Four Cents An Acre?! Louisiana Purchase

bookclues.com. Find me!

Looking for a big timely summer read? Dad book extraordinaire! This is it. 

From LaSalle to Thomas Jefferson, the story of how our country was made in the grand sweep of time. 

A true American tale as bold as the people who lived the story. Native Americans, Immigrants and enlsaved people. Lives coming together to establish a nation. 

Four cents an acre. The greatest real estate deal in history. A clean swap that doubled the United States overnight. Those lines are catchy, and they’re also wildly incomplete. We sit down with historian Alexander Mikaberidze, author of The Louisiana Purchase: The Grand Bargain and the Making of America, to rebuild the story from the ground up and follow the long chain of events that made 1803 possible.

We start where most retellings don’t: the Seven Years’ War (the French and Indian War) and the imperial scramble it triggered across North America. From LaSalle’s sweeping 1682 claim over everything west of the Mississippi River to the hard reality that Indigenous nations already held sovereignty, Louisiana begins as a gigantic, poorly defined idea. That ambiguity fuels decades of rivalry among France, Spain, and Britain and turns places like Natchez and New Orleans into high-stakes borderlands where diplomacy, trade, and military power collide.

If you like early American history, Napoleonic history, constitutional debates, and the real origins of US continental expansion, hit play, then subscribe, share this with a fellow history reader, and leave a review with your biggest takeaway.

Find Professor Alexander Mikaberidze https://www.amikaberidze.com/

Transcript

Independence Anniversary And Framing

Michele McAloon 0:00

Hey folks, you're listening to Crossword where cultural clues lead to the truth of the word. And my name is Michele McAloon. You can find out more about me on my website at bookclues.com. Okay, folks, here we are, the week of the 250th celebration of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. And we have had some books over the past couple months that point the way towards the celebration of this American experience. We've talked to Criag Furman, The Vast Enterprise, A New History of Lewis and Clark, Michael Austin's National Treasure, Derek Baxter's The Forgotten World War, Kathy Tone, her young adult novel set in the revolution in Harold. These are fabulous books that we can learn about the history of the United States and understand why we are so special, but also why we have such responsibility, not only to ourselves, but to our allies and to our neighbors. I wish you the happiest of the 250th celebration. Go out, live in freedom, be thankful for your past. Let's look forward to a hopeful future. Thank you. God bless. Happy 4th of July. Okay,

Introducing The Book And Guest

Michele McAloon 1:13

folks, we have got a buster of a book to talk about today. It is an amazing book, and you know I have my categories of run to the Amazon store book. It's called The Louisiana Purchase: The Grand Bargain and the Making of America. And it is none by none other than Professor Alexander Mika Beritze. Did I do it right?

Alexander Mikaberidze 1:36

Oh, you did well. Okay. Thank you, Michelle.

Michele McAloon 1:41

All right. He is a professor of history and the Ruth Herring Noel Endowed Chair at Louisiana State University in Shreveport. He serves as a curator of the James Smith Noel Collection. He's one of the leading historians in the Napoleonic era. Yay. We love Napoleon around here, and author of the prize-winning The Napoleonic Wars, a global history. This book that he has put out is by Oxford University Press, and it is the quality you that you expect from Oxford University Press. But I'm going to tell you folks, it's a big read because Louisiana Purchase is a big history. But to really, I think, understand the founding of this country as we come up on the 250th, this is one of the key books and key events in our American history, if not, I mean, central to our American history. So, Professor, welcome to the show.

Alexander Mikaberidze 2:38

Oh, please call me Alex. Uh delighted to be here. Uh first of all, I appreciate the invitation, and especially because I've listened to some of your episodes and there are so many things we share, and I'm happy to be here.

Michele McAloon 2:52

Oh, well, we are more than honored to have you here. Okay, so let's start in the

Seven Years’ War Sets The Stage

Michele McAloon 2:57

very beginning. And the very beginning is actually something that hangs over this, the Louisiana Purchase the whole time, and that's the Seven Years' War. And I bet most Americans do not know what the Seven Years' War is and why it had so much influence, outsized influence, on American history.

