Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

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

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

+2
2seaoat
Hospital Bob
6 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Go down  Message [Page 2 of 3]

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

This is from Luna's wiki page...


Tristán de Luna y Arellano (1519–1571) was a Spanish Conquistador of the 16th century. Born in Borobia, Spain, he came to New Spain, and was sent on an expedition to conquer Florida in 1559. In August of that year, he established an ephemeral colony at modern-day Pensacola, one of the earliest European settlements within the present-day United States.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trist%C3%A1n_de_Luna_y_Arellano

Notice how it says "one of" the earliest European settlements. Not THE first European settlement.

It appears to me that the only ones even making the claim that Luna was THE first are the people trying to profit off of that myth here in dear old P'Cola. lol

Guest


Guest

bob, I find your thread extremely interesting.

I never even heard of Pensacola before I moved there so I don't think its really popular to be honest outside of the area on a large scale.

Ive was taught in school that st Augustine was the first city and that's it. nothing ever in any of my history books said anything about Pensacola.

you do have seaoat in a fit though lol

but anyway, you got me to looking and although this is a settled city before any of these ships came I did not know this and now I have added it to my bucket list to go to.

check it out.

http://cahokiamounds.org/

2seaoat



I am simply bored and thought a good argument with Bob would get a thread going........I can take either side of this argument......I just like history. Plus, this was the only thread today.....slow day on the forum......so I have to do my duty..............Bob.....you need a location.....within a hundred miles, or we might as well be talking about Alantis as the first colony in North America.

My camporees in boy scouts had more than 600 people and we were not settling anything.....Pensacola was the location for a planned outpost. Next you are going to tell me we colonized the moon because we put a flag on the moon.......or on a sound stage. Go get your whopper tonight.....because there is no whopper on this thread.

2seaoat



was ready to establish a colony.......sending out exploration to find a location is different than establishing a location.....after three months of looking around and starting some campfires and putting up tents.......they did not establish anything.....sure do not know where they were......and being ready is a lot different from establishing an outpost.....you know a location which your GPS would acknowledge actually existed.......nope......the only whopper on this thread is that being ready to establish something.....and establishing something are two different animals.

Guest


Guest

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

Since you are quoting Wikipedia as your source, here is Wikipedia's description of a settlement.

Settlement, locality or populated place are general terms used in statistics, archaeology, geography, landscape history and other subjects for a permanent or temporary community in which people live or have lived, without being specific as to size, population or importance.

So since a settlement is listed as a permanent or temporary community, then we would have to know their intent when they settled. Since none of us were living at the time, we cannot possibly know if their intent was temporary or permanent.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:
Since you are quoting Wikipedia as your source, here is Wikipedia's description of a settlement.

Settlement, locality or populated place are general terms used in statistics, archaeology, geography, landscape history and other subjects for a permanent or temporary community in which people live or have lived, without being specific as to size, population or importance.

So since a settlement is listed as a permanent or temporary community, then we would have to know their intent when they settled. Since none of us were living at the time, we cannot possibly know if their intent was temporary or permanent.

Now I'm REALLY confused, ghost.
You point me to a definition of settlement as being EITHER permanent OR temporary. Then you tell me that in order for something to qualify as a settlement, we have to know if the intent was permanent or temporary.
Didn't you just contradict yourself? lol

Guest


Guest

Bob wrote:
Ghost_Rider1 wrote:
Since you are quoting Wikipedia as your source, here is Wikipedia's description of a settlement.

Settlement, locality or populated place are general terms used in statistics, archaeology, geography, landscape history and other subjects for a permanent or temporary community in which people live or have lived, without being specific as to size, population or importance.

So since a settlement is listed as a permanent or temporary community, then we would have to know their intent when they settled. Since none of us were living at the time, we cannot possibly know if their intent was temporary or permanent.

Now I'm REALLY confused, ghost.
You point me to a definition of settlement as being EITHER permanent OR temporary. Then you tell me that in order for something to qualify as a settlement, we have to know if the intent was permanent or temporary.
Didn't you just contradict yourself? lol

No I just contradicted what you have been posting about the intent of the settlers in Georgia establishing a permanent settlement. It is something you have alluded to in all your posts about this. If I am wrong, then I stand corrected.

In an earlier post you stated; "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."

Later you said; "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."

Which does indicate that you know the intent of the settlers.



Last edited by Ghost_Rider1 on 3/25/2013, 7:23 pm; edited 2 times in total

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Bob wrote:
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

I think you're missing my point. Where is the township, village, city...whatever at the site of the earlier landing? If there's no city there and no one knows the exact location anyway, then Pensacola is the first, because WE'RE STILL HERE.

2seaoat



Ghost and Tex have points Bob.......the folks coming from Mexico in eleven boats knew the exact location for their outpost. They left planning to come to that location. They arrived. They created the permanent outpost......that hurricane intervened.......your folks stomping around a couple hundred mile area for three months is hardly an exact location......heck in some accounts there is over three hundred mile discrepancies.......where is DeSoto's location.....he walked or rafted a great deal of Florida......but was he establishing a location, or was he exploring?

