You didn't attach the map, but I can tell you that what the USA purchased from France in 1803 is known as the <u>Louisiana Purchase</u>. I've attached a map which shows that territory.
Here's some additional information/context:
The Louisiana Purchase doubled the size of United States territory and guaranteed US control of the Mississippi River. President Thomas Jefferson and those favoring the Louisiana Purchase justified it as an act done for the good of the country.
Initially, President Jefferson had commissioned James Monroe and Robert Livingston to negotiate a deal with France to acquire New Orleans or all or part of Florida, as a means of avoiding the potential of an armed conflict in such areas. What they found out was that Napoleon was already set to sell a much wider range of territory to the United States, to finance his European wars.
But then there was a constitutional crisis back home. Did the President have the authority under the constitution to make such a major addition to the nation's territory and spend the nation's funds to do so? Jefferson himself considered pursuing a constitutional amendment, but his Cabinet members disagreed and the measure was sent to Congress for approval. In a statement he made at the time, Jefferson justified the purchase with this analogy: "“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’m pretty sure it’s true
Answer:
Madison in his essay 'Federalist No. 10' asserts that republic form of government is benefical just as Union controls the States, so does Republic controls over democracy, to control the factions in government.
Explanation:
'Federalist No. 10' is an article penned by James Madison. The article is now included in the series of 'The Federalist Papers' commenced by Alexander Hamilton. The article was published on November 22, 1782 under pseudonym 'Publus.'
In his article, Madison argues that a republic government is beneficial over a democratic government as it will avoid the factions, which can overturn the wants of minority with the rule of majority v. minority.
He relates the republic government to the Union and democratic government to the States. By relating these, he exemplifies that just as Union has control over the States, so has the republic government control over the democratic government, which possess the power of ruling over the factions.
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Although there are no options provided, we can say the following.
John Marshall's approach was different from the role envisioned for the court by the writers of the Constitution in that Marshall believed the United States Constitution granted strong federal powers; Jefferson did not.
John Marshall was a federalist. Thomas Jefferson was not. He was an anti-federalist. Then, Marshall considered the idea of a strong central government. On the other side, Jefferson thought that a strong government was not the better option for a new nation, and even worse, a strong federal government could turn into a tyranny.
It was the The Battle of Antietam during the Civil War that was the bloodiest single day in American history--with he battle leaving roughly 23,000 men killed or wounded.