Alexander Mikaberidze 3:18

Absolutely. In fact, I think the way I approached the Louisiana Purchase, because I probably should start by by noting that Louisiana Purchase has been uh hardly an overlooked topic and it has attracted many outstanding scholars and who have written extensively on it. My goal was not to replace that scholarship, but rather build upon it. And the one way kind of I wanted to differentiate myself is by looking at the longer picture. So not just the immediate negotiations that led to the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, but rather to look at the what the French call longue durée, the long, long-duration history. And that actually even predates the Seven Years' War, but certainly Seven Years' War is a crucial moment. For American listeners, I think they will be more familiar with the conflict if we mention it by the title of the French and Indian War, as it is taught in American schools. And it is one of those early modern conflicts that truly can be called a world war. It's a struggle for domination both within Europe but also uh around the world. And North America is one of the crucial areas of struggle, especially between Britain, France, and to a degree by Spain. And ultimately, the uh France doesn't fare well in this in this conflict. And by 1760, it is clear that France is losing this war. And essentially the Seven Years' War decides the future of North America. It ends what we now call the first French colonial empire by depriving France of all of its possessions in North America. And that includes Louisiana territory. And probably I should mention that when we say Louisiana purchase and Louisiana Territory, people should not think that it involves only the current state of Louisiana, but rather it includes effectively all the territory west of Mississippi that today comprise of about 13 states.

LaSalle’s Flag And A Borderless Louisiana

Michele McAloon 5:16

Well, I have a question. So very early on, they started talking about the Louisiana Territory. Was this ever, it was never really defined? And this is before, I mean, this is before Lewis and Clark. This is before really the trans-Appalachian migration from the east past the Appalachian Mountains, past the Mississippi. Who determined where Louisiana territory was?

Alexander Mikaberidze 5:41

The short answer is no one.

Michele McAloon 5:43

Okay. All right, they just kind of made it up or had a map, or what did they do there?

Alexander Mikaberidze 5:48

Some ways you're right. It's made up in a sense that it has an enormous claim that France has made to Louisiana in 1682. So to kind of give a context to it, in the 1670s and 80s, French explorers are slowly pushing from Canada down to the in the south. And what they're searching for is the passage to the Pacific Ocean. You know, we have several voyages by Joliet, for example, and Marquette, that show that there is a big river flowing south. And so they are interested to figure out where exactly this river is flowing. And of course, the river in question is Mississippi. And so in 1682, uh a French explorer, LaSalle, uh, journeys down this river. And he goes all the way to the estuary, kind of sailed all the way down to the Gulf of Mexico, and figured out that the bad news was that the river was not flowing to the Pacific Ocean, but the good news was that it was flowing in the Gulf of Mexico, and therefore it was offering a strategic position for French kind of empire or the colonial empire that France was kind of aspiring to build. What Lazalle did is he literally planted a flag, so in the classical sense of it. He held a special ceremony in the estuary of the Mississippi, in which he issued a declaration in the spring of 1682, and there is this remarkable scene where he's dressed in his finest robe and he reads this sweeping proclamation in a loud and audible voice. And in this declaration, if you read it, it's incredible because he declares that France owns from now on and everything west of Mississippi. And the list is incredible. So if I can uh you know recite by memory, it goes something like France uh dominion over the seas, harbors, ports, base, adjacent straits, and all the nations, peoples, provinces, cities, towns, villages, mines, minerals, fisheries, streams, rivers west of Mississippi. So they don't know what is out there. That just they're claiming it. Okay. And they claim it on the on behalf of King Louis XIV of France, which is why this immense realm will be known as Louisiana, right? Or Louisiana. And so this vagueness, the ambiguity of what exactly Louisiana encompasses is something that becomes a very important element in the story that I'm trying to tell in the book. And especially within the context of Louisiana Purchase, because when our ambassadors, Robert Livingston and Monroe, James Monroe, negotiated the deal with France, one of the things that they were unable to pin down was the precise boundary. And so, especially the western and northern boundary. And it will take us over a decade, in fact, more than 16 years, of negotiations, conflict to finally settle this boundary of Louisiana with Britain and the Spanish Empire. So the short answer to your question is no one knew, because that territory was not explored. It was, of course, we should not forge forget that that territory was still populated by indigenous nations who held the claim to the territory, who had the sovereignty of the territory. But the French as kind of were as as far as European international law was concerned, the French claimed the right to the land.

