The C-Span Ranking of Presidents
C-Span just released a ranking of US Presidents based based on a survey of historians, journalists and other scholars. Obama came in 12th.
Here is the survey’s description of the process used to generate the rankings:
C-SPAN’s academic advisors devised a survey in which participants used a one (“not effective”) to ten (“very effective”) scale to rate each president on ten qualities of presidential leadership: “Public Persuasion,” “Crisis Leadership,” “Economic Management,” “Moral Authority,” “International Relations,” “Administrative Skills,” “Relations with Congress,” “Vision/Setting An Agenda,” “Pursued Equal Justice for All,” and “Performance Within the Context of His Times.”
Surveys were distributed to historians and other professional observers of the presidency, drawn from a database of C-SPAN’s programming, augmented by suggestions from the academic advisors. Ninety-one agreed to participate. Participants were guaranteed that individual survey results remain confidential. Survey responses were tabulated by averaging all responses in a given category for each president. Each of the ten categories was given equal weighting in arriving at a president’s total score.
I looked through the overall rankings and some of the rankings by category. Having co-authored a book on ranking Presidents, I have a lot of quibbles with the rankings. But many of them would be controversial. So I thought to myself – is there a simple way to decide whether this list has merit?
Here’s what jumps out at me. Take a gander at the list by economic management. Note that Teddy Roosevelt came in 4th place in that category. (First, second and third were Washington, Lincoln and Clinton. I find that to be borderline insane in and of itself. However, since Washington and Lincoln are names the public can recognize and Clinton was recent, I will not discuss them so as to avoid controversy.) TR also came in 4th in that category in the two previous surveys in 2009 and 2000 so it seems that ranking is pretty stable. The, ahem, experts surveyed seem to be pretty sure TR belongs right up there.
Now here’s the problem. TR was President from September 1901 to March 1909. He did some effective things on the economy – some of his Square Deals, the Trust Busting, regulation, etc. But… his outcomes were not very good. For instance, there was a fly in the ointment – the recession from September 1902 to August 1904. That would seem to cast doubt on his economic performance. But… that isn’t the problem with ranking TR as fourth best on the economy. There was another recession from May 1907 to June 1908. And that was no ordinary recession. The Panic of 1907 occurred in October of 1907, close to the middle of that recession. And who saved the day? Was it TR and his administration? Was it their policies? Nope. It was JP Morgan. Yes. That JP Morgan.
And the aftermath of the recession wasn’t pretty either. Data from that era isn’t great, but by all accounts, there was a big spike in unemployment, bankruptcies, etc.
The US economy is not worse than that of Zimbabwe in 2017. And yet, something along those lines would need to be true if TR turned in the fourth best economic performance among all US Presidents. I am no historian, but to me, any survey placing TR in fourth place for economic performance is indistinguishable from parody. It is enough for me to conclude that those responsible for this nonsense simply have no idea what they are doing.
Mike,
You are right. How is someone supposed to rate Millard Fillmore’s “Moral Authority”? etc. This has to be the most worthless poll in the history of polls. Which is saying a lot.
Sammy, we agree on the most worthless post. Oh, sorry, you said poll…..
EMichael,
You’re slipping. You forgot to call me racist in your comment.
Sammy,
One can always make an attempt to quantify whatever it is one finds important. Michael Kanell and I tried to do that in Presimetrics. We weren’t always successful, but we tried. Perhaps some day someone else will get it right
Another problem is that in this survey they guaranteed each participant’s survey results would be anonymous. So… no transparency on methodology, and no accountability for returning silly answers either.
That whole combination isn’t guaranteed to to generate lousy results if the participants know what they are doing and are at least trying to be unbiased. But it sure as heck seems to have failed here.
Makes you feel better, worthless racist.
I think I am going to take Jared Bernstein and Ben Speilberg’s analysis over your correlation equals causation garbage that shows that people with different skin color should not be allowed in the US.
Oh, sorry. Different culture.
is it possible that Mike doesn’t know what they are doing?
is it possible that trust busting laid the groundwork for better results for ordinary people than avoiding a recession?
i don’t know. but simple minded “quantifying” has never filled me with a sense of “now we’re getting at the truth.”
maybe they were thinking of the other Roosevelt.
