Are there a handful of events or developments that one might point to as making this era one of bad feelings? If not, what makes it one of "bad feelings?" How is the Missouri Compromise utilized by Brown, Wilentz, and Crocker?
The ten years or so after the War of 1812 do not seem to deserve the title of “The Era of Good Feelings.” In many ways, the era was demonstrably that of bad feelings, or, at least on par with any other period of time in American history. The absence of a two party system does not mean that there was an absence of dissent or disagreement in politics. And James monroe’s ease of election and reelection isn’t anything that uniquely indicates a pacified political environment; he was the last of the remaining “founding fathers” so the nature of his elections are to be expected as logical rather than some example of “good feelings.” In fact, there are a tremendous amount of events that took place during this “era” that allows an observer to make a case for “bad feelings.” The first is the Panic of 1819. Two of the primary source documents from MPER demonstrate the rise and impact of that panic. From 1818, John Jacob Astor writes about the problems of speculation and other issues problematic with the Bank. And from 1820, James Flint describes how men were actually emigrating back to Europe in efforts to find decent work, if any work at all. I doubt those expatriates or any other American suffering at the time would reflect upon his or her experiences as consistent with “the era of good feelings.” In addition to the economy, the whole issue of slavery meant that there were debates and heated disagreements. This issue never went away. The label of “era of good feelings” connotes that slavery was an issue from the Revolution to the War of 1812, then not an issue at all until Jackson, and then from there on up to the Civil War. This is, of course, preposterous, and the best evidence of this is the debate over Missouri entering the union. Up to that point, states had entered the Union two at a time for the most part: one slave state in the south with one free state in the north. With Missouri’s petitions to join the United States there was strong debate as to whether or not it entered as free or slave. The reasons are numerous. Objection to Missouri as a slave state were more sophisticated and complicated than “slavery is bad and must not be perpetuated.” Although those sentiments existed, the most practical concerns over Missouri’s statehood rested in the implications upon the United States Congress. If Missouri entered as a slave state, the Senate would have a pro-slavery majority, and the House of Representatives would also add more pro-slavery members. This was feared because of the trend it might represent. A compromise was reached in 1820, with Missouri entering as slave and Maine entering as free, but the fact that a compromise was needed is evidence that, despite a one party system, there were tremendous contentions during the time. Brown, Wilentz and Crocker use the Missouri Compromise in unique ways to understand its implications upon the rest of the 1820s and consequently, the rest of antebellum America. Brown says that the Republican party created its own doom. It had become so successful under the unity of true Jeffersonian Republicanism that it destroyed the opposition Federalist party. What happened to the Federalists? They became Republicans, but they did not leave their Federalist ideas behind. The Republican incorporated those ideas along with the former Federalists, and that destroyed the unity of the party. The Missouri Compromise, then, was a symptom and cause of inner turmoil with the Republican Party. Wilentz credits slavery with much of the problems associated with the Missouri Compromise. There were real issues that directly affected the immediate future of slavery, and this made the nature of Missouri’s admittance hugely important. Brown writes about the regional differences associated with the Missouri Compromise, and a few other implications associated with it.
Even though some historians refer to this period of American history as the “Era of Good Feelings” it clearly was not. It is evident that this period was filled with doubt and concern about the direction of the nation. There were numerous events that occurred during this period that point to making this an “Era of Bad Feelings.” The financial panic of 1819 and the heated debated over the Missouri Compromise help make this the “Era of Bad Feelings.” The financial panic of 1819 came after the expansion in the economy following the War of 1812, and according to contemporaries, “the U.S. Bank is not doing so well as they might have done. There has been too much speculation and too much assumption of power on the part of the Bank.” This panic became so bad that many people were, “returning to Europe without finding the prospect of a livelihood in America” because unemployment was so bad. The other development that led to this period being known as the “Era of Bad Feelings” was the passionate debate about the Missouri Crisis. As Thomas Jefferson states, “this momentous question, like a fire bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror.” After reading document 3 it becomes evident that there was much debate over the question of slavery in the territories. The debate shown in document 3 displays the sectional differences over the issue of slavery and displays that the issue of slavery was going to be and important one in the impending future of the United States and shape the direction of the country. These two events alone can be seen as making this and “Era of Bad Feelings.” Brown, Wilentz, and Crocker all utilize the Missouri Compromise in different ways. Brown sees the Missouri Compromise as the South coming back into national prominence in politics. He also believes that Van Buren helped solidify this power by becoming Jackson’s most trusted advisor. As Brown states, “an administration brought to power by old republican votes would be governed by old republican principles. Wilentz does not focus, as much on the South as Brown does he instead believes that the Missouri Compromise split the Republicans over slavery and he believes that this split was healed in the short term, but eventually lead to the formation of separate parties He asserts that this division helped pave the way for the formation of intersectional parties that included slavery and anti-slavery Jeffersonian Republicans. Crocker, like Brown focuses on the South but he focuses the divisions within the South over this compromise. He also focuses on foreign policy and how it affected the Compromise. He uses the Monroe Doctrine to point to how it affected the outcome of the Missouri Compromise. He believes that these events are mutually exclusive and they are connected and they both influenced each other heavily. I like the way Crocker uses these two seemingly unrelated events to tell the story of the Missouri Compromise and how he connects foreign concerns with domestic concerns some things that modern Americans do not always do.
