Louisiana Purchase: Unconstitutional Expansion Of America

The Louisiana Purchase of 1803, which saw the United States double in size, was a highly contested issue. Many Federalists opposed the purchase on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. However, despite popular belief, Thomas Jefferson had the full approval of Congress before buying Louisiana from France. The debate in the Senate lasted only two days, with the treaty being ratified 24-7. Jefferson and his supporters argued that the constitutional provision for governing a territory presupposed the right to acquire that territory. While some Federalists continued to view the purchase as unconstitutional, it was never questioned in court.

Explore related products

Louisiana Purchase (Ready-for-Chapters)

$6.29 $6.99

Jefferson's Great Gamble: The Remarkable Story of Jefferson, Napoleon and the Men behind the Louisiana Purchase

$7.6 $19.99

The Louisiana Purchase (Turning Points in History Book 2)

$9.67 $10.95

The Louisiana Purchase: A History Just for Kids

$14.99 $14.99

A Wilderness So Immense: The Louisiana Purchase and the Destiny of America

$4.99 $21

The Louisiana Purchase and American Expansion, 1803–1898

$16.36 $53

Jefferson's philosophical consistency was questioned

Thomas Jefferson's philosophical consistency was questioned following the Louisiana Purchase, which saw the US acquire 830,000 square miles of land from France for $15 million. This deal, which doubled the size of the United States, was popular with the American people, but some questioned whether Jefferson had exceeded his constitutional powers.

Jefferson had previously been a prominent defender of the Constitution, taking a strict, literal view of the powers it granted the president and the executive branch. He believed that any powers not specifically granted by the Constitution were retained by the people. However, the Constitution did not explicitly grant the president the power to negotiate territorial purchases.

Some historians have argued that Jefferson acted hypocritically with the Louisiana Purchase, stretching the intent of the Constitution to justify his purchase. Jefferson himself acknowledged that the purchase might be unconstitutional, writing to John Dickinson in 1803 that:

> "The General Government has no powers but such as the Constitution gives it... It has not given it power of holding foreign territory, and still less of incorporating it into the Union. An amendment of the Constitution seems necessary for this."

However, Jefferson was also aware that the purchase would bring significant economic and national security benefits to the US, and he did not want to lose the deal. He therefore concluded that the purchase was constitutional, as it would protect US citizens. He wrote to Dickinson:

> "In the meantime we must ratify and pay our money, as we have treated, for a thing beyond the Constitution, and rely on the nation to sanction an act done for its great good, without its previous authority."

Others have defended Jefferson's actions, arguing that countries change their borders through conquest or treaties, and the Louisiana Purchase was the latter. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution grants the president the power to negotiate treaties, which is what Jefferson did. James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution", assured Jefferson that the purchase was well within even the strictest interpretation of the Constitution.

The purchase was against Jefferson's principles of strict constructionism

The Louisiana Purchase of 1803 was a pivotal moment in American history, but it also presented a constitutional dilemma for President Thomas Jefferson. One of the key issues was how the purchase conflicted with Jefferson's adherence to strict constructionism, a principle that would become a defining feature of his presidency.

Strict constructionism, as espoused by Jefferson and other founding fathers, advocated for a limited interpretation of the Constitution. This meant that any actions taken by the federal government should be explicitly outlined in the Constitution and not inferred or implied. Any powers not granted to the federal government were reserved for the states, according to this interpretation.

When Jefferson considered the Louisiana Purchase, he faced a conflict between his desire to expand the young nation's territory and his commitment to strict constructionism. The Constitution does not explicitly grant the president the power to acquire new territory, and doing so would seemingly violate the principles of limited government that Jefferson held dear.

Jefferson himself acknowledged this tension. In a letter to his fellow founding father, James Madison, Jefferson wrote, "The Constitution has made no provision for our holding foreign territory, still less for incorporating foreign nations into our Union. The Executive, in seizing the fugitive occurrence which so much advances the good of their country, have done an act beyond the Constitution." Here, Jefferson candidly expresses his understanding that the Louisiana Purchase exceeded the powers granted to the executive branch by the Constitution.

However, Jefferson also recognized the strategic importance of the Louisiana Purchase. By acquiring the vast territory from France, the United States secured control over the port of New Orleans and navigation rights on the Mississippi River, both crucial for the country's economic and strategic interests. This dilemma between ideological purity and practical necessity characterized Jefferson's approach to governance and continues to inform debates over the interpretation of the Constitution to this day.

In conclusion, the Louisiana Purchase presented a complex challenge to Thomas Jefferson's principles of strict constructionism. While the acquisition of new territory fell outside the enumerated powers of the president, the potential benefits to the nation were significant. This tension between ideological purity and practical governance continues to resonate in American political discourse, highlighting the enduring legacy of Jefferson's presidency and the foundational questions it raised about constitutional interpretation.

The purchase was a threat to New England Federalists' economic self-interest

The Louisiana Purchase, which doubled the size of the United States, was a seminal moment for the new nation. However, it was not without its critics, particularly from the Federalist Party, who opposed the purchase on economic grounds. The New England Federalists' opposition to the Louisiana Purchase was primarily due to their economic self-interest, rather than any genuine concern over constitutionality.

The Federalists' economic interests were threatened by the potential of Western farmers gaining an alternative route for their crops that bypassed New England ports. The purchase of Louisiana provided farmers with direct access to southern ports, reducing their dependence on the ports in the North. This threatened the economic dominance of the New England Federalists, who had previously profited from their control over the transportation of goods.

