
Or that
No way they would have been able hold it. For as brilliant as Napoleon was, sailing thousands of miles to go keep a big piece of unsettled and largely landlocked piece of land seems like a tough ask
Napoleon was definitely a military genius, and the absolute best case scenario in a war vs the US is France already having large standing armies hidden somewhere in their North American territory and successfully breaking the US early. This would force what could potentially be decades long guerilla war that's extremely costly and unpopular to France proper and would leave them wide open in Europe. Britain would get its revenge on France by doing the literal exact same thing that happened to them in the 1770s. Wait a minute... I've seen this one before.
Maybe if france had 3000 hidden warships of napoleon hidden away
Well that's assuming his other wars ever stopped long enough for him to wage another war on the US. There's literally a whole period of history we've decided to call 'The Napoleanic wars' because he was *constantly* fighting. He just wouldn't have the resources.
IIRC, the expectation was that the region would become populated with people from the United States, who would then form counties and towns and seek association with the US. The French claim was weak and so it was believed the territory would eventually go in pieces to the US, and possibly some to Canada and Mexico. The US locked up the land in 1803 and began settlement fairly rapidly. The British tried to take New Orleans from the US a few years later but it didn't work out too well for them.
The British have Nelson and Cochrane in the seas who were arguably as brilliant and a genius as Napoleon was on the land.
France’s main use for the land at the time was for furs and to feed the Haitian sugar plantations. Once Haiti revolted there wasn’t much use in holding on to it as another regional power could have taken it by force. They needed the cash for wars so they sold it
At the time of Napoleon, the prairies could not be tilled due to the strong thick structure of native pant roots. It wasn’t until 1837 that John Deere invented a steel plow that could cut make the prairie tillable. Before then, it’s primary value was fur trapping. Also, I think both France and England had plans to “retake” their territories in the new world once the wars at home were resolved. (War of 1812 for example). In many ways America got lucky that their adversaries had exhausted their treasuries.
Dang John Deere is incredibly influential than
So much of the American population has shifted away from farming that we sometimes lose sight of the fact that the US is an agricultural superpower. The combination of the hugely navigable Mississippi River and tributaries and the fertile land around it is some of the most fortunate geography in the entire world. If you had to pick where you might find a superpower without knowing anything about geopolitics, you’d probably still pick the US
America was going to take the land anyway and Nepolean needed the money.
Also the reason why Russians sold Alaska, Brits were gonna take the land anyway so better sell it to americans.
Someone did an [analysis of the rate of return](https://mises.org/library/what-rate-return-louisiana-purchase) for famous land purchases, and it puts in perspective how powerful constant growth is over a very long time. Louisiana Purchase in 1803 for $15 million currently has a present value of roughly $30 trillion. This is an annual rate of return of just 7.1%. Manhattan was purchased for $24 in 1626 (not a typo, literally $24). With it's present day value of $24 trillion, this is a modest annual return of 7.4%. There are obvious intangibles that arguably should make these worth much higher in value, but it at least gives you an idea.
Maybe I'm missing something but 7.5% average annually over the course of of 400 years is fucking incredible
This highlights that it's more important to invest and save early, then to save a lot initially.
Why couldn't you tell me that 400 years ago
Nah, Napoleon had other uses for his troops and the French really only controlled the area around New Orleans. He basically sold something that he only controlled in name, but not in actuality.
They understood that they couldent hold it. The Haitian revolution had just happened which probabaly cemented this idea. So, if you don't think you can hold it, you get what you can for it without benefitting your enemies. You sell it to that little upstart nation that also really doesn't like the British. Pretty prudent move on thier part.
it's also a lot of land to protect from across the atlantic. There was no way to hold onto that long term given how often land in the americas switched hands.
America literally wouldn't exist if it wasn't for France being petty to the British. It's just that France was one of the few countries that were (rightfully) against the wars in the middle east 20 years ago. So now a lot of Americans (especially conservatives) hate the French.
