It looks like we've all been told a big fat whopper of a lie about Pensacola history.

All my life it's been repeated over and over to me (and it has to you too if you've lived here very long) that Pensacola was "the first temporary settlement European explorers made in what is now the United States".

But I accidentally stumbled onto this today...

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

It appears that settlement was established on the Atlantic coast (probably Sapelo Island, Georgia) more than three decades before the Luna expedition established a settlement here.

I cannot believe we've been fed this load of horseshit history ever since I can remember. But it looks like we have.

I think Pensacola still gets the honor. Where exactly was this so called three month camp........nope a temporary camp is not a settlement....especially when nobody really knows where this place was.....sure we could argue the Vikings had the first settlement.....but exactly where was that settlement. Nope, Pensacola is clearly where the hurricane wiped some folks out......and everybody knew exactly where it was.......it did not get lost in history.

2seaoat wrote:I think Pensacola still gets the honor. Where exactly was this so called three month camp........nope a temporary camp is not a settlement....especially when nobody really knows where this place was.....sure we could argue the Vikings had the first settlement.....but exactly where was that settlement. Nope, Pensacola is clearly where the hurricane wiped some folks out......and everybody knew exactly where it was.......it did not get lost in history.

As much as it pains me, I have to disagree, seaoat.

1. The exact location of whatever you choose to call it is not certain. But what is certain is that Ayllón did establish it and established it on the Atlantic coast of what later became the United States. The only dispute is exactly where the river was located that the settlers called the Gualdape River.

2...

By mid-July 1526, Ayllón was ready to establish a colony with 600 settlers and 100 horses. He lost one of his three ships at a river he named the Jordan, probably the Santee. They landed in Winyah Bay, near present day Georgetown, South Carolina, on September 29 (the Feast of Archangels), and Francisco de Chicora abandoned him here. They then proceeded '40 or 45 leagues', partly overland and partly by boat, visiting the king of Duahe en route as related by Peter Martyr, and finally arrived at another river, the Gualdape, where they built San Miguel de Gualdape on October 8.

A "colony" of 600 settlers and a hundred horses is a "settlement" by any other name.

3. It doesn't matter if it lasted only 3 weeks before they abandoned it.
The Luna settlement was abandoned too. That's what makes both of them a TEMPORARY settlement.

4. There seems to be no dispute that the Gualdape "colony" or "settlement" (same damn thing) was established in 1526 (even if it was a year later who cares it's still more than 30 years before Luna landed).

Where was this colony? What archeological evidence to you have of the location. Sorry, under this logic the Vikings had the first North American settlement........the location part of the analysis is important......so Pensacola has no maybe the settlement was around here......it has been located exactly, and it was permanent.......only the hurricane had another idea.

Welcome to the first settlement in America......somewhere on the east coast......oh you mean the Vikings.

I'll tell you why I think this myth has been allowed to persist.
Pensacola is tourist oriented. It likes to promote the idea of being FIRST.

The best evidence for the Gualdape settlement puts it on or close to Sapelo Island on the coast of Georgia. Here's a map to show you where that is. You can see Brunswick at the bottom of the map to give you some perspective...



If that is where the Guadalpe settlement was located, as you can see that's still in the middle of nowhere. It's not close enough to any population center for anyone to give a damn about calling it the FIRST. So no one bothered to do so. And because of that the Pensacola claim has gone unchallenged forever.

I tell you not a day goes by anymore when we don't discover something else to make us be more cynical. And this revelation sure doesn't help.

I tell you not a day goes by anymore when we don't discover something else to make us be more cynical. And this revelation sure doesn't help.




Again where was this settlement......hundred miles in either direction and nobody has a clue.....

colonization of the Americas began as early as 10th century AD, when Norse sailors (usually referred to as Vikings) explored and settled areas of the North Atlantic, including the northeastern fringes of North America.

Watch the new series on the History Channel.....the Vikings.......sorry there were settlements in America long before this temporary Spanish camp somewhere on the east coast......Pensacola is correct in its claims.

2seaoat wrote:Where was this colony? What archeological evidence to you have of the location. Sorry, under this logic the Vikings had the first North American settlement........the location part of the analysis is important......so Pensacola has no maybe the settlement was around here......it has been located exactly, and it was permanent.......only the hurricane had another idea.

Welcome to the first settlement in America......somewhere on the east coast......oh you mean the Vikings.