Additionally, many Federalists were land speculators in upstate New York and New England, hoping to sell these lands to farmers. The Louisiana Purchase created a competing option for farmers, who might now choose to move west instead of purchasing land from the Federalists. This potential loss of revenue was a significant concern for the New England Federalists.

The purchase also raised the prospect of the formation of new Western states, which were likely to be Republican and challenge the political power of the Federalists, who held influence in the existing states. The Federalists feared that their political dominance would be diluted as the country expanded and the balance of power shifted.

Furthermore, the treaty's provision to grant citizenship to the French, Spanish, and free black people in New Orleans was met with opposition. The Federalists questioned whether it was proper to extend these rights, as they believed that the residents of Louisiana were unfit for republican government and that their inclusion would alter the political landscape.

In conclusion, while the Louisiana Purchase was a significant event in American history, it is important to recognise that it was not universally accepted. The New England Federalists' opposition was largely driven by their desire to protect their economic self-interest and maintain their political power rather than by constitutional concerns.

Explore related products

The Louisiana Purchase (Pioneer Spirit: the Westward Expansion)

$32.27

Slavery, Freedom, and Expansion in the Early American West (Jeffersonian America)

$38.47 $50.5

Sacred Capital: Methodism and Settler Colonialism in the Empire of Liberty (Jeffersonian America)

$20.16 $35

Empire of Commerce: The Closing of the Mississippi and the Opening of Atlantic Trade (Jeffersonian America)

$20.33 $32.5

Filibusters and Expansionists: Jeffersonian Manifest Destiny, 1800-1821 (Library of Alabama Classics)

$28.45 $29.95

The Lost President: A. D. Smith and the Hidden History of Radical Democracy in Civil War America (UnCivil Wars)

$22.9 $60.95

Jefferson's exercise of executive authority was criticised

Thomas Jefferson's exercise of executive authority during the Louisiana Purchase was criticised by some as being unconstitutional. Jefferson, a strict constructionist, believed that anything not specifically enumerated in the Constitution was unconstitutional. However, he could find no authorisation in the Constitution for the government to purchase new territory.

Jefferson and his supporters in the Senate argued that the constitutional provision for governing a territory presupposed the right to acquire that territory. They also argued that the purchase was to protect the citizens of the United States, which made it constitutional. James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution", assured Jefferson that the Louisiana Purchase was well within even the strictest interpretation of the Constitution. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution grants the president the power to negotiate treaties, which is what Jefferson did.

Despite this, some Federalists continued to view the Louisiana Purchase as unconstitutional. They objected to Jefferson's exercise of executive authority in the absence of any specific constitutional authorisation. Delaware Senator Samuel White warned that relocating settlers thousands of miles away from the capital might alienate their affections for the Union. The Federalists' opposition was primarily due to economic self-interest, as they were speculators in lands in upstate New York and New England, hoping to sell these lands to farmers. They also feared the formation of Western states, which would likely be Republican, and dilute the political power of the New England Federalists.

The Supreme Court later upheld Jefferson's reasoning, and the purchase was never questioned in court. Chief Justice John Marshall, a Jefferson opponent, later stated that the Constitution confers on the government the powers of making war and treaties and, therefore, the power to acquire territory.

The purchase was a threat to national character

The Louisiana Purchase, which doubled the size of the United States, was a seminal moment for the new nation. However, it was not without its critics, who argued that it went against the Constitution. One of the key concerns was that the purchase threatened the national character of the United States.

The national character of the United States was closely tied to the idea of a nation of farmers. Thomas Jefferson, who was instrumental in the Louisiana Purchase, believed that "those who labour in the earth are the chosen people of God". Farmers, in his view, were ideal citizens as they were hardworking, honest, and community-spirited. They provided for themselves and answered to no one. However, with the nation's population doubling every twenty years, there were concerns about running out of agricultural land. The Louisiana Purchase, with its vast acreage, offered a solution by delaying this impending crisis and helping sustain the American character.

The Federalist Party, particularly those from New England, opposed the Louisiana Purchase. They argued that it threatened the national character by potentially altering the political landscape. With the acquisition of new territory, there was a possibility of forming Western states, which would likely be Republican, thus diluting the political power of the New England Federalists. Additionally, they were concerned about the economic impact of Western farmers gaining an alternative outlet for their crops that bypassed New England ports.

The Federalist opposition also included concerns about the inhabitants of the purchased territory, specifically whether it was proper to grant citizenship to the French, Spanish, and free black people living in New Orleans. Senator Uriah Tracy of Connecticut argued that the residents of Louisiana were unfit for republican government and that their admission to the Union would tilt the political balance toward the slaveholding South.

The Louisiana Purchase raised questions about the nation's founding principles and the role of the federal government. Jefferson himself was a strict constructionist, believing that anything not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution was unconstitutional. However, he justified the purchase as necessary for the protection of American citizens, thus making it constitutional. This stance was not without criticism, with historians like Henry Adams accusing Jefferson of hypocrisy.

In conclusion, the Louisiana Purchase sparked a debate about the nation's character and values. While it offered opportunities for expansion and the preservation of the nation's agrarian ideals, it also raised concerns about political power, citizenship, and the interpretation of the Constitution. The purchase highlighted the complexities of maintaining the national character in the face of territorial growth and changing demographics.

Frequently asked questions