Guest


Guest

Why do I get this weird feeling that somehow this will turn out to be Quint Studer's fault...?













i read on the interweb tubes that he bribed them other folk to keep quiet...

Guest


Guest

Sal wrote:Louisville, Kentucky is the birthplace of the cheeseburger.

I know this because a restaurant there told me so.

Hard to believe no one thought of putting a slice of cheese on a burger before that historic day.

ROFL! This passed right by them.

2seaoat



ROFL! This passed right by them.



Hardly! This is a serious discussion of great historical import.......Pensacola is the first City.......period.......and it is heresy to suggest otherwise or to make jokes about cheeseburgers......Jr. whoppers are ok.......because the lead heretic suggested there is a Whopper somewhere......we however have been unable to locate his settlement or the whopper.

Guest


Guest

Dreamsglore wrote:
Sal wrote:Louisville, Kentucky is the birthplace of the cheeseburger.

I know this because a restaurant there told me so.

Hard to believe no one thought of putting a slice of cheese on a burger before that historic day.

ROFL! This passed right by them.

No it didn't go right past us, if everyone else was thinking like I am, we did not respond to it because it was irrelevant and off topic.

Sal

Sal

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:
No it didn't go right past us, if everyone else was thinking like I am, we did not respond to it because it was irrelevant and off topic.

Irrelevant and off topic??

It was just a silly joke, dude.

Lighten up.

Guest


Guest

Sal wrote:
Ghost_Rider1 wrote:
No it didn't go right past us, if everyone else was thinking like I am, we did not respond to it because it was irrelevant and off topic.

Irrelevant and off topic??

It was just a silly joke, dude.

Lighten up.

I understand that Sal, did you read Dreams response to your post. It was like she was trying to start something by saying it went right past us.

We cool Sal?

Sal

Sal

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:
Sal wrote:
Ghost_Rider1 wrote:
No it didn't go right past us, if everyone else was thinking like I am, we did not respond to it because it was irrelevant and off topic.

Irrelevant and off topic??

It was just a silly joke, dude.

Lighten up.

I understand that Sal, did you read Dreams response to your post. It was like she was trying to start something by saying it went right past us.

We cool Sal?

Like the other side of the pillow.

No prob, dude.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Okay I'm back from dinner so let's try it again.

Once St. Augustine was settled, it remained in existence continuously all the way up until today. That's what makes it a "permanent settlement".

In 1526...

"[b]San Miguel de Gualdape was the first European settlement inside what is now United States territory, founded by Spaniard Lucas Vázquez de Ayllón in 1526"

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

600 "settlers" established a "colony" called San Miguel de Gualdape on the Atlantic coast. Probably in Georgia.

In 1559...

Tristán de Luna y Arellano was chosen by Luis de Velasco, viceroy of New Spain, to establish a settlement on the Gulf Coast of what is now the United States and clear an overland trade route to Santa Elena (on Tybee Island, Georgia), where another outpost would be founded. De Luna, however, proved an incompetent leader, and the expedition was plagued by disaster (and the settlement was later abandoned).


http://www.pensapedia.com/wiki/Trist%C3%A1n_de_Luna_y_Arellano

It appears the focus of all this settlement revolved around Santa Elena...

Interest in the area was piqued following exploration of some part of what is now the coastal southeastern United States by the slave traders Francisco Gordillo and Pedro de Quejo in 1521. Accounts of the region's abundance from Quejo and Francisco de Chicora, one of the 70 enslaved Indians the expedition brought to Hispaniola, inspired Lucas Vázquez de Ayllón to establish the short-lived colony of San Miguel de Gualdape. This was abandoned after only a few months. In 1540 Hernando de Soto's expedition found European goods in the wealthy town of Cofitachequi, and thus determined they were near the site of Ayllón's colony; their accounts of the wealthy land inspired further colonial ambitions. In 1559 Tristán de Luna established a settlement at present-day Pensacola, Florida as a base for future colonization of Santa Elena, but this mission failed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Elena,_la_Florida

The reason all these explorers (including Luna) were focused on the South Carolina/Georgia coast is because the earliest explorers made contact with the Chicora Indian tribe which lived in that vicinity and the European explorers were interested in establishing trade with them.
It appears that when Luna established his settlement here he was intent on using that as a base to forge an overland route between here and Santa Elena (where Parris Island, SC is now located).

But both settlements, (Luna here and Ayllón on the Georgia/South Carolina coast) failed to establish permanency and were abandoned.

That in a nutshell is how it all went down.

But Ayllón established his settlement before Luna. And as is written on the wiki page...

"San Miguel de Gualdape was the first European settlement inside what is now United States territory, founded by Spaniard Lucas Vázquez de Ayllón in 1526"
NOT "the encampment of Puerto de Santa Maria during the summer of 1559 at the site of the modern Naval Air Station Pensacola".

http://www.pensapedia.com/wiki/Trist%C3%A1n_de_Luna_y_Arellano

Because Ayllón's settlement of San Miguel de Gualdape was established in 1526.
And Luna's settlement of Puerto de Santa Maria was established in 1559.
And if I learned anything in math class, 1526 happened BEFORE 1559.

