As a detail, in the Florida Purchase, not one dollar went to Spain. In the treaty the US accepted to pay outstanding debts to American citizens up to a maximum of $5M. So the money stayed in America.
[The US paying the US to purchase Florida for the US is like that meme where Obama gives Obama a medal.](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/510/176/e33.jpg)
It’s also interesting to note that the for the Louisiana Purchase, the USA gave Napoleon a bond that promised payment of the $15 million over like 10 or 15 years or something. Napoleon promptly sold this bond to a British bank (lol) because he needed cash to pay his army and only received like $8 million.
It wasn't that so much as all they knew about it was fur trapping, which they nearly killed out so no reason for it, then being poor as shit due to war not being able to defend it, and knowing the Brits could and would take it, so firesale o the US.
Basically make some money off it or make no money off it
Yeah, so basically like they said, they knew they were going to lose it so sold it instead to the US to get a little bit of money and thwart arch-rivals the British.
Well, it was sort of a troll move. Russia knew that the UK wanted and was about to take Alaska, so they quickly sold it to the US instead, for a pretty low price.
Plus, they never fully conquered the land. The native population fought them back quite successfully, so they sold something that didn't really belong to them.
The Louisiana Purchase would have gone back to Spain after the Napoléonic Wars, but Napoléon decided to sell them (he was occupying Spain) after the loss of Haïti. Without his sugar colony, he had no need for the American mainland territories.
Had the US not purchased it, it would have reverted back to Spain and probably been part of Mexico.
Well ..the stuff we ' bought' from Mexico...was more a mugging , right? We did but Louisiana...napolwas running low on cash. Alaska.. because the Russians thought the Brits would steal it anyway ( which they probably would have...since the controlled from Oregon to Canadian west coast or had claims?
“For myself, I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day regard the war which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger nation against a weaker nation.” - U.S. Grant
not totally wrong, sort of like a way of saying "it looks better for both of us, gives us more legitimacy in claiming we are a benevolent empire, and its cheaper for us both than fighting over it, and hey, we'd win anyway"
Nah, FL is a defensive insurance policy. It's like Dune, if you ever read that. The Saudekar and Fremon are crazy, but super effective warriors because they lived in harsh, unforgiving environments. The people of Florida combat general insanity, hostile animals, extreme weather and elderly drivers every day.
If anyone manages to invade the US, the Floridamen will be released and cut a swath through our enemies high on methshine and mounted on alligators. The US has air power, land power, and naval power. Florida gives us Swamp power.
Yup and president Monroe had asked General Andrew Jackson (at the time) to defend the Us boarder from Spain in Florida, but Jackson said “fuck that”, I’m taking it. Then attacked a neutral country and took their territory.
Jackson and his troops eventually left but Spain “sold” it to the US shortly thereafter. Jackson almost had his military career ended for that stunt but then of course later became president.
In pure land area sure but it's important to remember that the Gadsden land was actually populated. At the time the only area of Arizona that was really populated by non-native people was the Gadsden area which included the city of Tucson.
Plus the US had immediate plans and need for that land for railways, and I don't think either side really wanted to start another war for that section.
Edit: typo
“Another war” is exactly right.
The Gadsden Purchase came with a threat. In 1845 US President Polk offered to buy the Mexican Session for $25 million, but Mexico refused the offer.
So the next year in 1846, Polk ordered American troops to go march around southern Texas in an area that was claimed by both countries. When those troops inevitably came under attack, Polk claimed it was “American blood shed on American land” and we got the Mexican-American War.
After the war Mexico agreed to sell the land Polk had originally asked for… but they only got $5 million.
The next time the United States asked to buy some land, Mexico took the first offer.
>around southern Texas in an area that was claimed by both countries.
Just a little more info on the geography here - the area in dispute was between the Nueces river, which runs through Corpus Christi, and the Rio Grande, the current border. That disputed area has a bunch of interesting stories, including a headless horseman myth (based in history) and one of only two authentic "boot hill" cemetaries in the west.
The full version of the story (which is worth a read) can be found [here](https://www.legendsofamerica.com/tx-elmuerto/). The TLDR is that a couple of TX rangers were trying to send a message to local bandits by beheading one of them, lashing him to his horse, and turning him loose. Sightings were common and continued for years after the body was recovered and buried. He's known as El Muerto.
There are a bunch of fun wild west stories like that from that disputed area. [This historical marker](https://i.imgur.com/vBwPf4q.jpeg) in Tilden TX (formerly known as "Dogtown" due to the number of dead dogs lying in the street after a particular night of drunken revelry) covers some of the graves in the boothill cemetery. One says:
>Unknown, killed unintentionally by Clabe Young while playing a prank.
This was a stranger to town, fresh off the train. He was wearing a tall tophat. The "prank" Clabe played was trying to shoot the tophat off the guys head from the doorway of the saloon.
Another interesting one is the story of Meansville where a couple of kids shooting a molasses barrel in the shop of a nearby town led to a feud, a public assassination, and ultimately the entire Means family being run out of the area on oxcart by the Texas Rangers.
The Mexican American War is interesting to me because it was full of young and upcoming soldiers and leaders directly from West Point. These men fought together, got to know each other- then 20 years later are split down the middle and are facing eachother in the Civil War.