There are indeed a handful of events that one may pinpoint as to the source of the “era of bad feelings” following the War of 1812. Although many believed the years following the war to be prosperous (seeing as the U.S. had won, political conflict was gone, voting rights were granted to virtually all white male citizens, ect…) these feelings did not last long at all. The assumption of too much power by the banks insinuated the economic crises to come, i.e the Panic of 1819, which left thousands of urban workers jobless and destroyed the livelihood of still more workers in the rural parts of the country. From this “Panic” class resentments resurfaced much like those during the Jeffersonian vs. Hamiltonian era, the feelings that the Second National Bank had screwed the common man over reverberated throughout the country. Land speculators and local elites were attacked as well, especially in the up and coming frontier. Frontiersmen felt as though their “best poor man’s country” was being swept away by greedy land speculators looking to buy up as much land as possible in order to turn out a hefty profit. Coupled with all this resentment was the issue of the statehood of Missouri. Both the North and the South had conflicting views as to the status Missouri would hold upon receiving its statehood; slave or free. Either way the balance between the two differing categories of statehood would be thrown off, therefore something had to be done to appease all, enter the Missouri Compromise. The Compromise may have appeased some for the time being but the issue of slavery still remained a hot topic and would not go away until our nation’s Civil War. Brown, Wilentz, and Crocker all use the Missouri Compromise to illustrate either a unification or schism within the southern society, more specifically in the reinvigorated Jeffersonian Democracy, and all agree that slavery was essential for the nation’s politics. Brown believes that the Missouri Compromise reinvigorated “Old Republicans” and reestablished the South’s domination over the North regarding politics. Brown states, “The Missouri Crisis gave rise not to prophecy alone, but to action… it lead to a successful attempt to revive the old Jeffersonian party.” Brown also claims that the Missouri crisis had put Northern Old Republicans “on the defense.” It is clear that Brown uses the crises in Missouri to illustrate a rise in southern power. Wilentz on the other hand believes that the Missouri crises led to a rupture among the Jeffersonian Republicans over the issue of slavery. Wilentz provides a concrete example in his charts regarding the voting on the issue of restricting slavery in Missouri in the Years 1819 and 1820. The schism is clear: in 1819 the South’s total votes on restricting slavery was one, the following year that number climbed to 76. Wilentz’s chart provides eye-opening evidence of a rupture among southerners. Crocker also focuses on the divisions of southerners regarding the Missouri Compromise. However he believes that the crises had facilitated southern pride and the expansion of slavery. Crocker also includes the foreign troubles the U.S. had during this era of bad feelings leading to the implementation of the Monroe Doctrine, banning European involvement on the “American” continent.
Like so much of the national rhetoric that is used after a war, the "era of good feelings" was no different. Brown, Wilentz, and Crocker all express the concerns for the country at this time and easily show how this time was not an "era of good feelings" but more of anxiety of the future. Brown's essay focuses on the Old Republicans and the revival of Jeffersonian politics. I feel like this was the countries or governments attempt to remind itself who it was. Why were we America again? It seems in the turmoil of war and conquest, slavery and abolition, and foreign and domestic threats, people and the bottom of society and the political elite all share the similar anxieties. What was going to happen as time went on? When were we going to go ahead and confront issues that have been put aside? As these questions start arising you start to see politicians strategically align themselves with what idea seemed best for them as this mess continues to unfold. As this unfolding occurs, how do we maintain the power, or lifestyle, or rights, or monetary policies, or our institutions of slavery? Wilentz I think does a good job examining the evolution of this crisis involving Missouri and the events leading to the Civil War. As states were entering the Union, debates swelled, nationalism grew on opposing sides, and within those opposing sides were factions of ideals that were struggling to see its manifestation. Each political perspective saw that this was ultimately a time of great opportunity, for example, Calhoun's call for state's rights. Crocker's essay examines how the debates over slavery and state's rights only flared with the Missouri debates and slavery expansion debates. I feel like this "era of anxious" feelings resulted in the "shady" election of Adams and the following election of Jackson. Adams' new view of republicanism pushed a new idea of Jeffersonian ideals and improvements. Whereas Jackson was idolized by those who sought opposition to those ideas such as Van Buren. Politics was no focused more on the mad grab for power and influence, rather than the basis for which the Declaration was written. Missouri as seen in the 3 essays was only the culmination of competing ideas about old problems.
I would not describe the decade or so after the War of 1812 as an ‘Era of Good Feelings.’ While the Federalist Party was nearly extinct, the one party system did not bring a period without dissent or disagreement, rather there were many events during this period, which split the American public and politics. On of these events was the Panic of 1819 in which John Jacob Astor foresees happening in his letter to Albert Gallatin in 1818 in which Astor expresses his concern over the rising number of Banks and the borrowing of Specie in the U.S. The second letter written by James Flint examines the hardships many working class citizens faced during the Panic. He writes of many jobless and homeless men looking for work, sleeping in fields outside of Baltimore. Many emigrate back to Europe after failing to make a reasonable living in the U.S. Those with jobs are unable to pay all their necessary expenses to live and are forced to sleep in the woods. The Panic of 1819 took its toll on many and set the precedent for further crises. The next was over the eventual statehood of the Missouri territory and whether it would be a slave or free state. This pitted many northern free states wanting Missouri to be free and fearing the spread of slavery westward against the southern slave states looking to expand their agricultural empire to the frontier. Another event which shook the American political scene was the Election of 1824 in which after Andrew Jackson won the most electoral votes but not a majority the vote went to the House where fourth place Henry Clay was the Speaker and a suggested but never proven deal went down between Clay and Adams leading to John Quincy Adams becoming the next president, infuriating Jackson and his large group of supporters. Making the whole event even more questionable is the fact that Henry Clay was appointed Secretary of State, a position that was seen as grooming future presidents. These events and more highlighted the ‘Era of Good Feelings’ where politics became public, the debate over slavery was just heating up, and the American economy was in shambles.
