Unit 2 DBQ rewrite

                Despite the fact that the period following the War of 1812 has traditionally been dubbed by historians as being  the “Era of Good Feelings”,  we can observe that this title has been improperly bestowed upon this period; due to the persistence of sectionalism- the favoring of the interest of  a geographic area or group over the interests of the nation- within the country, and the examples of it greatly outnumbering those that displayed nationalism- the devotion to the nation’s interest as a whole- that would have been present had this period truly been an “Era of Good Feelings”. Throughout the era there was continual sectionalist and nationalist conflict between the North and the South as demonstrated by the controversy over the Protective Tariff of 1816, the various causes of the panic of 1819, and the altercations concerning the representation of the south in the new western states and slavery.

            Throughout the era following the war of 1812, the predominance of sectionalism serves to refute the statement that this period was and “Era of Good Feelings”, for the discontent of the sectionalists does not conform to the very idea of “Good Feelings”.  A sample of thie prevalence of sectionalism can be seen in Thomas Jefferson’s letter to John Randolph in 1820. Jefferson speaks pessimistically of the issue dividing the Northern and Southern states and leading them ultimately to a conflict: the Missouri Crisis.  He is concerned that this altercation, due to the sectionalism of each of the opposing sides of the country, would divide the union in an irreparable manner. For the Missouri compromise, despite temporarily quelling the disagreement, did not settle it completely, and as we can see in the density of population map made in 1820, many individuals were living or moving to the Northern states and Western territories. This heavy occupation of the Northern states and the potential addition new states into the union as free states rather than slave resulted in unrest within the South and resentment towards the Northern states. This resentment of the north can be seen in John Randolph’s 1816 address to Congress, when he articulated his discontent for the protective tariff of 1816. Randolph disliked the tariff because, despite protecting American manufacturing from European competition, and the benefit it would have on the country over a long span of time, it currently placed a heavier burden on the agriculturalist of the south. Randolph viewed this as an injustice upon the impoverished people of the south and he voiced his disdain of those of the north, where manufacturing was a primary industry, who would be first benefit from the tariff. This document is an example of sectionalism because it exemplifies that not only was their sectional disagreement over the tariff, but also that Congress itself was not a wholly nationalistic institution. Sectionalism is again typified in Chief Justice John Marshalls ruling in the 1819 case of McCulloch vs. Maryland. McCulloch vs. Maryland occurred when the state of Maryland attempted to tax the National Bank into oblivion within their state. Maryland as a whole disagreed with the constitutionality of the institution, and wished to be rid of it. McCulloch, a member of the bank, refused to pay the tax and Maryland filed a suit. Marshall ruled in an example of nationalism against Maryland, affirming the powers of Congress. However, despite Marshall’s act of nationalism, underlying feelings of sectionalism are still seen within this document. These feelings are prevalent in Maryland’s actions, as they acted only within the interest of their section, supporting not the national bank, but their own state banks. Fueling the fire of sectionalism, John C. Calhoun’s 1817 address to Congress, proposing internal improvements for the nation, such as to connect all regions of it with roads in order to solve the transportation issues that arose in the war of 1812 and to unite the nation, was passed by Congress, but vetoed by the President. This bill, had it been passed, may have averted much of the arising conflict.  However, as it was vetoed, it led only to more sectionalism.  

Acts of sectionalism can once again be observed in the 1824 presidential election, when no candidate achieved a majority vote and the choice was left to the House of Representatives. Adams was chosen due to Henry Clay’s endorsement and influence over Jackson, who had received the most votes. This act, as it deprived the person whom had received the most votes for the Presidency in favor of personal aims, was an act of sectionalism. In Anna Hayes Johnson’s 1822 letter to her cousin from Charleston, South Carolina, she discusses the recent prevention of a slave rebellion. This document shows the sectionalism that existed within the south as they ardently defended the institution of slavery.

            Despite the overwhelming existence of sectionalism, a few examples of nationalism may be observed. For instance, John Krimmer’s painting of the 1819, Philadelphia Fourth of July celebration, depicts merriment, displays of nationalism such as a hung picture of George Washington, a copy of the Declaration of Independence, and an American flag. John Quincy Adam’s 1823 diary entry also exemplifies nationalism as he assumes a position of opposition to the formation of the Holy Alliance forming in Europe. This action, in spite of the other countries involved with the alliance, is an act of nationalism, as he values his country over all others.

            Overall, the so called “Era of Good Feelings” was not as it seemed to appear. The rising acts of sectionalism between the Northern in Southern states concerning slavery and representation, exemplified hostilities and disagreements that persisted within the nation; these examples far overwhelm those of the expected nationalistic sentiment. In conclusion, the statement that this post War of 1812 era was one of “Good Feelings” is a false one.

