Talk:Gadsden Purchase
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
To anon: Please stop reverting to old version of the map. Here is the discussion on the changes to the map (sssssssssssssfrom User_talk:RadicalBender). RADICALBENDER★ 20:08, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Gadsden Purchase Map
Splendid map you made! But, I must admit, even as a map-head, I'm a bit lost. D'you think it would be possible to include markers for a city or two? I'd suggest Phoenix or Tucson (T. is inside the Gadsden tract, isn't it?), El Paso -- and maybe Santa Fe, it's remote enough not to get too crowded. What do you think? Feasible? Or would it be just too fiddly? –Hajor 18:47, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I suppose it's possible. The only problem would be I don't know which cities would have existed at the time of the Gadsden Purchase. I think Tucson might be in that territory, but otherwise... Let me do some research. RADICALBENDER★ 18:49, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Wow, fast reply! Tucson, Santa Fe, and El Paso / Juárez were all mission towns when the territory belonged to New Spain. Don't know about Phoenix. –Hajor 18:56, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Heh. Well, let's see: according to my big honkin' atlas, Tucson, Yuma and Sierra Vista seem to be the three largest cities inside the Gadsden Purchase today. Phoenix and all of its suburbs - Glendale, Scottsdale, Tempe, Mesa, Chandler, are just outside of the Gadsden purchase, as is Silver City, NM and Las Cruces, NM.
- I'm not as concerned now about the historical cities of the time since there weren't very many in the region (still aren't). So, we'll just go with some nearby modern ones for context.
- Let's try this. Texas isn't really in the map, so I'll leave out El Paso, but let's do Phoenix (out), Tucson (in), Yuma (in), Sierra Vista (in), Las Cruces (out) and Alamogordo (out). That sound allright? RADICALBENDER★ 19:03, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Ok, Sounds good. Shame about El Paso, but yes, you'd have to include another set of state lines and the int'l border for it to make sense (and the end result would be too fussy, I suspect). So go ahead and try that. See how it works out, but (with a 250px or so display inside the article...) I'd suggest Sierra Vista as the prime candidate for the chop. –Hajor
- Not worth redoing for just this, but if you make a new version, how about Santa Fe. I added material in the article about it, in reference to the difficult of governing that part added to the New Mexico Territory. -- Decumanus | Talk 19:30, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Oh, what thing of beauty hast thou wrought! Don't listen to the naysayers suggesting that Sierra Vista wouldn't fit. Splendid work! –Hajor
-
- Okee-dokee. New map is up. File is now in .png format (which is what it should've been all along). I made the city labels a bit larger than what I normally use (14pt vs. 12pt) so that they should still be readable shrunk at 300px. I also added Santa Fe in. :) RADICALBENDER★ 19:39, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Gadsden Purchase is not an area
any more than when you go to the store and purchase bread it is called "bread purchase". The Gadsden Purchase was an event, and at the time of the purchase the area was called "Gadsden Purchase" in that it was the area purchased, but the area itself is called Gadsdena. --141.219.44.80 17:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
So does your rule also apply to the Louisiana Purchase? Rhallanger 09:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Sure does. The name of the "Louisiana Purcase" is "Louisiana," duh. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- What? No. That is bogus. The Louisiana Purchase was very large. Louisiana refers to the modern state of Louisiana, which is very small in comparison. See Louisiana Purchase instead of talking out of your ass. --24.251.240.229 19:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- What? Yes. Lousiana is a large area of which a small part is the "modern state of Louisiana." They are both called "Louisiana." --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
-
There is very little evidence, online at least, for the name "Gadsdena" - 418 Google results as of this writing, a number which includes several Wikipedia mirrors, and many of the result seem to be surnames. Furthermore, "purchase" used in a name for a piece of purchased land is a common designation; apart from Rhallanger's Louisiana Purchase, there is also the Holland Purchase, the Symmes Purchase, the Platte Purchase, the Phelps and Gorham Purchase, and so forth. At the very least, "more properly" should be deleted, but the article would probably not be any poorer without any mention of "Gadsdena" at all. --61.48.103.227 13:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Alternate versions of the Gadsden Purchase
I was wondering if anyone knows where one might obtain a map of some of proposed alternatives for the gadsden puchase. Watercat77 00:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. Turtledove's alternate history books have the CSA purchasing, what from the description in the article suggests would've been the purchase. But that's a novel, so no idea how accurate his rendition is.
- ~ender 2007-05-08 11:58:AM MST
[edit] Mexicans who resided in the area?
So what happened to the people who were living in the area when it got purchased? Did they get relocated (and by whom? Mexican Army, US Army, or what?), or did they get transfferred to American citizenship, or some other solution?
~ender 2007-05-08 11:58:AM MST
- American citizenship was conferred upon them. --Node 10:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- I believe they were permitted to relocate to Mexican territory freely if they so wished. Most stayed and were granted American citizenship per terms of the agreement between the US and Mexico. The same is true for lands seized during the Mexican-American war, as well as for French subjects living in the Louisiana Purchase lands.
[edit] Money woes
- U.S. paid Mexico $10 million
- I would think was to pay would be more accurate, given the apparent $4 million gap.
- The matter about the money was to be very conflictive
- Awkward. I'd suggest dropping the entire phrase.
--JohnRDaily 19:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The article says:
- "When the money arrived in Mexico City, $1 million ($23 million in 2006 dollars) was missing, resulting in receipt of only $6 million ($140 million in 2006 dollars)"
And then what happened!? Mexico just accepted $6 million without protest? Can anyone fill in the end of the story? Where are you getting this information? Article III of the Gadsden Purchase treaty states:
In consideration of the foregoing stipulations, the Government of the United States agrees to pay to the government of Mexico, in the city of New York, the sum of ten millions of dollars, of which seven millions shall be paid immediately upon the exchange of the ratifications of this treaty, and the remaining three millions as soon as the boundary line shall be surveyed, marked, and established.
Did Mexico in any way fail to conclude their end of the bargain? Pisomojado (talk) 09:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Footnote Free Zone
There isn't a single footnote in this entire, POV-laden article. I'll start weeding out the POV if I can find a place to begin, although it looks like the best solution would be to scrap everything except the intro, and allow contributors to re-build with proper references.DougRWms 05:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)