Coberly,
It is, of course, possible that I don’t know what they are doing. And laying the groundwork matters. But if one is weighting laying the groundwork, it is hard to put TR ahead of Thomas Jefferson. The Louisiana Purchase had more of an effect on the economy of the US over subsequent years than trustbusting. TJ doesn’t even make the top 10.
FDR comes in 5th on the economy. Followed by Ike (ha ha ha!!!), JFK and Obama. Nine and ten are Wilson and Truman(!!!). Seriously. That’s their top ten.
Mike
well, i wouln’t try too hard to defend the “study.”
but Jefferson also defended slavery, no doubt a huge benefit to the growth in gdp, if that’s what’s important to you.
and wasn’t Ike “happy days” or something like that?
if pushed, i might agree with you about the judgement of the “historians,” but probably not to the extent of endorsing your judgement of “good for the economy.”
on the other hand if you brought the whole thing up just to laugh at “experts,” i would endorse that.
oh, hell. i just noticed “journalists and other scholars.”
journalists scholars?
well, maybe. since most “scholars” are just experts in what someone else said.
coberly,
“f pushed, i might agree with you about the judgement of the “historians,” but probably not to the extent of endorsing your judgement of “good for the economy.””
Not my rules. They picked 10 dimensions. Most of my post deals with one of those dimensions, namely economic management. It isn’t defined beyond those two words. TR comes in fourth by that measure according to the survey. And I’m trying to figure out how one gets there.
Mike, I note that you were not selected as one of the experts to judge presidents even though you co-authored a book on the subject so I can empathize.
I am not an expert to be sure, but it seems to me that although TR’s terms showed mediocre GDP growth (1.56% average relative to the preceding 8 years at 1.3$%, and following 8 year at 2.46%) , and the total GDP growth being 11.5% compared to the preceding 8 years of 9.7% and the following 8 years at 19.7%), his major economic accomplishments were his establishing of the U.S. Department of Commerce & Labor and his trust busting prosecutions, both of which were instrumental and of major and lasting economic benefit to future function of economic growth in the nation.
Added to both those huge economic accomplishments, might be added that the also used his executive office to advance the power of the Interstate Commerce Commission to pass a bill that regulated rail-road rates which also had huge economic benefits to the then and future economic development in the US.
One might also consider that TR created the conditions and opportunity for his negotiation resulting in a Treaty with Panama that established the Panama Canal Zone, and with that treaty also bought the shares & assets of the prior owner of the rights to the Panama Canal for $40 million.
Although the Panama Canal Treaty might be considered more a part of foreign affairs than economics, there’s no doubt that it had a huge and positive major effect on the US’s future economy as well (by reducing costs and time of shipping cargo from East and Southern Coasts to the West Coasts and vice versa.
So perhaps your assessment of TR’s high placement in Presidential economics being completely irrational and unjustified is too focused on GDP growth during his term and completely overlooks or discounts completely the economic benefits he spear-headed and drove to provide for the nation’s future economic growth.
I would say that you have difficulty seeing the forest through the trees.
Longtooth,
While there’s no such thing as bad publicity, I probably would not have agreed to participate had I been asked. The book I co-authored dealt with recent Presidencies only, and the methodology we selected doesn’t work well in periods of time where the data is poor. FWIW, the only reliable data on GDP is for the period from 1929 to the present. (All thanks be to Simon Kuznets.) Reliable data on unemployment doesn’t go back more than a couple of decades before that. I tend not to like to pretend I have any expertise on periods where I don’t trust the data.
I don’t dispute what you wrote about TR’s accomplishments. I will note, however, that a single accomplishment I noted upthread, the Louisiana Purchase, to my inexpert eyes, exceeds all of TR’s accomplishments in terms of economic impact. In fact, I do not think any action taken in the life of the country, whose birth precedes the Presidency, had more of an impact on the economy than that. Even if the Confederacy had been allowed (through omission or commission) had been allowed to leave the Union, it would still have had a smaller effect on the US economy than obtaining the Louisiana Purchase, as without the latter, the US would also not today include the center of the country, the West Coast, the Northwest, Hawaii or Alaska. So if the standard is engaging in big actions that have a big effect on the economy, then Jefferson should be first on the economic list. He isn’t in the top ten.
Mr Kimel,
I was responding with the likely reasons why TR was ranked 4th in the C-Span survey in the economics category where you had previously stated you couldn’t figure out how he got to that level in ranking:
“TR comes in fourth by that measure [economics] according to the survey. And I’m trying to figure out how one gets there.”
Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase was indeed a major and significant future economic advantage for the U.S. and nobody disputes this (to my knowledge). However, it added no value to the U.S. economic growth until after the Civil war with the expansion of RR’s east of the Mississippi… the first being the transcontinental in 1869, followed by others in the south and north of that nation’s new territories including Polk’s acquisition of the Mexican territories west of the Rockies. Economically CA’s gold rush in 1848 brought greater economic prosperity to the US and settlers with economic advantage to the US than the entire mid-west of the Louisiana Purchase.
I could be argued in fact that Pinckney’s treaty with Spain (under President Adams) added far more to the US economy by opening up free US transit on the Mississippi and New Orleans as a free port for US good transfers from the agricultural bounty between the Appellations and the Mississippi in 1895/96
Indeed even today CA agricultural output alone exceeds the entire Mid-West’s agricultural output which is the mid-west’s Jeffersonian vision for the Louisiana Purchase. It could be argued that the Purchase enabled unimpeded transit to the west (but only after military suppression and annihilation of the Indians that occupied the region) — but then that means Polk’s acquisition of the territory west of the Rockies was the economic driver and that didn’t occur until after 1848 (Mexican-American War) and coincided with the CA gold rush which drove millions to occupy and remain in CA and the western region in general).
From the history I’ve read in the past, the region west of the Mississippi to the Rockies was expected to be acquired piecemeal by treaties and purchases from Spain (then France) over time in any event (the understanding both before and during Jefferson’s administration) . IN real effect then it can and would probably be argued that Jefferson’s Purchase was simply a timely opportunity created by France’s need for funds…. thus a purchase price ($15 million in current dollars) advantage (bargain) rather than a major economic contribution.
Jefferson accepted an offer by France to Purchase their territory which they had already decided was of no future value to them relative to their more immediate and long term needs. Jefferson didn’t create the conditions for France to make the offer, nor did he make any effort to negotiate a purchase from France prior to France making the offer. Indeed Jefferson could have as easily rejected France’s offer and usurped the same territory by military force with nearly no ability of France to defend their territory west of the Mississippi due to their defenses required in Europe.. whether a U.S. military force was applied at Jefferson’s time or later by succeeding President’s (by Madison or Polk for example).
From an historical view then the territory Jefferson Purchased was vital to future US economic growth but was not economically an advantage until well after the Civil War with expansion of RR’s and could have and would have been obtained by the US in any event (according to all history I’ve read).
As I read it at Jefferson’s time, the major economic expansion occurred with Pickney’s treaty with Spain (under Adam’s administration) which opened up the Mississippi and New Orleans for US goods from the agricultural regions of the then “west” — west of the Appellation’s and East of the Mississippi, including cotton transport from New Orleans to Europe.
Jefferson accepted a timely offer by a European ally with which he was already smitten in the first place. Had he not been smitten with the French aristocracy, he would have forgone the offer or negotiated a price at 1/3rd of what he paid (a better price bargain), or either taken the territory by force with virtually no opposition (as Polk did the Mexican territories) at the time or set the agenda for future President’s do it.. Accepting a bargain offer isn’t the same as creating the basis for France making the offer, nor was the acquisition of the territory an economic advantage until RR’s and even then it can be argued that the relative economic advantage of the region acquired was not as great as Polk’s acquisition or the industrial and agricultural policies for the already acquired regions east of the Mississippi.
Stated differently if somebody drops you a gift and you accept it then is that considered to be of your doing, or the gift givers?
Mr Kimel,
I might add that even at Jackson’s time the region of the Louisiana Purchase west of the Mississippi was only a dumping ground for Indians being forcibly expelled from the region east of the Mississippi..
“Jackson advocated land west of the Mississippi River be set aside for Indian tribes. Congress had been developing its own Indian relocation bill, and Jackson had many supporters in both the Senate and House who agreed with his goal. On May 26, 1830, Congress passed the Indian Removal Act, which Jackson signed into law. The Act authorized the President to negotiate treaties to buy tribal lands in the east in exchange for lands farther west, outside of existing U.S. state borders. The passage of the bill was Jackson’s first legislative triumph and marked the Democratic party’s emergence into American political society. The passage of the act was especially popular in the South where population growth and the discovery of gold on Cherokee land had increased pressure on tribal lands”.(source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson#Indian_removal_policy
Longtooth,
Again, I am no historian. But here you state:
And Adams is lower on the economic list than Jefferson.