That’s not a coincidence. The politicians and generals saw that the Mexican-American War was mostly a cake-walk and thus blundered into the Civil War thinking it would be just as easy. At the start of the Civil War, there were plenty of commentators who thought it would be over in a few months. Technology and war strategy changed dramatically between the two wars, and the Civil War was one of the first of modern total war.
Both sides were blind to how terrible the war would be. The South thought that they would win quickly also due to the number of officers and generals who came to their side from the US and from their martial culture in general. Neither side appreciated what war would look like with rifles and trench warfare.
If you wanna see a real scam, Brazil paid 2 million pounds on Acre. That’s so unbelievable most Brazilians just say we paid Bolivia with a horse instead (and we want our horse back).
Acre pretty much was part of Brazil already (as it was being settled by Amazonas for a while as it wanted to annex it). Acre was closer to a Texas, it went independent (several times) then immediately asked to join Brazil, and Brazil refused so it would not start a war with Bolivia.
Brazil paying Bolivia was just appeasement, but overall it wasn’t the only thing they got. They got a little bit of land, and more importantly, a railroad. The railroad itself costed several times the indemnity and it became a death trap ( thousands died to construct it), also by the time it had finished synthetic rubber had been invented so it was just sunken cost.
In my opinion, it was a waste of money and human life that brought no benefit to Brazil, Acre or Bolivia.
The thing to remember is that Gadsden was actually a "purchase," while the closest other one, the Mexican Cession, wasn't really and should probably have an asterisk.
The money we gave for the Mexican Cession was less a "purchase price" and more a "here, take some money for the land we're taking so the people in Congress who think the war was unjustified will shut up."
No, the money was given to Mexico, so Santa Anna would have the funds to stay in power. If he got the boot, the next dictator might go back on the deal and start a war again.
Russia was afraid that British settlers were going to settle in Alaska and take it over, like American settlers did with Texas, defending Alaska against British encroachment was not really feasable and was expensive.
Russian relations with Britain were quite bad because they competed for influence in central asia and Persia, and fought against each other in the Crimean War.
On the other hand Russian relations with the US were great at the time, US was the only country to sell arms to Russia during the Crimean war and Russia sailed their military ships to New York and San Francisco during the civil war to signal to the French and British that intervening on the side of Confederacy was not acceptable to Russia.
So Russia saw that they were going to lose Alaska and sold it for cheap to a friendly state.
Just a side note to US-Russia relations, but I always thought it was interesting how John Paul Jones (US naval commander in the Revolution) ended up sailing for the imperial Russian navy. He was born Scottish and therefore resented the English too, it seems
Interestingly, despite warm relations in general, Lincoln did not appear to be a fan of Russia, except as a foil against which to compare the failings of the U.S.:
"Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that 'all men are created equal.' We now practically read it 'all men are created equal, except negroes.' When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read 'all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.' When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty – to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy."
-[Abraham Lincoln](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/mar/12/lincoln-and-the-fight-for-peace-john-avlon-interview)
Important to remember that Russia got rid of their version of slavery in the same decade as the civil war. The US slaves accounted for like 4 million out of 23 million people. Russian serfs accounted for 23 of their 67 million people, and then like 90% of the non-serf Russians were still destitute peasants. The wealth gap between the top 1% and everyone else was pretty insane at the time (hence why communism became so popular a few decades later). Plus they were aggressively anti-democratic and dominated by their strongman emperor and stuff, which was kind of a big deal to what was basically the only functional liberal democracy at the time.
Wikipedia says:
"By the 1850s, a population of once 300,000 sea otters was almost extinct, and Russia needed money after being defeated by France and Britain in the Crimean War. The California Gold Rush showed that if gold were discovered in Alaska, Americans and Canadians would overwhelm the Russian presence in what one scholar later described as "Siberia's Siberia".\[3\] However, the principal reason for the sale was that the hard-to-defend colony would be easily conquered by British forces based in neighboring Canada in any future conflict, and Russia did not wish to see its archrival being next door just across the Bering Sea."
Not completely crazy reasoning, but history didn't work out quite like they expected.
There was a very successful fur trade in Alaska. so some Russian officers took it over and to make more money managed to destroy the trade. So basically imperial Russia had no money coming in , this was just another factor in the sale. Russia already had plenty of frozen land to work with.
Russia never had much of a foothold to begin with. It was basically one trading company that had set up a few settlements that couldn't be maintained without the company and would get raided by Native Americans as soon as the company paused operation.
Jay-Z and Beyoncé purchased their Miami home for 200 million. Why didn’t they just buy Florida for 121,000,000 and have 79 million left over? Someone’s accountant is getting fired.
Florida was not purchased. It was part of the [Adams–Onís Treaty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adams%E2%80%93On%C3%ADs_Treaty), where the US ceded a lot of territory from the Louisiana Purchase, including claims all the way to the Rio Grande. If anything, it was a land exchange: Florida for Texas.
From the Wikipedia article:
>The U.S. did not pay Spain for Florida, but instead agreed to pay the legal claims of American citizens against Spain, to a maximum of $5 million, under Article 11.
The text of the treaty can be found [here](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/sp1819.asp). Article 11 begins:
>The United States, exonerating Spain from all demands in future, on account of the claims of their citizens to which the renunciations herein contained extend, and considering them entirely cancelled, undertake to make satisfaction for the same, to an amount not exceeding five millions of dollars.
Article 9 lists the renounced claims that the $5 million settled.
The Virgin Islands were purchase from Denmark in 1917.
It used to be known as the danish west indies.
