Answer with a brief response (2 paragrpahs) ....Be sure to include your name within the post for credit...
Suppose you were a faithful Democratic-Republican party advisor to President Jefferson in 1803...what would have been your specific advice to him about the Louisiana Purchase?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4th Block Class...I am excited about you guys using this for the 1st time...I hope that you did well on your essay today.
ReplyDeleteIf Jefferson did not buy New Orleans from France it could lead to war. As a positive America would nearly double in size and access the Mississippi River for trade. After that the only problem would be that the US would owe Britain the $15 million plus interest. The positives outway the negatives and if I was an advisor I would want Jefferson to go through with the purchase.
ReplyDeleteJefferson purchasing Louisiana from Bonaparte was a huge step for America. It not only doubled the size of America at the time it also opened up a giant trading port. Acquiring New Orleans and the Mississippi River gave America the opportunity to not only move materials such as food and supplies to other parts of the country but also so that they could trade with other parts of the world more easily.The only issue that came along with the Louisiana Purchase was that Jefferson came off as a hypocrite. He was a Democratic-Republican and a strict constructionist when it came to the Constitution. But buying land was not in the privileges of the president so technically in his mind, he shouldn't have been able to do that.
ReplyDeleteIf I had been Jefferson's adviser I would have told him, that making the purchase would have more pros than cons and that he should definitely go for it to enhance the United States as a whole.
The first two responses are good and to the point. Make sure that you interact with each other's responses as you post.
ReplyDeleteBy completing this purchase, Jefferson had to put aside his principles because to allow for this type of transaction was to do something that had not been specifically listed in the Constitution. BUT: waiting for a Constitutional amendment might cause the deal to fall through, so Jefferson had to weigh the pros and cons. Acquire all this land for a price that was a spectacular bargain, or wait until this deal could be deemed constitutional? Even with such high standards to his morals, this was not necessarily rocket science... Jefferson decided to go through with the purchase.
ReplyDeleteAs Jefferson’s “faithful Democratic-Republican party advisor,” I would advise T. Jeff to go through with the purchase. It would significantly help the country in the long run.
I agree with KZ and Bree. They both made strong points, and their arguments had hefty backbones.
I'd have advised Jefferson to go ahead with the deal, but to err on the side of caution: it was a bountiful acquisition, to be sure, and if Jefferson hadn't seized the chance, another country might've taken the Territory - a country that wouldn't necessarily have our best interests in mind. However, an expanse that large was going to, regardless of political party, require a strong, central government to keep it in check, and any self-respecting Democratic-Republican would've been wary of that prospect.
ReplyDeleteJefferson's grievances regarding the matter were mostly unfounded. Strict constructionism, they assume that the Constitution isn't subject to change as new situations arise. It's not like the Founding Fathers were expecting anyone to offer them such a huge chunk of land.
Oops, should say 'Strict constructionism aside ... '. My bad.
ReplyDeleteLike Bree, Katherine, Loren, and Zach, as Jefferson's faithful Democratic-Republican party advisor, I would have advised him to go through with the Louisiana Purchase. As shown in the video we watched today, the Louisiana Purchase was clearly necessary. The United States desperately needed control of the Mississippi River and the New Orleans area. Without control of the Mississsippi River and New Orleans, the United States would not have been able to effectively control trade. In addition to giving the United States control of midwest trade, the Louisiana Purchase also provided much needed-growing room for Americans at a rock bottom-price (less than three cents per acre). Forget about strict constitutionalism, I say, when you see a good deal, grab it.
ReplyDeleteC'mon...isn't there someone out there to disagree with Jefferson's decision???? Was he being untrue to his party and its values by going ahead with the Purchase?
ReplyDeleteJeffersons Decision sucked he was wrong
ReplyDeleteThat's harsh. Poor Jefferson just got gonged.
ReplyDeleteIn my personal opinion, the above statement is dead on.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry to disappoint you, Mr. Frese, but I agree with my classmates (that signed their name, anyway). If I were Jefferson's supervisor, I would support the purchase of the Louisiana Territory. The crucial gains were New Orleans and the Mississippi River, both of which were beneficial for internal defense, as well as the transportation of goods. In agreement with Zach, I would have advised Jefferson to be aware that a strong central government would be needed to oversee future population and defense of such a vast territory. I would also argue that the political party takes the back seat when defense and trade within the entire, newly enlarged nation are concerned.