Empires Collide Along The Mississippi

Michele McAloon 9:11

Okay. So, like you said, it wasn't unpeopled. There were there was actually indigenous nations there with you know complex governments and complex societies. But also the Spanish were there. Actually, what this becomes in the middle of America becomes a stomping ground, a proving ground between the Spanish, the French, and even the British. And you talk about Florida, you know, I never really understood what Nachez was. What is that? Yeah. And I'd heard it my whole life, but I never understood what that was until I read this book.

Alexander Mikaberidze 9:45

Yeah. So the French, since they claimed the uh territory west of Mississippi in 1682, of course, they are late comers. The Spaniards have already visited this area in the 16th century. I live in the city of Triport, so not far from where DeSoto, the famous Spanish conquistador, have traversed. And of course, we have others like Cabeza de Vaca and other Spanish Spaniards who've tried to locate the riches that they could exploit and plunder. So the French, when they claimed this territory, they claimed it in effectively in violation of the Spanish claims. And again, I need to preface by saying that neither the Spaniards nor the French nor the English really care for the indigenous claim to the territory. As we already said, uh the indigenous population has been here for thousands of years. They have their polities that have all the hallmarks of sovereignty, but from the European perspective, that's immaterial. It is kind of whoever plants the flag first. In that sense, it becomes an issue because the Spaniards immediately denounce the French presence in Mississippi and especially in Trans-Misissippi territory because they claim that all that land as part of the Spanish dominion. And that discussion and debate and really tension between France and Spain will continue throughout the 18th century. The Spaniards refused to accept any French claim to this land. The question, however, the bigger question is what the Spaniards are gonna do about the French presence there. Are they gonna are they willing to take a step to use force to contest the region? At this point, Louisiana was not important enough for Spain to contest it with the French. And of course, the reason why is because there is a much bigger problem that Spain has, and that is the growing threat of the British imperial project. And so we have an 18th-century conflict between Britain and Spain. In that conflict, Spain needs French support. And so what then happens is this French established themselves in what is today South Louisiana, and they start building settlements. The first one, something like Nagarez in 1714, Natchez is a settlement on the Mississippi that is built up by as an outpost. In fact, originally it's called Fort Rosalie in 1716. So it predates the establishment of New Orleans by two years. And both of these kind of, both Nagrades and Natchez, are envisioned as forward outposts of the French interests. They need to have places where they both project their interests, but also areas where they can negotiate and cultivate relationships with the Indigenous nations. And this is one of the really, really important elements in the story is the way French went about building their empire. The French Empire is diffused, spread. It's not centered as much on grabbing territory and colonizing it as it is negotiating with the indigenous nations. And materially, the reason why the French are doing it is because of demographics. They have a large population back at home. Well over 20 million people live in France. But very, very few people want to uh in France want to migrate overseas. The perennial French problem in North America is how do you convince people to come and settle and cultivate and develop? And so that is a very different approach to colonial uh projects from the Brit, for example, from the English. The English settlements grew very fast because of chain migration, entire families moving and settling in what ultimately became those 13 colonies. France don't have it, of people willing to migrate. And therefore, the way French handled that demographic issue is by cultivating relationship with indigenous people. Forts like Natchez were designed to be those places where interaction would take place, where the French would meet the native and engage in gift-giving, in rituals that will ensure that the native state on the French side.

Michele McAloon 13:55

I never realized the difference between how the Spanish colonized and the French colonized versus how the British colonized. So you do a really good job in your book of explaining that. But one of the things is that it just seems perennially that whether it was French, Spanish, or British, North America was still far away. It was a cost drain to try to get the supplies and the people and the resources to make the this colony, whether it was Florida, whether it was the islands, or even whether it was a Louisiana, to try to make it a success.