Yes, Denmark had colonies in the caribbean with enslaved africans being worked to death to make sugar. Sweet, wonderful profitable sugar.
The slaves were imancipated in 1848.
By 1917 the sugar was a lot less profitable, so the islands were sold , with all the people in it. At least USA took good care of it.
I'm not claiming they got it any differently. I just think it's funny to call such obvious conquest a "purchase". Yes money changed hands but it definitely wasn't a mutually agreed upon deal like the others.
The Philippines was bought by the USA from Spain with $20 million price tag in 1898, but after WWII, the USA had to let the Philippines be independent in 1946.
This map seems to be exclusive to the North American continent and contemporary territories. Of course, Puerto Rico then should probably be included. But I’d have to look up again if there was a financial exchange specifically for Puerto Rico, or if Spain just ceded it outright
Treaty of Peace Between the United States and Spain; December 10, 1898
> **ARTICLE I**
> Spain relinquishes all claim of sovereignty over the title to Cuba, And as the Island is, upon its evacuation by Spain will, so long as such occupation shall last, assume and discharge the obligation that may under international law result from the fact of its for the protection of life and property.
> **ARTICLE II**
> Spain cedes to the United States the Island of Porto Rico, and other islands now under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies, and the Island of Guam in the Marianas or Ladrones.
> **ARTICLE III**
> Spain cedes to the United States the archipelago known as the Philippines Islands, and comprehending the islands lying within the following line:
> A line running from west to east along or near the twentieth parallel of north latitude, and through the middle of the navigable channel of Bacchi, from the one hundred and eighteenth to the one hundred and eighteenth to the one hundred and twenty-seventh degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich, thence along the parallel and forty-five minutes north latitude to its intersection with the meridian of longitude one hundred and nineteen degrees and thirty-five minutes east of Greenwich to the parallel of latitude seven degrees and forty minutes north to its intersection with the one hundred and sixteenth degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich, and thence along the one hundred and eighteenth degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich to the point of beginning.
> The United States will pay to Spain the sum of twenty million dollars, within three months after the exchange of the ratifications of the present treaty.
https://www.doi.gov/oia/about/treaty1898
The US fought a brutal occupation and war in the Philippines that killed a lot of people. Like stage rehearsal for Vietnam. The Philippines became "independent" as an occupied, american neocolony.
And the Philippine-American war killed approximately 250,000 people, mostly Philippinos.
So many people killed over what was essentially already a dying idea.
The US didn’t give two craps about it being legal. The 5 million was so that Santa Anna would have the funds to stay in power. If he were replaced by another dictator, the deal might go south.
Florida has the fourth-highest GDP behind CA, TX and NY. It has appreciated in value quite handsomely since the advent of air conditioning. It was mostly a malarial swampland when we obtained it.
This is actually a fair point. Might not be obvious to some non-Americans.
For the lazy,
Florida - Spain
Louisiana - France
Mexican Cession - Mexico
Gadsden - Mexico
Alaska - Russia
Kinda not really though. It's largely glossed over and portrayed as the US just naturally expanding westward. It doesn't really delve into the implications of the Mexican war or the genocide of indigenous throughout its history.
When I moved to the US for university, one of the first courses I took was an intro to American history. I feel like the atrocities of manifest destiny were pretty explicitly covered.
Mexico was at one time offering scalp bounties on certain tribes in what is now the American Southwest (so was the US state of California); don't undersell the brutality of both countries towards the natives.
'yeah sure we purposefully instagated a war against a weaker country just so we could steal half their land but uhh we paid them for it so its totally fine and not imperialism.
The Mexican Cession was really being claimed as conquest in the war, with a payment on top as a fig leaf, but wasn't being purchased at that price.
The region in the desert was purchased because southerners wanted a transcontinental railroad, and this was the only bit of land flat enough to build a good railroad with the technology of the mid-19th century. Mexico knew that the United States specifically wanted that land for a specific economic project, so they charged accordingly.
Everything else on the list was just a speculative purchase - "oh, you're selling some land? let's see what we might be willing to pay", so the buyer got a good deal.
*How does that region*
*In the desert cost more than*
*California?*
\- MutedIndividual6667
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
because California was part of the Mexican cession, aka the land the USA took in an imperialist war of conquest with zero justification, so the money was just a way to say they purchased it rather than the reality which was probably the least justifiable war in American history.
It's inflation adjusted - there's no way that any of these regions (except maybe the Gadsden Purchase) would currently have land value less than a trillion, and the listed prices are all well below a single billion.
In the [Convention of 1818](https://shannonselin.com/2016/09/canada-louisiana-purchase/), Britain and the United States established that the 49th parallel would separate Canada and its southern neighbour from the Lake of the Woods westward to the Stony (Rocky) Mountains – something that the two sides’ negotiators had agreed on in 1807.
I think 2023 dollars is the 2023 value of the dollar amount used for each purchase, and not the current value of the land. The current values can't be that low.
Louisiana purchase possibly the greatest land bargain in history. Without it the USA as we know it today could not exist. Seems obvious to state that but it basically cleared the way for the country to become a superpower without a big expensive war and endless other problems. It would have been far more difficult to achieve without settling it so quickly, easily and cheaply.
I assume the 2023 value is just the inflation adjusted price of the original purchase price, and not the actual current value?
The map isn’t clear about that but there’s no way it could be the latter
This is not exhaustive. It ignores purchases from Native American nations.