ReplyDeleteAlthough everyone makes strong points, I have to disagree. I believe that Jefferson was being highly hypocritical in his decision to purchase the Louisiana territory. As a Democratic-Republican advisor, I would have had to argue that the purchase was made in an unconstitutional way. Democratic-Republicans were known for being strict constructionists, they preferred to follow the constitution very closely, rather than in the loose way the Federalist Party preferred. The Democratic-Republicans of the time believed that a U.S. President did not have the authority to make such a deal because it was not specified in the Constitution. They also thought that to do so would weaken states' rights by increasing federal executive power.
ReplyDeleteAt the time the Louisiana Purchase was made, the government and people would have had no way of knowing that the land would be so beneficial to the country, as it was unknown and unexplored. While today we know that the purchase was beneficial to the growth and development of our country, the people of the United States in 1803 would have no way to tell what the outcome of spending so much money on unknown territory would be. Therefore, as an advisor to Jefferson during the time of his presidency, I would have had to advise him against this purchase.
Bri Roe would love to disagree with Jefferson!
ReplyDeleteThomas did not agree at all with Hamilton's idea on national debt. He felt that the powers given to the National Government was specified and if they were not listed in the consitution then the powers went directly to the states. Jefferson put aside his normal principles when he decided to go ahead with the purchase instead of waiting for an addition to the consitutional amendment.
I would not have advised Jefferson to do so because if the people did think it was a bad idea to expand the land at such an expensive cost then he not only lost a massive amount of money, but the trust of his people. Let's stick to our morales. Shall we?
I would tell Jefferson that it was against what the new nation was attempting to stand for to take the Lousiana Purchase. As a democratic-republican I would have been abligated to not give any ground on the ammendments in place thus far. The act of buying land that was already begining to be settled by people that were not from America would be unconstitutional. That would be an act of oppression because of how they would be forcing those who settled there to conform to American laws. Those settling within the Lousiana Territory were seeking the same thing that the colonists who had settled in America had longed for: freedom, and to deprive them of that opportunity would be hipocritical of the newly formed country.
ReplyDeleteAs my classmates have already pointed out, control of the Mississippi River would have been an economical advantage to the country. France was in debt and greatly needed the money, and I am sure that an agreement to achieve use of the Mississippi River without taking control of the territory could have been made that was still benefical to the country. The freedom of those who settled in the Lousiana Territory should have been just as important as the freedom of Americans.
As stated in the video, and class discussion, the Louisiana purchase had many benefits. These benefits were enough for me to support Jefferson's decision to make the purchase. Taking control of the Mississippi river was a key component for the economy of the young United States. It was a major trade rout that helped support the economy. Also, the newly acquired land encouraged movement west for Americans expanding our horizons. The 15 million dollar purchase price was a risk to take for such a young economy but ultimately it paid off. For these reasons i support Jefferson's decision.
ReplyDeletePersonally I'm a little torn while the purchase of the territory is not in accordance with the strict interpretation of the constitution, the acquisition of the territory was completely necessary. If Jefferson had allowed either France or Spain to maintain a strong presence that close to the border it would have spelled disaster. Instead the LA territory provided the US with a sizable buffer zone. I would have advised Jefferson to do just what he did at no other point would that much territory be available to the US at so cheap a cost. Jefferson saw that the nation was growing and would need the room to expand rather then wait and have Napoleon sell that land to another European country and future generation have to wage war for it Jefferson put aside his morals and what he believed to better the country.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that Jefferson really did not the potential in the land, maybe not to the full extent that we know now but defiantly in some respects. When Jefferson sent envoys to France He had originally only given instruction to purchase New Orleans which was a boom shipping town. Also by buying the land he would push the Spanish away from the States along the Mississippi river. This was key because until the purchase they had been hobbled by the tariffs they had to pay to ship on the river.
Ultimately the purchase was not entirely constitutional but served the nation in a positive way.
I am not surprised at Jefferson's hypocrisy,as he was known for his "do as I say, not as I do" way of life. Although he vehemently opposed slavery, he owned 200 slaves who worked on his mansion. Jefferson spoke about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" when he denied 200 people those same rights. Should anyone have expected him to live by his party principles and lead by example?