The period often referred to as the "Era of Good Feelings" is nothing of the sort. After the War of 1812, many elements were in place that would cause conflict throughout the country. One of these elements was strong sectionalism. Although it was not yet as defined as it would be in later years, the North versus South game had already been at play since the beginning of the country. Not only was that a conflict, but there were also sectional differences between West and East. Along with that, the Panic of 1819 rocked the financial sector and many questioned the future prosperity of the new nation. At the same time, the Missouri Compromise began the strong divide within the nation that would eventually end with the Civil War. With this eventually disastrous conflict brewing within such a young nation, bad feelings had to occur. Perhaps the most notable aspect of the "Era of Good Feelings" was the eventual birth of the Democratic Party. The party of the "little man" would continue to maintain this image until modern events.
With regards to the essays, all three authors seem to perceive the Missouri Compromise as a symptom of a much larger problem--yet they disagree on what exactly the larger problem is. Crocker, for the most part, points out how the regional differences within the South had effects on larger, national-level politics (like the Missouri Compromise). Also delving into Southern political influence, Brown focuses on the over-success that the Republicans achieved, which eventually lead to the brief single party system at hand during the Missouri Compromise. This, he argues, lead to differences and conflicts within the party--which rippled out and caused problems. At the same time, Wilentz concludes that the Missouri Compromise occurred as a result of slavery--implying it had inherent problems to begin with. Similarly to Crocker and Brown, Wilentz finds sectional divisions associated with the Missouri Compromise, but as being much more emphasized as a result of the compromise itself.
The 1820’s and beyond may have been an era of one party rule, but that hardly promoted harmony in America. What it effectively did was re-align the opposition, this time in a more toxic combination of North vs. South over the expansion of slavery. The Missouri issue really brought this new reality out into the open for Americans and stirred up passions that according to the authors and sources were latent in the North. True, the North sought a balance between slave and free states, but this was the first real issue that divided Republicans along this regional divide, what Jefferson termed a lethal fire. Old vs. New Republicans set the stage for a tumultuous debate over slavery and it’s expansion, eventually culminating in the Civil War. There were of course other issues that characterized this era as one of bad feelings. The Panic of 1819 had a very detrimental effect on the national spirit. Astor detailed some of the myriad issues facing the National Bank, including rampant land speculation that had a detrimental effect on farmer’s livelihood. James Flint chronicled the stories of Europeans who, for lack of employment in the States, returned to Europe, where he noted that some work is better than none at all. Describing in one breath the men who simply lived in the forest and hoped for work on a daily basis, the mechanics petitioning for a wage increase described how their pay barely covered their rent and clothes and provided what was very Marxian critique of the capitalists whom they worked for. These events did not denote and Era of Good Feelings by any measure. Of course, this era (presumably 1814 through 1820) was not at all one of Good Feelings, but it took a much more virulent form with the Missouri territory petitioning for statehood in 1820. Up to that point states had entered into the Union in pairs, thus negating any concerns over Southern domination of the Senate. This event had a clear and dramatic affect on national politics, and some of these affects were highlighted by the authors. All agreed that the movement really brought forth the ensuing divide, but some also assert it strengthened Southern unity as well. Brown wrote that the controversy re-invigorated the “Old Republicans”, galvanizing them in defense of slavery at the expense of their Northern counterparts thus reasserting the South’s dominant role in politics (much like it held over the defunct Federalist party). Where Brown sees a consolidation of Southern Republicans, Wilentz sees a genuine rupture in their ranks over the issue of slavery. He uses the charts of votes over restriction to indicate this rupture among them. Crocker also focuses on these splits, but focuses more on the international events surrounding them and understands them in this context. Simply put, the Monroe Doctrine was a political cover for a shaken Adams and Monroe, reeling from criticism that the treaty with Spain ceded too much and did not gain the coveted territory of Texas, even providing Mexico with a valid claim to the territory and proving Madison’s vision of a Texas unified with Spain’s retreat incorrect. Brown saw the desire to retain Texas as the real reason for this divide, and preventing the treaty superseded in Clay’s mind any efforts to stymie Congressional authority to restrict slavery, encapsulated in the 36-30 line.
In contast to what is typically taught in high school history classes, the decade after the War of 1812 was not an “era of good feelings” at all. On the surface, the lack of inter-party conflict and the relative ease with which James Monroe was elected president in 1816 and 1820 may seem to be signs of political comity, but they do not account for the increased intra-party conflict within the Republican party, especially in Congress. As John Jacob Astor observed, a “general blow up” appeared with the Panic of 1819, which, as it has today in the “economic crisis of 2008,” proved to be extraordinarily divisive. Interestingly though, the main combatants were ostensibly members of the same party. But perhaps the most divisive issue centers around the introduction of Missouri as a slave state into the union. Each side proposed convincing arguments, although they differed sharply in nature. The pro-slavery side argued that the federal government should not dictate whether slavery was allowed within a state, arguing that slavery was part of the rights of the landowners and was in the interest of both slaves and their owners. Additionally, Thomas Jefferson and others even believed that the extension of slavery into the new states to the west would result in better treatment for slaves everywhere, arguing that slaves would be “generally happier” and assured of their eventual emancipation. However, those who were against the introduction of Missouri argued the depravity of the institution of slavery itself; as Rufus King and Timothy Fuller argue, the institution of slavery threatened the republican and egalitarian ideals upon which the nation was founded, and its complete abolition was necessary for the continuation of those values. Thus, the issue of introduction of slavery into the new state of Missouri highlighted the growing tensions between those like John C. Calhoun who were troubled about the increasing role of the federal government in affairs of the individual states, a fear that would eventually lead to the “nullification crisis” and the onset of secession. This conflict within the Republican party also led to the eventual formation of opposition parties in the short term, a cause championed by future president Martin Van Buren who aimed to elevate Andrew Jackson as a future political leader. Brown, Wilentz, and Crocker, each attempt to examine these events, but approach them differently. Brown prefers to see the Missouri Compromise as the resurgence of the South as a political force. He sees the eventual fracturing of the Republican party as a function of the misrepresentation of southern interests; thus, I believe he overemphasize the South’s importance in the development of new parties. Wilentz approaches the issue as a conflict between the state and the federal government, an argument I find to be much more convincing. Interestingly, both sides advocated the preservation of individual rights; one side promoted the idea that states should protect individual slaveowners’ rights, while anti-expansionists argued that slavery violated the basic rights of the slaves. Finally, Crocker draws an interesting parallel between major tenets of American foreign policy and domestic political concerns. At the heart of both the Missouri conflict and the issuing of the Monroe Doctrine late in Monroe’s presidency, was the United States’ interests in expanding not only its borders but also its influence. Not only did southerners want Missouri to be a slave state, but they were also excited at the prospect of introducing Florida and Texas as future slave states, ensuring their hold on power in Congress. Crocker argues that the issuing of the Monroe Doctrine was aimed to keep Spain (and Mexico) away from the coveted territories of Florida and Texas, a fact which also can help explain the debate over slavery in Missouri.