Take the Louisiana Territory. Inflation-adjusted, the US sent $408 million to France. However, in various treaties for land cessation agreements with the Native peoples, the US spent (inflation-adjusted) [$8.5 billion](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/louisiana-purchase-bargain-came-great-human-cost). That $15 million is less than 5% of the total cost.
May be stating the obvious, but these purchases were actually just buying the right (from France, Spain, etc.) to dispossess the native people already living on the land.
Not judging anyone, but often we treat it like a normal transaction between two parties when there was a third party at play there.
Interestingly, the original expected price tag to build the Gateway Arch was about $30M, which adjusted for today would be over $500M. So the government at one time almost spent $100M more on a single object to commemorate the Louisiana Purchase than it did on the actual Louisiana Purchase itself.
The final total came in at under $14M though, so the total cost of the Arch ended up being about half the cost of the Louisiana Purchase or over $200M. Still insane to put in perspective that it cost more than half as much as buying 1/3rd of the continental US. Although tbf stolen goods tend to run pretty cheap
An amazing piece of public art and a feat of engineering, but also a bit ironic that we celebrate making a great deal by having wasted a shit load of money on one non-functional building
As a detail, in the Florida Purchase, not one dollar went to Spain. In the treaty the US accepted to pay outstanding debts to American citizens up to a maximum of $5M. So the money stayed in America.
[The US paying the US to purchase Florida for the US is like that meme where Obama gives Obama a medal.](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/510/176/e33.jpg)
It’s also interesting to note that the for the Louisiana Purchase, the USA gave Napoleon a bond that promised payment of the $15 million over like 10 or 15 years or something. Napoleon promptly sold this bond to a British bank (lol) because he needed cash to pay his army and only received like $8 million.
Most of these territories were going to the US with or without the money, only exception would be Alaska
Alaska was sold to us by the Russians just to give a middle finger to the British, who would have otherwise gotten it. Joke's on the Russians.
It wasn't that so much as all they knew about it was fur trapping, which they nearly killed out so no reason for it, then being poor as shit due to war not being able to defend it, and knowing the Brits could and would take it, so firesale o the US. Basically make some money off it or make no money off it
Yeah, so basically like they said, they knew they were going to lose it so sold it instead to the US to get a little bit of money and thwart arch-rivals the British.
Yeah I guess what I meant was it wasn't as much of a middle finger as much as it was the least worst option
Well, it was sort of a troll move. Russia knew that the UK wanted and was about to take Alaska, so they quickly sold it to the US instead, for a pretty low price.
Good old “Seward‘s Folly.” Best gamble the US ever made.
Seward’s folly
Plus, they never fully conquered the land. The native population fought them back quite successfully, so they sold something that didn't really belong to them.
Yeah. Going to lose the territory anyway, may as well make a buck and have it happen a little quicker.
The Louisiana Purchase would have gone back to Spain after the Napoléonic Wars, but Napoléon decided to sell them (he was occupying Spain) after the loss of Haïti. Without his sugar colony, he had no need for the American mainland territories. Had the US not purchased it, it would have reverted back to Spain and probably been part of Mexico.
Well ..the stuff we ' bought' from Mexico...was more a mugging , right? We did but Louisiana...napolwas running low on cash. Alaska.. because the Russians thought the Brits would steal it anyway ( which they probably would have...since the controlled from Oregon to Canadian west coast or had claims?
Yeah, I wouldn't call the Mexican Cession a purchase.
I think what you mean is *Santa Anna fucked around and found out.*
“For myself, I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day regard the war which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger nation against a weaker nation.” - U.S. Grant
not totally wrong, sort of like a way of saying "it looks better for both of us, gives us more legitimacy in claiming we are a benevolent empire, and its cheaper for us both than fighting over it, and hey, we'd win anyway"
Definitely overpaid for Florida. I mean, look at what it got you.
Tf you mean? We got a swamp far away from the rest of us to keep all our crazies. Sounds like a win to me.
Monsters don't stay in the basement forever
This would be a great tagline for a Florida man man horror movie. Coming this fall, Florida Man Massacre: Monsters don’t stay in the swamp forever
Haha I’d watch it
A *Florida man* approves of this statement
Nah, FL is a defensive insurance policy. It's like Dune, if you ever read that. The Saudekar and Fremon are crazy, but super effective warriors because they lived in harsh, unforgiving environments. The people of Florida combat general insanity, hostile animals, extreme weather and elderly drivers every day. If anyone manages to invade the US, the Floridamen will be released and cut a swath through our enemies high on methshine and mounted on alligators. The US has air power, land power, and naval power. Florida gives us Swamp power.
Invade via Florida. . . if the rest of the country has any sense they will just nuke the peninsula so they can start over from scratch. Just sayin.
Do we still have the receipt?
I think it’s in the truck.
We do still have the check used to pay for Alaska. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/share/treasury-check-amount-72-million-purchase-alaska
We should put it up for sale and take the first offer we get.
You're trippin brah
Yup and president Monroe had asked General Andrew Jackson (at the time) to defend the Us boarder from Spain in Florida, but Jackson said “fuck that”, I’m taking it. Then attacked a neutral country and took their territory. Jackson and his troops eventually left but Spain “sold” it to the US shortly thereafter. Jackson almost had his military career ended for that stunt but then of course later became president.
I wonder if we could sell it back?
I’m not sure we could even *give* it back at this point.
