TITLE: To Albert Gallatin.
DATE: Jan. 1803

There is no constitutional difficulty as to the acquisition of territory, and whether, when acquired, it may be taken into the Union by the Constitution as it now stands, will become a question of expediency. I think it will be safer not to permit the enlargement of the Union but by amendment of the Constitution. —

TITLE: To John Dickinson.
PLACE: Monticello
DATE: Aug. 1803

There is a difficulty in this acquisition which presents a handle to the malcontents among us, though they have not yet discovered it. Our confederation is certainly confined to the limits established by the Revolution. The General Government has no powers but such as the Constitution has given it; and it has not given it a power of holding foreign territory, and still less of incorporating it into the Union. An amendment of the Constitution seems necessary for [Col 2] this. In the meantime, we must ratify and pay our money, as we have treated, for a thing beyond the Constitution, and rely on the nation to sanction an act done for its great good, without its previous authority. —

TITLE: To John C. Breckenridge.
PLACE: Monticello
DATE: Aug. 12, 1803

The Constitution has made no provision for our holding foreign territory, still less for incorporating foreign nations into our Union. The Executive in seizing the fugitive occurrence [Louisiana purchase] 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; I pretend to no right to bind you: 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 lines. —

TITLE: Drafts of an Amendment to the Constitution.
DATE: July. 1803

The province of Louisiana is incorporated with the United States, and made part thereof. The rights of occupancy in the soil, and of self-government are confirmed to the Indian inhabitants, as they now exist. Preemption only of the portions rightfully occupied by them, and a succession to the occupancy of such as they may abandon, with the full rights of possession as well as of property and sovereignty in whatever is not or shall cease to be so rightfully occupied by them shall belong to the United States. The Legislature of the Union shall have authority to exchange the right of occupancy in portions where the United States have full right for lands possessed by Indians within the United States on the east side of the Mississippi: to exchange lands on the east side of the river for those of the white inhabitants on the west side thereof and above the latitude of 31 degrees: to maintain in any part of the province such military posts as may be requisite for peace or safety: to exercise police over all persons therein, not being Indian inhabitants: to work salt springs, or mines of coal, metals and other minerals within the possession of the United States or in any others with the consent of the possessors; to regulate trade and intercourse between the Indian inhabitants and all other persons; to explore and ascertain the geography of the province, its productions and other interesting circumstances; to open roads and navigation therein where necessary for beneficial communication; and to establish agencies and factories therein for the cultivation of commerce, peace and good understanding with the Indians residing there. The Legislature shall have no authority to dispose of the lands of the province otherwise than as hereinbefore permitted, until a new amendment of the Constitution shall give that authority. Except as to that portion thereof which lies south of the latitude of 31 degrees; which whenever they deem expedient, they may erect into a territorial government, either separate or as making part with one on the eastern side of the river, vesting the inhabitants thereof with all the rights possessed by other territorial citizens of the United States.

Louisiana, as ceded by France to the United States is made a part of the United States. Its white inhabitants shall be citizens, and stand, as to their rights and obligations on the same footing with other citizens of the United States in analogous situations. Save only that as to the portion thereof lying north of an east and west line drawn through the mouth of the Arkansas river, no new State shall be established, nor any grants of land made, other than to Indians in exchange for equivalent portions of land occupied by them, until authorized by further subsequent amendment to the Constitution shall be made for these purposes.

Florida, also, whenever it may be rightfully obtained, shall become a part of the United States. Its white inhabitants shall thereupon be citizens, and shall stand, as to their rights and obligations, on the same footing with other citizens of the United States, in analogous situations. —

TITLE: To John C. Breckenridge.
DATE: Aug. 18 1803

I wrote you on the 12th instant, on the subject of Louisiana, and the constitutional provision which might be necessary for it. A letter received yesterday shows that nothing must be said on that subject, which may give a pretext for retracting; but that we should do, sub silentio, what shall be found necessary. Be so good as to consider that part of my letter as confidential. —

TITLE: To James Madison.
PLACE: Monticello
DATE: Aug. 1803

Further reflection on the amendment to the Constitution necessary in the case of Louisiana, satisfies me it will be better to give general powers, with specified exceptions. —