The Era of Good Feelings or, more appropriately, the Era of Bad Feelings at first celebrated a united political party in Congress, but was soon also characterized by an economic panic in 1819, the formation of workers unions “[…] to ward off from ourselves and families those numerous evils which result from an unequal and very excessive accumulation of wealth and power into the hands of a few[…]”, the heated 1828 presidential election between the intellectual John Qunicy Adams and the adventuresome Andrew Jackson, and, of course, the crisis in Missouri (Wilentz 288). The importance of the crisis in Missouri and the resulting Missouri Compromise during this era and the effects it had on American politics are both issues addressed by historians Richard H. Brown, Sean Wilentz, and Matthew H. Crocker. Brown argues that Southerners were particularly concerned about disrupting the national balance of slave and freed states in the Union. This, they feared, would open the floodgates for a series of anti-slavery legislation that could cripple the South’s economic and social lifestyle. Wilentz, like Brown, also addresses the tensions that arose between Congressmen in the national government during the months leading up to the Missouri Compromise and the underlying issue of slavery, which shaped the entire debate: “Southerners worried that a ban on slavery in Missouri, already home to 10,000 slaves—roughly fifteen percent of its total population—would create a precedent for doing so in all the entering states from the trans-Mississippi West, thereby establishing congressional powers that slaveholders denied existed,” (Wilentz 305). However, Wilentz also pays close attention to the political divisions the Compromise created in what Americans had not so long ago seen as a strong, united, one-party national government. “Firmly rooted in Jeffersonian writ, their [restrictionist Republicans] nationalism would neither seek to expand the powers of the federal government beyond the strictest construction nor endorse the idea, dear to Southern Old Republicans, that the Union was merely a compact of the several states. […] Rather, it would restrict an old national evil,” (Wilentz 310). The issue of slavery split the Era of Good Feelings Republican party and divided Southerners from Northerners, both of whom were convinced that the other side posed a threat to their security and well-being. In the final essay of this chapter, Matthew Crocker argues most similarly to Brown, but also gives due attention to the territory of Texas, which, as Crocker says, Southerners hoped would eventually enter the Union as a slave state and tilt the balance of Congressional power back into the hands of the South: “Indeed, it was commonly believed that the Texas Territory would yield three to four more slave states, which, coupled with Florida and Arkansas, would significantly counteract the growing influence of the free-labor states…” (Wilentz 315). Unfortunately, however, the Missouri Compromise and the hope that Texas would join the other slave states in the South did not put an end to sectional divisions in Congress. In fact, it was only the beginning of conflict between the North and the South.
The phrase borrowed from a contemporary journalist, “Ear of Good Feelings”, seems to be quite the opposite from what was going on after The War of 1912. The Era was not as prosperous was some historians would make us believe. The victory over the British (Was it even a victory?) and not having a two party system where constant fighting would take place amongst politicians and parties would make it seem like a time of “Good Feelings.” There were still many issues to be dealt with during this glorious time in political history, a time that has been interpreted quite different than what it should have been. Economic crisis was waiting to happen as a result of the 2nd Bank of the United States. Slavery just can’t seem to go away in Congress and I wonder why? The Missouri Compromise would continue to split the nation apart on the issue of slavery, ultimately becoming a slave state. Nationalism was not on any steady decline and the Monroe Doctrine just fed fuel to the Nationalism fire. John Quincy Adams presidential term after the Election of 1824 was tainted when it appeared he was elected in some backroom deal. One of the first documents that I found useful was Congress’s debate on the Missouri Compromise. Constitutionally, Congress had the power to completely do what they wanted to with the new state of Missouri. However, Timothy Fuller piece was very intriguing. His argument was clear, “The existence of slavery in any State is so far a departure from republican principles.” He refers to the Constitution and that “all men are created equal” and since slaves are considered men then they must be born free. To counter his argument came William Smith. He uses Thomas Jefferson as an great example. He talks about what Thomas Jefferson stood for, enlarging the sphere of human happiness , promotion of civil liberties and during this whole time, Thomas Jefferson held hundreds of slaves and still to that day was holding an abundant number of slaves which was another great example of Thomas Jefferson’s contradictories. John Calhoun was extremely hesitant about the large role the national government was playing in the nation’s decisions and he felt that it would eventually lead to a succession. He explains how the system they had been under, had not been there for a significant amount of time to display “its real character in reference to the point now under discussion.” John Quincy Adams description on liberty and power in 1825 was another useful document because he explains how a nation with a large portion of liberty would be an extremely powerful nation. This explanation was of course one year after the Election of 1824 where he was thought to have gotten the highest job in the government unjustly. The essays were well thought off were not in agreement. Brown implies that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 is what started the fire again to the southern politics. He goes into detail about the Jackson administration, claiming they were brought into power by Old Republicans. Wilentz argument is clear saying that it is an issue with the State and Federal government. The state should not protect the rights of the slave holders. Crocker explains about how the spreading of the interest from not only domestic but far beyond its borders, the parallel between the Missouri Compromise whether being a slave state or not and America trying to keep foreign nations out of their acquired land. His argument was my favorite because of the similarities in the two.
