2006-09-15 14:02:57 · 11 answers · asked by Carla B 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
There are two main reasons why the Louisiana Purchase was technically illegal.
First the land officially was owned by Spain, but they were weak and couldn't oppose the french just claiming it. The Spanish had no substantial troops in the area.
Second Thomas Jefferson was required to get congressional approval before he purchased the land. So Jefferson was "subverting the constitution" by bypassing the house and senate. Presidents have been doing that for as long as we've been a country.
2006-09-15 14:24:22 · answer #1 · answered by coach_pearce 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no arguments at all.
the people that are bringing up the native americans really need to understand conquest. since the 'whites' didnt truly understand the native american way of life and their civilizations -- they viewed all native americans as 1 people. That 1 people sided against America in the revolution and therefore backed the wrong side. Throughout history, that was always a very bad thing for that society, and in this case led to its decimation.
2006-09-16 02:33:49 · answer #2 · answered by melvinschmugmeier 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The land was inhabited by Native Americans who had no say in the purchase of the Land and were forced off the reservations.
2006-09-15 14:10:35 · answer #3 · answered by Searcher 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
there is only one argument really the land didn't belong to France really after the french lost the french and Indian war it went to Spain. and after Spain wouldn't back Napoleon envision of Portugal he invaded Spain and put his brother throne and mad him give back the land France had lost in the war so in all truth we purchased stolen land but that the only argument u can give and Jefferson was going to get Congress approval but he knew he couldn't pass up such a great deal and Congress didn't appose to it once they realized what we got.
hope that helps
2006-09-15 14:57:30 · answer #4 · answered by ryan s 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
None, that was the best/greatest deal America has ever done! 15 Million for that much land, I call that a bargain!!
After posted: haha I love "trinitys" (person above me's) answer! that's probably the only argument you could make! good thinking!
2006-09-15 14:04:28 · answer #5 · answered by Hope 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would make no argument against it. It was necessary. We needed to keep European powers from meddling in America, and we also needed the Mississippi river free and clear, without having to make concessions to France, England, and/or Spain. It was inevitable. Sorry, Injuns, that's life.
Love, Jack.
2006-09-15 16:22:17 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Animals have male on male anal intercourse, and male/male anal intercourse is the only style of penetration wherein the penis without postpone stimulates a sexual organ (the prostate). Even in penis/vaginal intercourse the stimulation is oblique so the male anus is possibly stepped forward to be inspired with the help of anal intercourse. As for poop, so what, you place on a condom you do no longer even touch it. in case you bypass natch you run the threat of having a skinny layer of feces mixed with mucus (confident you have mucus on your anus), and to be user-friendly, except you're right on the verge of having to apply the restroom you many times do no longer carry feces on the hollow of your colon so something you get on your penis is the two a small volume of residual feces or mucus. and confident distinctive gay adult men douche till now they have anal intercourse. some adult men are downright (for loss of a extra effective term) ANAL approximately it. Douching feels relatively good so this is not like this is a extensive chore. So improve up human beings, and maximum gay intercourse btw is ORAL, a minimum of eighty, eighty 5% of it. Anal is extra of a "take a while and actually savour somebody you like plenty" style of intercourse except you're in user-friendly terms an entire skank.
2016-12-18 11:02:23 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The only arguement you may have is it that it didn't belong to France as the Indian nations were the true owners. Not France. ....I don't buy it, but at least it's an arguement.
2006-09-15 14:13:10 · answer #8 · answered by MikeB 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's the home of dozens of endangered species! We should rope it off so nobody can live there, or drill for oil, or build!
2006-09-15 17:31:42 · answer #9 · answered by shomechely 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hi! I'm an ***! And I'd argue against such a thing. If I had anything to stand on!!
2006-09-15 14:05:12 · answer #10 · answered by Johnny P 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