Two issues during the early republic were the ratification of the Constitution and the purchase of the Louisiana Territory. The Constitution of the United States was written in 1787, yet there was a struggle for its ratification that went on until 1790. The Louisiana Purchase was the acquisition by the United States of America in 1803. Some historical circumstances surrounding the issue of the ratification of the Constitution was weakness of the new government under the Articles of Confederation which led to the Constitutional Convention. Members of Congress believed that the Articles of Confederation, the first government of the United States, needed to be altered while others did not want change. This desired Constitution created a huge dispute and argument between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The people who supported the new Constitution, the Federalists, began to publish articles supporting ratification. As stated in document 2 John Jay (Federalist) had many arguments to support ratification of the Constitution. One argument John Jay used was, with the ratification of the Constitution, he says, “…Our people free, contented and united…” The Antifederalists had numerous arguments they used to oppose the ratification of the Constitution. The Antifederalists believed that a free republic wouldn’t be able to long exist over a country of the great extent of these states. The Federalist wanted to ratify the Constitution while the Antifederalist despised the idea entirely. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay eventually compiled 85 essays as the Federalist Papers. These supporters of the Constitution believed that the checks and balances system (a system in which the different parts of an organization (such as a government) have powers that affect and control the other parts so that no part can become too powerful )would allow a strong central government to preserve states' rights. They felt that the Articles of Confederation was too weak and that they were in need for a change. The Articles of Confederation had “errors” that needed to be corrected argued the Federalist. Ratifying the Constitution lead to an improved more advanced country. There wasn’t much issue surrounding the purchase of the Louisiana Territory. A war wasn’t even required to acquire the land as document 5 explains. The major problem was that the Federalist Party argued that the Louisiana Purchase was a worthless dessert, and the constitution did not provide for the acquisition of new land or negotiating treaties without the consent of the Senate (Document 5).
The Louisiana Purchase 1803 and the Proclamation Line of 1763 were documents that changed the course of the United States. The Proclamation Line was one of the several attempts to keep the peace between Native Americans and white settlers. The intention of the imaginary line was to reduce conflict between the two cultures living in the border zone. Louisiana Purchase was done to ensure western expansion and to kept the United States of America from pursuing a war with France.
The Louisiana Purchase stands as an iconic event today that nearly doubled the size of America, ultimately introducing the United States as a world power. In 1762, during the Seven Years’ War, France ceded its control of the Louisiana Territory to Spain (Britannica). However, when Napoleon Bonaparte assumed control of France in 1799, France rallied as a world power once more. Bonaparte’s interest in the Louisiana Territory spiked, and he pressured Spain’s king, Charles IV to relinquish his control of the land on October 1, 1800. This was known as the Treaty of San Ildefonso (Britannica). In view of the transfer between France and Spain, president Thomas Jefferson sent Robert R. Livingston to Paris in 1801. Jefferson became worried, because
It also allowed for continued easy trade through New Orleans, which was a major motivation to make the Purchase (History). However, it did have its negative consequences, namely that, while France may have sold the land, many Native Americans still considered it their home, and for Jefferson’s plan to fill the land with farmers to succeed, they would have to be removed, additionally much of the wildlife on this frontier suffered. Though this probably would have happened even if Jefferson did not make the purchase, his action did speed up the
When the new Constitution was drafted, the ratification, the official approval by the people of the United States, sparked a national debate. People were shocked by the radical changes it proposed; they expected the convention to merely amend the Articles of Confederation. They were afraid of regressing back into a state under tyranny, a form of rule where a single or small group reigns with vast or absolute power. Americans had just fought for their freedom from the tyrannical rule of the king of England. All their efforts and revolutionary ideas would have gone to waste.
