Question on the Louisiana Purchase

So I don't know if it is true or not but I heard that the Louisiana Purchase had a very strong opposition and that it was actually approved by a very slim margin when voted for in congress. I checked wiki (I know its wiki and unreliable but thats why I am asking) and it seems it is true it also said some congressmen argued that the territory belong to spain and not france to as part of the reason the purchase should not go through.
So my question is
Why was there opposition for the purchase to happen? And could it have been possible for it to not be accepted and for the US not to expand westward?
The question is kinda bugging me and any insight would be appreciated.
 
So I don't know if it is true or not but I heard that the Louisiana Purchase had a very strong opposition and that it was actually approved by a very slim margin when voted for in congress. I checked wiki (I know its wiki and unreliable but thats why I am asking) and it seems it is true it also said some congressmen argued that the territory belong to spain and not france to as part of the reason the purchase should not go through.
So my question is
Why was there opposition for the purchase to happen?

The Spanish/French ownership question was definitely part of it. More importantly, though, was the constitutional question. Since this was early on in our Constitution's lifetime, we hadn't really banged out a lot of specifics and applications yet. A lot of people really weren't sure whether it was Constitutionally legal or not to do the purchase.

And could it have been possible for it to not be accepted and for the US not to expand westward?
The question is kinda bugging me and any insight would be appreciated.

It really depends on what goes on with Louisiana. I'd guess, in the end, it'd halt westward expansion. Americans wouldn't have the same sort of inertia for manifest destiny, so there'd be a lack of interest. If we see Britain take over large parts (or all) of Louisiana after the Napoleonic Wars, it'd make it that much harder for the US to get that land. A war of conquest against Britain would be out of the question; we'd get curbstomped. The War of 1812 was more or less a pro-British stalemate (aka loss), and that was with the bulk of the British forces engaged in Europe. A purchase, as OTL is unlikely; Britain didn't need the money. America wouldn't have the same sort of influence on boundary disputes, so that's pretty much out of the question. Overall, it'd be very difficult to get its hands on a British Louisiana.

If Louisiana stays French, then it depends on Franco-American relations after the Napoleonic Wars. America was pretty friendly with France at that point OTL. We could see a bankrupt post-Napoleon purchase (or even just one later on in the wars). At this point, expansion west is probably similar to OTL, but at a slower pace. Britain probably gets somewhat better border deals, since it has an extra decade to assert its claim.
 
The main selling point of the LA purchase was that the US gained New Orleans, something the nation had wanted very much for decades (the US tried to buy just the city several times)... with this, the US had effective control of the Mississippi river, it's branches, and it's outlet... for shipping purposes, it gave the US everything it wanted... thus, although there were theoretical Constitutional questions about the purchase, on a practical level, it was accepted by the vast majority...
 
So I don't know if it is true or not but I heard that the Louisiana Purchase had a very strong opposition and that it was actually approved by a very slim margin when voted for in congress. I checked wiki (I know its wiki and unreliable but thats why I am asking) and it seems it is true it also said some congressmen argued that the territory belong to spain and not france to as part of the reason the purchase should not go through.
So my question is
Why was there opposition for the purchase to happen? And could it have been possible for it to not be accepted and for the US not to expand westward?
The question is kinda bugging me and any insight would be appreciated.
The Louisiana Purchase region was actually retroceded back to France, from Spain in 1800, but the retrocession wasn't formalized until November, 1803, about a month before France sold Lousiana to the US on 20 December, 1803, to finance Napoleon's wars in Europe. There was some opposition to the purchase of Louisiana. As to actual reason for opposition, could have been money, or other reasons. (need to check on that) Some in Congress wanted to purchase just the New Orleans area, but Napoleon basically said "Buy all of Louisiana, or no deal". So, Napoleon could have possibly sold it back to Spain or some other major European power that wasn't under the Napoleonic umbrella, if the deal w/ the US fell through and failed. The chance of such a scenario actually playing out as described is extremely slim to zilch.
 
Last edited:
I believe that some Republicans had serious Constitutional questions but Jefferson was able to impose party discipline and a large majority of his party supported the treaty and the appropriation bills necessary to buy and administer the new territory. By this time the Republicans had large majorities in both houses of Congress.
A large number of Federalists opposed the purchase on the grounds that most of the new land was worthless wilderness or, in the alterniative, that it would be carved into a large number of new states with large Republican majorities, thus making the original 13 states (and the Federalists) a permanent minority in the U.S.
Alexander Hamilton:) was one of the few Federalists who took a longer view and said that, on balance, it was a good deal for the country. However, he couldn't stop himself from pointing out that Jefferson was violating his "strict construction" principles by doing the deal. Sadly, Hamilton was killed before he could turn his entrepenurial talents to the new lands or see their success.
 
I'd think the US gets most of it anyway- the UK tells them its going spare and they should just take it...except the UK will be having New Orleans.
 
The main selling point of the LA purchase was that the US gained New Orleans, something the nation had wanted very much for decades (the US tried to buy just the city several times)... with this, the US had effective control of the Mississippi river, it's branches, and it's outlet... for shipping purposes, it gave the US everything it wanted... thus, although there were theoretical Constitutional questions about the purchase, on a practical level, it was accepted by the vast majority...

Are there any TL where US buys just New Orleans early on, and the rest of Louisiana territory stays out of US hands?
 
Top