This is not about the Vikings dispute. We all know about that.
This is about where the first Spanish explorer established a temporary settlement. If it was Ayllón it was not Luna. And it was not Pensacola. Plain and simple.

We didn't know exactly where the Luna settlement was located for a long time either. We now know that because a big effort was made to pinpoint that location. The same effort has not been made with the Gualdape settlement. But there is no dispute that it was on what is now the Atlantic coast of the U.S. And there is no dispute that it was established in 1526/27. That's all that we need to know. And that's what makes Pensacola being FIRST nothing but a big old whopper of a lie.

2seaoat wrote:

Again where was this settlement......hundred miles in either direction and nobody has a clue.....

colonization of the Americas began as early as 10th century AD, when Norse sailors (usually referred to as Vikings) explored and settled areas of the North Atlantic, including the northeastern fringes of North America.

Watch the new series on the History Channel.....the Vikings.......sorry there were settlements in America long before this temporary Spanish camp somewhere on the east coast......Pensacola is correct in its claims.

Seaoat you're just not listening to what I'm saying. It doesn't matter about the Vikings or anybody else. The Pensacola claim is based on the first Spaniard doing what he did and we now learn that Luna wasn't it.
And it doesn't matter if it was "a hundred miles in either direction" because regardless it's still in what became the United States.

Bob wrote:I'll tell you why I think this myth has been allowed to persist.
Pensacola is tourist oriented. It likes to promote the idea of being FIRST.

The best evidence for the Gualdape settlement puts it on or close to Sapelo Island on the coast of Georgia. Here's a map to show you where that is. You can see Brunswick at the bottom of the map to give you some perspective...



If that is where the Guadalpe settlement was located, as you can see that's still in the middle of nowhere. It's not close enough to any population center for anyone to give a damn about calling it the FIRST. So no one bothered to do so. And because of that the Pensacola claim has gone unchallenged forever.

I tell you not a day goes by anymore when we don't discover something else to make us be more cynical. And this revelation sure doesn't help.

What's the big deal, just another piece of erroneous history, if it is true? We should be asking ourselves if any of history as we know it is fact or fiction, do we really and truly know? I doubt it.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:
What's the big deal.

I knew as sure as I'm sitting here that someone was gonna post that. lol

No it doesn't matter to your and my life or anyone else's life today. But that is true of all long ago history. Discovering an error or a lie about the telling of ANY long ago history has no actual impact on our lives today.

But goddamn it whenever I see those "Pensacola - The First City" signs from now on, I'm gonna see them in an entirely different way. That's the impact of establishing bullshit historical myths.

Bob wrote:

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:
What's the big deal.

I knew as sure as I'm sitting here that someone was gonna post that. lol

No it doesn't matter to your and my life or anyone else's life today. But that is true of all long ago history. Discovering an error or a lie about the telling of ANY long ago history has no actual impact on our lives today.

But goddamn it whenever I see those "Pensacola - The First City" signs from now on, I'm gonna see them in an entirely different way. That's the impact of establishing bullshit historical myths.

Well even St Augustine could even lay claim to that as well Pensacola, or Georgia or whatever.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Well even St Augustine could even lay claim to that as well Pensacola, or Georgia or whatever.

There's no reason to dispute St. Augustine's claim. St. Augustine was the first PERMANENT settlement made by European settlers in what later became the United States. No one doubts that.

Pensacola's claim has always been "First Temporary Settlement". That's what I've discovered is now questionable.

The history is correct. Pensacola is the first City. Somewhere on the East Coast some Spainards temporarily camped out........when you know where that is exactly.........then I will discuss the difference in the two missions, but until then the history is correct and Pensacola is the first city. Heck, under your analysis, the first two spanish contacts with Pensacola were not temporary camps, but settlements......nope.

1400 people and 11 ships with the distinct purpose to establish a city which served as a base for future exploration, not a temporary stop for a few months which was in fact done twice before the establishment of this outpost....the difference is not semantics.....it was purpose. This was earlier explored and the intent was to establish a permanent outpost, not a temporary camp. History can be twisted, it can be revised, but in this discussion it is clear.....Pensacola was the first city........

Bob, is there an actual city at or near the site of that "first" landing? That would make a difference.

Pensacola's claim has always been "First Temporary Settlement". That's what I've discovered is now questionable.




The intent was never temporary.......the intent was permanent.....a hurricane intervened.

Bob, is there an actual city at or near the site of that "first" landing? That would make a difference.


