ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 17 ก.ย. 2024
- View full lesson: ed.ted.com/less...
When the French offered up the Louisiana Territory, Thomas Jefferson knew this real estate deal was too good to pass up. How did the President justify the purchase that doubled the size of the United States? Judy Walton provides President Jefferson's reasoning.
Lesson by Judy Walton, animation by Sumit Seru, Rohit Tandon and Kevin Jaako.
She legit just summarized 3 weeks of my Social Studies class in about 4 minutes.
We did this in one day in my APUSH class...
Word!
@@warasyaqub3792 like 5 min in mine, it wasn't a complex event, Jefferson just did a sike move and bought a huge tract of land from Napoleon.
@@WhalesHaveLegs a sike move 😂
Heres everything she said but edited for notes ;)
Thomas Jefferson, the author of the declaration of independence, was not a fan of the New Constitution (1787). He was worried that the constitution gave too much power to the new, national government, and not enough power to the states, an issue known as “Big Government”. Jefferson only reluctantly agreed to support it when James Madison promised to propose a bill of rights after it was ratified. But Jefferson’s fears about big government did not go away. For example, Secretary of the treasury, Alexander Hamilton, proposed a national bank in 1790, and Jefferson knew there was no provision in the constitution to permit such a thing. Hamilton claimed implied power. Jefferson didn’t buy it and the bank was established by Hamilton and President Washington. When Jefferson was sworn in as president in 1801, he pledged to reduce the size and scope of the national government. But things didn’t go as planned and Spain secretly transferred the Louisiana territory to France. When Congress found out, they quickly began discussions with France to buy a piece of the territory along the Mississippi River for about $2 million. But Jefferson knew there was no provision in the constitution to buy foreign territory. So, he tried to get an amendment to the constitution passed that would expressly permit the purchase, but Congress wasn’t willing to do it. Then, without permission, the U.S. negotiators in France cut a deal for all the territory for $15 million. The new land doubled the size of the nation. Jefferson knew that the territory would be a great acquisition for the country, providing lots of new land for farmers and other settlers, but how could he constitutionally justify it? In the end, Jefferson turned to the argument used by Alexander Hamilton. He claimed that the power to purchase the territory is implied in The Constitution’s treaty-making power (the same argument he mocked before).
THANK YOU
THANK YOU YOU JUST SAVED MY LIFE
THANK YOU SO MUCHH!!!
Anyone watching this for schooling during Quarantine? 🙋♂️
@Wolf 👏👏
🙋♂️
me
Yep
💅
the animation in this is so fluid and bouncy, its really fun to watch. Sumit Seru did a real good job.
"The greatest trade deal in the history of the United States."-Donald Trump
Unfortunaly for us 😒
Dan Calvano cause trump said something positive about so now its bad XD
@@lordbucket3811 lol, orange man bad. I swear if Trump said pizza was the best, all those idiots would pledge to abstinence from pizza.
@Rudy Tapani he won :)
@Rudy Tapani why not. Our guy isn’t gonna win every year. Stuff happens. Now let’s support Biden, hope he does a good job, and wait until four years later
Anyone else here because of their teacher?
yup
Me 😤
Yup
@Nikolas Carr hi
*their*
The French after realizing they sold a whole bunch of land for only 3 cents an acre: 👁👄👁
Good deal, lousiana would have been invaded anyway
@@unbonfrancophone1539 still a bad deal
they need money fast, because they are it war with basically everyone in europes.
Every politician is principled until they get in office.
So, no politician is principled, especially when they get into office?
Arie Fraiser what about Coolidge
a rigid morality is a weak one.
@@azzzanadra No. More like pragmatism prevail.
@@HusseinDoha how is that different from what I said?
The ten dollar founding father without a father...
got a lot farther by workin a lot harder
by being a self-starter
And everyday while slaves were being slaughtered and carted away,
yeah maybe those African kings should have sold their prisoners of tribal warfare into slavery
should not have
Expanding the size of the country and expanding the power of the government over the people are two very different concepts. The threat of “big government” applies to the federal government possessing too much power that threatens the private lives of its citizens. Jefferson did not make a “big government” play, in doing this, he did nothing to increase the federal governments privileges or abilities over that of the state and local governments. Also, purchasing land can be much easier defended by the Constitution rather than the institution of a national bank. Schools are funded and are provided curriculum by the government, therefore they naturally support them in their teaching methods. My middle school U.S. history teacher and my current AP U.S. history teacher (both belonging to the left) exaggerated the point made in this video, claiming that this proved that a larger national government would be the solution to the country’s problems, and the most effective way to govern a country. However, as I’ve already stated, increasing federal power over citizens and domestic matters and allowing the growth of the country do not relate to one another. History should be taught from a neutral perspective, and students should be properly educated over multiple viewpoints towards an event so that they can form their own ideas and political stance. They should not be spoon fed reasonings from only one side of the political spectrum (right or left) and taught to believe in only one understanding of history as it relates to politics.