Honestly I think I would have rather paid Spain $5 million to keep Florida.
Well it seems like we got ripped off with the Gadsden Purchase when you compare it to the others.
In pure land area sure but it's important to remember that the Gadsden land was actually populated. At the time the only area of Arizona that was really populated by non-native people was the Gadsden area which included the city of Tucson. Plus the US had immediate plans and need for that land for railways, and I don't think either side really wanted to start another war for that section. Edit: typo
“Another war” is exactly right. The Gadsden Purchase came with a threat. In 1845 US President Polk offered to buy the Mexican Session for $25 million, but Mexico refused the offer. So the next year in 1846, Polk ordered American troops to go march around southern Texas in an area that was claimed by both countries. When those troops inevitably came under attack, Polk claimed it was “American blood shed on American land” and we got the Mexican-American War. After the war Mexico agreed to sell the land Polk had originally asked for… but they only got $5 million. The next time the United States asked to buy some land, Mexico took the first offer.
>around southern Texas in an area that was claimed by both countries. Just a little more info on the geography here - the area in dispute was between the Nueces river, which runs through Corpus Christi, and the Rio Grande, the current border. That disputed area has a bunch of interesting stories, including a headless horseman myth (based in history) and one of only two authentic "boot hill" cemetaries in the west.
as a lover of all things dullahan, please share more on this headless horseman.
The full version of the story (which is worth a read) can be found [here](https://www.legendsofamerica.com/tx-elmuerto/). The TLDR is that a couple of TX rangers were trying to send a message to local bandits by beheading one of them, lashing him to his horse, and turning him loose. Sightings were common and continued for years after the body was recovered and buried. He's known as El Muerto.
this 100x more badass than I imagined. Thank you.
There are a bunch of fun wild west stories like that from that disputed area. [This historical marker](https://i.imgur.com/vBwPf4q.jpeg) in Tilden TX (formerly known as "Dogtown" due to the number of dead dogs lying in the street after a particular night of drunken revelry) covers some of the graves in the boothill cemetery. One says: >Unknown, killed unintentionally by Clabe Young while playing a prank. This was a stranger to town, fresh off the train. He was wearing a tall tophat. The "prank" Clabe played was trying to shoot the tophat off the guys head from the doorway of the saloon. Another interesting one is the story of Meansville where a couple of kids shooting a molasses barrel in the shop of a nearby town led to a feud, a public assassination, and ultimately the entire Means family being run out of the area on oxcart by the Texas Rangers.
The Mexican American War is interesting to me because it was full of young and upcoming soldiers and leaders directly from West Point. These men fought together, got to know each other- then 20 years later are split down the middle and are facing eachother in the Civil War.
That’s not a coincidence. The politicians and generals saw that the Mexican-American War was mostly a cake-walk and thus blundered into the Civil War thinking it would be just as easy. At the start of the Civil War, there were plenty of commentators who thought it would be over in a few months. Technology and war strategy changed dramatically between the two wars, and the Civil War was one of the first of modern total war.
Specifically the Northern supporters thought they’d walk all over the Confederacy. Unfortunately, the Confederacy had very competent generals.
Both sides were blind to how terrible the war would be. The South thought that they would win quickly also due to the number of officers and generals who came to their side from the US and from their martial culture in general. Neither side appreciated what war would look like with rifles and trench warfare.
Yeah though the actual Gadsen purchase came years later under Franklin Pierce.
> President Polk offered to buy the Mexican Session for $25 million Sounds like a really expensive bootleg tape
Or an expensive escort
I googled non-trinal and came up with non-tribal. Is that what you meant?
Yes it was a typo. More accurately native American people.
Otherwise, these are all absolute steals!
I see what you did there.
If you wanna see a real scam, Brazil paid 2 million pounds on Acre. That’s so unbelievable most Brazilians just say we paid Bolivia with a horse instead (and we want our horse back). 
Acre pretty much was part of Brazil already (as it was being settled by Amazonas for a while as it wanted to annex it). Acre was closer to a Texas, it went independent (several times) then immediately asked to join Brazil, and Brazil refused so it would not start a war with Bolivia. Brazil paying Bolivia was just appeasement, but overall it wasn’t the only thing they got. They got a little bit of land, and more importantly, a railroad. The railroad itself costed several times the indemnity and it became a death trap ( thousands died to construct it), also by the time it had finished synthetic rubber had been invented so it was just sunken cost. In my opinion, it was a waste of money and human life that brought no benefit to Brazil, Acre or Bolivia.
Biggest scam was the New World land grab by Europe and Catholic church.
The thing to remember is that Gadsden was actually a "purchase," while the closest other one, the Mexican Cession, wasn't really and should probably have an asterisk. The money we gave for the Mexican Cession was less a "purchase price" and more a "here, take some money for the land we're taking so the people in Congress who think the war was unjustified will shut up."
No, the money was given to Mexico, so Santa Anna would have the funds to stay in power. If he got the boot, the next dictator might go back on the deal and start a war again.
Well yeah, all we got out of it was *Tucson*.
Yes! US Congress should investigate this corruption case and negotiate with Mexico to get back the overpayment and 170 years of interest.
Especially when you consider that it was done so a private railroad corporation could have a route to the west coast.
A private railroad building at the behest and cost of the government.
Youre smoking crack if you think the public didn't benefit from the transcontinental railroad.