TITLE: To Levi Lincoln.
PLACE: Monticello
DATE: Aug. 1803

On further consideration as to the amendment to our Constitution respecting Louisiana, I have thought it better, instead of enumerating the powers which Congress may exercise, to give them the same powers they have as to other portions of the Union generally, and to enumerate the special exceptions. [* * *] The less that is said about any constitutional difficulty, the better; and [* * *] it will be desirable for Congress to do what is necessary, in silence. —

TITLE: To Wilson C. Nicholas.
PLACE: Monticello
DATE: Sep. 1803

Whatever Congress shall think it necessary to do, should be done with as little debate as possible, and particularly so far as respects the constitutional difficulty. I am aware of the force of the observations you make on the power given by the Constitution to Congress, to admit new States into the Union, without restraining the subject to the territory then constituting the United States. But when I consider that the limits of the United States are precisely fixed by the treaty of 1783, that the Constitution expressly declares itself to be made for the United States, I cannot help believing that the intention was to permit Congress to admit into the Union new States, which should be formed out of the territory for which, and under whose authority alone, they were then acting. I do not believe it was meant that they might receive England, Ireland, Holland, &c., into it, which would be the case on your construction. When an instrument admits two constructions, the one safe, the other dangerous; the one precise, the other indefinite, I prefer that which is safe and precise. I had rather ask an enlargement of power from the nation, where it is found necessary, than to assume it by a construction which would make our powers boundless. Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction. I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty making power as boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution. If it has bounds, they can be no others than the definitions of the powers which that instrument gives. It specifies and delineates the operations permitted to the Federal Government, and gives all the powers necessary to carry these into execution. Whatever of these enumerated objects is proper for a law, Congress may make the law; whatever is proper to be executed by way of a treaty, the President and Senate may enter into the treaty; whatever is to be done by a judicial sentence, the judges may pass the sentence. Nothing is more likely than that their enumeration of powers is defective. This is the ordinary case of all human works. Let us go on, then, perfecting it, by adding, by way of amendment to the Constitution, those powers which time and trial show are still wanting. But it has been taken too much for granted, that by this rigorous construction the treaty power would be reduced to nothing. I had occasion once to examine its effect on the French treaty, made by the old Congress, and found that out of thirty odd articles which that contained, there were one, two or three only which could not now be stipulated under our present Constitution. I confess, then, I thought it important, in the present case, to set an example against broad construction, by appealing for new power to the people. If, however, our friends shall think differently, certainly I shall acquiesce with satisfaction; confiding, that the good sense of our country will correct the evil of construction whenever it shall produce ill effects. —

TITLE: Circular Letter to Cabinet Officers.
DATE: Feb. 1806

What would you think of raising a force for the defence of New Orleans in this manner? Give a bounty of 50 acres of land, to be delivered immediately, to every able-bodied man who will immediately settle on it, and hold himself in readiness to perform two years' military service (on the usual pay) if called on within the first seven years of his residence? The lands to be chosen by himself of any of those in the Orleans Territory, [* * *] each to have his choice in the order of his arrival on the spot, a proclamation to be issued to this effect to engage as many as will go on, and present themselves to the officer there; and, moreover, recruiting officers to be sent into different parts of the Union to raise and conduct settlers at the public expense? When settled there, to be well trained as militia by officers living among them? —

TITLE: To Albert Gallatin.
PLACE: Washington
DATE: Jan. 1807

Satisfied that New Orleans must fall a prey to any power which shall attack it, in spite of any means we now possess, I see no security for it but in planting on the spot the force which is to defend it. I therefore suggest to some members of the Senate to add to the volunteer bill now before them, as an amendment, some such section as that enclosed, which is on the principles of what we agreed on last year, except the omission of the two years' service. If, by giving one hundred miles square of that country, we can secure the rest, and at [Col 2] the same time create an American majority before Orleans becomes a State, it will be the best bargain ever made. —

TITLE: To John Dickinson.
PLACE: Washington
DATE: 1807

I propose to the members of Congress in conversation, the enlisting thirty thousand volunteers, Americans by birth, to be carried at the public expense, and settled immediately on a bounty of one hundred and sixty acres of land each, on the west side of the Mississippi, on the condition of giving two years of military service, if that country should be attacked within seven years. The defence of the country would thus be placed on the spot, and the additional number would entitle the Territory to become a State, would make the majority American, and make it an American instead of a French State. This would not sweeten the pill to the French; but in making the acquisition we had some view to our own good as well as theirs, and I believe the greatest good of both will be promoted by whatever will amalgamate us together. —