2seaoat



Because Ayllón's settlement of San Miguel de Gualdape was established in 1526.
And Luna's settlement of Puerto de Santa Maria was established in 1559.
And if I learned anything in math class, 1526 happened BEFORE 1559.




Heretic.........where was the settlement?......and what is established?......looking for a spot over a three hundred mile area, and then giving up because they never established anything versus a well defined plan for an exact location which was established and was permanent....just like the Navarre Pier was at a specific location and was permanent before the hurricanes.....now it has moved a little bit, and is permanent.....at least until the big one........now where exactly was this established mystery unplanned outpost......Heretic.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

2seaoat wrote: versus a well defined plan for an exact location which was established and was permanent...

Whatever Luna's settlement was or was not it definitely was NOT PERMANENT.
When Luna abandoned it shortly after it's establishment (no different than Ayllón abandoned his settlement), it was 150 years before Europeans ever settled in this area again.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Seaoat,

Read the first paragraph on this page (what comes after "d")...

http://books.google.com/books?id=6npr_LGJH-cC&pg=PA97&lpg=PA97&dq=where+exactly+was+San+Miguel+de+Gualdape&source=bl&ots=J7hKcqnENN&sig=LMq4Emq6cGExilsCMgZLawQbsX8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cgZRUcuULMTL2QWrg4GABA&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=where%20exactly%20was%20San%20Miguel%20de%20Gualdape&f=false

That has been hidden from us the whole time I've lived here. When you live in this area what you experience is that this has become completely stricken from our history books.

2seaoat



I read it.....it was not ever established......there is no location, and three months trying to accomplish the mission is very different than 11 ships being directed to a Specific location where structures were erected and an outpost clearly started.....until a hurricane destroyed the same. This is not even close. All through this country are subdivisions which were platted and planned but never built.......where was this established location......the Historians have a 300 mile range, and clearly three months would not allow building of any settlement, but reflected similar to DeSoto a quest and exploration. One an intent unfufilled, and the other a complete success until a Hurricane. To think you were once a loyal Pensacolian, and now you have lowered yourself to a heretic......challenging God, Country and historical fact. Have you no shame......have you no common decency......the only Lie about Pensacola's first settlers is that their settlement was not permanent........did you never see a five flag parade? Have you abandoned your roots? I am lost for words.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

It seem the country's first European settlement has another twist to it...

The first enslaved Africans arrived in what is now the United States as part of the San Miguel de Gualdape colony (most likely located in the Winyah Bay area of present-day South Carolina), founded by Spanish explorer Lucas Vásquez de Ayllón in 1526. On October 18, 1526, Ayllón died and the colony was almost immediately disrupted by a fight over leadership, during which the slaves revolted and fled the colony to seek refuge among local Native Americans.[14] Many of the colonists died shortly afterwards of an epidemic, and the colony was abandoned, leaving the escaped enslaved Africans behind in what is now South Carolina. In addition to being the first instance of enslaved Africans in the United States, San Miguel de Guadalpe was also the first documented slave rebellion on North American soil.

In 1565, the colony of Saint Augustine in Florida, founded by Pedro Menéndez de Avilés became the first permanent European settlement in North America, and included an unknown number of free and enslaved Africans that were part of this colonial expedition.

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

So not only was it the first European settlement, when it was abandoned some of it's settlers (aka slaves) helped found St Augustine.

2seaoat



colonial expedition.


Thank you.......you have finally answered your question......an expedition is not the creation of a permanent settlement. This is exactly like DeSoto's expedition over Florida......maybe he had a campfire at Tampa......lets argue that is the first settlement........nope.......as a native son your heretics must stop......you may be walking on hallow ground......in your very backyard a deer may have been shot to provide food for this historic settlement.......and if you take the time....you may find historical evidence in your backyard.....before you create the illusion that Pensacola was not first.....dig around your backyard and find real proof.....if you are unwilling to make an effort, and simply accept this hearsay and innuendo.....you must think about moving.........and I am thinking about taking the drastic step of informing the Mayor that he has heretics in his historic city.......oh the humanity.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

2seaoat wrote:colonial expedition.


Thank you.......you have finally answered your question......an expedition is not the creation of a permanent settlement.

Did you not read the first paragraph in that earlier page...

The Spanish King granted the dude a license to establish a PERMANENT colony. How could it be more clear than that...

http://books.google.com/books?id=6npr_LGJH-cC&pg=PA97&lpg=PA97&dq=where+exactly+was+San+Miguel+de+Gualdape&source=bl&ots=J7hKcqnENN&sig=LMq4Emq6cGExilsCMgZLawQbsX8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cgZRUcuULMTL2QWrg4GABA&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=where%20exactly%20was%20San%20Miguel%20de%20Gualdape&f=false

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

I was just told that last linked page is not working properly.
So here's a screen capture of the part of the page which is pertinent.

It looks like we've all been told a big fat whopper of a lie about Pensacola history. - Page 2 Link10

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 3]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

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

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum