Category: Sectionalism

Between 1740 and 1865, tensions between the Northern and Southern colonies and states grew, due to their increasingly diverging interests. While most historians agree that the conflict over slavery was one of the main causes of the war, whether these conflicts were ideological, political, moralistic, economic, or social, is something that still continues to be debated over a century following the end of the war. In addition to the evident economical differences each side began to experience, with the North urbanizing and the South continuing with their agricultural lifestyle– the abolitionist movement, the disjunction between state and federal rights, the rise of third political parties, the election of Abraham Lincoln, the fragmented Congress, as well as the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Dred Scott v. Sandford case– all contributed to the nation becoming “a house divided” and culminated in the Civil War in 1861 (Findlay).

The most obvious reason for the division of the Union was slavery. From an ideological perspective, slavery was not consistent with the core ideology of republicanism, which valued unalienable rights and liberty. The Union wanted to gradually abolish slavery (for many reasons) through method of non-extension, which aimed to end slavery by containing it. Contrary to common belief, the abolitionist movement in the North was not pro-African American or particularly morally driven. Despite slavery being absolved in the North by 1804, anti-black sentiment and racism (not only against African Americans, but also immigrants) was still rampant. The Civil War did not start out as a war over slavery, instead it was a war that aimed at preserving the Union. The North essentially used slavery as a justification for war. This is evident in the North’s sudden shift from their pro-slavery ideals to their sudden abolitionist ideologies. When The Liberator, by William Lloyd Garrison was published in 1831, he represented a new voice that was insistent on ending slavery and advocating for enfranchisement. At this point, he was a minority, being so moralistic and immediate in his approach to abolishing slavery. He was disliked by most Northerners and ended up being run out of town. However, he did alter the dialogue of slavery in the North and invoked a new sense of thinking regarding slavery and the values of the practice. Still, at this time, many Northerners were pro-slavery, however, by 1852 when Uncle Tom’s Cabin, by Harriet Beecher Stowe, was published, Northerners responded favorably to her message, with it becoming a best seller. Within the span of twenty years, the North had gone from being accepting of slavery to openly opposing it (Findlay).

While all colonies, North and South, at some point were complicit in the slave trade, Southern colonies, with their warmer climates and fertile land, tended to be more dependent on slave labor as their economies were driven by agriculture, specifically the cotton and tobacco trade. With agriculture being so profitable as a result of slave labor, most southerners were set in their agricultural lifestyle and did not see the need for industrialization. Contrarily, as time passed, the Northern colonies, which were geographically less suited for farming, became progressively less dependent on agriculture, and instead began to embrace urbanization and industrialization. With the rapid construction of factories and infrastructures such as railroads, manufacturing and overseas exports became the backbone of the Northern economy. “Between 1800 and 1860, the percentage of [northern] laborers working in agricultural pursuits dropped drastically from 70% to 40%” (Battlefields). This major economic transition, as well as the freedom and opportunity that America seemed to offer, attracted many immigrants from European countries. As a result, in the North, slaves, were essentially replaced by these immigrant laborers and by free blacks from the South. In addition to this, the North had adapted a free labor ideology, which essentially directly opposed the idea of slavery. These economic divergences led the North and South to slowly grow apart in their principles and interests, which contributed to the divisive nature of the US. The sectionalism resulted in an obvious split between the North and South– citizens were no longer just “Americans”, they were Northerners or Southerners.

The sectionalism between the Northerners and Southerners was apparent in government as well, with Congress slowly falling apart. This can be seen in the attack of Senator Charles Sumner by Congressman Preston Brooks. Brooks took it upon himself to advocate for slavery by beating the anti-slavery senator, Sumner, with a cane. This incident drew a drastically polarized response from the American public regarding the expansion of slavery in the US. It was symbolic of the discourse that was present in the public, as well as the government. In 1850, California applied to the Union and entered as a free state. However, at the time there was no Southern state applying to become a slave state, resulting in an imbalance, with 15 slave states and 16 free states (Findlay). Consequently, in this compromise, the Fugitive Slave Law was passed, but nine Northern states had already passed laws refusing to cooperate with the federal laws for recapture. This showed the present disjunction between national and state laws. This compromise also allowed for any future state applying to the union to be determined as a free or slave state by method of popular sovereignty. This was problematic as any state regardless of location could become a slave or free state. Conflict emerged in 1854, in Kansas, when pro-slavery and anti-slavery advocates rushed to Kansas to influence the decision. This culminated in the conflict Bleeding Kansas, which was essentially a mini civil war, six years before the actual Civil War (Findlay).

