Sad part is, for some they really believe it.

2seaoat wrote:It is not a lie.  It will become a lie when you take us to the first settlement and show historical evidence of a PERMANENT settlement, not just a camp in search of the same.  You assume with ZERO evidence that this settlement actually happened and was not a camp which was wiped out prior to the settlement.  It is like arguing the first settlement was the ships which sank crossing the ocean.   I will buy into your fantasy when the archeologist locate this mythical city within the two hundred mile range they cite for the temporary camps which resulted in their wipe out.

I don't assume anything,  seaoat.  There is no dispute among historians that de Ayllon and 600 other colonists in his party landed with full intent to establish a permanent settlement on the east coast.  de Ayllon and the rest made written records to tell us that's what they were doing.  And so did others who knew about it at the time.
No different than de Luna landed with intent to establish a permanent settlement on the Gulf Coast.  Which is also based on records of the participants.

But neither settlement lasted.  That's why St. Augustine gets credit for first "permanent" settlement.
But unless some kind of "new math" has totally taken over,  1526 is still 33 years before 1559.

Under your definitional criteria Ponce De Leon created the first settlement in 1513 because they had an encampment on the mainland. Nonsense. Please show us the settlement, or declare that Ponce made the first settlement.

de Ayllon gave his settlement a name, seaoat. San Miguel de Gualdape.

Tell me, what name did de Luna give his settlement?

Whenever someone establishes a settlement, colony, town or any other place, they almost always give it a name.

Ponce De Leon named Florida......so naming something is now the equivalent to settlement. I just learned something.

The answer is de Luna just made camp on what was then called "the bay of Ochuse" (Pensacola Bay). But he didn't even name the place. lol

It's actually pretty easy to understand why this historical lie has become accepted,  seaoat.

Pensacola developed a tourist industry and it's a good hook to tell potential tourists they will be visiting "the first European settlement in what became America".

But the coast where de Ayllon landed is still a remote locale with no tourist industry so the folks there never had any financial reason to set the record straight.

It's all about the money. Always has been and still is. Like just most everything else.

landed with full intent to establish a permanent settlement on the east coast.

Hell isn't merely paved with good intentions; it's walled and roofed with them. Yes, and furnished too.
Aldous Huxley

2seaoat wrote:landed with full intent to establish a permanent settlement on the east coast.

Hell isn't merely paved with good intentions; it's walled and roofed with them. Yes, and furnished too.
Aldous Huxley

No argument. BOTH Ayllon and Luna had the same intentions.
That's why both are credited only with TEMPORARY settlements.
The only difference is who did it first.

No argument. BOTH Ayllon and Luna had the same intentions.
That's why both are credited only with TEMPORARY settlements.
The only difference is who did it first.


Completely incorrect again. De Luna had a specific spot to settle, and he arrived at that spot, and a hurricane intervened. Ayllon was SEEKING to establish a permanent settlement and in his series of encampments he also was struck with bad luck, and there is ZERO historical record that nothing more than encampments happened, and like Ponce.......that is not a permanent settlement. The sign is correct in Pensacola......where is the sign for your fantasy settlement?

2seaoat wrote:Under your definitional criteria Ponce De Leon created the first settlement in 1513 because they had an encampment on the mainland.  Nonsense.  Please show us the settlement, or declare that Ponce made the first settlement.

Juan Ponce de Leon

1474 CE - 1521 CE

Primary Goal:
To find gold and colonize land for Spain.
Achievement:
First European known to have visited present day United States in 1513. Discovered Florida and the Bahama Channel, and colonized Puerto Rico.


Born in the village of San Tervás de Campos in the province of León, Spain in 1474, Juan Ponce de León became a page to the prince of Castile who later became King Ferdinand of Castile. In 1493, de León went with Christopher Columbus on a second voyage to the West Indies and he was one of 200 volunteers on 17 ships. It was on this trip when de León first saw the Antilles. Columbus anchored the ships at Añasco Bay on the western shore of Puerto Rico and it is believed that when de León saw how beautiful the area was it inspired him to later choose the place as the capital.




“Juan Ponce De Leon,” The Story of the Sea, 1895, From The Library at The Mariners’ Museum, GC21.Q11.
On February 13, 1502, de León took another voyage with Frey Nicolás de Ovando. At the Canary Islands, the crew split up into two groups, with the first group arriving at Santo Domingo on April 15, 1502. From 1502 to1504, de León lived on the island and was named its captain by Ovando in 1504. De León then moved to Salvaleón and lived there from 1505 to1508. While there, in 1506, de León made a request to travel and conquer Borinquen. After receiving permission from Ovando, he started a settlement and renamed the area San Juan de Puerto Rico. Word got back to Spain that de León had settled the area and was named Adelantado or governor of Puerto Rico, but due to political reasons, he was relieved of his governorship in 1511. He immediately applied for a royal grant to settle the islands of Bimini, an island just north of Cuba. It was believed there was a fountain of youth on the island.

On March 3, 1513, de León, after receiving permission, left Puerto Rico with three ships. By March 27 he’d seen the mainland of Florida and later landed there on April 2nd, just north of modern-day St. Augustine. He stayed there until April 8th and renamed the area Tierra La Florida (land of flowers) in honor of finding the area on Easter Sunday, called Pascua Florida in Spanish.