“The South” viewed slaves as property and “the North” viewed slaves as potential votes. The south had dominated U.S. politics because they owned slaves. Things like the 3/5 compromise allowed southern politicians to have more representation than their northern counterparts. Allowing slavery to continue and spread was a way for the southern politicians to hold on to their ideals of the small independent farmer which today could translate into the small business farmer. The unequal representation that slavery allowed made it possible for the south to stand against the North’s plans for a system of capitalism that would establish a new aristocracy. The only way the South could defend against a liberal reading of the Constitution and the expansion of government was keeping their foothold in national politics and they used slavery as a tool to spread those ideals. Of course there were those people who wanted to expand slavery to the West to make money and did not care about the ideals of small government but in doing so they were able to keep representation at a national level in those Western states. If slaves had not been taken into those Western states, the citizens of those Western states would not have had any noteworthy representation in national politics and their hopes of keeping a small federal government would have been extinguished. The ideals of a small federal government had already taken hold in the established slave states and as more territory opened up West people took their slaves to these new states to guarantee representation. Is it a coincidence that a slave state and a free state joined the Union at the same time? No, both types of states entered in at the same time to balance the political ideologies of “the North” and “the South.” If the North really wanted to abolish slavery on the grounds that it was inhumane then they would have. If the North would have had a need for slaves then they would have kept slavery. The reason that the North did not need slaves is because they had a constant flow of immigrants that were easily manipulated. The North contained all of the port cities where immigrants arrived and those immigrants provided the number of people needed for representation in the North just like the slaves provided in the South. The immigrants were new to the country and did not understand the concepts within the Constitution and the founding of America which enabled Northern politicians to get immigrants to agree to a liberal reading of the Constitution and the expansion of the federal government. Slaves and immigrants were used as pawns in the political chess game between the political ideologies of “the North” and “the South.” The Northern politicians wanted to end slavery because they could paint themselves at the benevolent people that freed the slaves and therefore gain more representation. They understood that once the slaves were free most of them would venture north providing more representation for northern politics and once those free slaves were eventually allowed to vote they would vote for the people that set them free. Ploys like the Emancipation Proclamation were used to gain votes.
. In the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln freed the slaves IN THE SOUTH and the south HAD ALLREADY SUCCEEDED which meant he had no power of the southern states. It was a good gesture to secure more votes for his political party. It just like to today, do you really think the Democratic Party cares about illegal immigrants? No, Obama and his supporters want to grant them amnesty in order to secure more votes for the Democrats. When polls are conducted asking African Americans and Mexican America about their political views the majority of their views align with the Republicans. But because the Democrats are able to wage a successful PR campaign they make African Americans and Mexican Americans vote for them. This is the same reason George Bush did not protect the border when he was in office. He knew it would lose the Mexican/Latino vote for Republicans because the Democrats would have launched a PR campaign against the Republicans that Republicans are racist and do not like Mexicans and Latinos. The North was tired of Southern politics running the country so they had to find a way to end slavery and get African Americans on their side. They did this by getting the support of their constituents by saying that slavery was evil and inhumane. Is it a coincidence that the abolition movement really took off when the North was losing battles in national politics? No, they pulled on the heart strings of their constituents to get them to back them in limited and abolishing slavery. I do not approve of slavery, I am making the point that northern politicians did not care about ending slavery until it threatened their stand in national politics and by ending slavery they would secure enough votes to do whatever they wanted. It just like today with national health care. The democrats pulled on the heart strings of Americans by calling them baby killers, senior citizen killers, and that they must hate the poor. The poor have something called Medicaid and seniors have something called Medicare. The only way they could be dying is because the Federal Government has allowed a broken system ENACTED AND RUN BY THEM that are allowing the people they are supposed to be caring for to die. And babies, all hospitals are required to stabilize their patients which also include illegal immigrants of all ages. The politicians did not care if slavery was right or wrong, they only cared about who could use slavery or the abolition of slavery to secure representation.
