Throughout history, many disputes were presented when solving an issue. There were many arguments over the Louisiana purchase and the expansion of slavery in the new territories. The different views of a strict constructionist and a loose constructionist made the Louisiana purchase very difficult for Thomas Jefferson. Likewise, the expansion of slavery into the new territories was a very challenging decision between the Abolitionists and the South. A difference in opinion caused different arguments for expanding slavery and the Louisiana purchase.
Many saw the Louisiana purchase as a huge waste of money. As stated in document 6, “Jefferson’s political opponents in the Federalist Party argued that the Louisiana purchase was a worthless desert” (Document 6). The Federalist party argued that the purchase was a waste of money because there was nothing there to …show more content…
The Missouri Compromise divided the nation into two separate parts, free or slave states. Popular sovereignty allowed the states to choose whether or not they would be free. As read in the text, “What then we do insist on, is, not to extend slavery, but that we shall not be prohibited from immigrating with our property, into the Territories of the United States” (Document 8). The South wanted to bring slavery with them and believed they had the right to do so. Although, in the North it was decided that slavery would be abolished and they would all be free states. In Document 9 it states, “‘No persons should be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law’” (Document 9). They believe that no person should be treated as a slave or be seen as property. It was also every important to keep an even amount of free and slave senators. As shown in document 7b, after many debates and arguing, California came in as a free state. There were many arguments on expanding slavery into the
Many saw the Louisiana purchase as a huge waste of money. As stated in document 6, “Jefferson’s political opponents in the Federalist Party argued that the Louisiana purchase was a worthless desert” (Document 6). The Federalist party argued that the purchase was a waste of money because there was nothing there to …show more content…
The Missouri Compromise divided the nation into two separate parts, free or slave states. Popular sovereignty allowed the states to choose whether or not they would be free. As read in the text, “What then we do insist on, is, not to extend slavery, but that we shall not be prohibited from immigrating with our property, into the Territories of the United States” (Document 8). The South wanted to bring slavery with them and believed they had the right to do so. Although, in the North it was decided that slavery would be abolished and they would all be free states. In Document 9 it states, “‘No persons should be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law’” (Document 9). They believe that no person should be treated as a slave or be seen as property. It was also every important to keep an even amount of free and slave senators. As shown in document 7b, after many debates and arguing, California came in as a free state. There were many arguments on expanding slavery into the