The too much power was buying the land that was the “big government” he was worried about not expanding the physical size of the country
@BlueStar Playz Yup. History's written by the winners.
Why do I feel like you had to write this for school. Then was like, "I'm just going to copy and paste it, into a youtube comment section."
How is it not a big government play? What if a state or local government wanted to purchase the land from France? What about an individual? It was definitely a big government play and it turned out to be a good one. Just like the "big government" that freed the slaves.
Rules for thee but not for me. This is what big government is. If they start colouring outside the line, when will it stop? Hence the justification “implied” in the constitution
3:00 that isn't a contradiction from Jefferson in that specific point. Big government, as you said earlier, refers to a lack of limitations on the national government with very little power for state and local governments. Increasing the size of the country doesn't mean its big government. In that phrase, big means powerful rather than physical size.
Pretty flawed analysis
I thought the exact same thing!
Yes, but it references the size of acquisition to drive home the point that he had to increase the power of the National Government to make such a big purchase.
0:52 "Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton..."
Me: *YEAH!!!*
...
Sorry, I got a little excited there. The damn musical is ruining my life.
hahahahah i did the same thing
The Kraken Experiment
Same tho
Huh???
Huh???
Huh???
Jefferson, using the same excuse he'd argued with Hamilton over: it's... implied.
Hamilton, from heaven: HA
nerd
Haiti was the richest slave colony, overthrew their slave Masters and became free. Jan 1.1804. Haiti ended Napoleon's dreams of an empire on the western hemisphere so he sold the territory to U.S. [that's the real story]
TopNotch Herbalist
I heard that it was because he needed money to take over the world 😂
Even the "Founding Fathers" manipulated the language of the constitution to rationalize their actions.
It's a living constitution
The framers implied it all, this is the failed lesson that conservatives on the Supreme Court failed to realize.
Video: "Alexander Hamilton"
Me: *recites entire musical* Oops, my bad, must have had something caught in my throat
@AAP that's fair
I agree with you. This is much too simplistic but I guess they wanted to make it witty and fun within 4 minutes. :)
So in short, everyone screws Tommy, and he decides to do a switch-a-roo
i just started laughing uncontrollably-
Wasn't the best real estate deal in United States' history colonization? $0.00 < $0.03
Your point is somewhat invalid. The Constitution does give the President and the Senate jurisdiction over Treaties, which a large scale land purchase from another nation is reasonably considered as such since the deifinition of treaty is that of "a formally concluded and ratified agreement between countries", To compare this to the constitutionally compromising origins of the First Bank of the US is just ludicrous. Treaty jurisdiction is explicitly stated in the constitution, whereas there was no mention of a central bank or centralized monetary system other than precious metals in the constitution.
I can't stop laughing. Congress said no and he just did it anyway. And no cared afterwards.
mood
No, they (at least those that see this video) are going that Jefferson believed the government should be limited in scope to what powers constitution granted it, then Jefferson made the purchase contrary to his own view point and defended it with language he had previously mocked.
I think that most agree that no government and totalitarianism are both bad. The question every generation faces is what is the right balance between individual right, state powers and federal powers.
and that's what politics is: saying "I'll never do it....until I do it."
am watching this because of school and now have to write two paragraphs on this 😃
That sucks
I greatly enjoyed the graphics that tightly coordinated with the narrative.
"chicken nuggets in a zip lock bag,"
How was the Louisiana Purchase the greatest irony of Thomas Jefferson's presidency?
Anayeli Cuellar wasn't Jefferson filed for bankruptcy before his death?
He had to go against his own beliefs of a weak federal government and give the federal government a lot of power in order to buy the Louisiana Territory.
Americans, as a general rule, aren't schooled much. I know folks (with their high school diplomas no less) who've never heard of people like Ferdinand Magellan, who don't know how to use apostrophes, who can't grasp their they're there.
It's pretty bad. But it's important to not be demeaning, just helpful.
very nice.
