Posted on 05/07/2026 7:39:36 AM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
Yes, the United States effectively inherited the existing institution of slavery in the territory acquired through the Louisiana Purchase of 1803 from France (which had briefly reacquired it from Spain in 1800). The U.S. did not introduce slavery there as a new practice; it was already well-established under prior colonial rule, and the transfer preserved the property rights of slaveholders.
Historical Context of Slavery in the Louisiana Territory
* French origins: France introduced chattel slavery to the Louisiana colony starting in the early 1700s, importing enslaved Africans (beginning around 1710) to support plantation agriculture, alongside some raids on Native American groups for labor. The Code Noir (1685) regulated slavery in French colonies, outlining rules for treatment, manumission, and rights of free people of color.
* Spanish period (1762–1800): Spain continued and expanded the transatlantic slave trade in the territory. By the time of the Purchase, there was a significant population of enslaved Africans, especially in the lower Mississippi Valley (present-day Louisiana), along with free people of color. Spain had banned enslavement of Native Americans in 1769, but some mixed-descent individuals remained in bondage.
* Brief French return (1800–1803): Napoleon reacquired Louisiana from Spain via the secret Treaty of San Ildefonso but never fully reimposed control on a large scale. His broader plans for a New World empire (including using Louisiana to supply Saint-Domingue/Haiti) collapsed due to the successful Haitian Revolution (a massive slave rebellion that led to Haiti's independence in 1804) and disease among French troops. Napoleon restored slavery in other French colonies in 1802 but sold Louisiana before deeply reasserting it there.
At the time of the Purchase, slavery was a functioning economic and social institution in parts of the territory, particularly around New Orleans and agricultural areas. The Purchase doubled the size of the U.S. and brought in a diverse population that included thousands of enslaved people.
The Louisiana Purchase Treaty and Its Provisions
The 1803 treaty (signed April 30, 1803) made no direct mention of slavery or its abolition. Key relevant language came in Article III:
"The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States and admitted as soon as possible according to the principles of the federal Constitution to the enjoyment of all these rights, advantages and immunities of citizens of the United States, and in the mean time they shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property and the Religion which they profess."
In the legal and social context of the era, enslaved people were treated as property under colonial (and later U.S.) law. Protecting "property" rights thus meant the U.S. recognized and upheld existing claims to enslaved individuals. President Thomas Jefferson and Congress had no intention of ending slavery in the acquired lands; they focused on governance, citizenship for free inhabitants (including free people of color in some cases), and eventual statehood.
Early U.S. actions included:
* Temporary restrictions on importing new slaves into the Orleans Territory (except those brought by migrating owners), but these were quickly weakened or removed due to local opposition.
* The territory (later split into the Orleans and Louisiana Districts) adopted laws similar to those in southern U.S. states while incorporating some French/Spanish precedents. Slavery expanded significantly post-Purchase, fueled by the cotton gin, sugar plantations, and the domestic slave trade. New Orleans became a major slave-trading hub.
Broader Impacts
The Purchase did not "create" slavery in the region but integrated an existing slave society into the U.S., exacerbating sectional tensions over whether new states carved from the territory would allow slavery. This contributed to debates leading to the Missouri Compromise (1820), the expansion of the domestic slave trade, and ultimately tensions culminating in the American Civil War. Parts of the territory (e.g., future Missouri) already had some slaveholders; lower Louisiana had many more.
In short: The U.S. acquired a territory where slavery was a longstanding colonial practice under France (and Spain). By guaranteeing property rights and incorporating the inhabitants without disrupting the institution, the U.S. inherited and then expanded slavery there under American law and governance. The Haitian Revolution indirectly enabled the sale by derailing Napoleon's plans, creating an ironic link between the end of slavery in one former French colony and its reinforcement in another.
Check
I took that statement to mean slavery is a sin that has been present since the nation's origin, nothing more.
” I took that statement to mean slavery is a sin that has been present since the nation’s origin, nothing more. “
How he intended the statement is all that matters.
Intent is everything. When something is “present on the side” but only by mere coincidence you don’t use accusatory language. Yes, absolutely, the phrase “original sin” is deeply accusatory. And I do not think I’m being too harsh by assuming the “worst construct available” that can be said of this statement since we have The 1619 Project and we know what they mean. That’s their project. I didn’t invent The 1619 Project.
They do in fact believe the U.S. invented slavery because it is in their own words they say right in the plain text of The 1619 Project that The United States had 246 years of slavery and this 246 years is also in their history books.
Isn’t this year 2026 the United States’s 250th birthday year? Was slavery abolished in 2022 and everybody missed it?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/14/magazine/black-history-american-democracy.html
“The Stono Rebellion was only one of many rebellions that occurred over the 246 years of slavery in the United States.”
See.
Normally yes, the NYT are liars. But in this instance they are faithfully capturing the progressive belief on this matter. They do in fact believe that the U.S. created slavery without any outside intervention nor help whatsoever. According to progressives nobody brought slavery here, there were no colonies in that context. We did it all, on our own, right from the nation’s founding in the year 1619. All accusation and all focus is one hundred and ten percent on singularly The United States as if the U.S. is the only country in existence. It is there in black and white plain text to read. They DO NOT believe the Stono Rebellion happened in some British Colony. They ABSOLUTELY believe the Stono Rebellion happened in Thee-one-and-only-United-States. In the year 1739. Because of course the U.S. existed in the year 1739.
It is just what they believe. Progressives do actually intend the “worst construct”.
CRACK OPEN A BOOK. You might learn something.
I should have written, “Anyone who has a basic knowledge of history...”
I don’t know what happened to the formatting. My apologies.
