extent of our boundaries, and propositions are made to exchange Louisiana, or a part of it, for the Floridas. But, as I have said, we shall get the Floridas without, and I would not give one inch of the waters of the Mississippi to any nation.’ * * * ‘These Federalists see in this acquisition the formation of a new confederacy, embracing all the waters of the Mississippi, on both sides of it, and a separation of its western waters from us.’ * * * ‘The Constitution has made no provision for our holding foreign territory, still less for the incorporation of foreign nations into our Union. The Executive, in seizing the fugitive occurrence which so much advances the good of their country, have done an act beyond the Constitution. The Legislature, in casting behind them metaphysical subtleties and risking themselves like faithful servants, must ratify and pay for it and throw themselves on their country for doing for them, unauthorized, what we know they would have done for themselves had they been in a situation to do it. It is the case of a guardian investing the money of his ward in purchasing an important adjacent territory, and saying to him when of age, “I did this for your good; you may disavow me, and I must get out of the scrape as I can. I thought it my duty to risk myself for you.” But we shall not be disavowed by the nation, and their act of indemnity will confirm and not weaken the Constitution, by more strongly marking out its limits. We have nothing later from Europe than the public papers give. I hope yourself and all the Western members will make a sacred point of being at the first day of the meeting of Congress; for, vestra res regitur.’
Congress was convened by proclamation October 17, 1803. Jefferson, as we have seen, advised a constitutional amendment. This advice was not accepted by his party associates. They thought that the Constitution already gave sufficient power. Under this theory they proceeded to confirm the treaty, and to introduce the legislation necessary to occupy and organize the territory. Upon this ground the Federalists attacked them, and memorable debates ensued. It would be outside of our purpose to follow these debates through a detailed discussion of the constitutional questions involved. They come within our purview only so far as they furnish testimony of public sentiment and locate the influences which aided or opposed the acquisition of Louisiana and the policy of territorial expansion. A general glance at the attitude of the two parties on the constitutional questions will, however, conduce to a clear comprehension of the sectional aspects of the contest.
The first battle came in the Senate. (Annals of Congress, 1803-1804, p. 308.) The treaty was confirmed in executive session, October 20th, by a vote of 24 to 7. Those voting against confirmation were Messrs. Hillhouse and Tracy, of Connecticut; Pickering, of Massachusetts; Wells and White, of Delaware; Olcott and Plumer, of New Hampshire; all Federalists and from the Northeast.
The public debates occurred on the resolutions and acts for taking possession of the territory, providing for the expenses of the treaty, and establishing a temporary government. (Ibid, p. 488.) The test vote in the House was taken October 25th, on the resolutions to provide for carrying out the treaty. The resolutions were adopted by a vote of go yeas to 25 nays. Of these 25 nays 17 were from New England, 3 from New York, 1 from Maryland, and 4 from Virginia. Hot debates ensued in the Senate and in the House, turning largely on the constitutional questions; the Federalists denying and the Republicans affirming the power of the government to make a treaty annexing foreign territory to the United States. All shades of opinion were expressed, but the two parties have been criticized as substantially reversing their positions as to the powers of the general government. The student of history is never surprised to find two political parties shifting their positions on theoretical questions. General theories, followed out to their logical consequences, invariably lead to the reductio ad absurdum. Political theories form no exception. Limitations are as necessary to theories as to all other human productions. What is sometimes mistaken for inconsistency is the necessary adaptation and amendment of opinion to new environments. Yet it does seem strange to view the Federalist party posing as the champion of strict construction and State rights, while the party of Thomas Jefferson is aggressively demanding a liberal construction of the Constitution and the extension of the powers of the general government.
By common consent and general custom the right of being inconsistent and of throwing rocks at the majority is accorded to the minority party, as a sort of political license, for which they are not held responsible until they come again into power. The party in power, however, is subject to indictment for inconsistency, and thus the Republican party has been the party on trial.
Whatever inconsistency there may have been was apparent rather than real, and was applicable to the arguments used rather than to the course pursued. The previous contests in behalf of strict construction had been directed to protecting the States, in their domestic relations and individual rights, from encroachments on the part of the general government. In the domestic relations between the general government and the several States, the Republicans regarded a strict construction as the palladium of freedom. It did not follow that the same strict construction should be applied for enfeebling the operations of the general government within its own sphere. The citizens who constituted the Republican party had aided in establishing the Constitution. They helped to create the general government for general purposes, and they could have no interest in an insane and unpatriotic effort to render it incapable of performing its functions. Expressed in homely phrase, they did not wish to tie the hands of the general government, but they did wish to keep its hands off the States.
There is no inconsistency in maintaining, on the one hand, a rule of strict construction, as applied to conflicts between the general government and the individual States, concerning the powers which the United States can exercise within the several State jurisdictions; and, on the other hand, a rule of liberal construction for exerting the powers of the general government in its unquestioned constitutional sphere, outside of the States. If there be any real inconsistency in these two positions, it has survived in the creeds of the Republican party and its successor, the Democratic party, to the present day.
Among those who have blamed both parties for inconsistency, the able and brilliant author of the ‘Winning of the West’ has arrived at the happiest conclusion. After scoring the Federalists of 1803 for their present part of the ‘inconsistency,’ and the Republicans for their past part of the ‘inconsistency,’ he says of the ‘Jeffersonian Republicans’: ‘Nevertheless, at this juncture they were right, which was far more important than being logical or consistent.’
The reader who desires to pursue the investigation of the constitutional questions involved is referred to the Annals of Congress, 1803-1804, which contain a record of the debates in the Senate and in the House on the various questions connected with the acquisition of Louisiana.
From these debates it plainly appears that whatever inconsistency may be chargeable to the Federalists was incurred in opposition to the acquisition of foreign territory; and whatever inconsistency may be chargeable to the Republicans was incurred in defense of the policy of foreign acquisition and territorial expansion. The following extracts from the speeches delivered in the Senate during this famous debate will serve to locate the center of opposition to the policy of territorial expansion, and to present some of the reasons of that opposition. The seven votes against the confirmation of the treaty were all from the Northeast. All the opponents urged constitutional objections. Some of them also expressed strong objections to the treaty on the grounds of public policy and sectional interests. (Annals of Congress, 1803-1804, pp. 33, 34.) Said Mr. Samuel White, of Delaware: ‘But as to Louisiana, this new, immense, unbounded world, if it should ever be incorporated into this Union, which I have no idea can be done, except by altering the Constitution, I believe it would be the greatest curse that could at present befall us * * * Louisiana must and will become settled, if we hold it, and with the very population that would otherwise occupy part of our present territory. * * * We have already territory enough, and when I contemplate the evils that may arise to these states from this intended incorporation of Louisiana into the Union, I would rather see it given to France, to Spain, or to any other nation of the earth upon the mere condition that no citizen of the United States should ever settle within its limits. * * * Supposing that this extent of territory was a desirable acquisition, $15,000,000 was an enormous sum to give.’ What would Senator White say if he were now living and could read the tax lists of the states erected from this territory for just one year?
Mr. Uriah Tracy, of Connecticut, said: ‘And this