Our reader’s focus on the negativity of the early republic is blatantly obvious in the play on words it uses in chapter 10’s title. While the time period after the War of 1812 may not be a complete “Era of Good Feelings,” it does have some positives, like the return of nationalism. The reasons behind naming the time period this mainly have to do with the decline of a two-party system (reasons I’ve gathered from different readings). While the decline of the Federalist party can be seen as a good event as there was less strife between political leaders on the national stage, it did raise a problem. As the 1820s Presidential elections rolled around it became clear that the use of a one-party system was not working out the way it should. In the midst of the so-called Era of Good Feelings one occurrence blemished the national political scene. The election of 1824 pitted the Republican party versus…um…itself. The Federalists hadn’t even managed to nominate a Presidential candidate (and even if they did what would that have done). The Republicans, always eager to pick up a bigger base, welcomed the ex-Federalists. With such a range of political philosophy, it didn’t seem possible that one party could hold it all. The corrupt bargain of 1824 evidenced that it couldn’t. Without a majority of electoral votes, three of the four leading candidates were sent to the House for them to decide the next President. This spelled the end for the one-party system. Document 6 shows what political leaders (in this case future President Van Buren) were doing to fix the issue. Van Buren calls for a new opposition party and for it to hold caucuses to decide on its candidates before the main election. So, through the troubles the nation experienced in 1824, a modern two-party system was developing and would prove to be more efficient (though some don’t believe that) than the Republicans trying to run things on their own. The second important point to make concerning the Era of Good Feelings was the crisis in 1820. The issue of slavery in Missouri was the most significant event concerning slavery since the Constitutional conventions held way back in 1787. Thirty years later slavery once again hit the national scene hard. Missouri was threatening to tip the balance of Senators in favor of the South. Southern secession was a possibility and some Northerners such as Tallmadge of NY were ready for it. We all know what ended up happening with the big compromise and Henry Clay beginning his illustrious career as mediator. However, opinions on the crisis’ origins and outcomes differ. In the first essay by Richard Brown, he credits the Missouri crisis to giving rise to the Jacksonian wing of the Republican party. Jefferson’s Republicans only worked as well as they did because they had the competition of the Federalists to keep them in check and “maintain discipline.” Hence TJ’s “foreign policy for national politics would become, when resurrected, Martin Van Buren’s formula for national politics.” Brown goes on to explain about the reactions from the Old Republican strongholds in Richmond and Albany. There does seem to be sufficient evidence to suggest that Brown is correct and that the Missouri crisis resulted in sectionalism in the Republican party. I believe Brown sees the Missouri Compromise and Crisis as the beginning of the end of the one-party system, whereas Wilentz believes it was “remembered more as an omen than as a turning point.” These two historians contrast so probably because of the different times that the essays were written.
The “era of bad feelings” came about from one central issue that grew from many constituent parts. Meant to be just the opposite because of no opposition to the Republican party after the death of the Federalists, the era of bad feelings revolved around the issue of slavery and slavery’s future in the nation. Slavery, by the institutions very nature, needed ever more land to gobble up and ever more slaves to trade around to sustain the Southern way of life. Without such a land, prices of slaves would drop and many speculators and landowners would lose a lot of money. As this peculiar institution depopulated the more eastern states of their slaves and sold them for ever increasing prices south and westwards, new slave states needed to be added to perpetuate the Southern economic model. This constant need for more human capital and land to cultivate would create tensions between the Northern and Southern states. These tensions grew as Southern slave owners and politicians felt their preeminence on the nation’s political scene was being threatened by the shrinking frontier, hostile opposition in the North, and a general questioning in all areas of the nation of the morality of slavery. Brown’s essay uses the Missouri Compromise as the impetus to the rise of Jacksonian Democracy and slavery’s critical role in this transformation of the South. Because of the Republican party’s victory and lack of any opponents, the party slowly lost its identity and usefulness argued Brown. It also put the Old Republicans of the South on the offensive, creating greater tensions when any questions of slavery and expansion were presented. Wilentz, on the other hand, holds the Missouri Compromise to be a binding force between the Jacksonians and their future opponents. Of all three of these essays, Crocker’s is the most convincing.
Crocker specifically focuses on America’s foreign policy at the time and connects events such as the Adams-Onis Treaty with domestic issues such as the debate and fallout from the Missouri Compromise of 1820. Crocker argues that the Kentuckian Henry Clay, who was the architect of the Missouri Compromise, believed the issues with the Spanish Crown were much more important to the “Southern strategy” than was the blocking off of slavery’s expansion to the west. By prohibiting slavery north of 36 30’ and the release of claims on the Texas territory, America had essentially blocked the South (and therefore slavery) from any further expansion to the west, less newly acquired Florida. Naturally the Southern politicians felt bottled up, without the prospects of Texas to the west and relatively little land to be had in the Florida territory, the South would be out populated and out voted within Congress. As an olive branch to the South, exiting President James Monroe issued his famous doctrine on December 2, 1823. What would be later called the Monroe Doctrine, this hugely influential axiom would be an outlet valve for slavery and for American expansionists. The doctrine in no uncertain terms, told the European powers to not meddle in the affairs of any Latin American or Western Hemisphere affairs. Although probably not in a position to stop a concentrated and sustained effort by the European powers, France, Great Britain, and Russia recently fought the Napoleonic Wars and were in no hurry to start another fight a long way from home. This doctrine would be the driving force of American expansion westward, which would lead slavery to be introduced into the Texas territory and elsewhere. Where the Missouri Compromise checked slavery’s expansion and Southern preeminence on the national political scene, the Monroe Doctrine effectively opened the frontier back up all the way to the Pacific and beyond.
“The Era of Good Feelings,” or the ten to fifteen year span following the end of the War of 1812 and the few years before the election of 1828, was coined this title by a journalist who believed due to the “limited” American victory over Britain and the end of the War of 1812, the Federalist party declining and Monroe’s election to presidency in 1816 which lead to a strong decrease in factional conflict, and the nationalist enthusiasm that led to many internal changes in the American political arena, such as the elimination of almost all property requirements for voting; America seemed to be all smiles and laughs and the democratic dream the Founders once envisioned America of becoming was soon on its way. But how “good” was this era? Actually, this era was not very “good” at all and many historians have begun to argue that in fact this era was one of “bad” feelings. First off, as 1819 approached, a severe financial panic hit the urban workers of America and left the jobless and homeless as they were forced to find work and home in the countryside. Meanwhile in the same year of 1819, Congress debated over the Missouri issue, the issue of allowing Missouri to enter the union as a free state or a slave state, creating extreme sectional rivalry between the North and the South that would haunt this nation 30-40 years down the road. As shown in Document 3, northerners such as Rufus King and Timothy Fuller not only disagree with admitting Missouri into the union as a slave state, but also believe that slavery should be dismissed totally and that the institution itself is “unrepublican.” On the other hand, southerners like William Smith defend the institution of slavery. Here, the sectional crisis developing over the issue of slavery in the form of the Missouri Compromise was the first main national and political scale of debate that demonstrated the extreme sectional differences and opinions between the North and the South. The development of extreme sectional conflict cannot be seen as “good,” but rather as “bad” due to the fact that sectionalism was the main reason for the Civil War of the first few years of the 1860s. As historians Richard H. Brown, Sean Wilentz, and Matthew Crocker see it, the debate over Missouri and slavery in 1819-1820 created massive change for America and the so-called “Era of Good Feelings.” In Brown’s essay, he argues that the Missouri debates led to a reassertion of how southern politicians were beginning to dominate national politics. Wilentz sees it a little differently than Brown, and in his essay he argues that the Missouri Compromise and debates embodied the sectional divide between Jeffersonian Republicans and the antislavery northerners. Crocker’s essay delves into the divisions among southerners on the compromise and how it affected American foreign relations in the future such as the Monroe Doctrine of 1823. Overall, “The Era of Good Feelings” was in fact not an era of good feelings. The intense national and sectional debate over Missouri and slavery would only be the beginning of differing opinions between the North and the South that led to the onslaught of the American Civil War. How can an era be called “good” when in the heart of the era the main conflict for the Civil War is introduced to the national spectrum? Exactly, it can’t so in a way “The Era of Good Feelings” was actually “The Era of Bad Feelings.”