De León continued to explore, sailing along the Florida’s east coast and discovered the Bahama Channel. This proved to be a great success because this channel provided a new route from the West Indies to Spain. Continuing on his voyage, he sailed through the Florida Keys and named them Martyrs. De León then went north along the west coast and sailed as far as Pensacola Bay. He then sailed along the south west coast, coming to an island he named Tortugas; today it’s the Dry Tortugas because of all the nesting turtles found there. De León returned to Puerto Rico on September 21, 1513, then to Spain in 1514 where he was knighted, given a personal coat of arms, and granted a royal patent to colonize the islands of Bimini and Florida. He was officially named the Adelantado Don Juan Ponce de León, Governor of the Islands of Bimini and Florida.

slideshow:394,534,535,right,half On February 20, 1521, de León’s made his second attempt at colonization. He sailed from Puerto Rico with a crew of two hundred men. The crew landed on the west coast of Florida near the Caloosahatchee River or Sanibel Island, where they tried to start a settlement. The Calusa Indians attacked them and de León was wounded with an arrow. The settlement was abandoned and the crew went as far as Havana, Cuba where Ponce de León died July 1521 from an infection.

http://ageofex.marinersmuseum.org/index.php?type=explorer&id=66

2seaoat wrote:No argument. BOTH Ayllon and Luna had the same intentions.
That's why both are credited only with TEMPORARY settlements.
The only difference is who did it first.


Completely incorrect again.  De Luna had a specific spot to settle, and he arrived at that spot, and a hurricane intervened.  Ayllon was SEEKING to establish a permanent settlement and in his series of encampments he also was struck with bad luck, and there is ZERO historical record that nothing more than encampments happened, and like Ponce.......that is not a permanent settlement.  The sign is correct in Pensacola......where is the sign for your fantasy settlement?

There is no sign at the precise location of the Ayllon settlement for exactly the same reason there is no sign at the precise location of where Columbus first landed. Because in both cases that precise location is not known.

So if not having a sign at the precise location is a deal killer, then the name Columbus needs to be removed from the name of the "District of Columbia", the names of cities and towns in Ohio and Georgia and elsewhere. It needs to be taken off the side of the space shuttle, and it needs to be removed from a thousand other things. And especially needs to be stricken from the hundreds of history textbooks we all read in school.

According to your reasoning, seaoat, all of this needs to go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_places_named_for_Christopher_Columbus

Incorrect again. An exploration discovering an island or the state of Florida is not a specific spot, but a general geographic area. A settlement is by definition is:


settlement
  Use Settlement in a sentence
set·tle·ment
[set-l-muhnt] Show IPA
noun
1.
the act or state of settling or the state of being settled.
2.
the act of making stable or putting on a permanent basis.
3.
a state of stability or permanence.
4.
an arrangement or adjustment, as of business affairs or a disagreement.
5.
an agreement signed after labor negotiations between union and management.

Your folks failed all of the first three definitions. De Luna made it to the exact locations he planned to settle. Columbus simply discovered:

discovered
Use Discovered in a sentence
dis·cov·er
[dih-skuhv-er] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1.
to see, get knowledge of, learn of, find, or find out; gain sight or knowledge of (something previously unseen or unknown): to discover America; to discover electricity. Synonyms: detect, espy, descry, discern, ascertain, unearth, ferret out, notice.
2.
to notice or realize: I discovered I didn't have my credit card with me when I went to pay my bill.
3.
Archaic. to make known; reveal; disclose.


As you can see the concept of discover does not have a site specific requirement, rather its threshold is to see something.......so if at a baseball game I discovered a girl......it is quite distinct from my settling with that girl which requires a specific location and persona. Your analogy with Columbus is fatally flawed and of no relevance in your failure to contradict the accurate historical information on the Pensacola sign......good intentions......

2seaoat wrote:
1.  the act or state of settling or the state of being settled.

Lucas Vázquez de Ayllón was a Spanish explorer who in 1526 established the short-lived San Miguel de Gualdape colony, the first European attempt at a settlement in what is now the continental United States

They looked for an area suitable for colonization approximately 15 km north, near Pawleys Island. They found the area unsuitable, and Ayllón decided to move further south. Some accounts say that some settlers took an overland voyage, while others left on a new boat built at the temporary settlement. If true, this would probably be the earliest example of European-style boatbuilding in what is now the United States. Heading southward, likely by both land and sea, the group reunited and established on October 8, 1526 the short-lived colony of San Miguel de Gualdape, probably at or near present-day Georgia's Sapelo Sound.

Ayllón's rough-hewn town withstood only about a total of three months

Ayllón's colony was the first European colony in what is now the United States, preceding Jamestown, Virginia by 81 years, and St. Augustine, Florida (the first successful colony) by 39 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucas_V%C3%A1zquez_de_Ayll%C3%B3n

Wiki.....really......please show me this settlement? We have discussed definitional criteria, and a settlement requires a situs, and you can provide none, and therefore by any semblance of criteria using the English language your exploration was not a settlement, but a series of encampment seeking the same. Sadly, they cannot even find one of the encampments either. Pure fantasy of intention which Huxley has adequately addressed. Pensacola's sign remains correct, and no other settlement can claim the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantis

2seaoat wrote:Wiki.....really.

