Switzerland. In gold.
Like most Presidents, there is good and bad. One could even argue - as I'm sure many did at the time - that his Louisiana Purchase was an abuse of Federal powers and authority according to the Constitution. In sum, though, I think Jefferson wins on a number of key points, not the least of which he was there when it counted - and stepped up and produced the first draft of the Declaration of Independence.
There was no LEGITIMATE argument against acquiring new territory, that's covered in the Constitution Article 4 Sec. 3 Clause 1:
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
However I do not doubt that some complained about the COST.
I have read some things recently that have left me with "uncomfortable" questions about the constitution. I will have to get hold of a copy of the ANTI federalist Papers before I can articulate them well, but 3 things I can mention,
First, While the rights of the STATES, and limitations of Federal Govt. are fairly well stated by the constitution ,it contains no method of ENFORCEMENT beyond insurrection, to prevent the types of encroachment we have seen. Also the fact that the rights of the individual , and limitations on Federal powers are amendments indicates that they were after thoughts, added to get votes for the "real Agenda", just like earmarks today, and that the Framers had no real concern or interest in the Rights of the citizens.
Second thing that bothers me is that it was adopted for ECONOMIC reasons, Debt was not strongly protected under the Articles of Confederation so European money interests were reluctant to invest here, The Constitution was written to reassure Financial interests. Granted that the resulting investment made possible the Industrial Revolution, I can't get away from the fact that Alexander Hamilton was an ambitious schemer, deeply involved with the Morris' and the New York Money interests. One of the main public proponents of the Constitution, he was continuously maneuvering to strengthen federal power.
Lastly, All we have to go by in our understanding of the founders "intent" are public records written by those with a vested interest, I can't escape the thought that this is some what akin to trying to understand modern politics based on the sound bites on NBC.
Just some thoughts.