Chapter ten asks the question as to whether the changing political climate during the James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, and Andrew Jackson administrations harkened the north/south divide which would eventually rupture the country. Unlike many of the previous chapters, “The Era of Bad Feelings” focuses more on scholarly responses to the period’s aforementioned political climate as opposed to primary sources. The primary sources that are provided, however, give a picture of a society in flux. Political leaders such as the aging Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, and Martin Van Buren all attempt to peer into the future, in an attempt to uncover what the next chapter in American political history would be. It is clear from the writings of each of these men that they all understood that a new era in American history had been entered into, gone were the days of Federalists vs. Democratic Republicans and along with it the leadership of the founding fathers. The difficult economic times that centered on the financial panic of 1819 are perhaps best encapsulated by sources one and five. Source one comprises a letter between two American businessmen regarding the depressed economic times. Also, an English traveler’s account of the contemporary difficulties in the United States is provided. The system which supports a national bank, so writes John Jacob Astor, has directly lead to the depressed economy as a result of “too much speculation” and the accumulation of power and haughtiness within the institution. The traveler’s account laments the harsh realities of the impoverished classes and their absolute destitution during these times. Source five relates a manifesto by the Philadelphia in which they organize a union, stating their case for organizing largely on the greedy profit seeking attitudes of their bosses. Sources two, three, four, six, and seven all relate (either directly or indirectly) to the political problems which had grown to a fever pitch in the 1810s and 20s. In source two, Thomas Jefferson (in the last half decade of his life) writes of his fear and dismay at the discourse of the Missouri Crisis which was embroiling the nation. Source three provides some of the differing opinions regarding the debate, anti-slavery candidates in the north such as Rufus King and Timothy Fuller opposed Missouri’s acceptance into the union as a western bastion of slavery. By contrast, South Carolina Senator William Smith saw and defended slavery as a morally good institution. Source four lays out John Quincy Adams’ beliefs that scientific and infrastructural progresses were the future of the nation, Adams’ reliance on these principles made him politically vulnerable in the south when he ran for a second term. Source six provides us with Marin Van Buren attempting to take American back to a political era which had already disappeared by reconstituting an opposition party made up of southerners and “southern leaning northerners.” Although Van Buren was somewhat successful in the short-term, the coalition he helped foster was ultimately untenable and became a mere band-aid on a festering wound. Finally, in source seven the quintessential firebrand of the south John C. Calhoun writes balking at the notion that northern industrialists in the congress have any positive input to provide the south on economic matters and that it should be within the power of the states to throw off tariffs which seek to single some states out.
The last source in the collection gives a dual account of the nastiness of the 1828 campaign for president between John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson. For Jackson it the campaign was personal, and it appears from the source that his supporters might have felt similarly. The three scholarly essays provided at the end of the section all focus on the Missouri Crisis and more importantly the roles of pro and anti-slavery sentiments through out the nation in politics during this time. Richard H. Brown connects the efforts of Martin Van Buren to reconstitute a party based largely on “northern men with southern feelings” with the return of southerners to the political forefront. Curiously, many of those same southerners (who Brown differentiates as “Old Republicans”) would continue to bash the events of this period as the destruction of southern political power. Sean Wilentz sees the Missouri Compromise as just that, a compromise. Southern politicians forfeited their constitutional principles that the federal government could not metal with slavery in the states in exchange for Missouri’s statehood which lead to more votes in the senate. Finally, Matthew H. Crocker displays the foreign policy aspects of the Missouri Compromise. The deal was struck on the backdrop of negotiations with Spain that ceded Florida, but cost the United States (the south) Texas, although not for very long.