TITLE: Second Inaugural Address.
PLACE: [none given]
DATE: 1805

I know that the acquisition of Louisiana has been disapproved by some, from a candid apprehension that the enlargement of our territory would endanger its Union. But who can limit the extent to which the federative principle may operate effectively? The larger our association, the less will it be shaken by local passions; and, in any view, is it not better that the opposite bank of the Mississippi should be settled by our own brethren and children, than by strangers of another family? With which shall we be most likely to live in harmony and friendly intercourse? —

TITLE: To Robert R. Livingston.
PLACE: Washington
DATE: Feb. 1803

The opposition caught it as a plank in a shipwreck, hoping it would tack the western people to them. They raised the cry of war, were intriguing in all quarters to exasperate the western inhabitants to arm and go down on their own authority and possess themselves of New Orleans, and in the meantime were daily reiterating, in new shapes, inflammatory resolutions for the adoption of the House [of Representatives] . —

TITLE: To General Horatio Gates.
PLACE: Washington
DATE: July. 1803

These grumblers [the opposition] , too, are very uneasy lest the administration should share some little credit for the acquisition, the whole of which they ascribe to the accident of war. They would be cruelly mortified could they see our files from May, 1801 [April 1801 in Ford edition] , the first organization of the administration, but more especially from April, 1802. They would see, that though we could not say when war would arise, yet we said with energy what would take place when it should arise. We did not, by our intrigues, produce the war; but we availed ourselves of it when it happened. The other party saw the case now existing, on which our representations were predicted, and the wisdom of timely sacrifice. But when these people make the war give us everything, they authorize us to ask what the war gave us in their day? They had a war. What did they make it bring us? Instead of making our neutrality the ground of gain to their country, they were for plunging into the war. And if they were now in place, they would now be at war against the atheists and disorganizers of France. They were for making their country an appendage to England. We are friendly, cordially and conscientiously friendly to England. We are not hostile to France. We will be rigorously just and sincerely friendly to both. I do not believe we shall have as much to swallow from them as our predecessors had. —

TITLE: To John C. Breckenridge.
PLACE: Monticello
DATE: Aug. 1803

These federalists [who are raising objections against the vast extent of our boundaries] see in this acquisition [Louisiana] the formation of a new confederacy, embracing all the waters of the Mississippi, on both sides of it, and a separation of its eastern waters from us. These combinations depend on so many circumstances which we cannot foresee, that I place little reliance on them. We have seldom seen neighborhood produce affection among nations. The reverse is almost the universal truth. Besides, if it should become the great interest of those nations to separate from this, if their happiness should depend on it so strongly as to induce them to go through that convulsion, why should the Atlantic States dread it? But especially why should we, their present inhabitants, take side in such a question? When I view the Atlantic States, procuring for those on the Eastern waters of the Mississippi friendly instead of hostile neighbors on its western waters, I do not view it as an Englishman would the procuring future blessings for the French nation, with whom he has no relations of blood or affection. The future inhabitants of the Atlantic and Mississippi States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, and we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Mississippi descendants. It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, and keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better. —

TITLE: To John C. Breckenridge.
PLACE: Monticello
DATE: Aug. 1803

Objections are raising to the eastward against the vast extent of our boundaries, and propositions are made to exchange Louisiana, or a part of it, for the Floridas. But [* * *] we shall get the Floridas without, and I would not give one inch of the waters of the Mississippi to any nation, because I see in a light very impor [Col 2] tant to our peace the exclusive right to its navigation, and the admission of no nation into it, but as into the Potomac or Delaware, with our consent and under our police. —

TITLE: To Dupont de Nemours.
PLACE: Washington
DATE: 1803

Some inflexible federalists have still ventured to brave the public opinion. It will fix their character with the world and with posterity, who, not descending to the other points of difference between us, will judge them by this fact, so palpable as to speak for itself in all times and places. —

TITLE: To Robert R. Livingston.
PLACE: Washington
DATE: Nov. 1803

The federalists spoke and voted against it, but they are now so reduced in their numbers as to be nothing. —

TITLE: To James Monroe.
PLACE: Washington
DATE: Jan. 1804

The federal leaders have had the imprudence to oppose it pertinaciously, which has given an occasion to a great proportion of their quondam honest adherents to abandon them, and join the republican standard. They feel themselves now irretrievably lost. —