I am watching this for school :(
Sameeeee😭😭😭
The Louisiana Purchase was not a "move" made by Jefferson at all. He sent two negotiators to France to negotiate the sale of the New Orleans port, but instead, France offered the sale of the whole territory (for a number of reasons). The negotiators had to decide for themselves if they were going to buy the whole territory (and go beyond their agreed spending limit) because there was no fast way to communicate back to Jefferson. I would argue Jefferson had very little part in the Louisiana Purchase.
I'm here cuz of my teacher
Same m8 gaming turtle 36 faze sucks #greenwall optic gaming !
Same
I'm here because i want to see the bad choice that Napoléon made for us 🤦♂️
Jefferson was a strict constructionist, but he was also extremely pragmatic. He knew this was too good to pass up. And, it was included in a Treaty,, which he had the express power to do. This was a tremendous buy for the US, and the 1867 acquisition of Alaska , from Russia, was second. Those guys were quite right to fear big government - hence the Bill of Rights.
This is not necessarily a big government move. Especially considering how more states came out of the territories of the Louisiana purchase...
Jefferson really finessed France
She forgot to make mention that it was Moorish territory first. Part of the hidden history of these immigrants.
Kd Savage, I am interested in knowing more about the Moorish territory.
The argument wasn't that the Constitution implied the power to buy the land, it was that the Constitution granted the President the power to sign treaties. Jefferson worked with Congress to enact a treaty with France that would see the US buy Louisiana. Not only was the move perfectly Constitutional, Jefferson did not need to bend the Constitution and stayed true to his principles.
I think you're right. Just from all the hate speech coming from the right over the past several years, they've really tainted the term "big government". I do associate it as a term used primarily for attacks.
Thus, I would think that they could use a different term perhaps, and yet still make it simple enough for kids to understand.
I'm just re-watching it now. And I see that it wasn't just *Big Government*, but also the discussion about the National Bank, and again the narrator emphasis.
I do watch it at school
By 1803, Napoleon was going bankrupt fighting the Russians, Austrians, Prussians and British during the early years of the Napoleonic Wars. So Jefferson and Napoleon cut a deal because the two nations had one thing in common, they had added each other during the American Revolution and they were both sworn enemies of the British Empire. Napoleon would have done anything to watch the might of the British Empire fall and he agreed to sell to the Americans. During the Quasi-War of 1798, the American people wanted to declare war on the French but John Adams said no and made peace with Napoleon. That's right people, the US has been making deals with dictators since the days of the Second President!!! When Jefferson became president, he decided to expand American territory and buy the Louisiana Purchase, helping Napoleon's war against the British. Jefferson said "Hows about 15-million for the land and we dont go to war?" Napoleon: "Bet!!" The End :)
bruh I hate having to watch this cause of school who's with me
to be a good President you have to be pragmatic and swallow the bitter pill for the good of the country.
I agree completely. This video is totally in favor of Jefferson and his plans.
constitution of u s of a seems to be a seal on this puchase and so very important deal
This is a distortion of the event. Jefferson was thrilled to acquire the land to support the agrarian vision he had for the U.S. He opposed European-style capitalism as represented by Hamilton and the federalists. "Big government" is a modern term that doesn't accurately describe the issue.
Animation in this video is on point 👉🏻
No mention of Haiti...
The French perspective from the Napoleon side is missing in this video
1:38 hahaha
The contradiction gets even better. Take a look at HOW he financed the purchase. London investment bankers put together the deal, to raise money to loan the Americans, who gave it to the French, who used it to wage war with Britain.
Wow, I just found this channel, you sir, have one new subscriber!
Elbow room, elbow room
Hmm, unions with boundaries, how interesting. State flags tell a lot too, not too many flags wave confidence so there is a huge price to pay for that.
You do know, the buyers (aka your ancestors, if you are a not native American use citizen) were europeans too? Also the land was not of the native americans, since it was taken by force, but we know that if that had not happened and wasn't a practice, a great of the world population would still hunt with spears and live in tents (Including all the colonies, not just america)
....wow...wow....wow.... the US bought half of it's land from France?!
No need for insults. I'm very much aware of what the Louisiana Purchase is. Even if I weren't, they stated that exact same thing in the video. I was simply referring to the state which is the namesake of the purchase and the intent of the entire purchase in the first place. There's no reason at all for you to talk down to me.
So in a Nutshell, Jefferson became the very thing he swore to avoid
I see how you could have been lead to believe that the video was coming from a strongly biased position, however the orator was speaking from a third person view that followed Jefferson's point of view. As you should know, Jefferson's views align with the right wing's, so it makes sense that the video sounds to empathize with the right, though it is in fact not due to to satirical nature of the title and ending.