ReplyDeleteKnowing that the outcome of the Louisiana Purchase resulted in the over 1 million mile expansion of our nation, of course I would have advised former President Jefferson to go ahead and buy it. We got a great deal on it, really. In this instance, hypocrisy turned out to be one of the best things for America. The constitution never gave him the "right" to purchase/add territory to the U.S., and it's safe to say that the then-president acted well outside his scope of authority. Jefferson was surely conflicted by his decision to purchase the Louisiana Territory and probably took a lot of criticism even then, but it was in America's best interest to gain control of the Mississippi River and the natural resources beyond it, so Jefferson was wise to buy it. The French and Spanish might be blocking our southern ports today had Jefferson not acted so hypocritically. As his advisor, I would encourage him not to ask whether acquiring new territory without consulting the states was unconstitutional, but if it was rational. Today, with the benefit of hindsight, we all know the answer. Unconstitutional, yes. Brilliant? I think so.
Jefferson made a wise move, the Louisiana purchase cost 15 million dollars.He didnt know at the time if it would help or destroy the country and if people would dislike him as a president. But it did help the nation.It helped with transportation of goods. Why was Jefferson willing to risk his presidency and his people for more land? If i had been Jefferson's Advisor i would of told him it helped the country.
ReplyDeleteThe Louisiana Purchase was key to the United States' ability to dominate North American. The whole point was the gain complete control of the Mississippi and it definitely did that. The additional land eased the anxiety of the restless citizens, even though it may have been unconstitutional by Democratic-Republican standards.
ReplyDeleteAs an advisor of Jefferson, I would tell him to, of course, make the purchase. It would benefit the U.S. in many ways and the Democratic-Republican stand on constitutionality coudl always change in the face of great prosperity. exceptions could be made.
If you examine the preamble of the Constitution, it lists a few ideas that the document was meant to demonstrate. Did the Louisiana Purchase "insure domestic tranquility"? Well, probably not, since it invoked the wrath of the Native Americans upon the people of the United States. However, did it "provide for the common defense"? Yes, because it helped the U.S. avoid an enormous conflict with France and Spain.
ReplyDeleteSo, to say that the Louisiana Purchase is unconstitutional is debatable. Is it specifically mentioned in the Constitution? No, but there are a lot of things that are not mentioned in the Constitution. Is it legal and constitutional to listen to music? Yes. Is it mentioned in the Constitution specifically? No. Jefferson had the ability (and the moral flexability) to interpret the Constitution by its meaning, and not by its words. This makes the Louisiana Purchase a wise decision by Jefferson, and if I was his advisor, I would have urged him to buy the Louisiana Territory.
AS a Democratic-Republican to Jefferson i would have to agree with the Louisiana Purchase. It allowed the country to expand and to gain control of the Mississippi RIver. The Mississippi River was important because it was great for trade and the land was perfect for farmers to settle there. Although the purchase goes against Jeffersons beliefs I still believe that it was nessecery in expanding and improving the country.Chelsea
ReplyDeleteI support Jeffersons decision to purchase the Louisiana Purchase. It benifited the united states in that fact that we were then able to have control over the Mississippi river which benifited internal defence and gave us power to regulate trade.If he had not made the purchase Spain and France wouold have had the power to block american trade access, hurting our economy.The additional land aquired lead to expansion of the united states, which nearly doubled in size. This was crucial for our growing nation. Although the purchase was not looked at as constitutional it had many benefits for the united states and its growing nation.
ReplyDeleteKatie Maffucci made a very good point about Jefferson's view on slavery, while he was preaching about freedom and liberty. However, if Jefferson did not agree to the Louisiana Purchase he would have received just as much criticism for letting such an outstanding deal go as he did for being a hypocrite by the Democratic-Republicans. Just picture what the United States would be like without the land from the Louisiana Purchase. It would have been very unlikely that war would have been avoided with the French or another country that might have purchased it because the role of New Orleans and the Mississippi River was vital for the new nation's economy. The cost of war and the damage to the economy by losing these key trade routes would greatly outweigh the $15 million purchase. As Jefferson's advisor, I would have strongly encouraged him to make the Louisiana Purchase for the better of the nation in the end.
ReplyDeleteI would have urged Tom to purchase Louisiana strongly. As we learned in class, Louisiana and the area surrounding it was a huge arena of manufacturing and commerce. By purchasing the Louisiana Territory, it opened a number of doors for America to gain wealth, gain resources, and it also acted as more living space for the growing nation. -Brian P
ReplyDeleteAs an advisor to Jefferson I would have to tell him to go ahead with the Purchase. Jefferson saw agriculture as the future of America's economy. Without control over New Orleans, and the Mississippi, the ability of American farmers to transport their goods to market could have been severely hampered.