In addition to this incident, the Supreme Court’s decision on the 1857, Dred Scott v. Sandford case, added heat to the tension already surrounding the issue of slavery. A slave, Dred Scott sued for his freedom because his owner had lived in a free state for four years, the state courts made opposing decisions so the case went to The Supreme Court. The Supreme Court made a pro-Southern defense of slavery by making two points: the federal government lacked the power to ban slavery and that African Americans, regardless of being free or a slave, weren’t citizens so therefore had no right to bring something to court. “The blacks had no rights which the white man was bound to respect” (Chief Justice Taney). This decision opened all territories up to slavery once again, allowing for expansion. Therefore, in this sense, the central cause of conflict between the North and South was the issue of slavery, but it was only in the expansion that slavery truly became a reason for war. During this time the national parties are beginning to break down with the Democrats and Whigs, forming inner sectional Northern and Southern branches. This results in the rise of the Republican party, represented by Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln took advantage of the splits within the Democratic party, and won the 1860 election through a plurality of the vote. Lincoln’s victory triggered declarations of secession by several slave states, and the formation of the Confederate States. The Confederacy, as well as the declarations of secession were not acknowledged by the North. Lincoln was not anti-slavery, instead he was primarily concerned with the preservation of the Union. “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery” (1862, Letter to Horace Greeley).

Lincoln like many Northerners’s main goal was to unify America into a single, industrialized America. Therefore, it can be argued that the abolition of slavery was merely an unintentional result of the war, not the main cause for war. The Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 did not free a single slave, and instead only applied to states where Congress had already outlawed slavery and to the states that had already seceded from the Union. It did not apply to the border states where the slavery was a problem. The effect of the proclamation was a more symbolic one, it changed the war into a war about secession to a war about slavery. It declared that freed slaves could fight for the Union. The Civil War had changed from “white man’s war” to the war for African American’s to earn their freedom and citizenship (Proud Shoes). As Frederick Douglass said once a black man had fought for the US, “there is no power on earth that can deny that he has earned the right to citizenship”. By the end of the Civil War, over 180,000 black men had fought on the Union’s side (National Archives). The proclamation showed that the Civil War wasn’t simply about unifying the nation, but about slavery, and was strategically used to increase morale and the number of soldiers on the Union’s side to win the war.

The differences surrounding slavery, economic development, and political ideals between 1740 and 1865, resulted in America becoming a “house divided”. While many may believe that the North’s anti-slavery stance was based on moral principles, arguing that it was the only factor in the emergence Union’s abolitionist ideals would be an incorrect generalization. Tensions between the North and South grew regarding slavery and secession due their increasingly diverging interests regarding slavery and industrialization eventually resulting in the Civil War.

The Era of Good Feelings marked a period in the political history of the United States that reflected a sense of country wide purpose and a desire for harmony among Americans in the aftermath of the War of 1812. The technology noticed the crumple of the Federalist Party and an cease to the bitter partisan disputes between it and the dominant Democratic-Republican Party for the length of the First Party System. President James Monroe strove to downplay partisan affiliation in making his nominations, with the ultimate aim of national concord and disposing of political activities altogether from united states large politics. The period is so carefully associated with Monroe’s presidency (1817–1825) and his administrative goals that his title and the technology are virtually synonymous. During and after the 1824 presidential election, the Democratic-Republican Party destroy up between supporters and opponents of Jacksonian Nationalism, main to the Second Party System.

