Brandon's Unit #2 Essay

Brandon Duong

Mr.Ready

 AP US History 11

25 October 2013

Unit 2 Essay

            The label that the period between 1815 and 1825 was an “era of good feelings” was inaccurate because the few examples of nationalism were outnumbered by the overwhelming number of examples of sectionalism in the government and regarding the issue of slavery. Nationalism--meaning the belief that your country is superior to others and the placement of the interests of your nation before those of other nations--dominated the United States' foreign policy in this period (for the most part), especially in the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 which declared the American continents free from further European colonization; in addition, nationalism  could come in several different forms: cultural, economic, and most importantly, political. Sectionalism--meaning the undue concerns with local (or personal) interests or petty distinctions at the expense of the general well-being of the nation as a whole--created divisions on such issues as how the government should operate and whether or not slavery should continue. The examples of sectionalism in the government were by far the most important in decreasing the accuracy of the label because this conflict between different groups--namely the Federalists versus the anti-Federalists and the Federalists versus the Democratic-Republicans--prevented progress not only in the political sphere but the economic sector as well; these differing,  stubborn philosophies of each of the political parties who refused to compromise--most of the time--on such national issues as the national bank in which only one side could come out victorious culminated in a massive war between differing sections in the latter half of the 18th century.

            The “era of good feelings” label for the period between 1815 and 1825 was supported—though marginally—by the few examples of nationalism. Documents B, C, and H were similar in their subject matter; namely, all three documents discussed nationalism. This was evidenced by Calhoun who clearly proved that as the nation was rapidly expanding, it (the nation) would need to improve its roadways and transportation system in order to remain unified (B) as the population was unevenly distributed and stretched across a vast territory (E) that made the transportation of goods especially difficult. Since Calhoun was the one who presented the Internal Improvements Bill in 1817,—which sought to improve roadways and other modes of transportation and was intended to improve the connections between the North and the South—it was expected that he would try to convince congressional leaders to accept and pass the bill as he was clearly biased in favor of the potentially new measure; although this measure was eventually passed by Congress, President Monroe (even though he supported the bill’s intentions) vetoed the bill claiming that Congress did not have the authority to impose it. Another example of nationalism was the painting by Krimmel that clearly proved that the nation was united under a single flag and a single leader (George Washington) on a nationalistic holiday--the Fourth of July, which celebrated the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence in 1776 (C). In addition, John Quincy Adams’ diary clearly proved that the country needed to be united in order to resist the British or any other European nation (H). Since Adams was writing in his diary, it was likely that he told the truth regarding the Monroe Doctrine because he expected that no one would ever see or read his diary entries and as a result, he willingly poured his personal and private thoughts into his diary which was valuable in determining whether or not Adams was telling the truth--which he was. A newspaper, particularly from the Colombian Centinel which was published during President Monroe’s goodwill tour in 1816, describing the origins and feelings towards the Era of Good Feelings would exemplify whether or not the majority of the nation’s citizens agreed with the new label.

            The examples of sectionalism, especially within the government, supported the notion that the examples of sectionalism were far more abundant in the nation than the examples of nationalism. Documents A, D, E, and I were similar in the subject of their contents; namely, all of the documents exemplified the abundance of sectionalism in the government during this time period. Documents E and I were also similar in their subject; namely, both documents depicted regional divisions in the nation which was important because the population of a state directly influenced the number of electorates it could provide for presidential candidates in presidential elections. An example of sectionalism within the government was John Randolph's perspective that clearly proved that the Northern manufacturers and the Southern and Western agriculturalists were divided over the issue of whether or not taxation should be protective (A). Since Randolph likely favored the interests of the agriculturalists when he refuted the Protective Tariff, it was expected that he would be biased against such a form of taxation that, in his eyes, served only to aid the manufacturers' interests because as a representative of the South in Congress, he believed that the Protective Tariff was lopsided against him and those he was representing in that it would significantly increase the burden of the poor, Southern agriculturalists which Randolph likely took offense to because he most likely viewed the bill as putting the interests of the minority (the elites) over the interests of the defenseless majority. It seemed as though the conflict between the eastern and northern elites and manufacturers versus the western and southern frontiersmen and agriculturalists would continue as it had begun in Bacon's Rebellion (late 17th century): through warfare and rebellion if a compromise could not be reached or if the tariff were allowed to pass. Another example of sectionalism in the government was the Supreme Court's decision in McCulloch v. Maryland that clearly proved there was conflict between the state and federal governments over who had the greater authority on such topics as the national bank (D). This decision was truly monumental in that it set a precedent for future cases regarding challenges to the federal government's authority and because it clearly established the federal government as supreme and superior compared to the state governments. Likewise, the Density of Population map provided another example of sectionalism within the government. The map of the Density of Population clearly proved that the population within the country was unevenly distributed (G), causing a lopsided number of electorates that favored the larger, more populous states of the Northeast and which led to deep divisions between the states who each supported different candidates in the presidential election of 1824 (I). Since we cannot determine who the authors are for either of the documents, we cannot determine whether or not he or she would have been in  favor of nationalism or for sectionalism.

