RE: should President Thomas Jefferson have properly been impeached for any of the following causes--1) purchasing the Louisiana Territory without Constitutional authority.
    The constitutional objections were two, and the first was more important to Jefferson himself than to almost anyone else: the prima facie inconsistency between his scruples about strict construction vs. implied powers and the need to move quickly for obvious American advantage lest Napoleon change his mind.... In other words, the politicians most inclined to voice an ideological objection on procedural grounds were so strongly in favor of the acquisition that they wouldn't complain (even John Taylor of Caroline favored it), while the New Englanders who had strong reservations about the acquisition of Louisiana were already very comfortable with an expansive reliance on implied powers.
   The second objection had more to do with questions about extending American citizenship to the inhabitants of Louisiana (and conversely about the extent to which _their_ wishes should have been consulted in the matter) especially since they were "foriegners" and Indians.
   At a conference last week in St. Louis, Peter Kastor reminded us that since Pres Jefferson was out of the country during the Phil Convention and the ratification contest, he doubtless relied on his secretary of state for insight into what we might call "original intent" - and if anyone in the world could speak for what the Founders had in mind, it would have been Madison.
   These are interesting details (e.g., I'll be treating them in my book on the La Purchase slated for publication this time next year) but I'm afraid I don't see any utility or advantage to be gained by trying to discuss either in the context of a hypothetical impeachment.
Jon Kukla

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html