New Orleans Is Going to Be 300 Years Old in 2018 (from 1718)

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2017 5:02 AM GMT
    http://2018nola.com/
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 18249

    Dec 03, 2017 6:08 PM GMT
    It should have never been located on that marshy, low laying piece of land but on the northern shore of Lake Pontchartrain instead. But the dumb drunken French Canadian nobleman who founded New Orleans had this idiotic notion that the Mississippi River was "in crying need of an ocean port" and insisted on building the new settlement on that vulnerable swampland.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 03, 2017 7:50 PM GMT
    roadbikeRob said
    It should have never been located on that marshy, low laying piece of land but on the northern shore of Lake Pontchartrain instead. But the dumb drunken French Canadian nobleman who founded New Orleans had this idiotic notion that the Mississippi River was "in crying need of an ocean port" and insisted on building the new settlement on that vulnerable swampland.

    Prior to New Orleans the French had established a presence with settlements throughout the Mississppi and Missouri River Valleys. Basically the bulk of the center of the continental US. The main French commercial interests were fur traping, primarily beaver, and buffalo hunting.

    These hunters needed an ocean outlet to a European market. The English colonies on the East Coast were not as lucrative a market, plus France and England had a long history of almost continuous war, further complicating trade.

    Therefore New Orleans served that purpose. Fur traders arrived mainly in small craft, flatboats and even canoes, in a simple route that took them directly down the Mississippi. New Orleans was originally only meant to be another trading post and a transfer point for ocean vessels. The drawbacks of placing what would become a future major urban area in marshland would never have occurred to those early commercial settlers in 1718.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 04, 2017 1:58 AM GMT
    art_deco said
    roadbikeRob said
    It should have never been located on that marshy, low laying piece of land but on the northern shore of Lake Pontchartrain instead. But the dumb drunken French Canadian nobleman who founded New Orleans had this idiotic notion that the Mississippi River was "in crying need of an ocean port" and insisted on building the new settlement on that vulnerable swampland.

    Prior to New Orleans the French had established a presence with settlements throughout the Mississppi and Missouri River Valleys. Basically the bulk of the center of the continental US. The main French commercial interest was fur traping, primarily beaver, and buffalo hunting.

    These hunters needed an ocean outlet to a European market. The English colonies on the East Coast were not as lucrative a market, plus France and England had a long history of almost continuous war, further complicating trade.

    Therefore New Orleans served that purpose. Fur traders arrived mainly in small craft, flatboats and even canoes, in a simple route that took them directly down the Mississippi. New Orleans was originally only meant to be another trading post and a transfer point for ocean vessels. The drawbacks of placing what would become a future major urban area in marshland would never have occurred to those early commercial settlers in 1718.



    You might as well be talking to a chimp. RBB automatically hates any liberal city, so you can throw all the facts you want at him and he'll still hate New Orleans simply because it's so liberal.
  • IgnatiusReill...

    Posts: 168

    Apr 22, 2018 10:40 PM GMT
    The colonial power that controlled the mouth of the Mississippi also controlled the commerce which was channeled down the river. Shipping raw materials and goods down the Missouri, Ohio, Illinois, Tennessee and many smaller rivers was the easiest way to transport goods from the interior to the seaports along the Atlantic coast to markets, or to Europe. The French knew this and imposed tariffs on goods that were offloaded into the levees. Kentucky and Tennessee, newly admitted to the Union were threatening to leave the Union and join France to avoid paying high tariffs which threatened to bankrupt the small businesses who were solely dependent on the Mississippi watershed for shipping. Thomas Jefferson knew this and sought to purchase only The Isle of Orleans to solve this problem. We all know how that turned out. The present site also was a portage between the Mississippi and Lake Pontchartrain, affording a quicker passage to the Gulf of Mexico. The building of the railroads changed how goods were shipped to markets, but by then New Orleans had become a wealthy city and port and was firmly established. Its location is not ideal as the task of keeping water at bay is a continuous task.
    Instead of shipping raw materials from the port to cotton or sugar mills along the East Coast or Europe, New Orleans began receiving goods from foreign ports to be transported upriver by steamboat to inland cities. The steamboat are a part of history, replaced by barges that move upriver or downriver from Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Louisville, St. Louis, St. Paul, Memphis, etc. Manufactured goods, food and grain from these cities and many more are shipped downriver to be transported to Latin America, Europe, Africa, and Asia. Coffee, oil, food products, clothing, and many other items needed for daily life first arrive at the port. The opening of the Panama Canal ensured New Orleans' future as a major port city.
    New Orleans was my home until recently and I will admit that it's location is less than desirable, especially when the skies unleash a deluge but the location has well served the residents of the city who are employed by the port and many inland cities and businesses who rely on the Port of Southeast Louisiana to export or import products necessary for everyday life.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 18249

    Apr 23, 2018 1:58 AM GMT
    Radd said
    art_deco said
    roadbikeRob said
    It should have never been located on that marshy, low laying piece of land but on the northern shore of Lake Pontchartrain instead. But the dumb drunken French Canadian nobleman who founded New Orleans had this idiotic notion that the Mississippi River was "in crying need of an ocean port" and insisted on building the new settlement on that vulnerable swampland.

    Prior to New Orleans the French had established a presence with settlements throughout the Mississppi and Missouri River Valleys. Basically the bulk of the center of the continental US. The main French commercial interest was fur traping, primarily beaver, and buffalo hunting.

    These hunters needed an ocean outlet to a European market. The English colonies on the East Coast were not as lucrative a market, plus France and England had a long history of almost continuous war, further complicating trade.

    Therefore New Orleans served that purpose. Fur traders arrived mainly in small craft, flatboats and even canoes, in a simple route that took them directly down the Mississippi. New Orleans was originally only meant to be another trading post and a transfer point for ocean vessels. The drawbacks of placing what would become a future major urban area in marshland would never have occurred to those early commercial settlers in 1718.



    You might as well be talking to a chimp. RBB automatically hates any liberal city, so you can throw all the facts you want at him and he'll still hate New Orleans simply because it's so liberal.
    What the goddamned hell are you talking about bunk! I never said anything hateful about your home city of New Orleans and yet you slam me for no legitimate reason other than to start trouble. AlI I said is that it was a horrendous error on the part of its founder to locate New Orleans on that vulnerable, low laying swampland. The north shore of nearby Lake Pontchartrain would have been drier safer ground and easier to access from the Gulf of Mexico. But that was 300 years ago so it is what it is. Where is my so called hatred of New Orleans that you are babbling about like a bumbling buffoon?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 28, 2018 7:32 AM GMT
    A city I'm sure I'd find fascinating for a weekend.
    But it's unsafe history of crime, is a turn off for me.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 18249

    Apr 29, 2018 3:51 PM GMT
    How come there is no mentioning of San Antonio celebrating the tricentennial of its founding in 1718. I guess because it is a much more conservative city than New Orleans. San Antonio is also built on safer, drier, higher ground where you dont have to fight constantly to keep the water out.