Louisiana Purchase Treaty Theme of Rules and Order

Sometimes deals are made on a handshake and a smile, and sometimes they require loads of complex contractual language and terms.

Guess which kind of deal the Louisiana Purchase was?

For anyone paying attention, the answer is clearly "complex contractual language and terms."

The treaty document may be full of big words and name- and title-drops, but the convention documents are where we really get into the nitty-gritty of how this whole Louisiana Purchase thing is really going to go down. Our plenipotentiaries weren't playing around.

Convention 1 deals with how the United States is going to pay France for the Louisiana Territory, and it is laid out in crazy detail.

The same goes for Convention 2, which outlines how France is going to pay back Americans to whom it owes money.

We're talking interest rates, payment locations, payment timing, who's eligible to make or receive payments, and even processes for applying for or appealing payments.

When things are laid out in explicit detail like this, it makes it easier for everyone involved to follow the rules, and it gives them a recourse if those rules aren't followed. When it comes to international treaties and cooperation, making sure everyone clearly understands instructions and expectations not only preserves that warm, fuzzy international friendship thing, but it also makes it way less likely that misunderstandings will escalate into something ugly like, say, war.

If two convention documents and a set of detailed rules can help keep the peace, we say this: rules, keep on with your bad self. We'll save the handshakes and smiles for deals with a little less international significance.

1. Was it really so necessary to get so exact with stuff like interest rates, payment locations, etc.? Why or why not?
2. What's the story behind Convention 2? How did France end up owing a bunch of random Americans money, anyway?
3. Do you think the payment terms outlined in Convention 1 were more beneficial to France or the United States, or were they totally neutral? Why?
4. What were some of Congress' concerns about the convention terms when they were talking about ratifying the Louisiana Purchase?

Good on Livingston, Monroe, and Barbé-Marbois for setting up specific payment terms so there wouldn't be any confusion or unnecessary tension between France and the United States when it came time to pay up.

Holy micromanaging. It would have been fine for Livingston, Monroe, and Barbé-Marbois to just write out the treaty part of the Louisiana Purchase and leave out the boring financial details; France and the United States were friends, and they would have figured it out.