Remember to spell check your work before clicking the submit button.
Was the United States justified when acquiring lands? Use one example of the land acquisitions studied in class and evaluate the fairness of it.
Remember to spell check your work before clicking the submit button.
24 Comments
Luis
3/24/2014 12:35:22 am
The Louisiana Purchase was justifiable. I think so because we didn’t have to fight for it. All we had to do was $15 million for the whole state of Louisiana. You might say that it was too much money, however it wasn’t very expensive. The United States acquired Louisiana for the bargain price of just 2 to 3 cents per acre.
Reply
Dulce
3/24/2014 12:36:17 am
The U.S expansion into Oregon was justifiable. The U.S expansion into Oregon was justifiable because the U.S was able to gain more land, the land was always sunny, had fertile soil, and no disease. The Oregon expansion was free and it is our manifest destiny to expand and conquer more land. To top it all off to gain Oregon the U.S made a compromise with Great Britain to share Oregon so there was no blood shed involving in getting this new land.
Reply
Dominic Tesoriero
3/24/2014 12:36:32 am
The U.S obtaining Louisiana was indeed fair. Gaining Louisiana was fair because Napolean Bonaparte didn't want to lose his land to the British in war to the French, he sold Louisiana to Thomas Jefferson for $15 million. Even though the land would be impossible to govern, the constitution made no revision to buying foreign land, and the price was to high, the Louisiana Purchase would double the size of the U.S. The Mississippi River would know be under U.S control.
Reply
Jennifer
3/24/2014 12:37:12 am
Yes the expansion into Oregon was justifiable because Polk comprimised with Great Britain instead of going to war with them. There was no bloodshed and nobody was harmed. Britain got half and so did the U.S. Instead of only one of them gaining control over the whole thing they shared. They also agreed to have the joint ocupation. The settlers got to keep the land that they got and didnt have to leave. The land was great and both the U.S and Britain pecaefully agreed to split it into 2 territorries.
Reply
Melise
3/24/2014 12:37:21 am
Expansion into Florida was justifiable. Florida was owned by Spain. It was connected to the U.S and no where near Spain. They had the right to expand into Florida because they paid for the land and made a fair deal with Spain’s government. The land wasn’t taken without permission so there was a fair sale.
Reply
Savannah
3/24/2014 03:50:38 am
No, the U.S. was not allowed to take Florida away because Jackson had executed two British troops and then replaced the Spanish governor with an American. Then, he wanted to execute the governor (Spanish) but that governor had fled so I think that the U.S. wasn’t allowed to take Florida away.
Reply
Cathy Montoya
3/24/2014 03:51:37 am
No, I don’t think that the U.S. was justifiable to take Florida because Jackson didn’t have the right to come and invade Florida. He didn’t have the right to make Spain leave and to replace the Spanish governor. Jackson just needed to do what Monroe said because this isn’t fair for the Spanish governor or for the people that were executed out.
Reply
Dorian
3/24/2014 03:51:58 am
I think it was a fair that the Gadsden Purchase because he paid for a strip of land and the Mexican had no problem with it so you can tell it is a fair trade.
Reply
Tyheem Anderson
3/24/2014 03:56:38 am
I think it wasn’t justifiable because Andrew Jackson was sent to Georgia to end the raids but he disobeys his order and takes 1,700 troops to Florida to replace the Spanish governor with an American. It was an illegal invasion because he fords him to give up because he had guns pointed to his face.
Reply
Genesis ;)
3/24/2014 03:57:36 am
The Gadsden Purchase was justifiable because the US did not have to fight for the land. All the US did was pay $10 million for the land. The nation stretched ‘from sea to shining sea.’ This land was flat and was good for railroad routes. This land provided the US with land to use for railroad routes.
Reply
Araybia Luster
3/24/2014 03:58:21 am
Yes Oregon was justifiable because Great Britain and United States go to war for sharing Oregon and who can have Oregon and who can’t. They both came to a agreement that they can share Oregon so not just Great Britain or United States get both of them can get.
