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.
