Why were the colonists unable to capture the fertile lands?

[rupol2000]

This 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

 

[Ringel05]

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

 

[rupol2000]

Roosevelt and Stalin wrote a story for the Americans that they were supposedly colonists from Europe, but you should not believe the stories of liars and criminals.

Americans are not Europeans

 

[rupol2000]

It was the Yankees who got their ass kicked twice by the Americans.

 

[rupol2000]

in the early 1800s

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.

 

[Ringel05]

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.

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

 

[rupol2000]

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.

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.

 

[AMart]

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

All of your posts seems seem to demean anyone you respond. Really juvenile stuff.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

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.

 

[Ringel05]

All of your posts seems seem to demean anyone you respond. Really juvenile stuff.

Why thank you.

 

[Ringel05]

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.
In your case you seem to be complaining about mod actions all the time, almost like once a week. I have no idea how many people (including myself) have tried to explain to you how the system works and yet you continue to do the same things over and over. We can only assume you're intentionally being obtuse or just can't seem to wrap your head around the simply stated rules. You have a real problem and I don't know what it is but I do know the first place to look and that's in a mirror.

 

[rupol2000]

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.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

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.

 

[DudleySmith]

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?

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.

 

[rupol2000]

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.

No, they didn't. The colonists occupied only the coast and the South.

Then they were expelled from the USA.

 

[rupol2000]

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.

I think it's much simpler: the American cowboys of the Great Plains kicked yankees ass, and they didn't go there anymore.
Then Roosevelt and Stalin came and wrote fairy tales about, supposedly, the Americans themselves were colonists.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

No, they didn't. The colonists occupied only the coast and the South.

Then they were expelled from the USA.

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.

 

[surada]

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

You think the South is all swamp? You're a bright young guy who thinks he knows everything. Basically you're full of shit.

 

[rupol2000]

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.

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.

 

[rupol2000]

ou think the South is all swamp?

It's not my opinion, it's a scientific fact.
What does "all" mean? complete swamp? This doesn't exists anywere. Just marsh land.