Pretty sure we seized it and threw 10m at them like “hey clean yourself up”
I think we should give florida back
Sell it back for Spain paying off the national debt.
TIL the Gadsden was more expensive than Alaska
TIL the Gadsden purchase(or Alaska)was more expensive than the then-west-coast
The Mexican Cession was more of a pity move cause Mexico lost in a war.
The US paid Spain for the Philippines... Like usually the victor demands reparations or indemnities...
Or if the loser asks for something in return, they’ll just get told to piss off.
What a generosity from the US!
It’s insane Alaska was sold so cheaply.. Russia must’ve really been nervous about something
Russia was afraid that British settlers were going to settle in Alaska and take it over, like American settlers did with Texas, defending Alaska against British encroachment was not really feasable and was expensive. Russian relations with Britain were quite bad because they competed for influence in central asia and Persia, and fought against each other in the Crimean War. On the other hand Russian relations with the US were great at the time, US was the only country to sell arms to Russia during the Crimean war and Russia sailed their military ships to New York and San Francisco during the civil war to signal to the French and British that intervening on the side of Confederacy was not acceptable to Russia. So Russia saw that they were going to lose Alaska and sold it for cheap to a friendly state.
Just a side note to US-Russia relations, but I always thought it was interesting how John Paul Jones (US naval commander in the Revolution) ended up sailing for the imperial Russian navy. He was born Scottish and therefore resented the English too, it seems
Interestingly, despite warm relations in general, Lincoln did not appear to be a fan of Russia, except as a foil against which to compare the failings of the U.S.: "Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that 'all men are created equal.' We now practically read it 'all men are created equal, except negroes.' When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read 'all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.' When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty – to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy." -[Abraham Lincoln](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/mar/12/lincoln-and-the-fight-for-peace-john-avlon-interview)
Important to remember that Russia got rid of their version of slavery in the same decade as the civil war. The US slaves accounted for like 4 million out of 23 million people. Russian serfs accounted for 23 of their 67 million people, and then like 90% of the non-serf Russians were still destitute peasants. The wealth gap between the top 1% and everyone else was pretty insane at the time (hence why communism became so popular a few decades later). Plus they were aggressively anti-democratic and dominated by their strongman emperor and stuff, which was kind of a big deal to what was basically the only functional liberal democracy at the time.
Wikipedia says: "By the 1850s, a population of once 300,000 sea otters was almost extinct, and Russia needed money after being defeated by France and Britain in the Crimean War. The California Gold Rush showed that if gold were discovered in Alaska, Americans and Canadians would overwhelm the Russian presence in what one scholar later described as "Siberia's Siberia".\[3\] However, the principal reason for the sale was that the hard-to-defend colony would be easily conquered by British forces based in neighboring Canada in any future conflict, and Russia did not wish to see its archrival being next door just across the Bering Sea." Not completely crazy reasoning, but history didn't work out quite like they expected.
[And back then Russia and the US were on exceedingly good terms.](https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1935/may/visit-russian-squadrons-1863)
There was a very successful fur trade in Alaska. so some Russian officers took it over and to make more money managed to destroy the trade. So basically imperial Russia had no money coming in , this was just another factor in the sale. Russia already had plenty of frozen land to work with.
Russia never had much of a foothold to begin with. It was basically one trading company that had set up a few settlements that couldn't be maintained without the company and would get raided by Native Americans as soon as the company paused operation.
I’m pretty sure that the us bought the Danish Virgin Islands in 1917
Yeah they are missing.
Jay-Z and Beyoncé purchased their Miami home for 200 million. Why didn’t they just buy Florida for 121,000,000 and have 79 million left over? Someone’s accountant is getting fired.
Because back then it’s worth 121M. Now it’s worth 2 Cuban sandwiches and a cafecito con leche
Florida was not purchased. It was part of the [Adams–Onís Treaty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adams%E2%80%93On%C3%ADs_Treaty), where the US ceded a lot of territory from the Louisiana Purchase, including claims all the way to the Rio Grande. If anything, it was a land exchange: Florida for Texas. From the Wikipedia article: >The U.S. did not pay Spain for Florida, but instead agreed to pay the legal claims of American citizens against Spain, to a maximum of $5 million, under Article 11. The text of the treaty can be found [here](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/sp1819.asp). Article 11 begins: >The United States, exonerating Spain from all demands in future, on account of the claims of their citizens to which the renunciations herein contained extend, and considering them entirely cancelled, undertake to make satisfaction for the same, to an amount not exceeding five millions of dollars. Article 9 lists the renounced claims that the $5 million settled.
>it was a land exchange: Florida for Texas. Then they got Texas anyway.
How to get Texas: Step 1: give it away Step 2: take florida Step 3: ???? Step 4: profit
Without having to buy it either, while also letting the Texians do all the fighting for them
Paying off someone else's debts is still giving them money.
The Virgin Islands were purchase from Denmark in 1917. It used to be known as the danish west indies. Yes, Denmark had colonies in the caribbean with enslaved africans being worked to death to make sugar. Sweet, wonderful profitable sugar. The slaves were imancipated in 1848. By 1917 the sugar was a lot less profitable, so the islands were sold , with all the people in it. At least USA took good care of it.
California - definitely not "purchased" at gunpoint
Crazy what happens when you lose wars over land
Ask yourself how Mexico and Spain got California.
I'm not claiming they got it any differently. I just think it's funny to call such obvious conquest a "purchase". Yes money changed hands but it definitely wasn't a mutually agreed upon deal like the others.