So much wrong here. The video isn’t saying “bigger country size = bigger government” at all. It’s saying that Jefferson’s *eventual* (he was very reluctant to do it, if not explicitly opposed, at first) choice to interpret the Constitution to suggest his and Congress’s implied authority (rather than one explicitly given) to buy foreign land, which open the door to an increase in the implied powers of the federal government that as of yet had been hotly debated, but instead became precedent for future Congresses, but especially future presidents ever since. Generally speaking, today’s (paleo)conservatives and libertarians (and some right-leaning moderates have decried Jefferson’s actions as “tyrannical” and executive “overreach”. Even Hamiltonian Federalists condemned and opposed the purchase, while Jeffersonian Democrats broadly supported it (it even caused the Federalists to expel then-Senator John Quincy Adams from their party and withdraw him from Congress, while Democrats embraced him; it also caused the Federalist former President John Adams to leave the party over the treatment of his son). So again, this *is* about Jefferson’s embrace of an flexible interpretation of the Constitution, but this isn’t about Jefferson being for either big or small govt. The purchase revealed his fundamental political principle: not “states’ rights” or “strict construction” or “small government”, but democracy, social progress, and a government that serves the people first (regardless of size). There’s a reason it’s called Jeffersonian *democracy*, not Jeffersonian minarchy, and why he explicitly identified himself with liberalism and radicalism (or “côte gauche”, that is left-wing, politics), not aristocracy or conservatism (or “côte droite”, that is right-wing”, politics). So it’s less about him “changing” his stance and more that government “of the people, by the people, for the people” (as Lincoln would later put it) will often necessitate moving between strict and loose interpretations so long as it benefits the people, and not concentrate wealth and power in the hands of a few as Hamilton and conservatives since have sought.
Even if it was biased, at least it would be a nice contrast to what kids learn in our government schools...
That's how we roll
can you explain to me how is this biased?
“Biggest ‘big government’ play in the US” I don’t know maybe, just maybe Japanese internment camps and affirmative action come first
yes
Mr. Williams Was Here!
LJ was here, gee Jefferson was such a hypocrite!
Wow you seem to be very... touched by this gentleman's comment. Mind I reccomend you this rage pill by Trool Pharamaceuticals?
Realized today that this channel is directed towards educating Americans and not the whole world...or like most Americans, TED Ed also thinks USA IS the world :(
Neither France or Spain had any right to own property in the Louisiana territory (there were property owners already there).
And the United States had neither the right or the Constitutional warrant to buy it.
But like so many mistakes of history, we have to learn to live with it.
We ain't giving it back.
But students should take it as a serious learning experience.
Whoah, I never learned about the political scale of this event. I only learned about "Manifest Destiny" and whatnot.
@Ooden Thurbar here
very good
How?
You're talking to Jimi Hendrix. He was stoned through school. Don'tcha know?
Thenagain, so was I....
I just love all of the negativity about the Louisiana Purchase. If you live in any part of the land that was encompassed in this, then you should move away immediately. You should have to forfeit all of your property and any financial gain you may have made while living there. You cannot measure historical events by modern concepts and ideas.
This is waaay over-complicated. Here's the real deal:
European Country: I make-believe 'own' this land (from here to there)
European Country 2: I accept your proposal of me 'purchasing' this land from you. *wink wink
Both European Countries: 'The blood isn't entirely on my hands'. (thus making it ok to straight take land)
Hi, do you think there’s is enough information to write my 5-10 double paged research paper on how the Louisiana Purchase affected Native American (culture and life in general) ?
There’s enough to write a thesis about that, particularly when you extend into Adams Onis, the boundary lands argument and it’s lead up to the Mexican cession.
I'm really disappoint that the reason they could buy Louisiana for so cheap was because of the Haitian revolution. That's a big piece of the story
His 2nd term is marked as the one of the worst 2nd terms in US history. But calling him a lousy president is a little too far.
Napoleon needed the money so the French were happy to sell it.
This historic transaction of course,led to the Lewis and Clark Expedition
Si hay algo positivo de los gobernantes estadounidenses de esa epoca es saber aprovechar el monento oportuno para realizar una magnifica anexion que expanda territorialnente a la reciente nacion americana.
Lousiana, Florida, Texas, Nuevo Mexico, California, Alaska, Hawaii, etc, son ejemplos que no importa como se anexa territorios ya sea en compras o guerras si no como la mira expansionista de hacer una gran patria desde las costas del atlantico hasta el pacifico y si no es poco llegar hasta Asia con las colonias de Filipinas y Guam, vemos que Estados Unidos no importanto quien este de gobernante lo que si interesa es la expansion territorial en hacer una inmensa patria todo esto como un proyecto de nacion, asi de grande se hizo, se convirtio, se es hoy los Estados Unidos.