The problem with this was, originally the House had only authorized Jefferson to spend two million dollars “to secure the waterway into the Gulf of Mexico”, Congress would have to raise funds to finance the purchase (Nesmith). As I stated in the introduction there was no power granting the President to make land investments and Jefferson had a strict constructionist view of the Constitution which he followed. According to “The White House Historical Association”, Jefferson “did not believe that the president had the right to increase the national domain by a treaty of purchase” and United States would incorporate the residents of Louisiana into the Union, and they would have the same rights and privileges as other American citizens. “Jefferson wondered if he and the Congress had the power to bring into the nation whole groups of people who were outside its original limits” (http://www.whitehousehistory.org). Therefore, the moral dilemma Jefferson faced here was putting aside his strict constructionist principles of the Constitution, because the allowance for this type of transaction was not expressly listed in the Constitution. Of course a Constitutional amendment would have taken far too long and the French could have taken back the offer within that
The Louisiana purchase was a very significant event in the United States of America that changed the country we live in today. Since, “1762, Spain had owned the territory of Louisiana, between the Mississippi River and the Rocky Mountains” (Office of the Historian). This purchase led to many great things due to the French now having possession over it. Even though the French sold major land in the Louisiana Purchase, the money gained by France and the land acquired by America was a win for both sides of the deal.
Thomas Jefferson had many factions pushing and pulling on him. On one side a Federalist who was quoted by saying “We are to give money of which we have too little for land which we have too much.” (Greenspan pg. 2) On the other Jefferson had War Hawkes and farmers who wanted to go to war over the New Orleans. The most noted of whom was Alexander Hamilton who wrote under a pen name, Pericles, saying “The United States should seize at once Florida and New Orleans and then negotiate.” (Greenspan pg. 3) Thomas Jefferson possibly saved the nation from a premature civil war. Jefferson also believed with the France in the picture it would stop the United States from expanding westward. It also stopped Jefferson’s vision of an “Empire of Liberty.” (Clifford E. Clark Jr. pg. 241) Where Jefferson thought the United States would be the “benchmark of democracy” that other countries would
Perhaps the greatest advantage of buying the Louisiana territory was avoiding a potential war with France. Jefferson had originally wanted to peacefully acquire the land from the declining Spanish empire, but a plan of peaceful waiting was disrupted by the prospect of having “much more powerful France … as a next-door neighbor” (http://www.monticello.org). Once France took over the territory, Jefferson knew he had to act quickly and with “action more visible than diplomatic maneuvering”, so he quickly sent Robert Livingston, and later James Monroe to France, initially only to bargain for the purchase of the port city New Orleans (http://www.monticello.org) (http://www.presidentprofiles.com). However, France’s problems regarding North American colonization continued to mount: the French army was unable to put down a slave uprising in Hispaniola, and the French were at war with the British (http://www.encyclopedia.com). Realizing that his dreams of American colonization were over, and that he needed money to fund his war, Napoleon, realizing the “futility of his plan” authorized a fifteen million dollar counter-offer to the U.S offer to buy New Orleans for two million (http://www.encyclopedia.com). Realizing that there would not be a better time, or offer, Jefferson signed the treaty and “Congress quickly approved the purchase”, taking advantage of the French misfortune to double the size of the U.S (http://www.encyclopedia.com). The deal appealed to Jefferson, who would rather acquire the territory through peaceful means than “through fifty thousand men” and a costly war (James Jackson to the Senate). Senator James Jackson used arguments like these to convince the wary members of the senate that “seem[ed] to be displeased” that the Purchase of Louisiana came “peaceably and at probably ten times less expense than… forcible
The backdrop of Louisiana acquisition accompanied with the advent of the 17th century. As France scrutinized the Mississippi river rambling adjustment of the region took place. As the 18th century advanced France overcame the existing day United Sates of America than any other region of the European country (U.S., 2016). All the while the French and Indian War France abandon French Louisiana, Mississippi river of Spain and with advancing time they handed over the existing ownership to the Britain. The Louisiana acquisition was originally the deal of land between two enormous countries United States of America and France. In 1803, the accord of and took place between both the countries. The deal
Little did the president know Napoleon had already given up on his dreams of his plans in Louisiana; this would result in one of the biggest shocks that would be known in American history. When James Monroe arrived in mid-April 1803, he would be surprised to learn that the French would inquire if the United States where interested in purchasing all the Louisiana territories! Napoleon would offer the entire territory of Louisiana for $15 million, but at this moment, we have a problem. You see the amount of $15 million far exceeded what they were approved for from President Jefferson. How could they resist however? They simply “could not” and the deal was agreed
In 1803 the United States would make the largest and possibly most controversial land purchases in American history, the Louisiana Purchase. During the years leading up to this event the United States was still trying to solidify a national identity. There were two subjects that were causing for division of the new national identity, one being westward expansion. The Northern states and Federalists opposed the idea of westward expansion while the Southern States and the Jeffersonians backed this purchase. Although there was a struggle for a single national identity and this controversial purchase did not aid in finding that single identity, it was still the right decision for the United States. By purchasing this land from the French the United States would not share a colonial boundary with the French who were continuing to gain power under Napoleon. Purchasing the Louisiana Territory would prove to be beneficial for the United States for more reason than one.