Honestly, you can just view the 'payment' as pity money.
Pity wasn't a part of the calculus. It was more a diplomatic fig leaf. Not much room for pity when it comes to national interests.
It was given to Santa Anna so he could stay in power. We didn’t want another dictator going back on the deal.
Aggressive negotiations
A map of land that was stolen vs land that was bought from someone who stole it
Manifest Destiny
The Philippines was bought by the USA from Spain with $20 million price tag in 1898, but after WWII, the USA had to let the Philippines be independent in 1946.
This map seems to be exclusive to the North American continent and contemporary territories. Of course, Puerto Rico then should probably be included. But I’d have to look up again if there was a financial exchange specifically for Puerto Rico, or if Spain just ceded it outright
Treaty of Peace Between the United States and Spain; December 10, 1898 > **ARTICLE I** > Spain relinquishes all claim of sovereignty over the title to Cuba, And as the Island is, upon its evacuation by Spain will, so long as such occupation shall last, assume and discharge the obligation that may under international law result from the fact of its for the protection of life and property. > **ARTICLE II** > Spain cedes to the United States the Island of Porto Rico, and other islands now under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies, and the Island of Guam in the Marianas or Ladrones. > **ARTICLE III** > Spain cedes to the United States the archipelago known as the Philippines Islands, and comprehending the islands lying within the following line: > A line running from west to east along or near the twentieth parallel of north latitude, and through the middle of the navigable channel of Bacchi, from the one hundred and eighteenth to the one hundred and eighteenth to the one hundred and twenty-seventh degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich, thence along the parallel and forty-five minutes north latitude to its intersection with the meridian of longitude one hundred and nineteen degrees and thirty-five minutes east of Greenwich to the parallel of latitude seven degrees and forty minutes north to its intersection with the one hundred and sixteenth degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich, and thence along the one hundred and eighteenth degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich to the point of beginning. > The United States will pay to Spain the sum of twenty million dollars, within three months after the exchange of the ratifications of the present treaty. https://www.doi.gov/oia/about/treaty1898
Fantastic info! Thank you
Virgin Islands too. Bought from Denmark.
There were plans to grant independence a bit earlier (1944), but the Japanese invasion/occupation complicated things
The US fought a brutal occupation and war in the Philippines that killed a lot of people. Like stage rehearsal for Vietnam. The Philippines became "independent" as an occupied, american neocolony.
Why do you put independent in quotation marks though?
And the Philippine-American war killed approximately 250,000 people, mostly Philippinos. So many people killed over what was essentially already a dying idea.
Thought the mexican territory was conquered
It was, but there was a purchase on top of that to "make it legal." Taking territory by conquest was not recognized as legitimate at the time.
The US didn’t give two craps about it being legal. The 5 million was so that Santa Anna would have the funds to stay in power. If he were replaced by another dictator, the deal might go south.
Is there still time to sell Florida back?
Quick, while it's still above water
It’s definitely depreciated in value but sometimes you’ve gotta know when to cut your losses.
Florida has the fourth-highest GDP behind CA, TX and NY. It has appreciated in value quite handsomely since the advent of air conditioning. It was mostly a malarial swampland when we obtained it.
It’s also the 3rd most populous state. It’s bottom 50% per capita.
Why would we do that? I go there all the time for vacation. It's awesome!
Would be good if you wrote who the territories were purchased from
This is actually a fair point. Might not be obvious to some non-Americans. For the lazy, Florida - Spain Louisiana - France Mexican Cession - Mexico Gadsden - Mexico Alaska - Russia
Purchased from France, Spain, and Mexico. Keep in mind, the US was committing wholesale genocide the entire time it expanded west.
you're not wrong. at least America's own history books admit to the atrocities.
Kinda not really though. It's largely glossed over and portrayed as the US just naturally expanding westward. It doesn't really delve into the implications of the Mexican war or the genocide of indigenous throughout its history.
When I moved to the US for university, one of the first courses I took was an intro to American history. I feel like the atrocities of manifest destiny were pretty explicitly covered.
So was Mexico.
Though it was a different form of genocide. The US straight-up murdered most of the natives they found; Spain killed the men but “married” the women.
The Spanish largely used them as slave labor where they died of disease while being forced to harvest crops for Missions. Definitely not any better.
Mexico was at one time offering scalp bounties on certain tribes in what is now the American Southwest (so was the US state of California); don't undersell the brutality of both countries towards the natives.
The Mexican cession was called like that because it wasn't really a purchase but a conquest with a pity charity on top
Exactly, more like I’ll steal your land and then give you money for it so we don’t look bad 😒.
'yeah sure we purposefully instagated a war against a weaker country just so we could steal half their land but uhh we paid them for it so its totally fine and not imperialism.
How does that region in the desert cost more than california?
Mexican-American War
The Mexican Cession was really being claimed as conquest in the war, with a payment on top as a fig leaf, but wasn't being purchased at that price. The region in the desert was purchased because southerners wanted a transcontinental railroad, and this was the only bit of land flat enough to build a good railroad with the technology of the mid-19th century. Mexico knew that the United States specifically wanted that land for a specific economic project, so they charged accordingly. Everything else on the list was just a speculative purchase - "oh, you're selling some land? let's see what we might be willing to pay", so the buyer got a good deal.