The very first transatlantic abolitionist tract written anywhere, ever, was by an American. Ever. Period. The very first. The “oldest” in that sense. It was in 1700, “The Selling of Joseph”.
Samuel Sewall was British.
Long before that tract there were several Papal Bulls issued condemning slavery and calling for the freeing of slaves (both native inhabitants and imported ones). This from 1435, “... We order and command all and each of the faithful of each sex that, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their pristine liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of said Canary Islands ... who have been made subject to slavery (). These people are to be totally and perpetually free and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of any money.”
Sadly, a majority of Catholic slave holders put manna before justice and human rights. That does not negate the fact this document predates “The Selling of Joseph.”
I’m sure he got them from these Arabs.
Sadly not enough Americans know our own history about this. Most Americans are indoctrinated in the government schools to believe that abolitionism didn’t appear anywhere until Garrison started leading the abolitionist effort; with Americans accepting this narrative of abolitionism as a Civil War topic. Why wouldn’t abolitionism be a Civil War topic, abolitionism never existed prior to William Lloyd Garrison.
Most Americans believe abolitionism was first put on by the British and that we Americans led by Garrison copied the Brits and imported everything here.
This historiography is fake. The timeline cannot support it. It requires a willing suspension of disbelief to sustain it.
Glad we cleared the air about that one and can agree France was no victim.
Then.
No. Our “inheritance” was not from many peoples, sources and cultures, not when it comes to specific land grants. Ownership is 9/10ths of the law and we did not purchase the Louisiana Territory from “many peoples, sources and cultures.” We purchased the land from France.
That land was French land and that slavery was French slavery. Full stop. The fact will always be there. It does not go away.
I’m not French. I have no problems blaming France for what was in fact their problem/their guilt. I do not see any reasons why this should be covered up.
America invented abolitionism. We were first. We own it, in origination abolitionism is our property. And yes, too, many of the Founding Fathers were abolitionists.
It is time for you to stop trusting the progressives.
When I crack open books I discover that progressives are liars and that the U.S. is the best country to ever exist.
“I should have written, “Anyone who has a basic knowledge of history...””
Uh huh. You do know that transatlantic slavery began in 1480 right?
This is extremely basic.
Yeah, I've spent basically the last two decades dealing with progressives I know how this narrative magic works.
According to the progressives' historiography, anybody who supported slavery was American. Anybody who opposed slavery was British. It's magic. How did we get here I don't know just trust in your friendly local neighborhood progressive and dont ask questions.
The rule is: under no circumstances is America ever to at any time get credit for abolitionism. Giving America credit is completely ruled out and is a violation. The progressives' rule is that America is racist and evil and everybody else is pure as the wind driven snow.
Yes, I understand. I reject it. It's garbage.
Luckily all of the hypocrisies and contradictions are too glaring to ignore and its fun to pick it all apart since all of the facts are on my side.
If you are going to lay all blame for slavery prior to 1776 on The U.S., then you must, must, must also lay all blame for abolitionism prior to 1776 on The U.S. as well. You can't have it both ways, you can't keep your cognitive dissonance on this. Pick one but only one.
Some sources claim that transatlantic slavery began in 1492.
“According to the progressives’ historiography, anybody who supported slavery was American. Anybody who opposed slavery was British. It’s magic. How did we get here I don’t know just trust in your friendly local neighborhood progressive and dont ask questions. “
You sure make some rather broad statements.
“If you are going to lay all blame for slavery prior to 1776 on The U.S., then you must, must, must also lay all blame for abolitionism prior to 1776 on The U.S. as well. You can’t have it both ways, you can’t keep your cognitive dissonance on this. Pick one but only one.”
Who in the Sam Tucker is this “you” you are addressing? I think you need to make sure the strap on your tin foil hat is tight enough.
Did I argue that slavery originated in the U.S.? I did not.
The mistake you made was about The Selling of Joseph.
It is the first abolitionist tract of the transatlantic era. It came from America. Not from Europe.
Grok avoids that discussion unless prompted, but then the prompt looks ridiculous even if it is ultimately correct.
As to the continental portions I agree in the aggregate.
I have said the U.S. inherited slavery from the British Empire just as now; with regard to land and the 1803 purchase; inherited from France.
These are simple facts. But it drives the Europhiles out of their minds. Strange since this is supposed to be FreeRepublic and I had once believed we were all Americanophiles here.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Americanophile
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Americophile
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/europhile
I have no problem with your equating France under Louis XVI, France under the Jacobins, France under de Gaulle or ( among the five "republiques" ) France under Macron. But I don't agree with the estimation.
"...their problem/their guilt" seems quite the methodological error in which you seem to delight. The Germans are only now coming to terms with two modern generations who have been fed "...their problem/their guilt."
But going that route leaves one with us conservatives being somehow "guilty" for the idiocies of Democrats, for which I as an American do not apologize nor do I believe the "Obama-Biden" version of America is something for which I accept "guilt." Nor do I accept the "guilt" as peddled by the NYT's 1619 bullshit.
I did not make any mistake. You wrote,
“America invented abolitionism. We were first. We own it, in origination abolitionism is our property. And yes, too, many of the Founding Fathers were abolitionists.”
” The very first transatlantic abolitionist tract written anywhere, ever, was by an American. Ever. Period. The very first. The “oldest” in that sense. It was in 1700, “The Selling of Joseph”
If you are using “transatlantic” to mean the European to the Americas slave trade you are also wrong in claiming no other abolitionist writings came before it. I am defining abolitionist writings as those writings which objected to the practice of slavery and advocated that all slaves should be free.
America did not invent abolition,just as we did not invent the slave trade and slavery.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.