Going in depth with the government, especially the presidents, tough decisions were made and it was something America had to deal with. Was Thomas Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase a good cause? Was the Embargo Act really necessary? Let us discuss about the decisions that were made during the early years, (you guys can talk about the two mentioned above) and how it made an impact or not? Also what if, for example, the Louisiana Purchase never happened or Thomas being elected or anything that might not have happened and how it would have an effect on America today.
Jimmy WoooAlso this is something interesting that MEGAN CHAN FOUND, its a song by Ron Clark Academy about the presidential debate. Enjoy :)
16 comments:
First off Lousiana Purchase was a great investment on Jefersons behalf. Due to the fact even though it did cost 15million more than what Jefferson was expecting to pay, The United States did get a hugh amount of land, and control over the Mississippi River that gave The United States trading within the States. Also the Fact that the united States has the Idea of Becoming a big country and expanding from the start of the revolution; Lousiana Purchase makes this possible. When population grows America gets to handle it because the expand towards the west will not bring forth French hostility. On the other hand it did bring forth more Indian Hostility then leading towards toe war of 1812. Embargo was necessary in the mind set of those in Jeffersons time, but looking as a person far beyond those times it seems that it is not because as historians we knows how the Embargo ends. Though, as a person from Jeffersonian times might think otherwise because the French and the British did keep on giving the United States trouble. As a person from the present the idea of the embargo is ludicrous because it ended in utter failure. We as people will not fully understand how things would have changed if "Something" did not happen because there are multiple variations to what could happen "If" something did not happen. Butterfly effect, one thing changes it could change Everything. So for the last question it is unfair because we could never know what could have happen if for example Jefferson was not elected president. His policies could have never been passed by congress, could have never gon to war with Britain, end up as part of a British colony once again. The possibilities are endless
I agree with Ralph. The decision of Jefferson to buy the land was a great deal, especially with the cheap price for the land at the time. Without the land bought in the Louisiana Purchase, we would not be able to prosper as much, especially using the Mississippi River and the farming land in the west. If the French, kept the land, there could have also been more conflict throughout history, like through invasions since there is no big body of water surrounding the previously owned French land and the US.
video is beast just wanted 2 say that
While I do agree with both Megan and Ralph, I'd like to clarify a few points... First off, the deal was only 5 million more than jefferson expected; he already offered 10 million for New Orleans and the Mississippi. Also, had the French kept the land, it's be quite useless for invasions since it would be a colony vs. the mainland U.S. Sure, we'd be sandwiched between the French territory and France, but the Ocean still keeps us away from France. Of course, all I just said is only theory and propbably won't happen exactly, since no one can tell what the future or "could-be" situations are.
P.s. The video was pretty nice....I was laughing til I cried...
Without this purchase of land, there would be no westward expansion which ultimately leads to overpopulation of cities and nothing can come good out of that. Also then the French or the British would be a holder of a large chunk of the American territory which could only lead to conflict because of the overpopulation. I believe that if the overcrowding got to be too much, the American would ultimately have an explosion and it could very well lead to a huge war; so it was better off that Napoleon was getting rid of the property because without it, there would have been major problems
But if you put it like that, if America was "cramped" into such space, wouldn't minds also work faster to try and adapt to the situation? technological improvements would come faster, and when the time came, it would easily overpower the French to expand. Of course that's just one scenario.
Don't forget napolean was doing his best trying to conquer Europe, so why not take the opportunity to try and conquer New Orleans (original goal) by force?
Sure, I agree with you that avoiding all this conflict seems good, but just because it happenned as a positive event in history doesn't make it the best. There always could have been more positive or negative ways history could've played out.
Adding on to the $15 million Louisiana Purchase and the relevance it had today, America wouldn't have an expansion of land and wouldn't have a foundation of future major power. Also, Lewis and Clark's discovery of knowledge of the Indians in the region wouldn't have been observed and the exploration of present day Montana.
Thomas Jefferson's presidency had an impact and the Embargo Act of 1807 wouldn't be passed, military budget wouldn't be cut, Alien and Sedition Acts wouldn't be permitted to slip, and also the plans to get rid of the public debt. He made important decisions that ultimately had an effect on society today such as the Louisiana Purchase and the negotiation with Napoleon. Without it, there would have been no expansion in the west. Also, the war with Britain would possibly not have been fought.
although no one knows what could have happened, my theory is that if Jefferson had chosen not to purchase Louisiana there would have been future conflict between the French and Americans with the British thrown somewhere in there. If the purchase had not happened, it is very likely that there would be multiple countries on this continent. As far as the Embargo Act, it was not necessary. It in effect really achieved nothing except British anger.
