Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have the book HOW THE STATES GOT THEIR SHAPES by Mark Stein. It states that Andrew Jackson bought all the land encapsulated by the Tennessee and Mississippi rivers (western parts of TN and KY), down to the border with MS from the Chickasaw Indians in 1819. The book also states that the western border of the United States after the Revolution was resloved (1783), was the MS river. Since TN was then a "western" state, the MS river served as the western border of TN (the book also states this). Why, then, was the purchase of these western lands - called the Jackson Purchase - necessary if is was already considered part of the TN (and KY)?
Why, then, was the purchase of these western lands - called the Jackson Purchase - necessary if is was already considered part of the TN (and KY)?
Well I'm just'a guessin' but just because the Brits or Spanish had ceded lands to the Americans didn't mean the Indians who lived on those lands were going along with the deal. Thus the need to purchase from the actual owners of land, the Indians.
Well I'm just'a guessin' but just because the Brits or Spanish had ceded lands to the Americans didn't mean the Indians who lived on those lands were going along with the deal. Thus the need to purchase from the actual owners of land, the Indians.
This is what I had assumed. They could have just taken it over by force or population encroachment. This is effectively what the Mexicans are doing amoung some of the western states.
Well I'm just'a guessin' but just because the Brits or Spanish had ceded lands to the Americans didn't mean the Indians who lived on those lands were going along with the deal. Thus the need to purchase from the actual owners of land, the Indians.
This.
Even when the claims of other powers were ceded, there was still the issue of dealing with the people who actually occupied/owned the land. The same thing happened with the Louisiana Purchase. What were purchased/ceded/exchanged among "civilized" powers was the right to settle the land and the rights to any resources. Settling the land and exploiting the resources often involved dealing with the local inhabitants who could care less what the United States, French, English or Spanish had to say about who owned what.
I have the book HOW THE STATES GOT THEIR SHAPES by Mark Stein. It states that Andrew Jackson bought all the land encapsulated by the Tennessee and Mississippi rivers (western parts of TN and KY), down to the border with MS from the Chickasaw Indians in 1819.
You might want to check the Chickasaw Indian version of this story. I'm practically willing to bet that Jackson "bought" the land from SOME Chickasaw Indians -- not all of them. The same thing happened with the Choctaw, Creek and Cherokee. SOME Indians (meaning a few) took money in exchange for lands that were not theirs to sell.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