Alexander Mikaberidze 14:31

Absolutely. And I think that is especially true in terms of France. It reminds me of James Carville's famous It's economy stupid, but I will rephrase it to say it's it's about money. So the French colonial enterprise in the Americas was characterized by this fundamental economic duality, so to speak, and that is the difference how they made money or engaged in making money in North America as opposed to the Caribbean. So on one hand, we have this vast continental economy in what is today Canada and then Mississippi Valley, and all that economy is organized really around extraction and exchange of furs. Furs are in huge demand, and fur trade is the source of money making in this area. On the other side stood this plantation economy of the Caribbean. And there, of course, it's it's an intensive plantation-style production of export crops. Think about sugar, coffee, indigo, tobacco, and some of it will be transplanted and developed in South Louisiana, so in and around New Orleans. But the rest of this Louisiana territory is not subjected to this intensive economic endeavor, especially agricultural endeavor, because it's too vast. And so you therefore, from the French point of view, you have these two systems that mobilize land and labor and capital in dramatically different ways. What is today Haiti used to be a French colony of Saint Domingue. And it is just a small, about a third of the island of Hispaniola, right? That one little share of the island produced more money for France than all of North America combined. From the French, let's say, from the French crown's perspective, that Saint Domingue is more valuable than all of Louisiana territory, which is why, for example, in the 18th century, they consistently were willing to sacrifice Louisiana's interest or even offered Louisiana to give it away. Ultimately, they do in 1763 to Spain, as long as they maintain those valuable spice islands, right? These valuable colonies in the Caribbean. And so that long-term has an effect on how Trans-Mississippi territory develops. Let's say English colonies on the eastern border of Atlantic, or unlike the French colonies in the Caribbean, this intensive plantation-style economy develops late in Trans-Mississippi, and it only really develops in the wake of Louisiana Purchase.

Michele McAloon 17:16

What's

Land Hunger And Spain’s Border Crisis

Michele McAloon 17:17

really interesting here, the people that people this area, actually, the settlers coming over the Appalachian Trail, the Appalachian Mountains, they were looked as foreigners or hostile to the people that were already settled in Mississippi Valley in New Orleans, which I found fascinating.

Alexander Mikaberidze 17:35

Absolutely. In fact, that's one of, I think, one of the core issues of the book. I think issues that should feel relevant to our own current discussions of immigration and how we handle and what it represents. And I think that's one of the issues that has not been discussed enough when in the context of Louisiana Purchase. And what I mean is that I think one of the really interesting aspects of Louisiana Purchase is this immense demographic pressure and really competing imperial visions that are shaping the North American continent on the eve of Louisiana Purchase, and then of course as a result of it in the subsequent decades. During the American Revolutionary period, and we are celebrating the 250th anniversary of it, well, the American Republic, the English colonies, and then the American Republic experienced this massive population boom. And this growing population needs land, land that they can grow stuff on, that they can kind of leverage and so on. And so we have a huge demand for land, which results in land speculation. The price of land increases, and we have really land-hungry settlers from the overcrowded Atlantic seaboard that are pushing relentlessly westward across the Appalachian Mountains and into the territory that is not under American control or in English control and then American control. After 1763, all this territory is under Spanish control. And Spain initially looks at this migration as an opportunity. Spanish administrators believed that developing a large and stable and prosperous space was the true kind of remarkable opportunity to develop this region. If they can't bring enough people from Spain, well, here Anglo-American settlers were willing to come. Why not give them 160 acres of land as long as they claim, well, claim they pledge allegiance to the Spanish crown and accept the loyalty? And many Americans do. In fact, in in the book I point out that Andrew Jackson, one of our president, as a young man, he goes to Natchez and pledge allegiance to the Spanish king. Because that's an economic opportunity for Americans like him. Think about it as a Spanish dream, right? Before American dream. But it becomes kind of a a lip service, and that a lot of them they don't want to assimilate. They stay in their kind of compact settlements and really remain in closer connection to the American market, to the American society. And of course, remember there is a religious, important religious dimension here, right? Spain as a Catholic, uh predominantly Catholic polity, and American Republic is overrunningly Protestant. And so by 1790s, the Spanish authority realizes that American migration is actually a problem, that it it creates a bigger issue because you're settling a population that is not entirely loyal to your crown in the borderland regions, which might create political and economic issues. And so starting in 1790s, we say we have a series of Spanish governors who view the influx of Americans with deep suspicion. And so there is remarkable kind of correspondence between the Spanish officials who compare Americans as to the ancient Vandals, the Germanic tribes that are about to overrun the Roman imperial border. Well, that's how the Spaniards look at the American migration. And what they fear is that unless the migration is controlled, the Spanish borderlands will be overrun and you'll have kind of population displacement. And so this land and immigration, therefore, became inextricably tied to the Mississippi River, to and Mississippi River in itself is an absolute economic lifeline to the Western American uh territories and states. And so all of this becomes packaged uh as this really complex political issue. One of my favorite kind of So aspects of the story is the Spanish discussion of how they can control the immigration, which should be very familiar to our own political discussions in the United States. They can't build a wall, but uh what they can do, or at least they try, they is they establish outposts along the Mississippi. At certain points, the Spanish governors they try to establish flotillas on the Mississippi that sails up and down and to intercept these migrants who are illegally moving and claiming land. And ultimately, when none of this worked, the solution is to close the Mississippi completely to American trade. That's a nuclear option, because closing Mississippi means economically to suffocate the Western American states. And the Spaniards knew this when they do it in 1800 and then again in the fall of 1802, they absolutely want it as a political leverage of the Americans, as a way of kind of convincing them not to pursue this illegal migration. I also want to probably mention that many of the Americ uh Spanish uh officials wanted to use the Mississippi as a way of actually weakening the American Republic and convincing Western states like, for example, Kentucky or Tennessee to break away from the Confederation and join the Spanish sphere or Spanish influence, or sp if not Spanish Empire outright, for the economic reasons. So essentially dangling this carrot and stick approach. If you're with us, we'll let you trade on Mississippi, and if not, we'll just close it. None of this works, at least effective, it was not effective enough until Napoleon shows up in 1800, 1801, and uses an even bigger stick to force Spain to relinquish all of Louisiana territory.