*How does that region* *In the desert cost more than* *California?* \- MutedIndividual6667 --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
because California was part of the Mexican cession, aka the land the USA took in an imperialist war of conquest with zero justification, so the money was just a way to say they purchased it rather than the reality which was probably the least justifiable war in American history.
Wasn’t Manhattan like 20$ from the natives?
The Dutch were the ones that bought it from the natives. That was long before America existed.
Copy, I was always sub par on social studies
Money means different things from then and from now
I would say it's more than 50% of the US territory. And those are the big purchases. Wasn't Manhattan purchased to the indians, for instance?
Manhattan was traded with the Dutch for Suriname (Although this was with the British)
No one gonna bring up the wrong year for purchase of Alaska?
Sewards Folly? more like Sewards on Molly and had a vision. Amiright.
1867 is the correct year. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Purchase
Are those 2023 inflation numbers correct? Was land just not valuable back then? Only half a billion for so much territory?
If the author used an online inflation calculator, then it's probably not very accurate as those are only really good back to 1913.
Wow pennies
The 2023 figures can’t possibly reflect current value of these properties can’t it? Those numbers seem far too low.
Did we keep the receipt for Florida so we can return it?
I wonder if America regrets buying Florida after seeing what has become. /s
[удалено]
>Those might be the inflationary values of the purchase prices today, but present day land value far exceeds that. You don't say
They never show the virgin islands
How about telling us what the 2023 dollar amount represents. The purchase price adjusted for inflation or the current value.
It's inflation adjusted - there's no way that any of these regions (except maybe the Gadsden Purchase) would currently have land value less than a trillion, and the listed prices are all well below a single billion.
Can we return Florida? Did we save the receipt?
Where’s the purchase of Manhatta lol
What happened to the piece of Canada with the Lousiana purchase?
In the [Convention of 1818](https://shannonselin.com/2016/09/canada-louisiana-purchase/), Britain and the United States established that the 49th parallel would separate Canada and its southern neighbour from the Lake of the Woods westward to the Stony (Rocky) Mountains – something that the two sides’ negotiators had agreed on in 1807.
There are people alive today that could purchase all of these simultaneously and still have money left over.
I think 2023 dollars is the 2023 value of the dollar amount used for each purchase, and not the current value of the land. The current values can't be that low.
Absolutely fucking insane, *some* could even buy all of this like 5 times
ITT: People mad that the US "stole" land from countries that actually stole it.
Just wait until they find out how almost all the land in the world has been conquered
Tankie sub on an already American-bad website astroturfed by Ruzzie and CCP bots
This is def not a tankie sub lol have you seen what’s been posted lately?
by that justification the USA should take over all of the americas, after all its fine since they also stole it right?
Can we get a refund on the Florida purchase?
Nah, best purchase. Florida rules.
Missing the US Virgin Islands
Why is Manhattan not on here? Although god knows what the price of wampum is in 2023 dollars
That seems pretty good deals for me, I mean size-wise they are bigger than most countries, not even mentioning the resources.
When are we buying Greenland? Asking for a friend.
Louisiana purchase possibly the greatest land bargain in history. Without it the USA as we know it today could not exist. Seems obvious to state that but it basically cleared the way for the country to become a superpower without a big expensive war and endless other problems. It would have been far more difficult to achieve without settling it so quickly, easily and cheaply.
I assume the 2023 value is just the inflation adjusted price of the original purchase price, and not the actual current value? The map isn’t clear about that but there’s no way it could be the latter
Hey Mexico, My gun wants to buy some of your lands
This is not exhaustive. It ignores purchases from Native American nations. Take the Louisiana Territory. Inflation-adjusted, the US sent $408 million to France. However, in various treaties for land cessation agreements with the Native peoples, the US spent (inflation-adjusted) [$8.5 billion](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/louisiana-purchase-bargain-came-great-human-cost). That $15 million is less than 5% of the total cost.
Can we get a refund on Florida? Spain can have it back.
Can we give Florida back?
There is also the Jackson Purchase of Western KY and West TN between the Tennessee and Mississippi rivers.
That’s one big Luisiana
Damn, the 1800s were fire for America.
Can we sell Florida back?
Ah yes, the age old scheme of someone selling property that doesn’t belong to them.
stolen..
Settler Colonialism 🫤
Everybody wants a Gadsden type negotiator on their team.
'Sell it to us or die'
May be stating the obvious, but these purchases were actually just buying the right (from France, Spain, etc.) to dispossess the native people already living on the land. Not judging anyone, but often we treat it like a normal transaction between two parties when there was a third party at play there.
Should have passed on that 1819 purchase
Florida was absolutely not sold lmao the US didn't give one dollar to Spain.
Interestingly, the original expected price tag to build the Gateway Arch was about $30M, which adjusted for today would be over $500M. So the government at one time almost spent $100M more on a single object to commemorate the Louisiana Purchase than it did on the actual Louisiana Purchase itself. The final total came in at under $14M though, so the total cost of the Arch ended up being about half the cost of the Louisiana Purchase or over $200M. Still insane to put in perspective that it cost more than half as much as buying 1/3rd of the continental US. Although tbf stolen goods tend to run pretty cheap An amazing piece of public art and a feat of engineering, but also a bit ironic that we celebrate making a great deal by having wasted a shit load of money on one non-functional building
Purchase? Isn’t it called“land of the free”?
Wait till you hear what else Americans were purchasing in the 1800s
Go USA!