How Did John Henry Adams Decision To Support Louisiana Purchase

John Quincy Adams’ decision to support the Louisiana Purchase put him at odds with the Federalist party and his colleagues in the Senate. His religious faith and faith in the future prosperity of the country (westward expansion) inspired his decision to vote “yes” on the Louisiana Purchase—a controversial proposition as the only Federalist that supported the acquisition. “His guiding star was the principle of Puritan statesmanship his father had laid down many years before: ‘The magistrate is a servant not of his own desires, not even of the people, but of his God’”. Nevertheless, the Puritan principle drove Adams to vote for the Embargo Act of 1807 as well, ultimately costing him his seat in the Senate.
“The country is so totally given

By following his conscience, he engaged in an act of civil disobedience in the Senate. Once called a political heretic, Adams defied the common tendency of freshman Senators to blindly follow the dictates of the party. “He denied the duty of elected officials ‘to be palsied by the will of their constituents’… by flattering their prejudices, by ministering to their passions, and by humoring their transient and changeable opinions.” I believe that John Quincy Adams understood the grave weight of his political decision. Nevertheless, meaningful progress and development within political institutions sometimes involves a reformation of its internal practices. A healthy democratic institution, such as the Senate, must have its ideas challenged, its ills corrected, and its widely-held views challenged and debated over the long run. I think Adams recognized this need, but had the foresight to understand that only time would prove his vote for the Louisiana Purchase was on the right side of

“Must men conscientiously risk their careers only for principles which in hindsight declares to be correct, in order for posterity to honor them for their valor?” At what point in time do we consider an unpopular action as a courageous act of leadership? Why do we regard some political actions as noble while others are not seen in a similarly positive light? Senator Kennedy makes no claim that all those who staked their careers to speak their minds were right. To the contrary, he argues that there are different degrees of courage. Additionally, it is also important to make note of the intention behind the act of courage. “Some demonstrated courage through their unyielding devotion to absolute principle. Others demonstrated courage through their acceptance of compromise, through their advocacy of conciliation, through their willingness to replace conflict with cooperation.” The volatile nature of debate in the Senate chamber changes, the majority and minority parties flip every almost Congressional session, and public opinion shifts with the political winds of the day. In light of these circumstances, conscientious leadership requires a keen sense of moral responsibility to legislate based on what is just, not politically expedient nor politically convenient. It requires personal sacrifice, internal strife, and struggle to push for meaningful policy