Why France Hands Louisiana To Spain

Michele McAloon 23:47

Well, okay, a couple things. Reading this through this history, you know what, folks? What we're talking about today, we've seen before. It's nothing new. We're not that more brilliant. We really aren't. There is nothing new under the sun, and it really isn't. So a lot of the complications that we have gone through in American society, in American history, in world history, it ain't new. We've seen it before, you know, and do we learn from it? No, no. But it's there. It is there. So in 1764, Louisiana, France transitions it to Spain. If you go in New Orleans today, people think, oh, this is French architecture. It's not, it's Spanish architecture. So when you get great characters like Galvez, Bernardo de Galvez, one of the most colorful characters in U.S. history, I think, that he is overlooked. Why does France give it to Spain? What happens?

Alexander Mikaberidze 24:41

Yeah, it's in many ways it's a complicated story that it that can be approached in two ways. One, we historians are going to call structural problem, and that is a long-term inability, French inability to convince their own subjects to migrate. As I pointed out, French colonial enterprise in the Americas was never a unified or centrally directed enterprise, but rather a diverse collection of colonial schemes that were shaped by these local conditions and regional priorities. And just think how big the French colonial empire is, really, in the first half of the 18th century. It includes all of almost all of Canada. It includes all of the Louisiana Territory, plus the Caribbean islands, plus presence in Africa, plus colonial outposts in the Indian Ocean, like the Masquerine Islands and Indian subcontinent as well. So French has presence globally. And of course, the inhabitants of these different areas have a very different experience. So the people living in Quebec and Montreal lived in environments vastly different from those of Louisiana planters, not to mention Caribbean, uh Caribbean islands. And so their needs and the problems that they face are inherently different. And so France struggled to really conduct a cohesive approach, especially because economic activities in these islands, or in these colonies, very fur domin, fur trade dominated much of New France and in early years Louisiana, and then of course plantation agriculture and slave labor underpinned the prosperity of Caribbean islands and southern Louisiana. And so one area. But if you had money to invest and you have kind of money-making opportunities in the Caribbean, why would you invest in Louisiana, right? And so that was consistently the question that the French colonial administrators faced. And so Louisiana was always on the back burner. It received fewer funding, it received fewer colonists. Notoriously, Louisiana was the place where the French authorities would round out prostitutes and criminals and vagabonds and send to New Orleans as a way of increasing the population, but that was not the type of people that you really want engaged in the colonial enterprise. And so by 1760, when it's clear that France is losing the Seven Years' War, it needs an ally. Well, Spain looks like a perfect uh ally. Uh it has been neutral. And France needs to convince the Spanish monarchy to break its neutrality and join the war. And the French foreign minister, Duc de Choise, ultimately succeeds in convincing the Spanish crown to join the war, but it's disastrous for Spain. So Spain joins the war, and within a year it is crushed by the British response. And it loses part of its empire. And so as a way of kind of atoning for it, but also as a way of offloading a burdensome colony, a colony that was costing France too much, Choiselle offers Spain Louisiana territory. So essentially the quid for crow was hey guys, you lost Florida to the British. Well, don't worry, we're going to give you all of Louisiana. And if you read the official correspondence, the Spanish realize this is not a good deal. Okay, right, yeah, of course. They don't want to accept Louisiana, but ultimately they they accept it because it offers this strategic buffer. It offers this enormous territory that will protect the core of the Spanish Empire, which is, of course, in Mexico, or what is today Mexico. And so that's how in 1763, well, 62 is in the Secret Treaty of Fontainebleau, and then in 63 and the Treaty of Paris, the transfer of Louisiana territory is formalized to Spain. Now, if we fast forward 40 years, almost 40 years, then we have Napoleon who

