Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
NoThis is a modern map and shows exactly what I stated.
No
In general, the logic here is this: if they could, they would occupy the best lands, they were simply not allowed there, so they settled in the swamps of the South.
And then they were thrown out altogether. Here is the real story
Yeah I know......... Your lack of knowledge in this (and all areas) is telling........This tale, by the way, coincides in time with the end of the 1st civil war, when the British were generally expelled from the United States.
And there was a shitload of bottom lands that are far more fertile than the plains are.
These people werent working 2000 acres at a time they worked smaller farms and there was plenty of land for that.
All of your posts seems seem to demean anyone you respond. Really juvenile stuff.Yeah I know......... Your lack of knowledge in this (and all areas) is telling........
I figure you're either:
1 really stupid
2 one fry short of a happy meal
3 a troll
According to my data, red and yellow soils have a low degree of fertility, are not economically profitable, and are not suitable for most agricultural crops.
Why thank you.All of your posts seems seem to demean anyone you respond. Really juvenile stuff.
Since you really don't get it I'll be straight up. In rupol's case he ALWAYS comes up with the strangest, weirdest, dumbest stuff and yet when he is told and or shown how wrong he is he refuses to recognize reality and doubles down on his stupid. Why should I continue to respond intellectually in such a case? That means we can only assume he's one of the three I listed.All of your posts seems seem to demean anyone you respond. Really juvenile stuff.
However, the colonists did not receive the most fertile lands of the Great Plains. Even if there were good lands , this does not change anything.That doesnt take into account the bottom lands.
They're extremely fertile. And while they didnt make up huge areas there was plenty for the size of the farms back in those days.
Hell,there are songs written about being wealthy because they owned a big plot of bottom land.
However, the colonists did not receive the most fertile lands of the Great Plains. Even if there were good lands , this does not change anything.
The colonists themselves settled along the East Coast, and are believed to have settled the South with slaves from Africa. But all the fertile lands, optimal for agriculture, which are located on the Great Plains, they could not get. So they got their ass kicked, right?
No, they didn't. The colonists occupied only the coast and the South.WTF are you trying to say?
They most certainly did get the most fertile grounds.
Take a look at a map of the US,I'm pretty sure the plains are no longer held by the Comanche.
And as I've said the bottom lands in the south were far more fertile than the plains.
They were constantly re supplied with nutrients by the rivers when they came out of their banks when they had floods.
The plains didnt have that luxury.
I think it's much simpler: the American cowboys of the Great Plains kicked yankees ass, and they didn't go there anymore.The Great Plains were not anywhere near fertile with the equipment available to the colonists. Very little water, ground that required very heavy plows and windmills, and a lack of fencing. not to mention a very long way from ocean ports critical to colonial economies.
Crops like cotton and tobacco also deplete soils pretty rapidly, and as a cash crop did so even more rapidly before modern fertilizers and seeds. Cotton was also limited geographically in where it could be grown in the U.S., as was well known by people well travelled in the 1840's and 1850's, which why some anti-slavery politicians didn't mind allowing slavery in the West or the North; they knew the 'Southern System' wasn't ever going to economically viable north of Mason -Dixon or west of a certain point in east Texas, and saw it as pointless to fight over re states outside the South. It wasn't even viable in the tier of slave states in the Union.
Blacks, Browns, Redskins and BluebloodsNo, they didn't. The colonists occupied only the coast and the South.
Then they were expelled from the USA.
You think the South is all swamp? You're a bright young guy who thinks he knows everything. Basically you're full of shit.No
In general, the logic here is this: if they could, they would occupy the best lands, they were simply not allowed there, so they settled in the swamps of the South.
And then they were thrown out altogether. Here is the real story
If there was some kind of "white supremacy", Europe would not be flooded with queers and whores, and Eastern Europe would not be poor and war-torn.Blacks, Browns, Redskins and Bluebloods
In 1763, the King of England restricted all land west of the Appalachians to Indians only. That was the real cause of the Revolutionary War. So we owe our greatness to enforcing White Supremacy and defying those who have always supported CRT: the arrogant HeirHead guillotine-fodder of the British nobility. They control our thoughts, so they will continue to rule and ruin.