The Imperial Goals of Britain, Spain, and France in North America

     Between the years of 1580 and 1763, Britain, France, and Spain had very similar economic and political goals for their colonization of the new world, however, their religious and ideological goals were quite different. Britain’s imperial goals were dominated by economic motives driven by overpopulation and widespread poverty within their nation, leading to the need for exterior wealth. They also had a desire to establish political dominance in the world. Their religious motives were not that of the government, but of the people, for many religious dissenters wished to practice freely. The British, because they believed that they were the superior society, desired to “transplant” English society, and had no intent intermix with the native peoples. Spain, akin to Britain, wished to establish political dominance and obtain wealth from the Americas. However, their religious motives came from the Roman Catholic Church, who had ordered the spread of Catholicism to the  natives of the new world. As a result their ideals did not prevent them from intermingling with the native peoples. France had the imperial goals to obtain wealth and political dominance from their affairs in the Americas. Analogous to Spain, they also wished to convert the natives, however, their methods of achieving this goal are in stark contrast.
     Britain, due to the rapidly rising population, the rising popularity of mercantilist policy, and dissent of religious radicals, began to colonize the new world. Due to the escalation of mercantilist policy, merchants were seeking a new source of foreign trade that did not involve a foreign power. This search was also a result of the collapse of the enclosure movement, for when the glutted wool trade collapsed, the English were left with a large production of wool, and no place to export it to. This also resulted in a lack of occupation for a great many citizens, resulting in a high rate of homelessness. The high unemployment rate in combination with the overpopulation of the nation was yet another imperial motive, for there was not enough food in England to support the population due to the conversion of farms to sheep runs. The nation needed somewhere to export their excess and often unhappy population, and colonies were an apt fit. The economic policy of Mercantilism also played a large part in England’s incentive for colonization, for, as the mercantilist believed all wealth in the world was finite, they believed that they must obtain as much wealth from the new world as they possibly could, and keep it within the empire, thereby establishing dominance over other nations. English citizens desired to obtain riches such as gold and other precious metals from the new world. Many English citizens were displeased with the Angelcan faith that they were forced to practice within England. These people, widely known as “puritans”, wished to start anew in America and freely practice their chosen religion as they pleased. The British government was not concerned with spreading the Angelcan religion. Idealistically, the British believed that their society was superior to that of other cultures. This led them to believe that they needed to “transplant” British society onto the Americas, and to completely dominate over the native culture.
     Spain began to colonize the new world because to their desire for the wealth that would rival that of the Indies, their mission from the Pope to spread Catholicism, and an aspiration to expand their empire vastly. The economic motives for Spain to take initiative in colonizing the new world were very robust. Both gold and silver were discovered in this new land providing strong incentive for treasure hunters and those who wished to obtain wealth quickly. Many wished to obtain exotic goods like those from the Indies, others however wished to create a successful agricultural economy, which they accomplished with both the cultivation sugar and tobacco. They also saw the natives as a source of cheap labor not present in their home land. However, an even more prevailing imperial goal for the Spaniards was the spread of the Catholic Church. The Pope wished for the Catholic Church to be the only religion present in the Americas and they desired for the natives to be converted. Complying to this demand, the Spaniards built missions, and sent priests and other religious individuals there to accomplish this goal.
     The French, like both the Spanish and English, wished to obtain fortune from this new world, and like the Spanish, they felt obligated to convert the natives to Roman Catholicism. Economically, the French were inclined to colonize North America because of the prosperous fur trade they had early established with the natives. This economic goal was their primary motive. Unlike the Spanish, they did not have the imperialistic goal of enlisting the natives as laborers. They did wish to convert the natives, however, they were not as driven as the Spanish to achieve this, and thereby, not as forceful with their tactics. They also wished to establish a powerful presence within the new world, however, few eligible citizens were willing to migrate there.
     Overall, between the years of 1580 and 1763, the Imperialistic goals of Britain, France, and Spain in North America were primarily economic, religious, and in the interest of establishing dominance over this new land. Britain wished to establish new ports for trade, obtain exotic goods, and its citizens wished to find religious asylum from the oppressiveness of Europe. Spain, also wished to obtain to locations to trade with and exotic goods, however, they also wished to spread the Roman Catholic faith, and establish complete dominance for it in North America. The French wanted also to institute new ports for trade and obtain exotic goods, and akin to Spain, they wished to bring and spread the Catholic faith in North America.