The Myth Of The Cheap Purchase

Alexander Mikaberidze 28:57

comes to power. And Napoleon comes to power on a political slogan that should be very familiar to all of us. He campaigns on France first. Or he has this famous expression, La France Avant II, so France above everything else. What he promises is really a policy of national grandeur, policy of national revival. He promises bring back order, stability, but also renewed pride. If you read his speeches, if you read his kind of statement and what he said, you'll see that beneath this slogan is this his attempt of a sharp indictment of the recent past and promoting this idea that previous administrations were corrupt, previous administrations squandered France's greatness, and that Pollian is the only one who can bring this nation out of the chaos and that he is the indispensable man. And what can be a better way to show this revival than to tell the French populace that, hey, I'm bringing back the territory that we lost. So again, I I know listeners will draw in natural kind of comparisons to, for example, current administration and its quest for Greenland and Bonaparte and his quest to reclaim Louisiana. Well, at least in Bonaparte's case, France had a connection, had the claims to Louisiana territory. And Bonaparte under argued that France's revival needs to be territorial as well as economic. And Louisiana is therefore reclaimed, clawed back from the Spaniards.

Michele McAloon 30:37

Well, I tell you, okay, first couple things here. Your first couple chapters or your first couple pages in assessment of Napoleon Bonaparte, it's brilliant. Wow. I mean, you really do. You you really know the man, and you are a Bonaparte scholar, so a Napoleon scholar. So you really do. Folks, even if you don't read any other part of that book, it's really worth reading that if you really want to orient yourself for how important and really how successful the man Napoleon Bonaparte was, even if he, you know, I mean, he was a successful man. He was a transformative man. So history's incredible. Okay, $15 million, four cents an acre. Why is that such a canard? Why is that, you know, you know, the best land deal in history? Thomas Jefferson manages to wrangle it out of Napoleon's hands, but it really a lot more costly than how it's sold in the school book.

Alexander Mikaberidze 31:38

That's right. So I think that's the most prevailing myth about Louisiana Purchase is this idea that it was kind of quote unquote the greatest uh real estate deal, and that, you know, we paid this uh three or four cents, depending on how you calculate. And in the book, I kind of showed that there's different ways you can calculate that we paid this ridiculously low price for for the land. And I think first thing I need to mention is that, you know, one way we can look at this myth is that we didn't buy the land. And I think this is an very really important starting point. Because as I as you pointed it out in the beginning of this interview, that France really didn't own this land. They didn't even know what was out there. They planted the flag, but that certainly didn't give them the sovereignty over the over the territory. And in fact, both the French, the Americans understood that. If you read Jefferson's correspondence, if you actually read the minutes of the meeting, cabinet meetings, both during Washington and Jefferson administration, you will see that they understand that Native nations hold the sovereignty over the territory. This is very important from a legal point of view to acquire this land in a proper way. All right, so if we didn't buy land, well then what what exactly did we buy from France in in spring of 1803? Well, we bought what lawyers nowadays call the right of preemption. In fact, that term preemption is used in the period. In fact, Jefferson himself refers to that right preemption. And what it means is it's an ability to have a legal claim or the right to negotiate a claim to territory. So what we bought in the spring of 1803 is the right to negotiate with the Native American nations possible acquisition of the land without the French involvement. That's it. That's what Louisiana Purchase really is. And so we paid 15 million, but we have to break it down. The Louisiana Purchase is not just about this ability, kind of the right to negotiate the future acquisition of the land from the natives, but it also includes the claims to the property that the French seized during the so-called Quasi War in 1790. So it's an undeclared conflict between France and the United States. And ultimately, the United States argued that it's about roughly 2.75 million dollars worth of property that France was supposed to compensate American citizens for. And so they rolled it into this deal. So which means that technically we only paid for the right of preemption about 12 million, right? So that certainly changes the price. But we didn't, we couldn't afford in 1803 or 1804 or 1805 to pay all that money all at once. We simply didn't have enough cash. So that meant we had to essentially finance the payment. And the financing is done, as I pointed out in the book, with the help of the Dutch and British bankers, with a specific provision inserted in the financing mechanism where the United States could not reclaim the debt for a certain number of years. So it is only in the 1820s that will we finally kind of paid off. And by that time, the total sum that we paid for this deal is about 23 million. So that's again, that's a different price point. Now, what I argue in the in the book is that the true cost of acquiring Louisiana territory is, however, needs to be looked upon differently. So it's we paid with a 11 point, you know, roughly 12 million for the right of preemption. That's the right to claim, negotiate for the land. But starting in 1804, the United States engaged in this process of conducting separate negotiations with indigenous nations. Some of it was diplomatic, some of it was involving a lot of coercion, if not outright conquest, right? But this process that started in 1804 lasts the rest of the 19th century, really into the early 20th century, and will include over 220, over 220 separate treaties of session by which the indigenous nations gave up their titles to the land, uh ultimately about 276 million acres of land. And for each of these sessions, we paid something. So if collectively you kind of total that sum, it is more than 12 billion dollars. So my question then, right, or the question that the reader should kind of draw from after reading the book is what is the real price, the true price of Louisiana Purchase? The 12 million or so that we paid in 1803 for the right of preemption, the 23 million that we paid as if we're counting the costs of financing this deal, or some 12 billion that we actually spent on claiming or acquiring the rights from the indigenous. And don't forget also that acquiring this land from the indigenous is one side of it. Should we encount as part of this cost all of the costs related to occupation, military costs, building of the outpost? And if if you encounter off all of it, I think the United States' endeavor to acquire Louisiana territory will become the costliest undertaking in our

