The “Era of Good Feelings” label put on the time period after the War of 1812 represents a political anomaly in American history—the practically unopposed election of Monroe—but not a social or political trend. While Monroe’s overwhelming success in election points towards unity of mind, general trends and opinions of the time run contrary to this idea, and the following tumult soon ran the country into its Civil War, attesting to the lack of unity that was already brewing during the so-called “Era of Good Feelings.”
Although the election of 1820 seems to speak of one mind across America, there is much evidence to disprove this completely. On Monroe’s election, he received an overwhelming majority of electoral votes, with only one going to …show more content…
Until the following presidential election, where the second Adams would win in a hotly debated contest among four men, the popular vote didn’t exist, and so the vote cannot represent the sentiments of Americans outside of the country’s capital (Doc 6). The seeds of disunion had already been sown, and the issue that would eventually uproot the Union was spreading political tension. In 1820 in a personal letter, past-president Thomas Jefferson admitted to terror over the “knell” of the union, a spreading irritation which would only grow stronger, referring to the issue of slavery between North and South states and what would soon go into law as the Missouri Compromise (Doc 5). A political leader and statesman, Jefferson foresaw the chafing irritation that the Compromise line would soon draw, and foretold, down the line, the eventuality of Civil War. He himself remarked that although the conflict was minimal, it wouldn’t stay that way (Doc 5). John C. Calhoun, a member of the House and later Vice President under both Adams and Jackson, worried about disunion as well, as early as 1817. Although a serious racist and wealthy …show more content…
While people like John Randolph spoke openly about trying to keep the country unified through economic control and regulation, many others openly opposed these efforts (Doc 1). Even the Supreme Court ruled in McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819 that power came from the states, not the people, and so the federal government has no say in the control of banks, directly opposing any hope that someone like Randolph may have had towards a regulated market that would breed unity rather than state pride and sectionalism (Doc 3, 1). This sectionalism found its origin in the Constitution and only grew stronger as time went on, specifically in the South. The Nullification Crisis under Jackson only exemplifies the rampant sectionalism the country experienced and the strengthening of both sides. Calhoun, an earlier proponent of the American System, flipped the bill by garnering support for and, in effect, masterminding the crisis (Doc 2). He went from supporting unity through infrastructure to nullifying laws or tariffs he found damaging in order to protect his slave-labor revenues. The ultimate policy change, made for the sake of slavery, which was at the heart of all the country’s quarrels. Even John Lewis Krimmel’s “Fourth of July
Although the election of 1820 seems to speak of one mind across America, there is much evidence to disprove this completely. On Monroe’s election, he received an overwhelming majority of electoral votes, with only one going to …show more content…
Until the following presidential election, where the second Adams would win in a hotly debated contest among four men, the popular vote didn’t exist, and so the vote cannot represent the sentiments of Americans outside of the country’s capital (Doc 6). The seeds of disunion had already been sown, and the issue that would eventually uproot the Union was spreading political tension. In 1820 in a personal letter, past-president Thomas Jefferson admitted to terror over the “knell” of the union, a spreading irritation which would only grow stronger, referring to the issue of slavery between North and South states and what would soon go into law as the Missouri Compromise (Doc 5). A political leader and statesman, Jefferson foresaw the chafing irritation that the Compromise line would soon draw, and foretold, down the line, the eventuality of Civil War. He himself remarked that although the conflict was minimal, it wouldn’t stay that way (Doc 5). John C. Calhoun, a member of the House and later Vice President under both Adams and Jackson, worried about disunion as well, as early as 1817. Although a serious racist and wealthy …show more content…
While people like John Randolph spoke openly about trying to keep the country unified through economic control and regulation, many others openly opposed these efforts (Doc 1). Even the Supreme Court ruled in McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819 that power came from the states, not the people, and so the federal government has no say in the control of banks, directly opposing any hope that someone like Randolph may have had towards a regulated market that would breed unity rather than state pride and sectionalism (Doc 3, 1). This sectionalism found its origin in the Constitution and only grew stronger as time went on, specifically in the South. The Nullification Crisis under Jackson only exemplifies the rampant sectionalism the country experienced and the strengthening of both sides. Calhoun, an earlier proponent of the American System, flipped the bill by garnering support for and, in effect, masterminding the crisis (Doc 2). He went from supporting unity through infrastructure to nullifying laws or tariffs he found damaging in order to protect his slave-labor revenues. The ultimate policy change, made for the sake of slavery, which was at the heart of all the country’s quarrels. Even John Lewis Krimmel’s “Fourth of July