Reply
Camila Alvarado
3/24/2014 04:00:34 am
The U.S expanison into Texas was justifiable because Texas is an independent country.Led to a Manifest Density and some settlers went to war with mexico but not the whole country so that makes it that the whole U.S didn't go against Texas to gain power over each other.
Reply
Paul
3/25/2014 12:31:20 am
No the U.S expansion into Florida was not justifiable because in a way it was like they stole something then came back to pay for it to avoid any further issues. Also they used military force to take Florida which just adds more fuel to the fire. Sure it did work out in the end but I’m sure that there were other ways they could go about the issue like planned.
Reply
Shanelle
3/25/2014 12:31:44 am
Yes the Texas expansion was justifiable because Texas is now an independent state. Even if people thought it was going to lead up to a war with Mexico some people wanted another slave state. This was apart of Manifest Destiny and we got the land for free.
Reply
Deavihan
3/25/2014 12:33:41 am
Yes, the Louisiana Purchase was justifiable for many reasons. To begin with, even though the French raised the bargain price $7 million dollars ($8 million to $15 million), no one had to go to war or die for this land. It was a peaceful way that they obtained the land: there was no bloodshed or arguing or fighting. It was a regular business purchase. Also, this new deal doubled the size of the United States and now made each acre cost 2 to 3 cents. We also now had the Mississippi River under our control so we can send goods to New Orleans so we can distribute our goods to different places such as Europe and the East Coast.
Reply
Natasha M.
3/25/2014 12:35:38 am
The U.S. expansion into Oregon was justifiable because we have now gained fertile, disease free land, farms, and dense forests. Now that more Americans are beginning to settle here in Oregon and we have a joint occupation of Oregon with Great Britain, we want all of Oregon! But to avoid war with Great Britain, we decided to compromise by splitting Oregon half and half. We are happy that we didn’t go to war with Great Britain and at least have half of this pioneer’s paradise.
Reply
Katie Santiago
3/25/2014 12:36:38 am
Yes, I think the Gadsden Purchase was justifiable. I think the Gadsden Purchase was justifiable because the United States and Mexico agreed the U.S could have it for 10 Million dollars and the land was not forced into U.S custody, it was granted our custody for $10 Million by the Mexicans.
Reply
Crystal
3/25/2014 12:39:57 am
The U.S expansion into Texas was not justifiable. The southern wanted another slave state but, Mexico already outlawed slavery in 1829. Mexico was fear that it will lead to a war with the United States. It is an excellent region for growing cotton. Americans doesn’t respect the Mexican culture. Texas belongs to Mexico.
Reply
Jerrel T.
3/25/2014 12:43:27 am
Jerrel
Reply
Gloria
3/25/2014 12:43:45 am
Texas
Reply
Jazmine C.
3/25/2014 03:48:06 am
The Louisiana purchase was jusifiable because although they're giving away too much money they can overcome this con by farmer's now having the ability to grow crops with a fertile country, and gain more money farming. As well as having a great opportunity to gain a territory for free without war or bloodshed. Which will futuristically become a state.
Reply
Gabby
3/25/2014 03:53:19 am
No I don’t think America didn’t have the right to take Texas. I think this because Texas could have a lot room for slaves, and in the South there are a lot of more plantations. Also by making Texas a state it could start a war with Mexico. I think the way they got Texas was unconstitional, and unfair.
Reply
Aaron
3/25/2014 04:02:22 am
I think it was a good c choice of how America got the Louisiana Purchase. It was fear because the pay million dollars to get the land. This was also a good choice because there wasn’t any blood shed of any kind there was also no war. Territory would double, the part I thought shouldn’t be there was there when it said there would be loses of power.
Reply
Viktor Salas
3/31/2014 01:37:13 am
If napoleon gave the Louisiana territory to the British the Americans won’t have a way to expand their land. If the British still had this land to this day the east would be crowded or America would have war with the British or some Conflicts. Also the price was very cheap and there was no bloodshed. So for the country it was fair to but Louisiana
Reply
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
ChecklistBefore you press submit:
Categories
All
Archives
May 2014
|