            Further examples of sectionalism in the young nation on top of that in the government regarded the issue of slavery. Documents F and G were similar in their subject matter; namely, both of the documents illuminated the differing opinions regarding the fate of slavery in the nation. This was exemplified when Thomas Jefferson clearly proved that the deep divisions in the nation regarding the issue of slavery could not be resolved by the temporary "band-aid" resolution that was the Missouri Compromise because it failed to truly resolve any of its intended issues and problems (F). The fact that the Missouri Compromise was agreed upon illuminated the reluctance of the North to take the initiative and force the acceptance of Missouri and Maine as free states and throw the balance of the government in their favor and also, brought light upon the failure of the federal government to resolve the controversial  issue of slavery at that moment; instead, they (the federal government) put the issue of slavery off for a later date, resulting in a catastrophic war between the sections: North versus South, the free states versus the slave states. The letter from Anna Hayes Johnson exemplified the widespread fear of slave revolt and increased conflicts and tensions regarding the issue of slavery (G).  Since Johnson was writing this letter following the attempted revolts of Denmark Vesey (1822) and Gabriel Prosser (1800), it was expected that she would fear for her safety and her cousin's because as time wore on and as the free black population increased,--as well as the successful slave revolt in Haiti (1791) led by Toussaint L'Ouverture that inspired blacks everywhere that revolt was a legitimate possibility as a means for obtaining freedom--the possibility of slave revolts and rebellions in the nation increased as well, bringing increased fear and terror to the hearts of the American citizens.

            Ultimately, the label that this was an "era of good feelings" was repudiated by the tremendous amount of examples of sectionalism that overwhelmed the few examples of nationalism. The "era of good feelings" label proved to be inaccurate as the growing sectional ties--not national--became more distinct in the build-up to the Civil War that pitted the North against the South as the issue of slavery became more and more central to the differences between conflicting groups within the expanding nation.

Brandon's Unit #1 Essay

Brandon Duong         

Mr. Ready

AP US History 11

12 October 2013

CCC Britain, France, and Spain

            The British, French, and Spanish imperial goals in North America between 1580 and 1763 were similar in that all three nations needed to establish colonial governments in the New World in order to legitimize their claim to their territory and that all three were driven to colonize by economic incentives; however, in contrast, Britain, France, and Spain were different in their citizens' reasons for immigration. The economic incentives of Britain, France, and Spain--meaning the competition between the three nations to gather more wealth--was critical to the expansion of the three empires within the New World; as colonists searched deeper into the interior of the continent to find bullion and other resources, the colonists would claim the territory they traveled on for their home country thereby directly causing conflict between the three nations because inevitably, colonists of different nations would overlap and claim a single territory for their respective countries. The reasons for immigration--meaning the overpopulation in the home country and religious expansion to new parts of the globe--were crucial for the survival and permanent establishment of the colonies. As these three major nations were quickly cementing themselves in the continent, other countries established minor colonies that did not last long such as the Dutch establishment of several trading posts in New Netherland and in its principal town of New Amsterdam (later renamed to New York after it was captured by the British) in 1624. In addition, the introduction of different nations and the mixing of cultures with the Indians and other countries allowed for the creation of middle grounds--meaning the regions in which different people and cultures coexisted and intermixed--and borderlands--where some conflict between nations occurred, such as in Georgia. The economic incentive for the three imperial nations was by far the most important because it allowed each of the three nations to expand their territories, establish governments, and make a profit that would later fuel future (and inevitable) wars amongst the Europeans and with the Native Americans.     