Moraleja: Si algo se aprende de los presidentes estadounidenses es su decisivo empeño en heredar una nacion fuerte, desarrollada, potencia y no como en latinoamerica que por desinteres, torpeza, corrupcion, heredan a sus naciones atraso, subdesarrollo, pobreza, lo vemos hasta nuestros dias.
I agree that they could've used a better term, it sounded a bit out of place.
Sounds like a knee-jerk reaction to the words "big government", to me.
What did the United States get when it purchased the Louisiana territory from the French? Did the French have deeds to the property? Was not Louisiana a claim that the French had on the territory, and not a property right? So the United States acquired the "right" to move settlers into lands that were already settled by native Americans. Over the course of the 19th century the United States eviscerated the Indian Nations, both by murder and by broken treaties, and by placing them in concentration camps known otherwise as reservations. The central question is, did the United States have a right to an unmapped land that WAS populated by indigenous people, or was this (and manifest destiny) American imperialism?America is my home, though I am now living in Israel. I love my country and it's constitution. However, I have always gone beyond the idea that the government had the power to purchase Louisiana. I see it as colonialism and the idea of some of a continent wide nation without regard to the constitution or the people who we displaced in the process.I am not suggesting that we give it back or even reparations. Just that we know our history.
Only if you accept that what Israel did and is doing is the same thing. Not that I have any issue with what Israel is doing. It is because of the arabs constantly declaring war that Israel got so big. Just remember that almost every country in the world has kicked out a group of people at some point.
The Penguin Warriors I am a Jew and sympathetic to the Arabs who were displaced when they left in 1948 and then came back with the deed to their land only to be told that they had abandoned it. In that sense it is the same thing and Israel is concordant with the USA in that regard. However most of the Jews who came to Israel did not come from Europe (though many did) after the holocaust, but rather were refugees from Arab states that effectually threw them out (or made living there so impossible that leaving was the only option). So most of the Jews who assembled here in 1948 were refugees deprived of their property by Arab masters and found themselves in the exact same situation as the Arabs who were here. Also the Jewish immigration to Palestine did not begin after World War Two, but was a slow progression over many centuries, so that there was already an established Jewish community here, living under the British Mandate when the State of Israel was declared. Two wrongs don't make a right (and this puts me at odds with many of my Jewish brethren) but it adds some perspective, I think.
Joe Postove Most Jews in Israel today are European Jews. Maybe in 1948 it was different, but today most of the Jewish population did not come from Arab states.
The Penguin Warriors Today most are European, South African, Australian, British and American. What I meant to say, and perhaps was not clear enough in doing so, is that the first wave of immigration was largely Arab Jews.
Joe Postove I probably should have said Ashkenazi instead of European, but jews are leaving Europe in much larger rates than the Anglosphere.
My brain hurts
And thanks to him we got Mardi Gras😁
Yes me
so thomas jefferson was a real politician... went back on his words and lied... so its not just modern politics
Only here for my history homework...
@David Learmonth
Oh this story is mirrored by so many "big govment" opponents.
me looking for answers
How is talking about the views of a conservative being biased? The tone was somewhat anti-big government because that's what Jefferson believed. The video isn't endorsing or discrediting the issue, it's saying that it was an issue. And I'd like to point out just that way more videos are left wing than right wing on TEDed.
Biggest presidential hypocrite? Maybe, but this at least gives me some closure when thinking about our modern day president's hypocrisy, for example, "conservative" Reagan who spiked the national debt, or "liberal" Obama who continued the wars. If Jefferson could be forgiven, why can't today's presidents be?
My social studies teacher talked about this, and I really enjoy history. But now we are on the slavery thingy.
This guy has 2 million subscribbles and I never heard of him
😂
+Insanityle same
+Insanityle fr who is he???
+Pryceless Gaming I had no idea, but now... Yes, I see it, it's so clear how could have been so bli- it's TED-Ed idunno.
The Louisiana Purchase was for what is a third of the USA now not the state of Louisiana, where you not schooled much?
You do realize these videos are targeted towards elementary and middle school students right? Don't over-analyze the delivery of an immensely simplified issue and then make judgements upon it. That is not fair to the writers of the video, nor is it fair to people in the comments looking for further discussion.
Oh no! The "poor kids" might grow up to think differently than you! :O
What state are you from?
in new york you can be a new mannnnn
you mean we *can't use it