Unit 2 Essay: An "Era of Good Feelings"

 Dustin Messner

          The period after the War of 1812 is historically labeled as the “Era of Good Feelings”, and, while this label was accurate culturally, it proved to be false in the economic and social aspects of American life; furthermore, the politics of 1815 to 1825 initially resembled an “Era of Good of Feelings” but, as time progressed, this label became inaccurate. Therefore, the “Era of Good Feelings” only applies to the rise of cultural nationalism and not the political, social, and economic realities of 1815 to 1825. The period from 1815 to 1825 consisted of a stark rise in nationalism and pride in the American identity, but also of the continual growth of social, economic, and political sectional issues. Nationalism, with its emphasis on pride in the country and federal government, supported the label of an “Era of Good Feelings” however, sectionalism displayed differences in interests based on regions and thereby dismissed the label.

            The rapid growth of cultural nationalism supported the idea that the period after the War of 1812 was an “Era of Good Feelings”. Some of the events of the War of 1812 helped spur Nationalism. For example, in the Battle of New Orleans, American troops overwhelmingly defeated the British troops who had been victorious against Napoleon at Waterloo. This victory helped form the image to the public that the United States had a strong military and an influential position in global affairs; thereby, fostering cultural nationalism. Other examples of cultural nationalism can be found in literature. The circulation of the works of Daniel Webster like his American Spelling Book created an association amongst the population with a unique American identity and culture. Nationalism was also present in works of art, such as John Krimmel’s depiction of a Fourth of July celebration. Krimmel utilizes the symbols of George Washington and the American flag to exemplify American patriotism and unity (C). James Monroe’s Goodwill Tour in 1816 also helped develop a sense of cultural unity and actually earned the label of an “era of good feelings” by the Columbian Centinel, a once Federalist newspaper. Thus, culturally, it was an “Era of Good Feelings” as illustrated in the development of nationalism in works of art and language and a sense of unity amongst the American people. Economically, the “Era of Good Feelings” was largely an inaccurate label.

            The Economic strife and debate from 1815 to 1825 emphasized sectionalism. John Randolph argued that Congress was unfairly levying taxes on the agricultural regions of the West and South, while favoring the industrial Northeast. Randolph is specifically referring to the protective tariff of 1816 meant to protect the textile industry of the Northeast and promote the market for American goods. Because John Randolph was arguing that the people of a certain section (farmers of the West and South) were being taxed unfairly, his argument illustrates economic sectionalism and emphasizes that the economic opportunities were much more abundant in the Northeast than in the West and South (A). Although there were some efforts to unite the economic affairs of the country, such as John C. Calhoun’s effort to unite the country through transportation, they were largely unsuccessful. For example, President James Madison vetoed John C. Calhoun’s Internal Improvements Bill, designed to promote a national transportation system, in 1817, emphasizing the lack of national agreement on the issue of improvements in transportation (B). Economic sectionalism dismissed the label of an “Era of Good Feelings” and was accompanied by social sectionalism.

            Social unrest was a prodigious sectionalist factor from 1815 to 1825. The Density of Population in 1820 illustrated that the North was tremendously more densely populated than the rural South, showing the potential conflict between the urban centers of the Northeast and the agrarian rural society of the South and emphasizing sectionalist differences between the Northeast and the South (E). Thomas Jefferson in a letter to John Randolph noted his fears that the issue of slavery would eventually divide the Union. Furthermore, Jefferson wrote his letter in 1820, at the same time as the Missouri Compromise, suggesting that Jefferson believed that the Missouri Compromise was only a temporary fix to the enormous social issue of slavery and the sectional issues it fostered (F).  Politically, there was initial nationalism followed by a large degree of sectionalism.

            The label of an “Era of Good Feelings” was initially an accurate label, but, as time progressed, the label became inaccurate. The decision in the case of McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819 stated that the federal government had the right to charter a bank, increasing the authority of the national government and emphasizing political nationalism (D). In the Election of 1820, James Monroe won by a landslide and the Federalist party had been destroyed by the Hartford Convention; thus, there was only one political party, leading to a great amount of political nationalism. The Density of Population in 1820 showed that the Northeast had a higher population than the South, meaning that the North controlled the House of Representatives. So, while there was only the Republican party in politics in 1820, there was a large amount of sectional tension between the North and South that would emerge over time (E). Still, in 1823, these tensions had not surfaced yet as John Quincy Adams in a letter emphasized the need for a strong stance against Britain, Spain, Russia, and Prussia--The Holy Alliance. Quincy’s letter stressed an influential role in global affairs and coincided with the Monroe Doctrine—both assertions of political nationalism (H). The presidential elections of 1820 and 1824 illuminated the change over time in nationalism and sectionalism in American politics. In 1820, an overwhelming majority elected James Monroe president, showing an absence of sectionalism; however, in 1824, each candidate received votes based on their section of the country and no candidate received a large majority of the votes. The Election of 1824 also saw the reemergence of the party system and the sectional issues that were present in the legislative, but not executive branch, of 1820 (I). The supporters of Andrew Jackson also proclaimed the election of 1824 a “corrupt bargain” reiterating the sectionalism of the voters and ending the political “Era of Good Feelings.”