The designation of the duration by using historians as one of the right feelings is frequently conveyed with irony or skepticism, as the history of the era used to be one in which the political surroundings were once as soon as strained and divisive, especially among factions within the Monroe administration and the Democratic-Republican Party. The phrase Era of Good Feelings used to be as soon as coined thru Benjamin Russell in the Boston Federalist newspaper Columbian Centime on July 12, 1817, following Monroe’s go to to Boston, Massachusetts, as part of his good-will tour of the United States.

Post-war nationalism

The Era of Good Feelings began in 1815 in the mood of victory that swept the state at the cease of the War of 1812. Exultation changed the bitter political divisions between Federalists and Republicans, the North and South, and the East Coast cities and settlers on the American frontier. The political combat declined due to the reality the Federalist Party had usually dissolved after the fiasco of the Hartford Convention in 1814–15. As a party, Federalists had collapsed as a US broad political force’. The Democratic-Republican Party used to be nominally dominant, but in workout it was once inactive at the USA huge degree and in most states. The generation noticed a trend in the direction of nationalization that anticipated ‘a eternal federal characteristic in the essential vicinity of country-wide development and countrywide prosperity’. Monroe’s predecessor, President James Madison, and the Republican Party had come to admire – by way of the crucible of battle – the expediency of Federalist organizations and projects and prepared to legislate them underneath the auspices of John C. Calhoun and Henry Clay’s American System. Madison introduced this shift in coverage with his Seventh Annual Message to Congress in December 1815, because of this authorizing measures for a national economic organization and a protecting tariff on manufactures. Vetoing the Bonus Bill on strict constructionist grounds, Madison although was once determined, as had been his predecessor, Thomas Jefferson, to see indoors improvements carried out with an change to the US Constitution. Writing to Monroe, in 1817, Madison declared that ‘there has in no way been a second when such a proposition to the states used to be as soon as so likely to be approved’.

The emergence of ‘new Republicans’ – undismayed via moderate nationalist policies – predicted Monroe’s ‘era of proper feelings’ and a broadly well-known mood of optimism emerged with hopes for political reconciliation. Monroe’s landslide victory towards Federalist Rufus King in the 1816 presidential election used to be so broadly estimated that voter turnout used to be low. A spirit of reconciliation between Republicans and Federalists was good underway when Monroe assumed workplace in March 1817.

Monroe and political parties

As president, James Monroe was as soon as widely anticipated to facilitate a rapprochement of the political occasions in order to harmonize the u . s . in a usual USA broad outlook, instead than occasion interests. Both events exhorted him to encompass a Federalist in his cabinet to signify the new technological know-how of ‘oneness’ that pervaded the nation. Monroe approached these traits with exquisite warning and deliberation. As president-elect, he cautiously crafted the stance he would expect closer to the declining Federalists in a letter to General Andrew Jackson of Tennessee in December 1816. First, Monroe reaffirmed his conviction – an ‘anti-Federalist’ article of have confidence – that the Federalist Party was once dedicated to putting in a monarch and overthrowing republican varieties of government at the first opportunity. To appoint a member of such a birthday celebration to a top govt position, Monroe reasoned, would only serve to extend the inevitable decline and fall of the opposition. Monroe made truly clear in this file that his administration would by using no capacity allow itself to quit up tainted with Federalist ideology. Secondly, he used to be loath to arouse jealousies within his very own birthday party with the aid of capability of performing to accommodate any Federalist, at the rate of a Republican. This would only serve to create factions and a revival of the birthday celebration identity. And third, Monroe sought to merge former Federalists with Republicans as a prelude to doing away with birthday party associations altogether from USA large politics, together with his own Republican party. All political parties, wrote Monroe, were, with the aid of way of their very nature, incompatible with free government. Ideally, the business company of governing used to be once excellent performed through way of disinterested statesmen, performing solely in the national activity – no longer on behalf of sectional pastimes or private ambition. This used to be once ‘amalgamation’ – the supposed quit of birthday celebration war and the organising of the ‘politics of consensus’.His coverage echoed the arguments put forth thru President George Washington in his farewell address in 1796 and his warnings towards political ‘factions’.The method Monroe employed to deflate the Federalist Party used to be thru neglect: they have been denied all political patronage, administrative appointments and federal help of any kind. Monroe pursued this policy dispassionately and besides any want to persecute the Federalists: his reason used to be once virtually to eradicate them from positions of political power, both Federal and State, in particular in its New England strongholds. He understood that any expression of official approval would only motivate hope for a Federalist revival, and this he should not abide. In his public pronouncements, Monroe used to be cautious to keep away from any remarks that ought to be interpreted as politically partisan. Not totally did he in no way attack the Federalist party, he made no direct reference to them in his speeches whatsoever: officially, they ceased to exist. In his private encounters with Federalists, he made favorable impressions, committing himself to nothing, yet eliciting precise feelings, and reassuring them that his insurance plan insurance policies would be generous, as he proceeded quietly with a software of ‘de-Federalization’.So absolutely had Monroe decreased birthday party politics that he in truth ran unopposed in the 1820 presidential election. The Federalists ran no candidate to oppose him, on foot solely a vice-presidential candidate, Richard Stockton. Monroe and his vice president Daniel D. Tompkins would have received reelection unanimously thru the electoral college, had there no longer been a handful of faithless electors; one presidential elector forged his vote for John Quincy Adams, while a handful of electors (mostly former Federalists) strong votes for a number of Federalist candidates for Vice President. It would be the last presidential election in which a candidate would run in fact unopposed.