While the Federalists believe in a strong, central government, the Anti-Federalists believe in the shared power of state and national governments to maintain the rights of all Americans .The Anti-Federalist favored a confederated government were the state and national governments could share power ,protect citizen’s freedom ,and independence. The Anti-Federalists found many problems in the Constitution. Many were concerned the central government take was all individual rights. Anti-Federalist primarily consisted of farmers and tradesmen and was less likely to be a part of the wealthy elite than were members of their rival the Federalist. Many Anti-federalists were local politicians who feared losing power should the Constitution be ratified and argued that senators that served for too long and represented excessively large territories would cause senators to forget what their responsibilities were for that state. They argued that the Constitution would give the country an entirely new and unknown form of government and saw no reason in throwing out the current government. Instead, they believed that the Federalists had over-stated the current problems of the country and wanted improved characterization of power allowable to the states. They also maintained that the Framers of the Constitution had met as a discriminatory group under an order of secrecy and had violated the stipulations of the Articles of Confederation in the hopes for the for ratification of the Constitution. The Anti-Federalist were sure that the Constitution would take away the rights of the American citizens and fought hard to stop the ratification on the
The Constitution, when first introduced, set the stage for much controversy in the United States. The two major parties in this battle were the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists, such as James Madison, were in favor of ratifying the Constitution. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists, such as Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee, were against ratification. Each party has their own beliefs on why or why not this document should or should not be passed. These beliefs are displayed in the following articles: Patrick Henry's "Virginia Should Reject the Constitution," Richard Henry Lee's "The Constitution Will Encourage Aristocracy," James Madison's "Federalist Paper No. 10," and "The Letters to Brutus." In these documents, many aspects of the Constitution, good and bad, are discussed. Although the Federalists and Anti-Federalists had very conflicting views, many common principals are discussed throughout their essays. The preservation of liberty and the effects of human nature are two aspects of these similarities. Although the similarities exist, they represent and support either the views of the Federalists or the Anti-Federalists.
As everyone can see, the Federalist papers and Anti-Federalist papers have made some good and acceptable changes to politics. Although there was much dispute and arguing, the Federalists won and the Constitution was ratified. The date of ratification was September 17, 1787. One of the main reasons the Federalists won was their strong government. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists lacked a well-organized government. Whatever the outcome, everyone can easily say the Federalist and Anti-Federalists both put a lot of time and effort in their papers and stood up for what they believed in.
The Anti-Federalist Party, led by Patrick Henry, objected to the constitution. They objected to it for a few basic reasons. Mostly the Anti-Federalists thought that the Constitution created too strong a central government. They felt that the Constitution did not create a Federal government, but a single national government. They were afraid that the power of the states would be lost and that the people would lose their individual rights because a few individuals would take over. They proposed a “Bill of Rights”, to make sure the citizens were protected by the law. They believed that no Bill of Rights would be equal to no check on our government for the people.