            The “Era of Good Feelings” was an accurate label in the cultural aspects of American society; however in economic and social matters the label was largely inaccurate. American politics was initially an “Era of Good Feelings” but saw the emergence of sectionalism and proved the label of an “Era of Good Feelings” inaccurate.

.

Imperial Goals of the British, French, and Spanish

    The imperial goals of the British, French, and Spanish in North America between 1580 and 1763 were similar in that all three European states sought to capture the wealth and commerce offered by the New World and in that they all used imperialism as a means of increasing the authority, territory, and influence of their state; however, the British, French, and Spanish imperialistic goals differed in that Britain's religious goals were those regarding asylum, while the French and Spanish sought to gain converts; moreover, the relationships the British, French, and Spanish wanted to form with the natives differed drastically. These goals continued to be a main focus of the British, French, and Spanish imperial efforts from 1580 to 1763. All three European powers sought to capture the wealth and commerce of the New World--namely, they sought to take advantage of the abundance of raw materials and the market for trade offered by North America--which caused economic and political tensions between the three states; therefore, the goal of capturing the wealth offered by the New World was the most significant goal and forged the relationships and tensions between the British, French, and Spanish in both North America and Europe.  

The British, French, and Spanish all sought to capture the wealth and commerce in North America. The British imperialistic goals in the New World included utilizing the North American as a means to acquire raw materials, such as lumber, to be made into finished goods in England; similarly, the French commercial goals consisted of capturing the lucrative fur trade in North Eastern America; likewise, the Spanish used their imperial holdings to obtain valuable resources such as gold and silver for vast wealth in Spain. Although the English and French both initially sought gold in North America, it was soon discover that no gold was present in the French and British imperial holdings and they sought out other means to acquire wealth and commerce in North America—the continuous economic imperial goal of the British, French, and Spanish. All three European states had goals of using their imperial possessions as a source for agricultural surpluses.  The British used their colonies for tobacco and other cash crops such as wheat to be transported to England in the Triangle Trade; similarly, both the French, with their prized colony of Saint-Dominique, and the Spanish, with their holdings in the Caribbean—such as Cuba—established large plantations or Encomiendas for the production of sugar, rice, and cotton to be transported back to Europe for consumption and use.  Perhaps the most reinforcing evidence that the British, French, and Spanish has similar economic goals for their North American imperial holding was that they all had a common motive. All three European powers were driven in their economic goals of imperialism by mercantilism and the idea that the world’s wealth was finite. The imperial goals of the British French and Spanish were also similar in that they all sought to increase the authority of their respective states.

The British, French, and Spanish all had imperial goals of increasing the influence and authority of their society. The desires of the British, French, and Spanish to expand their influence are best demonstrated with the continuous state of conflict in and around their imperial holdings. For example, The British colony at Jamestown found itself in constant conflict with the Native American Powhatan tribe. Moreover, these three European often came into conflict with one another. Instances like Queen Anne’s War and eventually the French and Indian War were causes of each state’s desire to expand their influence. The desire for territorial expansion was fostered by the influence of nationalism and mercantilism in Europe. Nationalism, through its belief that one’s ethnic group or state was superior to others, encouraged territorial expansion through patriotism. Mercantilism encouraged territorial expansion because it firmly expressed the idea hat the world’s wealth was finite; therefore, mercantilism created a sense of urgency among the European nations to posses as much of the limited amount of wealth as possible by acquiring new territories where new wealth was present. This territorial expansion incorporated native inhabitants into the European empires and each of these empires dealt with these natives in different ways.

The British, French, and Spanish all differed in their treatment of natives. The British sought to isolate themselves from natives or “transplant” British society in North America, visible in their construction of forts such as the one at Jamestown; however, in contrast, the French formed an integrated relationship with natives, especially the Algonquin, in order to gain access to the coveted fur trade; moreover, the Spanish differed from the French and British in that they exploited the native peoples by making them work and die on sugarcane Encomiendas in the Caribbean and in gold and silver mines in Mexico. The British goal from 1580 to 1763 was one of isolation; overtime, however, the British came into increasing interaction with natives, although they still pursued the goal of isolation. Another difference amongst the imperial goals of the British, French, and Spanish was that of a religious nature.

The religious goals of the British were those of asylum; whereas the French and Spanish sought to gain converts.  The religious dominations of the British colonists were mostly puritan and were mostly persecuted groups, for example, the Quakers and Puritans both immigrated to North America to escape persecution in England; however, in contrast, the French and Spanish were both Catholic and the Jesuit missionaries of both states made efforts to convert the masses of North America to Catholicism; moreover, the Spanish established missions on the Camino Real such as Mission San Diego and Mission San Luis Obispo. 

The British, French, and Spanish imperial goals were mostly consistent from 1580 to 1763. The British, French, and Spanish all sought to acquire raw materials and increase commerce with their imperial holdings in North America and they all had imperial goals of expanding their territory, authority, and influence; however, they differed in that the British sought religious asylum in the New World, while the French and Spanish sought to convert and in that they all wanted to form different relationships with the indigenous population of North America.