ReplyDeleteAllowing the French control of New Orleans could also have led to devastating conflicts with France. As a young nation we lacked the strength to be able to handle such a clash. Despite France's involvement in other conflicts Napoleon was a brilliant military leader, and not someone I would suggest getting into a conflict with.
Although the Constitution didn't specifically grant Jefferson the power to buy and add land to the US I would have to advise him to do so. Americans had shown that they desired the ability to expand westward, farmers needed the Mississippi and the transportation opportunities it provided, and avoiding any possible conflict with France far outweighed any negatives.
If I was an advisor to Jefferson, I would have told him that the Louisiana Purchase was definitely a good choice. Although he was considered a strict constuctionist and the constitution did not state that the president had any right to aquire land, a mark of a good leader is to sometimes step outside of the boundaries. To lead a country, one must possess some individual opinions and the ability to make a tough desicion. In the end, Jefferson did the right thing and was trying to protect his country. He was right to be afraid of the French and Spanish occupying the territory and the port of New Orleans. Besides gaining protection with the purchase, he also opened up the port for American trade use, gained much land for westward expansion, and affirmed America as a world power to the French. I have a lot of deference for him.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jefferson. Who wouldn't want to make their country twice the size, no matter the cost, if they had the chance, and knew it would be beneficial to the people of America? More land ultimately leads to more power and control, and the western expansion could be beneficial to help America eventually become a stronger nation. The main reason the purchase would be advantageous is because America feels threatened by the increasing power of the French. Another justification is that there is an overcrowding of eastern cities. Also,the Mississippi River makes a great port for the transportation of goods, U.S. protection, and the use of Navy.Although I am in agreement with the deal, I must point out that although Jefferson is contemplating his proper authority over the Lousiana Purchase, he is also only our 3rd president and hasn't yet realized where he stood in terms of power.
ReplyDeleteAs an advisor during the Louisiana Purchace I would have supported the purchase of the Louisiana purchase. Jefferson had to make the decission without knowing the outcome. With purchasing Louisiana it came with controlling the Mississippi River which was a major factor in the growth of the United States. 15 million was alot to pay when not knowing how it would turn out, I would have trusted the president in his decission. And in the long run it paid off. I would support Jefferson. -Meeghan A.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Jefferson had moral complications with making the deal for the Louisiana purchase he made the correct move. Being a strict constructionist and devout Democratic Republican, Jefferson had the moral obligation to stay as close as possible to the orders of the constitution. The constitution had no instructions on anything to do witht he purchase of land. Therefore Jefferson came off as hippocrit becasue he was not following the ideals which he supposedly cherished.
ReplyDeleteFrom an economic stand point Jefferson's move was inconsequential. Not only did he more than double the size of his country, but he acquired the port of New Orleans. This port allowed for exploration into America's heartland and trade along the Mississippi River. Even though this was a difficult decision for Jefferson his move to purchase the Louisiana territory was one of the smartest moves in U.S. History.
- Patrick C
Although Jefferson's decision to purchase the Louisiana Territory may have been slightly hypocritical in comparison to his party's beliefs, he was doing what was right for the country, which as President, was his job. If I were an advisor, I would have encouraged Jefferson to purchase the Louisiana Territory.
ReplyDeleteI agree with many of my classmates, that the Louisiana Purchase was an important decision in American history. The new territory doubled the size of America, and gave the US access to the Mississippi River and the port at New Orleans. The economic gain from the Lousiana Purchase was much greater than the $15 million it cost. The access to the river and port made trade more efficient in territories not located close to the sea. Although this decision may have gone against what Jefferson believed personally, it was the right call for the country as a whole.
If i was Jefferson's advisor I would have strongly encouraged his decision to purchase the Louisiana Territory. As Abby said, the decision did go against the Dem-Republican's beliefs, and the expansion of territory was
ReplyDeletenot outlined in the Constitution. However, the purchase was needed both political and economic reasons.
The presence of the French in the Louisiana Territory could have, in future reasons, been a military and of course economic liability. With the purchase of this land, Jefferson helped to limit the extent of European control of the continent, aside from the somewhat diminishing Spanish Empire. Like my classmates have also said, the purchase opened the important trade route of the Mississippi River, and allowed goods from all over the country to be easily shipped out for purchase through the port of New Orleans.
Payne Morgan