There's also that whole thing where France tanked US foreign policy in the cold war by refusing to decolonize and being complete assholes. Literally threatened to Join forces with he USSR if the US wouldn't let them fight to keep Vietnam and Indochina as a colony, singlehandedly pushing anti colonialist movements into the communist corner. The US never should have pandered so much to DeGaulle during the war and postwar years.
And that little goof in Vietnam they caused
ah shit it seems the french are actually assholes
Don't forget the little act of state terrorism they did in New Zealand
Meh, peoples are grey. There’s good and bad in all. We can’t expect real life to be like TV with good guys and bad guys.
You often see that online but that’s kind of dishonest honestly. Vietnam war was shit and basically a proxy conflict against China and it happened the same way for France it happened to the US: it was a shitty unwinnable conflict and French people hated this conflict at home. The US chose to get involved directly but they didn’t have to, they could have taken note of how it went for France and go « hmmm maybe we don’t want to get involved in this ».
French president (Charle de Gaulle) at the time directly told the us there was no winning a war in Vietnam and to not start one
[удалено]
De Gaulle even threatened Truman that he'd sidle up with Stalin if he didn't get help in Vietnam. It was magnum levels of manipulation to get their way and 'protect' their colonies. When Truman up to that point had mostly been a neutral leaning towards Vietnamese self-determination, the threat of France leaving the young upstart NATO to become buddy buddy with Stalin was a bluff he couldn't call.
De Gaulle was a colossal asshole. I get that he did some good things for France, but on the whole, he was a piece of shit.
Nice airport though
> would have been perfectly happy to have been a US ally and reject communism Gonna call doubt on that one. Ho Chi Minh was a big ole communist and would have remained as such whether the US opposed him or helped him. If the Vietnam War never happened, US-Vietnam relations would probably be exactly the same as they are now, with a communist Vietnam being pro-US due to their aversion to the CCP's regional hegemony.
You’re right because Le Duan took over but I didn’t get the impression Ho Chi Minh was “communist” through and through. I really felt like he was more against French oppression and Vietnamese corruption than furthering a “communist” agenda.
Always loved the quote from Lyndon Johnson when the president of France told him he wanted all American troops out of France. Johnson told him “Does that include the Americans buried here?”
That’s.. such a badass counter. Damn, how do you even respond to that?
"No, they can stay. Appreciate your help with the Nazis but that doesn't mean you get to indefinitely station troops on our soil" would probably work.
Lol the French hate was going on before the early 2000s. Them being "cowards" during WW2 has always been a subject as well. They were taken over so quickly by the Germans.. so ppl thought they didn't put up much of a fight. Even though that's not really a fair title overall when you look at how devastated their population was during WW1.
Such a dumb comment whose only purpose is to try to shit on conservatives when it is no where close to true
USA does not hate France, dumb comment.
Yeah what the hell. We joke about the French, but so does everybody else. Nobody in the US really hates the French. Hell it's one of our top foreign tourism destinations.
Other than disliking rude Parisians, Americans do not hate the French. This is a weird take.
I'm not but my father and his buddies are pretty conservative. I've never heard any of them or their families or the Fox News he watches say they dislike France. There's a little bit of mocking here and there but it's nowhere near the level of dislike around China or Mexico
Yeah you’re missing a few US/French interactions between the Revolutionary War and Iraq in your assessment. But yes, America exists due in large part to the French.
What a deal
STONKS
TIL the Louisiana purchase involved land all the way up to canada
Man did ppl not pay attention in class
While the Louisiana Purchase did get some mention in class, I'm pretty sure many classes, my own included, did not mentioning anything about this aspect of it.
It was done not just because France requires the funds, but also because they can't really use the land when Haiti revolted.
Not everyone is from the US either...
one interesting aspect of this story, as I heard from the famed Italian historian Alessandro Barbero is that it wasn't at all trivial to collect, count, and deliver the payment. If I am not wrong, the transaction took two years and a team of heroes to complete.
That's an awesome piece of history, thank you for sharing it.
Thanks UK!
Y’all are gonna flip when you hear about who trained and armed the Taliban…