Also, unlike what you write, according to the Library of Congress (https://www.loc.gov/collections/louisiana-european-explorations-and-the-louisiana-purchase/articles-and-essays/the-louisiana-purchase/)
I imagine Beverly could misread this to suggest TJ wanted Napoleonic France as a neighbor but I think it is clear to everyone else.
Moving on, they state:
So… barring the Louisiana purchase, the likely outcome was either Britain or France on the country’s doorstep. Which one would have been accommodating to Americans pulling a Texas?
As to it all being a happy accident that TJ had little involvement with… so so was everything that Hamilton did under GW, and yet GW comes in first in the economic list.
I reiterate: If somebody drops you a gift and you accept it then is that considered to be of your doing, or the gift givers?
What you give credit to Jefferson for doing is accepting a gift from France. More-over there was not even any economic advantage to the purchase for at least another 70 years with the onset of RR’s into the region (actually only as a bridge to the far west coast). And even then the economic advantage was far eclipsed by the industrial policies in the East and the population growth and contribution of CA to national wealth and power. Even today CA exceeds the entire agricultureal output of the whole area of the Lousianna Purchase.
So I’m quite perplexed in how you give TJ so much credit … Shouldn’t Polk be given just as much credit then? Oh… he does get as much Credit in economics as TJ. Jefferson is ranked 16th, Polk 17th by just 0.1 points difference.
Perhaps historians and economists don’t put as much weight on territorial expansion by force or gifts as you do, and give credit to those who were able to capitalize on the use of the territory economically instead.
Would you argue that Washington’s perpetual 1st place in economics is due to Hamilton’s establishing and creating the Treasury Dept and it’s policies?
The fundamental difference between Hamilton and Jefferson was vision of economic advantage for the US and their efforts applied which had a direct an immediate as well as long term major economic impact.
Hamilton’s vision and actual actions were based on European history showing that goods production (industry) was the future economic trade and growth advantage to the US. Jefferson’s was based on the Roman Empires nation of small farmers (taking up swords temporarily as needed) as the basis for a future sustainable gov’t .. having made no attempt what-so-ever to justify this vision on economic grounds. Nor did he justify the Louisiana Purchase on economic grounds.
I think you’re trying to use Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase as a straw man to cut the economic contributions of TR down relative to what historians and other economists judge him (on average) to have contributed relative to the other Presidents.
I’m sure there are some of the judges that placed Jefferson above TR and perhaps even above Washington’s (Hamilton) just has you do, but the average of all judges have made a wide distinction between TR and TJ in their economic contributions to the US..
All I’ve tried to do is give you some of the reason’s you have been seeking for why TR was judged to be 4th in the economic sphere. You have put TR in a race with Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase as being the relevant basis for you own assessments, but seemingly and apparently assume that was an economic accomplishment of the first order bar none rather than what it really was. If you use the logic of land acquisition then the King of England who gave the aristocracy in Britain the charters for land in his colonies should be the top economic source. .. but since the judgments are restricted to U.S. Presidents who weren’t established until long, long afterwards, then you have to use a different set of logic as foundations.
You’re the one that stated:
” TR comes in fourth by that measure according to the survey. And I’m trying to figure out how one gets there.”
I was just commenting to give you some alternative ways of judging TR’s contributions. That you reject them as properly or justifiably weighted accomplishments is simply your own opinion. … but I thought from your statement (above) you were seeking to understand why others opinions might be justifiably quite a bit different than your own.
It wasn’t my intent to seek to persuade you to change your opinion. However I do think that the discussion vis-a-vis Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase contribution economically was enlightening. I presume judges use economic intent as well as effect to weigh contributions. Considering both and that the economic effect was paltry even long after Jefferson (dumbing ground for expelled Indians under Jackson as example) relative to the rest of the economic advances in the US, both before and after Jefferson, then I would judge the average of the judges to have used a more objective criteria than you are apparently using..
Wow, who would have known, using the Mississippi and the Missouri had no economic advantage back then and that the only purpose served by the expansion was to drive southeastern Indians into Oklahoma. The fundamental difference between Hamilton/TRoosevelt and Jefferson is the former two were Federalists and the later a State’s Rights proponent. In any case, all three added great economic advantage to the country by what they did and the approach they took.