The Great Goodwill Tour and USA extensive embody republicanism

The most ideal expression of the Era of Good Feelings was Monroe’s country-wide Goodwill tour in 1817 and 1819. His visits to New England and to the Federalist stronghold of Boston, Massachusetts, in particular, had been the most giant of the tour. Here, the descriptive phrase ‘Era of Good Feelings’ was once as soon as bestowed via using a nearby Federalist journal.

The President’s bodily appearance, material cloth cabinet and personal attributes have been decisive in arousing correct feelings on the tour. He donned a Revolutionary War officer’s uniform and tied his long, powdered hair in a queue according to the historical faculty trend of the 18th century. ‘Tall, rawboned, venerable’, he made an ‘agreeable’ have an effect on and had a splendid deal of charm, and ‘most guys proper now liked him … [in] manner he was once alternatively formal, having an innate experience of dignity, which allowed no one to take liberties. Yet in spite of his formality, he had the capability to put guys at their ease through his courtesy, lack of condescension, his frankness, and what his contemporaries regarded as the necessary goodness and kindness of heart which he continually radiated.’Monroe’s go to Boston elicited a giant outpouring of nationalist pleasure and expressions of reconciliation. New England Federalists were mainly eager to showcase their loyalty after the debacle of the Hartford Convention. Amidst the festivities – banquets, parades, receptions – many took the opportunity to make the most ‘explicit and solemn declarations’ to remove, as Monroe wrote afterward, ‘impressions of that kind, which they knew existed, and to get returned into the outstanding family of the union’. Abigail Adams dubbed the catharsis an ‘expiation.’Here, in the coronary heart of Federalist territory, Monroe received the most essential intention of his tour; in effect, permitting ‘the Federalists by using solemn public demonstrations to reaffirm their loyalty to the authorities and their acceptance of Republican control’. Even in this surroundings of contrition, Monroe used to be once assiduous in heading off any remarks or expressions that would perchance chasten or humiliate his hosts. He introduced himself strictly as the head of state, and no longer as the chief of a fantastic political party. In the ensuing years, the New England states capitulated, and alternatively, Massachusetts used to be in Republican Party hands. De-Federalization was once sincerely complete through 1820 and the appointment of former Federalist Party humans appeared in order; however, Monroe feared a backlash even at this top-quality stage in the approach of amalgamation. Most anti-Federalist sentiments have been political posturing, alternatively Monroe was once now now not so impenetrable of information for his domestic and distant places programs and was once as soon as concerned at the mounting combat over the upcoming presidential contest in 1824, a basically intraparty affair. Monroe’s remaining reconciling with the Federalists was in no way consummated.