All wiki is is an encyclopedia.  It doesn't originate the information,  only compiles it.
But hell forget wiki.  This is a history of "European Exploration and Settlement in the New World".
Take a look at the entry for 1526.  And notice there isn't even an entry for 1559.



http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1031.html

There are a dozen other history sites which tell us the same thing,  seaoat.
That's how I first discovered the sign downtown is a lie.  It's the truth only to the Pensacola Chamber of Commerce and you bought into it like me and so many did.  But what puzzles me is why you want to help perpetuate the myth.  
Is this how you have derived all your political ideas too?  Do you just refuse to face facts and always go with your pre-conceived notions?  Because that would explain a lot.   lol

Is this how you have derived all your political ideas too?

Exactly the same. Some fantasy of intention without a situs and without historical basis......of course I challenge such nonsense, and of course Pensacola's sign is correct. However, like my political beliefs, I will gladly change the same when you show me the archeology of the situs which confirms your silly theories of intention of settlement. Revisionist history is a reality which I have dealt with for fifty years, and I always challenge nonsense. If what you said was even close to the truth, there would be historical consensus. There is not. Just conjecture and theory. Pensacola needs no conjecture. I am certain you will argue Atlantis exists because of historical reference, and theory........just show it to me.....although I have never lived in Missouri......the show me state logic works for me.

Atlantis to me is a resort in the Bahamas that gets advertised on tv a lot.
I'm not really interested in expensive beach resorts,  mainly because I can sit on a beach for free anytime I want.  And it takes me only about 15-20 minutes to get there, instead of a long expensive plane flight to Atlantis.
So haven't bothered to learn much about it.  And the history of Atlantis bores me because that resort has only been in existence for a few years.  It has no history to speak of.

There's a ton more history in East Hill. I am very interested in that history. Can tell you a lot about it. For example, until the mid-20th Century the neighborhood wasn't even called "East Hill". It was called "Lakeview". Even though it has no lake.

Was the old Coke plant in Lakeview?

2seaoat wrote:Was the old Coke plant in Lakeview?

If an "old Coke plant" was ever located in Lakeview (East Hill) I haven't ever learned of that.

What I've always understood is the first Coca Cola bottling facility in Pensacola was the original Hygeia plant on north Palafox which was opened in the early 20's.
But some dispute about that was raised when Frank Hardy shared this photo...

http://frankhardymademyphotographstwo.com/2012/04/02/hygeia-bottling-works-in-pensacola/

If you read the blog,  the exact location of the first Coca Coca plant is unresolved because Hardy claims it was located "beside some railroad tracks".
However,  neither this nor anything else I've ever read puts it in East Hill.

Do you have some information that such a thing was located in the area we now call East Hill (what earlier was called Lakeview)?

Where was the first plant? How do you even know it existed? What if that was simply an ad on the side of the building, and the plant was in Milton.

2seaoat wrote:Where was the first plant?  How do you even know it existed?  What if that was simply an ad on the side of the building, and the plant was in Milton.

Oh now I see what you're doing,  trying to present an analogy to knowing about that first settlement stuff.  lol

I think you watched too much Perry Mason as a kid,  seaoat.  lol

But I'll play along.  If you had me on the stand,  I would tell you no I don't know exactly where the first Coke bottling plant in the Pensacola area was located.  For me that is unresolved.
BUT,  if I really cared enough about getting the answer to that,  the answer is easily obtainable.  

I do know for an absolute fact that Hygeia was granted the initial franchise.
I have an example of the first Coke bottle which was produced in our area and it plainly says Hygeia and Pensacola on it.  Every local Coke collector and bottle collector agrees on this.  The bottle is not uncommon and many local collectors possess one.
So being that we have that starting point to work from,  all that would be needed is to visit the current Hygeia bottling plant on North Davis and we would find someone who could fill us in on where their first bottling plant in this area was located.
Or you could look up the name Ron Styron in the white pages and call him (if he's still alive and he probably is because he's roughly our age).  He is the encylopedia of local Coke knowledge.  Built the largest collection of Coke crap anyone has ever done around here.  And he was obsessed with wanting to know everything there was to know about Coke locally.

What is far more interesting than the Coke story in Pensacola,  is the Pepsi story.
The very first bottles that Coke and Pepsi were put in are called Hutchinson bottles (nicknamed "blob top" bottles).
When it all started,  a few Coca Cola bottlers in southern cities used the Hutchinson but Pensacola was not one of them.
However,  the only bottling company that ever put Pepsi in a Hutchinson bottle was Escambia Bottling Co right here in P'cola.
For that reason,  bottle collectors across the world have always sought that bottle from people in Pensacola because it was not produced anywhere else.

I've bought and sold several over the years and still have one with cracks in it.  It looks like this...

See how easy it is to prove something with facts.........cool bottle, what would that cost if I wanted one?