Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Who said Louisiana Purchase not worth the money?


Recommended Posts

Every reference I can find attributes it to Jefferson's political opponents. Below is one example of many.

 

The potential acquisition of  Louisiana led the political parties to reverse their usual stands regarding constitutional interpretation. Jefferson's political opponents in the Federalist Party (normally broad constructionists) argued that the Louisiana purchase was a worthless desert, and that the Constitution did not provide for the acquisition of new land or negotiating treaties without the consent of the Senate. What really worried the opposition was that new states, which would inevitably be carved from the Louisiana territory, would strengthen Western and Southern interests (and therefore the Democratic-Republicans) in Congress, and further reduce the influence of New England Federalists in national affairs. President Jefferson, because of  his normally “strict constructionist” approach to Constitutional interpretation found the constitutionality of the treaty deeply troubling.  But was also an enthusiastic supporter of westward expansion (he called it “an empire for liberty”), and so  held firm in his support for the treaty, noting privately, “The less we say about constitutional difficulties the better.” Despite Federalist objections, the U.S. Senate ratified the Louisiana treaty in the autumn of 1803.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Louisiana Purchase led to the first serious threat of Secession. 

 

▪︎From 1800 to 1815, there were three serious attempts at secession orchestrated by New England Federalists, who believed that the policies of the Jefferson and Madison administrations, especially the 1803 Louisiana Purchase, the national embargo of 1807, and the War of 1812, were so disproportionately harmful to New England that they justified secession."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of note in my research is that while the constitutionality of the purchased was the public reason given the reality is that wealthy merchants in New England feared competition from the port New Orleans. As this would be far and away the easiest port to send goods bound for Europe. They also feared the inevitable new states that would dilute their political clout.

 

It was also feared the people farming in the New England states would abandon those farms and the associated mortgages in favor of free land in the west.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Sedalia Dave said:

Of note in my research is that while the constitutionality of the purchased was the public reason given the reality is that wealthy merchants in New England feared competition from the port New Orleans. As this would be far and away the easiest port to send goods bound for Europe. They also feared the inevitable new states that would dilute their political clout.

 

It was also feared the people farming in the New England states would abandon those farms and the associated mortgages in favor of free land in the west.

 

 

 

As always,  follow the money. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

 

As always,  follow the money. 

Cui bene... the Romans had it figured out, waay back then.
True then, true today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984 said:

Speaking of buying a wasteland, what about Alaska?  :FlagAm:

Can you imagine the Russians having a base in Alaska, not to mention the oil there? If you want a good fictionalized story, read "Sitka" by Louis L'amour.  Robert J. Walker was a real person.

I still don't know the answer to my question: Who made the statement about the Louisiana Purchase and the area termed "The Great American Desert"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Trailrider #896 said:

Can you imagine the Russians having a base in Alaska, not to mention the oil there? 

They did. Before Seward’s purchase, Russians were trapping on the Pacific coast down Ft Ross in California. Ft Ross was so named for Rossiya.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984 said:

They did. Before Seward’s purchase, Russians were trapping on the Pacific coast down Ft Ross in California. Ft Ross was so named for Rossiya.

 

 

Wonderful place to visit.  Lots of good restoration.  https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=449  

 

Hwy. 1 used to go through the fort, came in on the east gate right in front of the chapel, then out the west gate and turned north.  
Liturgy by ROCOR on Memorial Day, and OCA on (or near) Independence Day (this year it was on the 5th because Independence Day was on a Sunday).  

Sandy Cove Beach at Fort Ross State Historic Park

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When we lived in Petaluma, Ft. Ross was a frequently visited place for our kids and out of town relatives.
It's a much longer haul from Sacramento today, than it was back then from Petaluma.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Trailrider #896 said:

I still don't know the answer to my question: Who made the statement about the Louisiana Purchase and the area termed "The Great American Desert"?

 

Every reference I have found attributes it to the Federalists political party. I cannot find it attributed to any one individual. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bgavin said:

When we lived in Petaluma, Ft. Ross was a frequently visited place for our kids and out of town relatives.
It's a much longer haul from Sacramento today, than it was back then from Petaluma.

 

Since 1925 there has been an annual pilgrimage to Ft. Ross by Russian Orthodox from San Francisco. Think of the challenge of taking the ferry, driving up 101 and SR 1 in your Flivver.  I'll do some digging because I know that there are, or were, more accounts of the journy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wouldnt it be amazing if politian's today were discussing the expansion of our liberties and possibilities instead of all the restrictions and limitations ? think how great we might become - instead of the decline we seem to be falling into , im worried for my grandkids , they are offered no expansion of our future - only regulation and elimination of what fuels our economy 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.