Was the Louisiana Purchase Legal?

So...what about the Indian tribes living there? Where do they fit in?

They don't, honestly.
Since, at the time they were considered, at best uneducated heathens and at worst savages, they had no say in the eyes of anyone else involved.

Beyond that, while obviously all people's should have the right to choose on matters like that, most of them did not have anything like an organized state, therefore they are'nt comparable to say any of the established states.
 
From what I know (and I cannot find a refence to specific document, but mention of this is in dozens of places on the net when I look), king Charles IV of Spain refused to sign the treaty unless Napoleon formally pledged that Louisiana would not be ceded to a third party, and Napoleon did so.

...Because... Boney was so big on international law?
 
Well, this thread IS discussing legalities, not facts on the ground, so its a valid argument. You could only question the usefulness of the thread as a whole...

Guys, guys, you're never going to believe this, but I think I found evidence that Napoleon's conquest and restructuring of the entire European continent was not up to the standards of international law. Crazy, I know, but hear me out...
 
One lady did try and make the Louisisan purchase null. She was dismissed because the statue of limitations on that type of things was three years.
 
They don't, honestly.
Since, at the time they were considered, at best uneducated heathens and at worst savages, they had no say in the eyes of anyone else involved.

Beyond that, while obviously all people's should have the right to choose on matters like that, most of them did not have anything like an organized state, therefore they are'nt comparable to say any of the established states.

Actually, technically all Napoleon did was sell France's claim to the LA Territory.

The US actually had to buy the land within it from the actual tribes, or cheat them, or dirve them off by force. Outside of a strip near New Orleans, the French didn't occupy hardly any of the LA Territory.

Strange but true fact: There is a Black supremacist cult/militia group, the Washitaw, who have an "empress" who claims dominion over the entire LA Territory.

Their sole support comes from the secessionist group the so called Republic of Texas, the same ones who had a standoff with the feds back in the 90s.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
Then there is the whole territory north of the Ohio River that was a Canadian protectorate...

No wonder Americans aren't keen on international law. ;)

Since might is right, we shall wait until we have the power to enforce our claims on the majority of the so called 'USA'.

Mwahahahahah!

On a more serious note, is there an ATL that explores a contested Louisiana Purchase? A more belligerent 1814 Britain maybe?
 
Guys, guys, you're never going to believe this, but I think I found evidence that Napoleon's conquest and restructuring of the entire European continent was not up to the standards of international law. Crazy, I know, but hear me out...

Technically, it was- he gained the lands conquered by formal peace treaties, not 'outright' grabs.
 
Nevertheless, the odd thing about the Louisiana Purchase is that Jefferson at the time admitted that he was contradicting his previously articulated principles calling for a strict reading of the Constitution. He seems to have believed that he had little to no Constitutional authority, but the opportunity to control the Mississippi (and to double the size of the country) were worth the compromise.

the overwhelming factor behind the LA Purchase was control of New Orleans... the US REALLY wanted control of this port town, and tried to buy just the city over and over. Since Napoleon made it an 'all or nothing' deal, the US bought it all (and Jefferson was criticized by some for buying so much 'desert'). My guess is that Jefferson overcame all his concerns for the chance to finally control NO....
 
Top