Failure of amalgamation and upward jab of the Old Republicans

Monroe’s success in mitigating birthday celebration rancor produced an appearance of political unity, with nearly all Americans figuring out themselves as Republicans. His almost unanimous electoral victory for reelection in 1820 was viewed to affirm this. Recognizing the risk of intraparty rivalries, Monroe attempted to consist of doable presidential candidates and pinnacle political leaders in his administration. His cabinet comprised three of the political opponents who would vie for the presidency in 1824: John Quincy Adams, John C. Calhoun and William H. Crawford. A fourth, Andrew Jackson, held excessive military appointments. Here, Monroe felt he ought to manipulate the factional disputes and prepare compromise on national politics within administration guidelines. His notable disadvantage used to be that amalgamation deprived him of appealing to Republican ‘solidarity’ that would have cleared the way for passage of his applications in Congress.

‘From the second that Monroe adopted as his guiding precept the maxim that he used to be head of a nation, not the leader of a party, he repudiated for all realistic purposes the birthday celebration unity’ that would have served to establish his policies. The end result was as soon as a loss of celebration discipline. Absent was once the famous adherence to the precepts of Jeffersonianism: USA sovereignty, strict construction and steadiness of Southern institutions. Old Republican critics of the new nationalism, amongst them John Randolph of Roanoke, Virginia, had warned that the abandonment of the Jeffersonian scheme of Southern preeminence would provoke a sectional conflict, North and South, that would threaten the union. Former president James Madison had recommended Monroe that in any free government, it used to be once herbal that birthday celebration identification would take shape. The disastrous Panic of 1819 and the Supreme Court’s McCulloch v. Maryland reanimated the disputes over the supremacy of kingdom sovereignty and federal power, between strict improvement of the US Constitution and free construction. The Missouri Crisis in 1820 made the explosive political battle between slave and free soil open and explicit. Only by using the adroit managing of the rules with the resource of Speaker of the House Henry Clay used to be once a settlement reached and disunion avoided. With the decline in political consensus, it grew to turn out to be essential to revive Jeffersonian ideas on the groundwork of Southern exceptionalism. The agrarian alliance, North and South, would be revived to shape Jacksonian Nationalism and the upward push of the modern day Democratic Party. The interlude of the Era of Good Feelings was once at an end.

References

1. George Dangerfield. The Era of Good Feelings (1952).
2. George Dangerfield. The Awakening of American Nationalism: 1815–1828 (1965).
3. Howe, Daniel Walker. What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848 (2008).
4. Patricia L. Dooley, ed. (2004). The Early Republic: Primary Documents on Events from 1799 to 1820. Greenwood. p. 298ff. ISBN 9780313320842.CS1 maint: Extra text: authors list (link) textual content of Benjamin Russell’s editorial
5. ‘President Madison’s Veto Message’. March 3, 1817. Archived from the original in May 2019.
6. ‘President Monroe’s Veto Message’. May 4, 1822. Archived from the original on May 2019.
7. ‘President Monroe’s Views of the President of the United States on the Subject of Internal Improvements’. May 4, 1822. Archived from the original in May 2019.

Starting in the late 1700s, the United States gradually established itself as a nation that was heavily reliant on slavery because of the Southern plantation-based economy. As the nation developed, some people such as Quakers were against slavery because of their religious belief, while other people gradually moved over to the abolitionist side in the early to mid-1800s. The growing opposition to slavery was due to increasing sectionalism, the consistent deferring of the discussion about slavery to a later date, and the use of propaganda. The increasing sectionalism that resulted from specialization, led to the northern region of the country to legally create emancipation laws as early as 1777. In document one, there is a partial map of the United States that nine states and the Northwest Territory. All 10 of those places had a law put into place that required either immediate emancipation or gradual emancipation of slaves. This is understandable because there was not a plantation-based economy in the North like there was in the South. Since there was not the same belief that slave labor was a necessity in the North compared to the South, some version of emancipation was much more reasonable. In addition to that, in document two, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 1783 argued that “[the Constitution states that] all men are born free and equal” which emphasizes the belief that “[The Constitution] is totally repugnant to the idea of being born slaves”. This case known as Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Nathaniel Jennison highlighted the general northern perspective on slavery that existed in 1783. Although this ruling theoretically was possible anywhere in the United States, because of the Southern reliance on slavery, it did not happen in the South.

