17460: Sekar: Re: 17456: Breguet: Boyer agrees to French "indemnity" (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: satish.sekar <satish.sekar@ntlworld.com>

There is an arguable case that Spain, not France is entitled to restitution
from France for the sale of the Louisiana Territories. This stems from the
Treaties of Madrid (1762) and San Ildefonso (1801). The former ceded the
Louisiana Territories from France to Spain on condition that Spain could not
sell it. Under the later treaty the Louisiana Territories were retroceded
back to France under the same conditions as in 1762. Consequently, the sale
of the Louisiana Territories by Napoleon to the USA was in flagrant breach
of his obligations under the Treaty of San Ildefonso. As such Spain has an
arguable claim to compensation from France.

Secondly, hasn't compensation or restitution been paid to representatives of
Native American tribes despite treaties. Legally the earlier treaties were
signed, but restitution and compensation has still been paid by the US
government. Morally and legally France has an obligation to Haiti. A treaty
imposed by gun-boat diplomacy should not be binding. At the very least the
money extorted from Boyer should be repaid. For example, if a family pays a
kidnapper a ransom and gets their child back, who should get the ransom back
when the kidnappers are arrested? The family got what it paid for, but would
anyone really argue that the kidnappers have the legal right to keep the
ransom in such circumstances. France held recognition and security for Haiti
to ransom. In 1825 it got its ransom. It should not get away with keeping
it.

Best Wishes

Satish