1801 to 1809 Thomas was the Pres. Louisiana Purchase was made in 1803. Riverboats used in the early 1800s cut the trip from New Orleans to St. Louis from 4 months by land to <4 days by river. That certainly was sooner than 70 years you claim the Louisiana purchase had little or no value to it. No economic value to this purchase for 70 years???
"From 1816 to 1817 alone, the value of total annual receipts at the New Orleans port increased from $8 million to $13 million (Kelman, 2003)."
still within your 70 year economic marker:
"By 1853, the thriving New Orleans was one of the 5 largest metropolises in the United States." Michele Lee Mississippi River: (Economic History 2010)
And the cost of the purchase? $15 Million The subsequent river traffic from New Orleans and St. Louis in 1816/17 1/3 paid. One more year and the elimination of duties paid in New Orleans probably paid for most of it.
I do not like some of the things Mike says either; but, it behooves the bunch of you to be accurate in your comments.
By the way Mr. Kimel, since you are an economist, I presume you are in touch with many others in your field including both conservative and liberal versions.. It is therefore quite interesting to me that you didn’t first get a wide variety of their opinions and possible reasons and thus more understanding on why TR was judged 4th and Jefferson only 16th before posting that you were “trying to figure out why” on Angry Bear in a response. Didn’t you find time to make inquiries to other professionals in your field as to why they think TR was judged 4th and or far ahead of Jefferson? If you did make those inquiries among other professionals then were they roughly equally distributed between Salt-water and Freshwater economists?
I am not seeking an answer, but just find in curious that you are using your responses to comments on AB as a venue to “understand” (figure out why). It would seem to me that if you were genuinely interested in “figuring out why” you would have first consulted with many other economists in your field before providing your own justifications for why your own assessment is so much different.
Perhaps then you might have informed readers of what you found out from other professionals about their reasons for why the judges persistently give TR a ranking of 4 in economic contributions and Jefferson persistently in the range of 16.
Run,
The Pinckney Treaty with Spain under Adam’s administration is what opened up the Mississippi and New Orleans to US river traffic and transfers at the New Orleans port. That didn’t change when the French took over. Jefferson had nothing to do with it at all.
And you are forgetting the Third Treaty of San Ildefonso of October 1, 1800 which transferred the ownership back to France even though Spain administered the area. Even though Spain contested it with the US, it was a part of the Louisiana purchase which gave sole possession to the US. The economics of it became solely the US under Jefferson.
Run, you are forgetting or unaware that Spain, in the 3rd Treaty which transferred ownership back to France, had not yet even begun to transfer the territory back to France so that it was at the time of the Louisiana Purchase still fully under Spanish control. France never possession or control it obtained fro Spain by that treaty. The Pinckney Treaty of 1895 was what enabled US commercial shipping on the Mississippi and the use of New Orleans as a port of transfer.
There was no significant economic value to the purchase until after RR’s… the first of which was in 1869 (as the transcontinental which only used the territory as a bridge to the west). There is no dispute about the lack of any economic value of the Territory at that time. In fact Spain’s reason for using it as a negotiating pawn in the treaty with France was precisely because it was of near no net economic value… and the only part of that which was of value was the port (New Orleans). That is why in fact all Jefferson was interested in was New Orleans to use for export duty revenue.
This isn’t my argument anyway… I am only pointing out reasons that Mr. Kimel was interested in understanding — why the judges rank TR 4th and TJ 16 in the economics category. Jefferson was however ranked 5th in the Vision category by the judges average, presumably precisely due to his accepting the gift from France.
Longtooth:
I am not forgetting anything, the ability to travel up and down the Mississippi unimpeded by the French or the Spanish had economic value. It cut the time from 4 months by land to 4 days by steamboat well before the 70 years you cite. You are wrong . . . Jefferson and T Roosevelt are ranked one after the other and flip flop based upon what poll is ranking them.
Run,
Frankly my judgment of Jefferson’s vision would put him near the bottom of the list … his vision for the nation was one full of small farmers as an agrarian based economy. Of course what he meant was a nation of aristocratic large plantation owners interspersed with small farms on lower valued land just as was the case in the Southern States at his time.