Expansion, Slavery, And Presidential Power

Alexander Mikaberidze 37:26

history.

Michele McAloon 37:26

Well, that's actually, you know, it is that's incredible because nothing is simple. Everything has uh secondary, tertiary consequences, and that is something that we absolutely need to remember. It's just the scope of it and the breadth of this history of the middle part of the United States, which involves the whole United States. It's I kind of wonder, though, how could it have been different and we kept our national integrity? Because, like you said, in many ways, this was this is what formed us as a nation. We where we went from really on, I think you quoted somebody from an infant wearing diapers to kind of a teenage nation. And looking back, how this could have gone differently. And then I'm not sure, I don't know how it could.

Alexander Mikaberidze 38:14

In the book, I kind of allude a couple of times to possible different developments, and that would be, for example, shortly after the Louisiana Purchase, we are engaged in the conflict with Britain, you know, the War of 1812. There's an attempt by the native, the indigenous nations to form a confederation led by Tecumseh, the the Great Peter, with this with the British support to resist the American encroachment. And I think that was probably the best chance that the Native nations had of containing the American aggrandizement, that is developing close relationship with one of the European powers and then using that uh power as a way of balancing the American aggrandizement. But once Tecumseh dies and once the War of 1812 ends and the British interests really shift, the Native population is really left exposed to the American expansionism. And Louisiana Territory is the defining catalyst in our history. It really transforms the United States from this vulnerable coastal-based republic into a continental power of immense potential, I would say global potential. First of all, the scale of this enterprise that results in the acquisition of 530 million acres. It didn't double our domain in a single stroke, as sometimes it's said, right? It took us decades to really acquire this territory. But once we acquired it, we we talk about acquisition of a territory that will be the greatest source of American strength. It's a reality that there is no power that can threaten us, that we have control of the both coastal, you know, oceanic coastal lines. We have kind of this geographic breathing room that we can grow into and, of course, harness the vast economic resources of this region. The fertile plains of the Mississippi Valley rapidly developed into the nation's breadbasket. I have to mention that entailed the expansion of slavery, which is really different from what Jefferson envisioned, right? Jefferson during the Louisiana Purchase discussions talks about this as a beginning of this empire of liberty. He believes that slavery will, through diffusion, will be kind of eventually negated, but the result is directly opposite. It's actually expansion of slavery and an increase of exploitation. The purchase is also important, and I think this is where the relevance of it really uh shines in profoundly altering the structure of American government, or at least the discussion of America of the American government. Yeah, very important. One of the important aspects of the purchase was a fierce debate about the authority of United States president. Jefferson, when he engaged in these negotiations and ultimately kind of accepted the Louisiana Purchase, well, did he have the authority to conduct any of this? And Jefferson himself, remember, he was a strict state rights advocate before he became president, before he engaged in all of this. But in 1803, he changes his position. In fact, uh his political opponents accused him quite vocally of being a hypocrite for it. And now he talks about this executive authority that is implicit in the Constitution. So the framers of the Constitution didn't specify what the president specifically can do or cannot do. And therefore they left a lot of this presidential authority up for interpretation. And Jefferson interprets the presidential authority as very pragmatic, very expensive. And that leads to what we now call this imperial presidency. And I think anyone living through the last uh few decades, right, has dealt with that. And I think Louisiana Purchase also, because ultimately it was ratified by the United States