            Britain, France, and Spain were similar in that all three nations needed to form colonial governments in the New World in order to establish legitimate, permanent settlements; settlements that would eventually come into conflict with one another over land and authority within the New World. Britain established its first enduring settlement at Jamestown, Virginia in 1607; similarly, France founded its first permanent settlement in America at Quebec in 1608; in comparison, Spain founded the first permanent European settlement at Saint Augustine, Florida in  1565. All three nations' colonial settlements survived, persevered, and expanded as Britain expanded its colonies to encompass most of the eastern seaboard (including the territories east of the Appalachian Mountains); similarly, the French expanded their territories to include Louisiana, parts of Canada, and the Caribbean Islands; in comparison, the Spanish soon encompassed parts of South and Central America, Mexico, and the southern parts of modern-day United States (including Texas, New Mexico, and California). Thus, it was inevitable that these three imperial empires sought warfare as means to protect their own territories, acquire further territory, and weaken the supremacy of their rivals because of the close proximity between the three colonial empires and the lingering, bitter attitudes held by each of  the nations. Wars such as Queen Anne's War (also known as the War of the Spanish Succession) between the British, Spanish, French, and Indian tribes in 1701, King William's War (1689-1697) between the English and the French in New England, King George's War (1744-1748) between the British and the French, and the Seven Years' War (also known as the French and Indian War which ended in 1763) which was a climatic event in the Anglo-French struggle, all exemplified the continued conflicts between the three world leaders. In fact, through the Peace of Paris (1763), France was forced to cede some of its West India Islands, parts of India, Canada, and all territory east of the Mississippi except for New Orleans, which was ceded to the Spanish along with all French territory west of the Mississippi; through these actions, the authority of France in the New World was weakened significantly, and the influence of both Britain and Spain in North America increased dramatically as a result of their large land acquisitions.

            The imperialistic goals of Britain, France, and Spain were also driven by economic incentives. All three nations between 1580 and 1763 were driven by mercantilism--the belief that the world's wealth was finite and that only one nation could accumulate wealth at the expense of other nations. As a result, the nations competed with each other to reach the New World first and set up colonies which for the French and the Spanish were set up mainly for economic and mercantile means. Once established, the colonies of the three states began to search for and send to Europe raw materials for the growing industries in England, France, and Spain. The British learned from the Indians on how to grow and cultivate crops in the new, foreign region and soon, the British set up their own farms that grew crops like corn and plantations that grew cash crops like tobacco; similarly, France established a thriving fur trade with Indian tribes through their coureurs de bois, or fur traders,  and soon created seigneuries, or agricultural estates, along the Saint Lawrence River that aided in agricultural production; in comparison, the Spanish established the encomienda system which allowed the Spanish to collect taxes, goods, and bullion from natives without working and searching for it themselves. Through all of these methods, the European colonies were able to accumulate wealth and send it back to their mother countries thereby increasing their prestige and standing in world politics.

            However, in contrast, Britain, France, and Spain were different in their reasons for immigration. In all three nations' colonies, pious men and women immigrated to the New World, although for different motives. Many men and women fled to the British colonies seeking religious freedom and asylum such as William Penn and the Quakers in Pennsylvania--some pious men and women even found a high amount of religious toleration in Rhode Island; whereas the French colonies usually only permitted French Catholics and Jesuits to immigrate to the colonies--who would seek to spread their faith to those in the New World--while they chose to restrict French Huguenots from leaving the country; however, in contrast, the Spanish sent mainly Catholics to their colonies for the main purpose of the conversion of natives and other Europeans. Another motive that was different between the three nations regarding the motives for immigration was the issue of population. During the 16th and 17th centuries, Britain experienced both overpopulation and a decreased amount of land as a result of the Enclosure Acts--which took open land, enclosed it, and placed sheep and other wool-bearing animals for their marketable and profitable byproducts (wool)--therefore , it forced the British government to find other solutions to solve their overpopulation problem--the solution being the sometimes forced migration of British people to the New World which resulted in a stabilization of the population in Great Britain for subsequent centuries; however, in contrast, both France and Spain did not experience any such population problems and allowed their people to immigrate freely to the New World colonies.

            Ultimately, the British, French, and Spanish imperial goals between 1580 and 1763 were similar in their near-identical opinions that they would need vast colonies and territories in order to compete with one another and that all followed one core economic belief that drove colonization during this time period; however, in contrast, all three nations' populations were motivated in different ways to emigrate and leave Europe.