The increase in Northern states with some kind of emancipation combined with their belief the Constitution condemned slavery, led to the growing opposition to slavery. The United States was very divided regarding the topic of slavery, and so the discussions of how to handle it were deferred for the first decades of existence; however, that only led to the issue intensifying. The issue of when to discuss slavery on a national level was heavily disputed and even lead to the passing of the gag rule, a law stating that abolition of slavery would not be discussed until 1844, in 1836. Document four highlights how people even attempted to appeal to various groups like southern Christian women. Angelina Grimké shared her perspective on slavery and how Christian women should try to get their families to send petitions against slavery to legislatures with a humanitarian appeal about the quality of life for slaves.

The Second Great Awakening was occurring while Grimké shared her beliefs, and so aspects of the way people spoke to invigorate a crowd is evident in her appeal, especially in the last sentence of the document. Despite her urging people to send petitions to legislatures, the gag rule was passed in the same year as Grimké’s appeal, highlighting that no matter how deeply devoted someone was to the cause, nothing would happen for a few years. Years later, in 1850, John C. Calhoun, a United States pro-slavery senator and former vice president, addressed the United States Senate sharing how he believed the nation would split because of slavery. In document six, Calhoun shares that the political parties have failed to prevent the United States from having a huge divide over slavery and that the nation is in danger because of it. Despite numerous appeals, emancipation in some states, and abolitionist propaganda, the South was unwilling to compromise which further strengthened the growing opposition to slavery.

The tool of propaganda and encouraging awareness of what was occurring and/or available strengthened the growing abolitionist movement. For example, document five is an excerpt of the autobiography of Frederick Douglass, a runaway slave who publically shared his story in 1845. Frederick Douglass shared how he violently resisted to a white overseer because of the pain he experienced regularly. Douglass’ vulnerable experience which gave him the confidence to boldly defy, and eventually escape, is a powerful story that was shared as his autobiography spread. Tales like Douglass’ strengthened the abolitionist movement. Later, in 1851, just a year after the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was passed forbidding people from aiding runaway slaves, document seven is a street poster Theodore Parker, an abolitionist, created warning colored people that people will try to kidnap them and that they should always remain alert, regardless of whether or not they were a runaway slave. Parker’s poster draws attention towards the group of people who wanted to help the abolitionist movement by aiding runaway slaves, but also knew they had to avoid being caught.

A piece of propaganda used by the abolitionist movement that was very notable and was read internationally was Uncle Tom’s Cabin, a book that told the stories of many former slaves and emphasized the evils of slavery. Document eight, a poster advertising Uncle Tom’s Cabin in the late 1850s, describes it as “The greatest book of the age”, with hundreds of thousands of copies sold. Uncle Tom’s cabin was published initially in 1852, and overall was an extremely important book for the abolitionist cause because it was a response to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. The abolitionist cause’s use of propaganda dramatically strengthened the growing resistance to slavery. Increasing sectionalism, the consistent deference of the discussion about abolition, and the use of propaganda contributed to the growing opposition to slavery. Before this time period, slavery was legally permitted everywhere in what was then the colonies because they were still under British rule, and Britain allowed slavery. As the nation developed, states in the north gradually set some type of law against slavery in place. This growing opposition to slavery, particularly in the North, and the pressure on the South to abolish slavery despite how dependent its economy was on slavery, highlights the internal divide in the United States and hints to the upcoming civil war.