The general argument made by Walter LaFeber in The Louisiana Purchase: A Dangerous Precedent is that Jefferson created a dangerous precedent in the purchase of the Louisiana territory. More specifically, LaFeber argues that Jefferson turned the Constitution into a tool of expansion and showed, when the time was of the essence, the President and Congress could ignore the Constitution. As President of the United States, Jefferson saw the Louisiana territory, in the hands of the French, as a threat and a barrier to expansion. However, if Jefferson was able to purchase the Louisiana territory, he could solve the overpopulation problem and gain access to key trading areas. With no provisions in the Constitution allowing the president to annex the territory, Jefferson sought to draft an amendment to the problem. The treaty that sold the Louisiana, signed by Robert R. …show more content…
Building pressures from Napoleon and the king of Spain threatened the validity of the treaty. As a result, the Democratic-Republicans pushed the treaty through Congress. When Federalists asked for proof that Napoleon rightfully obtained Louisiana, a document that did not exists, Democratic-Republicans voted it down; both in the House and in the Senate. With the successful purchase of the Louisiana territory, Jefferson divided the region into two districts and created a government in which the Constitution did not apply. Therefore, the rights of the individuals, which was supposed to be provided by the treaty, were not protected by the Constitution. Jefferson’s broad view of the Constitution “out Hamiltoned Hamilton” and demonstrated the power of the president which would affect future presidencies down the road. In conclusion, LaFeber believes the Louisiana Purchase set a dangerous precedent because it enabled the stretching or violation of Constitution for the national