Jefferson's dilemma over the constitutionality of the Louisiana Purchase is
telling, in that while he jumped at the chance to expand the nation, he also
maintained a reverence for his roots as a strict constructionist. He decided
against attempting to amend the Constitution
for a number of reasons. He feared that the time it took to amend the
Constitution would allow Napoleon to change his mind or somehow alter the
bargain in France's favor. Additionally, he feared that the longer it took to
ratify the treaty delineating the purchase, the greater the chance would be for
the Federalists to mount opposition to ratification. Most Federalists
disliked the Louisiana Purchase because they believed the expansion of the
nation would dilute the political power of their strongholds on the eastern
seaboard. Jefferson's consistent assertion that the farmers were the backbone
of America and would benefit from this expansion of arable land did not help to
assuage these fears. Thus what little debate there was over ratification
centered largely on the assertion on the part of the Federalist minority that no
new states should be created in the Louisiana Territory without the consent of
the original thirteen. The Republican majority easily rebuffed this claim, and
the treaty was easily ratified.
The appeal to states' rights by the Federalists seems anomalous considering it
had been the Republican opposition during John Adams' presidency which had
brought the issue to the fore, and the Federalists who had consistently
advocated for a strong central government. Historians point to the debate over
ratification to argue that perhaps the states' rights doctrine was less of an
ideological cornerstone for the Republicans than a universally useful defense
mechanism raised by those out of power against those in control of the national
government.