Never was a city envisioned. No, they do not have a clue where this temporary landing was located, and yes.....Pensacola had two temporary landings before the permanent settlement, 1400 people, and 11 ships were directed to start an outpost at this location which had been scouted repeatedly by temporary camps. Pensacola is clearly the first city. The rest is just speculation as to intent....there was no speculation that the crown had decided to colonize this location which had been scouted and only the hurricane turned this into the historically incorrect term of temporary...........

Pánfilo de Narváez

Under this new standard.....maybe his camps should be considered permanent settlements. Including Hernando de Soto.

Nope, clearly the intent was to establish a permanent outpost to explore the area.

2seaoat wrote:Pensacola's claim has always been "First Temporary Settlement". That's what I've discovered is now questionable.




The intent was never temporary.......the intent was permanent.....a hurricane intervened.

You're now grasping at straws, seaoat. Neither of them (Luna or the earlier dude) intentionally wanted to establish a "temporary" settlement. The fact that both were temporary was not intentional.

This discussion is now getting ridiculous so I guess we'll all just have to agree to disagree. lol

2seaoat wrote:Pánfilo de Narváez

Under this new standard.....maybe his camps should be considered permanent settlements.

From his wiki page...

The Narváez expedition was a Spanish attempt during the years 1527–1528 to colonize Spanish Florida.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narv%C3%A1ez_expedition

Since when does the term "colonize" not mean an attempt to establish a settlement?

It appears his settlement lasted from one year to the next. So here we have yet another "temporary settlement" established before Luna landed.
Keep em coming and we'll destroy the Luna myth completely.

Hardly ridiculous.....under this new standard there could be five or six firsts, and in fact intent is absolutely important. The Mexican expedition which came to Pensacola was not happen chance. Pensacola had already been scouted and it was going to be the outpost which would allow for further exploration of North America. DeSoto had already done the same, but his expedition never was to set up a permanent outpost.

Under your standard, then Desoto and others clearly had multiple settlements before Pensacola, and this simply was not the case. The intent was clear. The location was known and was the destination for the ships. It was not some bouncing around exploring, but indeed to settle a known location. To suggest that Pensacola history is less because of Vikings, some campout somewhere in Georgia, or DeSoto or others explorations......well I find nothing ridiculous in trying to get history correct. Pensacola is the first City!

2seaoat wrote: some campout somewhere in Georgia, or DeSoto or others explorations......well I find nothing ridiculous in trying to get history correct. Pensacola is the first City!

from the wiki page...

Records show that in 1521, de Ayllón, a wealthy sugar planter of Santo Domingo, had sent Francisco Gordillo northward to explore the continent. Upon reaching the Bahamas, he ran into his cousin, slave trader Pedro de Quexos (Pedro de Quejo), and the two of them set out together. They landed at the "River of St. John the Baptist", possibly the Pee Dee River, where they kidnapped 70 natives to sell in Hispaniola, including one, given the name Francisco de Chicora, who provided some ethnological information about his province, Chicora, and the neighboring provinces. Chicora was evidently one of several Carolina Siouan territories subject to their king, Datha of Duahe (Duarhe). The Siouan captives were described as white, dressed in skins, and larger than the average Spaniard.
Ayllón obtained a patent from Charles V in 1523, and in 1525 again sent Quexos, who made peace with the natives, explored the coastline from as far north as the Delaware Bay,[2] and even obtained two men from each district to come home with him to learn Spanish, and act as interpreters.
By mid-July 1526, Ayllón was ready to establish a colony with 600 settlers and 100 horses.

Now I understand. After Ayllón explores the coastline for five years and then with 600 "settlers" and 100 horses and 3 ships finds a place to establish what historians themselves are calling a "colony", and then stays put for months and months only until hardship drives him out, then to you that's the same thing as if you and I decided to camp out overnight at Ft. Pickens.
Gotcha. lol

I never used the term.....big whopper lie........You can ask Burger king to make your whopper your way....hold the onions etc, but to suggest that historians have lied, is simply wrong, and the only whopper in this thread can probably be found over on Bayou Blvd and their junior whopper for $1.29 is pretty good.........but revisionist history......nope.......hold that special sauce for Macs.

For me, when "600 settlers" establish a "colony", I guess I'm just crazy enough to call that a settlement. lol

I've never in my whole life ever heard of "600 settlers" going to a "campout" as you put it.