THE EXPANSIONIST OF 1803

IN no part of his public experience has Jefferson's skill as a politician or his broad statesmanship been illustrated in such a striking manner as in connection with the treaty for the annexation of the Louisiana Territory to the United States. It was the greatest triumph of his career, and it h seems inexplicable that he did not include it in his epitaph, which mentions but three of his achievements. It was without question the greatest benefit he conferred upon his country, and contributed more to his honor than any other incident or public act with which he was connected. At the same time it was the first instance in which a President of the United States ever used his personal and political influence to crowd through Congress, under a gag law, an act which he himself declared unconstitutional; and for his justification Jefferson believed confidently that the wisdom of his course would be recognized and approyed by all generations-as it has been.

He did not originate the project, nor was he the author of the scheme. So far back as the Revolution the necessity of owning a trading-post at the mouth of the Mississippi became apparent, and until 1800, when the Territory was retroceded to France by Spain, our ministers to that country were vainly endeavoring to secure such an arrangement. As soon as Jefferson learned that Spain had transferred the title, Livingston was in

structed to approach the French government with an offer to purchase New Orleans and the Floridas. He made slow work of it, and Jefferson's anxiety became so great that he sent Monroe to Paris to assist in the negotiations.,

Fortunately for the United States, Napoleon was in most embarrassing complications. The French possessions at the mouth of the Mississippi were a source of weakness instead of strength the moment he went to war with England, and, furthermore, he was desperately in need of money. Having no confidence in the personal honesty of Talleyrand, his Minister of Foreign Affairs, Napoleon entrusted the negotiations to M. Marbois, his Minister of Finance, who had an American wife, had lived several years in the United States, and was on friendly terms with Livingston and Monroe. The envoys had been instructed to purchase only the Island of New Orleans or some other location near the mouth of the Mississippi equally favorable, but Marbois offered them the entire French possessions in America for one hundred million francs, and, as they learned afterwards, it was just twice the amount fixed by Napoleon himself. After several days of negotiation the contract was closed, and it was agreed that the United States should pay sixty million francs for the Territory and assume all the claims of American citizens against France growing out of the depredations of her privateers, which then amounted to about twenty millions of francs, and which, by the way, were not settled for nearly a hundred years afterwards.

It was wise for Napoleon to sell the property; it was wiser for the United States to buy it; and while Jefferson took great pride in the achievement, he was exceedingly anxious to avoid a dis

cussion of the legal points involved, because he believed the entire proceeding to be unconstitutional. Here the spirit of the politician dominated the conscience of the lawyer, and under his direction the ratification of the treaty by Congress was accomplished with marvellous skill and speed. Only one day was allowed for debate in either house, and within four days after Congress assembled the emergency was passed and the ratifications exchanged and proclaimed to the public. Both houses approved the project by large majorities. Although Hamilton, Morris, and other of the Federalist leaders favored the annexation of the Territory and approved the ratification of the treaty, the political animosities of the time and their antagonism towards Jefferson's administration would not permit them to allow it to pass without making some pertinent as well as some impertinent suggestions. During the limited hour for debate they raised several interesting points, including, first,; whether it was constitutional to acquire territory, and, second, what should be done with it when acquired?

Jefferson groped around in all directions seeking consolation for his conscience, and arguments by which he might sustain himself before the people and justify his unconstitutional proceedings. It was a solemn subject of conference in the Cabinet, and many anxious hours were spent in discussing various devices to relieve the dilemma. Jefferson himself proposed most of them, for he had an ingenious mind, and was determined to escape the charge of inconsistency with as little damage as possible.

In a letter to Senator Breckenridge, August 12, 1803, he said: "This treaty must of course be laid before both houses, because both have im

portant functions to exercise respecting it. They, I presume, will see their duty to their country in ratifying and paying for it, so as to secure a good which would otherwise probably be never again in their power. But I suppose they must then appeal to the nation for an additional article to the Constitution approving and confirming an act which the nation had not previously authorized. The Constitution has made no provision for our holding foreign territory, and still less for incorporating foreign nations into our own. The Executive in seizing the fugitive occurrence (Louisiana purchase) which so much advances the good of their country, have done an act beyond the Constitution. But we shall not be disavowed by the nation, and their acts of indemnity will confirm and not weaken the Constitution, by more strongly marking out its lines."

On August 18 we find Jefferson writing to Breckenridge again, and this time showing a modification of the views expressed in his letter of the previous week. He says: "I wrote you on the 12th instant on the subject of Louisiana and the constitutional provision which might be necessary for it. A letter received yesterday shows that nothing must be said on that subject which may give a pretext for retraction, but that we should do sub silentio what shall be found necessary.'

Wilson Cary Nicholas, a warm personal and political friend of Jefferson, conferred with him upon the constitutional question, and early in September wrote Jefferson a letter in which he declared that upon an examination of the Constitution he "found the power as broad as it could well be made, except that new states can not be formed out of old ones without the consent of the states to be dismembered."

66

On September 7, 1803, Jefferson, in reply, wrote to Nicholas: I am aware of the force of the observations you make on the power given by the Constitution to Congress to admit new States into the Union without restraining the subject to the territory then constituting the United States. But when I consider that the limits of the United States are precisely fixed by the treaty of 1783, that the Constitution expressly declares itself to be made for the United States, I can not help believing that the intention was to permit Congress to admit into the Union new States which should be formed out of the territory for which and under whose authority alone they were then acting. I do not believe it was meant that they might receive England, Ireland, Holland, etc., into it, which would be the case under your construction. When an instrument admits two constructions, the one safe, the other dangerous, the one precise, the other indefinite, I prefer that which is safe and precise. I had rather ask an enlargement of power from the nation where it is found necessary than to assume it by a construction which would make our powers boundless."

He desired to repair the mutilation he had made in "the bulwark of our liberties," and proposed two retroactive amendments authorizing him to do what he had already done, or, as he put it,

66

appeal to the nation for an additional article to the Constitution, approving and confirming an act which the nation had not previously authorized. The Constitution," he said, "has made no provision for our holding foreign territory, still less for incorporating foreign nations into our Union," but he was confident that the people would justify it because "it so much advances the good of the country." He actually prepared such an amend