Congress, it effectively cemented the federal government, not the states, but the federal government as the supreme arbiter of this national interest, of national expansion, of the federal government as the authority deciding exactly when and how territory is acquired, how it is governed. You have to remember that this Louisiana Territory was not automatically given statehoods. The people living in the Louisiana Territory were not considered American citizens for years. So that was kind of about a decade later, but other territories didn't gain statehood until much, much later. So what would happen if an American citizen, let's say from, I don't know, Massachusetts, decided to move and settle somewhere in Oklahoma? Well, he or she is still a citizen. Do they still have the same rights? Or are they now subject to this federal authority? And so there was a lot of discussion of this. You know, the about the essence of American Republic, about the essence of citizenship, about the essence of American identity. One of the important elements of the Louisiana Purchase is that it brought hundreds of thousands of people who were not this Anglo American Protestant. We talk about all Spaniards, we talk about Cajun and Creole. Emancipated free people of color in places like New Orleans who enjoyed the the social standing and the degree of freedom that was unprecedented within the American Republic. And so that of course included forced us to revisit these i notions of identity. There is a wonderful book by Peter Castor The Nation's Crucible that dives into these discussions of what Louisiana approaches meant to the developing of American identity.

Identity, Allies, And Closing Reflections

Michele McAloon 44:34

That's interesting because you know coming from the Gulf Coast of Mob of Alabama, the Gulf Coast, I mean I have a different identity being Catholic, being French, and being Catholic in Alabama, which is minority, but in the Gulf Coast, most people are Catholic. So I mean it's it it's interesting how it goes. I have to tell you why I was reading your book Elon Musk's you know SpaceX IPO was going on. And I kind of wondered I mean, we're probably gonna colonize space. Is it going to look like we are? I mean, you know, there's that's not beyond the realm of possibility. What is it gonna look like? Is it gonna look like a Louisiana purchase? And we will come across the same questions of citizenship and and federality and and possession and folks. If you have one summer read, this is the summer read. It's a big book, but it is a well-written history, it's an engaging history, it is not pedanic, it is not it doesn't lecture you, and you just will be so surprised by the really the pageantry of um the American experience of the different people. This is not just Betsy Ross sewing the flag. I mean, this is these are some uh really incredible people. Why I'm reading it, I can think I I kept itching myself because I kept thinking the mosquitoes in the swamps of Louisiana. So uh I've been in those fires and they're heavy, man.

Alexander Mikaberidze 45:58

So thank you so much. This is very kind of you, and I want to note as an immigrant myself. I've come to the United States uh about a quarter of a century ago and pursued this American dream. And and this book is a is a way of me giving back to the country that really adopted me and gave you know has given me everything. And it's and it's especially true for the state of Louisiana that I have lived for the past nineteen years and that I love, that I've crisscrossed, and really I hope that this book shows the rich history of of this part of the United States, and especially as we are celebrating the American Revolution and the 250th anniversary of our Republican experiment. I want people to think not only of Massachusetts and New York, Louisiana and Alabama.

Michele McAloon 46:47

We need to thank some people, and that's our Spanish, our French, our British, the Portuguese, the I mean, you know what? We didn't do this alone. We can't go forward alone. We can be America first, but we're not America without allies. We live in a community of nations, we need to be a part of that community of nations. So there's so much to learn from this book and so much that is so relevant today. It's funny how history catches up with you. Professor, a sincere thank you. And you know what? You did a great job thanking this nation by writing that book. It's incredible.

unknown 47:19

Thank you.