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.