Without the Louisiana Purchase, although we couldn’t possibly even begin to make an accurate guess about what happened, I believe America would not have expanded, economically and politically, as it did. Receiving Louisiana and a large chunk of land west of the Mississippi allowed the expansion ball to get rolling. After receiving that, Americans moved west and were able to improve the economy by farming and implementing a railroad and ferry system in different areas. This not only aided American economy but also lessened the quite large sectional gaps in the country. One of the biggest changes made by the land acquired from the Louisiana Purchase was political. President Andrew Jackson (president from 1829-1837), an advocate of the west, helped outline the formation on the new democrat party by showing his western behavior and ideas. As the Democratic Party formed, the Whig party (presidents from this party include Harrison and Taylor in office by 1841) also began to flower from the Democratic Republican party of Thomas Jefferson’s time. Without the Louisiana Purchase, America would have suffered a lack of expansion in economy, politics, and land acquisition. Now, for the Embargo Act of 1807, there would have been no negative outcome if it had never been passed. The Embargo Act created tension between America, Britain, and France and was one major factor leading to the War of 1812. Without the Act, war could have been prevented which would have led to peace between the Americans and British, which was well on its way until the Act was passed. Also, the Embargo Act severely hurt the American economy as a whole as well as the financial status of individuals. Because America was not trading with anyone, the farmers and manufactures had nobody to sell their goods to; there was no use in selling internally. When the Embargo Act failed and the non-Intercourse Act came into play, it was just as bad because the only countries available to trade with did not require as many good and were already buying from others (meaning competition for America). Finally, when Macon’s Bill No. 2 was passed, America still only had one trading partner and was falling economically because their biggest trade partner, Britain, was being shunned. Manufactures were not receiving as many orders for goods, and demand dropped, meaning the farmers did not have to send as many materials to the manufactures and had crops that were wasted, meaning wasted money. People constantly had to borrow money from the banks and factories closed because they weren’t making enough money to remain open. Some farmers even lost their farms because they were wasting too much money planting crops they couldn’t sell. There was no circulation of capital. In general, the Embargo Act was a bad decision and all of America would have probably been better off without it economically and socially (with Britain).
I believe that Jefferson had a reasonable incentive in conducting the Louisiana purchase agreement. First off, he was one of the first people to see the importance that westward expansion could bring, and therefore took an possibility in acquiring land past their already existing borders. He realized that since much of America was agriculture-support based, his farmers would soon need more land to cultivate, and therefore smartly doubled the size of America, allowing for economic and political expansion.
The Embargo Act was necessary in the sense that had it not been passed, American citizens would be continued to be put in a peril beyond the protective arms of the government, in international waters, and in foreign ports. Jefferson passed it merely to ensure the safety of his fellow man and that trade transactions could occur smoothly and without tension. The economic consequences were very grim indeed, but the overall long-term effects justify this. Therefore, the ends justified the means.
It seems to me like all of us together can mention no negative result coming from the Louisiana Purchase. I originally accepted this but I have recently come to think that no action can produce only good results. There is good and bad in everything. If I had to pick one negative of the Louisiana Purchase, I would have to say that expansion into the west fueled the emergence of new political parties (the democrats that led to the Whigs) as well as universal white manhood suffrage. Our founding fathers, not believing that democracy would be an appropriate way to govern such a country, would have disapproved of this move toward democracy. Also, today some people don’t agree with the ability for all non-felons and United States citizens over 18 to vote because it puts the hands of everyone’s future in people that may not be “qualified” to vote. Let me play out what I mean by this. There is an average citizen in Florida, for example, named Connor. Connor is a smart guy, graduated top of his class, has a good job, a family, and is helpful to his community (race is not a matter here so I won’t name one). Well, let’s say Connor’s vote for president is the deciding vote for the “too close to call” state. Sadly, Connor hasn’t been keeping up with the candidates and decides to vote for the underdog. Connor’s vote has put 27 people in the Electoral College that will vote for a candidate that, low and behold, has policies that raise taxes severely and lowers the amount of tax dollars that aid education for big states to allow more money to go to education for small, rural states (obviously not what he wanted). This is a downside to democracy and what our founding fathers wished to prevent. This is what universal white manhood suffrage and new political parties led to. I’m not saying I dislike the system, I just want to make the point that to some people, westward expansion was negative and it would be interesting if we could know how America would have turned out had the Louisiana Purchase not happened. Would Andrew Jackson have been president? Would the Democrat and Whig party formed? Would the civil war have happened? Would we have been able to reach the America we have today?
Just something to ponder…
Thomas Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase was a good cause because it allowed America the opportunity to gain chunks off land and control over the mississippi river. All of these factors helped build a strong economic structure because the mississippi became a major way of trading ang hetting goods from one state to another thus keeping economics up.
The Embargo act was also an inportant decision made by Jefferson because without it in a way Jeffferson would not have the mind set that he was helping his country. but i agree with Ralph because we no the outcome we see the in-importance of it.
The embargo act was not really neccessary. First of all it stated that America was to stop trading with britian and France. The first person to agree to stop confiscating and disturbing the sailors that are at sea will be the people that America will continue to trade with them and only them. Like an intelligent leader Napolean told Jefferson that he would stop disturbing the sailors. Unfortunateluy at the time that Jefferson made the agreement to restart trade with France he did not no that Napolean was lying and would continue to cause trouble at sea. Britian was angered by this because Fance was trading with america but they weren't allowed to but yet France could and they were both disturbing the american ships. It was unnecessary because the same action that jefferson was trying to fight was the action that was not being stopped and though he made an attempt to force the countries to stop his effort did not work.
lol megan that was a great ideo and those kids really did a good jod discussing the issues. the song is a great inspiration and motivation to push people to get out and vote They did an excellent job!
Post a Comment