His vision of the nations defense was that these small farmers would drop their plowshares and pick up their weapons to defend the nation and then, having succeeded would go back to peaceably picking up their plowshares again.
If you want a vision of pure unadulterated fantasy, Jefferson’s your man. Personally I think he was a bit off his nut… a utopian idealist entirely and completely detached from realities, even when they were clearly visible.
As I think I already pointed out, Jefferson could have as easily taken control of the territory by a minimal force, without having to take control of New Orleans from the Spanish who still had control.. since Pinckney’s treaty still applied with the Spanish which gave the US access to free use of the port France was unable to defend the territory in any event, and both England and France were embroiled in their own war in Europe. That’s just one of the obvious alternatives Jefferson could have used.
As it was, France just handed it to him as a near gift … including the port which was the only value (and in relative terms at the time to the US economy a paltry value at that) in the entire territory for the next three generations. ($0.03 per acre, which even at that time wasn’t just a bargain, it was a near freebe).
You are aware of course already that Jefferson was prepared to purchase New Orleans (his only interest) for $10 million. So if you consider New Orleans worth $10 million, as Jefferson did then the entire rest of the Territory was actually purchased for just $5 million or $0.01 per acre. I think that attests to the actual value if any to the territory … it was a net near zero value to Spain in the first place.
LT:
Jefferson was states rights which makes sense if you do not want a king. Spain and France could not defend the area because Americans had over run the territory. Bonaparte needed the money so he sold it on the cheap. The US had little money to spare and yet we bought it just like Steward’s folly. We could not afford a war. The Spanish argued it and they had no ability to enforce their control of it either. We did a Russia on them and took the land just like the Crimea.
If we had little money to buy the Purchase; it makes sense there was little money to go to war. The Spanish owned the land on both sides 200 miles north of New Orleans and forever on the West side. We needed stability and Jefferson supplied it.
Also, the transition from Adams to Jefferson proved this nation could succeed in what was called the Revolution of the 1800.
Run,
Here’s a chart showing federal revenue from 1790. From that time until the onset of the Civil War Federal revenue was between ~ 1% of GDP and 3$ of GDP … it didn’t increase with the Louisiana Purchase, and tapered back down from it’s Civil War spike again until ~ 1920.
There were two spikes in revenue relative to GDP from 1790 to 1920… one was in ~ 1815 (after the War of 1812), the other ~ 1865 (Civil War)
While this doesn’t tell what GDP was, it does say that federal revenues didn’t increase with the Louisiana Purchase.
Run, here’s a chart showing RR growth from 1850 to 1890 by US regions (see section “Mid 19th Century”, Table 2:. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_United_States
In 1850 the Western States and Territories RR mile was just ~ 12% of that in the US.
In 1860 the in same region RR mileage increased by nearly a factor of 10x becoming ~ 33% of total US RR miles.
In 1870 in the same region RR mileage over doubled becoming nearly 50% of total US RR miles.
In 1880 that region’s RR miles over doubled again over 55% of total miles.
in 1890 it only increased by < 20% (growth of RR in this region now having reached it's saturation point for that period in history), and was now back to just under 50% of total RR miles.
"Railroads saw their greatest growth in new track added in the last three decades of the 19th century. (See Table 2)"
That would be 1870's, 1880's, & 1890's
Run, I must be missing something you know and I don’t know. You said:
“I am not forgetting anything, the ability to travel up and down the Mississippi unimpeded by the French or the Spanish had economic value. It cut the time from 4 months by land to 4 days by steamboat well before the 70 years you cite. You are wrong . . . Jefferson and T Roosevelt are ranked one after the other and flip flop based upon what poll is ranking them.”
Unimpeded traffic on the Mississippi was already assured and in full progress from 1895. I t was never imperiled by the 3rd Treaty (France with Spain) and the transfer of the Territory back to France. Besides which France never too possession of the territory after the Spanish – French 3rd treaty, so both the use of the New Orleans port and Mississippi for U.S. commercial traffic was never at risk. The Louisianna purchase didn’t change that condition, so it’s purchase didn’t do squat in that regard economically for the U.S.
I don’t see how you can say the Pinckney Treaty with Spain (under Adam’s admin) didn’t already provide full river and port access long before the Louisiana Purchase or that this purchase had any material economic impact on the US for at least another 3 generations afterwards.