There are quite a few events and developments in this time that make it a potential era of bad feelings. Bad feelings between the north and south, the political parties, people of the same party and regional differences just in general. With the panic of 1819 to kind of depress everyone’s feelings it could have almost been a potential downfall of the government a few years earlier than the Civil War. With panic ensuing in 1819 during one of the biggest immigration movement into America since the 1700’s it also created a lot of turmoil between immigrants and citizens because of competition with jobs and such. Big issues began to ensue between land speculators and the people and major class resentments became a big issue in the was things worked. Along with all of this issues began to prominently arise between the north and the south with the issue of slavery. The government began to divide between northern influence and southern influence and the issue of whether or not slavery was moral. With the southern preachers preaching that slavery was the moral obligation of slave-owners and then the southern plantation holders and elites arguing that if slavery was eradicated they would succeed from the union it was hard for there not to be a divide between regions. There was also the issue of keeping representation virtually equal between the north and south and not wanting either region to become more influential or powerful than one another. As these bad feelings between regions began to show more prominently it would be clear there would eventually be a big clash between the two. This began to show with the Missouri compromise and crisis and the elections of the 1820’s. The 1824 between Adams and Jackson made the gradually growing bad feelings even worse. There were speculations that Jackson was cheated out of the Presidency by a deal occurring between Henry Clay and Adams. As Jackson was a great southern hero this did not bode well with southern democrats. Adams was northern in his politics and his views on slavery were not very strong. During Adams presidency the country began to unite around Jackson and eventually he was elected which caused a dramatic change in the political direction of the nation. The Missouri compromise was one of the biggest deals of the early 1800’s that began to cause a split between the nation. Brown says that this was the basis that “which eventually would divide the nation free against slave.” He was very focused on the southern and pro slave side to the compromise. Whereas Wilentz was more focused on the northern and anti slavery side of the issue. With this compromise he showed that they were trying to do everything possible to maintain the balance of free states and slave states to preserve the union as best as they possibly could. He showed how difficult it was to figure out the agreement and finally come up with the solution they did to keep the peace as best as possible. Crocker was more like Brown in that he focused on the south sides issues during this compromise. With his work the significance of this decision and the Monroe doctrine could be seen in the formation of the gradual worsening of feelings between the north and south.
It seems confusing to me why this era would be called “The Era of Good Feelings.” My immediate thought upon learning this title was “According to whom?” Certainly the United States at this time was not a homogeneous society, just as today. I don’t believe American Indians who were consistently having their land stolen by settlers would refer to this era as one of “good feelings”. The Mexicans who were having their land ceded from them quite likely would not have thought of this as a good time as well. Not to mention that slavery was still going on in the country and causing all types of political and social controversy. These groups, as well as people left behind in a capitalist society as we learned in Sean Wilentz’s monograph, would not have agreed with this title in the least. Political controversies, like the three way tie between Jackson, Adams, and Clay would have let to public unrest across the republic. Also, economic activities such as the Panic of 1819 would have led to more of a sense of negativity in the United States rather than “good feelings,” in my opinion. The three works in this section go back to offering different points of view. Each states a different divides in society concerning the controversial issue of slavery. Brown, Wilentz, and Crocker all make points concerning the passage of the Missouri Compromise and apply it to rising movements, feelings, and power shifts in the South. In his section, Brown argues that the Missouri Compromise was a rallying cry for “Old Republicans” in the South who had lost some vigor. Brown believed that this document was a huge victory for Southern voices and that it but Northern Republicans in an even more difficult position. Wilentz’s section tends to focus on the divide that was created in the South because of the Missouri Compromise. As in his past works that we have read, Wilentz gave a large amount of empirical evidence to prove his position that the South was now becoming more and more divided about the issue of slavery. I thought the chart was the most interesting part of Wilentz’s section because it gave visual proof to what he was saying, rather than his typical inundation of facts that can tend to be difficult to work through. Similarly, Crocker wrote on Southern divisions. However, he tended to focus more on the international effects of this and other policies like the Monroe Doctrine during this time. I though Crocker raised several interesting points, namely because I think we typically view this portion of history in a vacuum where nothing is happening in the rest of the world during this time. After reading this section, I think it is safe to say that this was definitely not an “Era of Good Feelings” and would be quite interested to hear someone try to defend it as such.
There does seem to be an overall era of bad feeling during the early middle 19th century. This can be seen in various documents and issues. The main issues that brought about bad feelings were the issue of slavery in Missouri along with the election of Adams in 1824 with the dubious appointment of Clay as the Secretary of State, another issues that pushed the insecurity of the age is that of the panic of 1819. In document 1 and 2 there are evidence of the American people falling on hard times. The 2nd document in particular talks about the lack of money among many of the American people. This affects the feelings of the people during the time. The document by Thomas Jefferson on “a Fire Bell in the Night” sums up the fears that are prevalent in this era. Jefferson knows that the Missouri slave issue is kicking up a hornets’ nest. Both sides in the Missouri issue do not want to lose. The battle is all about control. If the south loses it then slavery could be in jeopardy while if the north loses, they lose more political control. Brown in his essay brings up the point that the representatives were at each other’s throat in the house. To say there was a little animosity would be an understatement. In Wilentz’s essay, he brings up the point that the compromise got shot down and redone multiple times before it was passed. This shows the desire of both sides to get their way completely. Other then the Missouri issue, the election of the president in 1828 became very hostile. The last two documents in the chapter show this. The first one attacks Adams wisdom and political leadership while the other attacks Jackson’s character. This shows a presence of an era of bad feelings. Now on the essays, each author describes the Missouri compromise in a similar but differing way. Brown points at the shaping of a new political party. He focuses on the split of the Republican Party and the emergence of old ideals. He provides that the Missouri issue was a main cause of this rift. He also points out the rise of Van Buren with the new party and his help to Jackson. Brown does focus on the division between the north and south on the issue but Wilentz focuses more on the division. He places the importance of place on voting as well as showing the rewording of the Missouri compromise due to both the northern and southern parties wanting complete control or receiving all their demands. In contrast, Crocker portrays the southern people as hating the compromise. He talks about how after the Compromise was signed that the southern people were enraged at the idea of it. He also describes that the voting to pass the Compromise was shocking. He provides it was due to Clay’s involvement and mediating skills.
In the years following the War of 1812, often ironically known as the “Era of Good Feelings”, the United States was plagued by multiple events that made it an era of not-so-good feelings. While Sean Wilentz and Jonathan Earle concede that following the election of James Monroe there was a brief period of apparent “good feelings” as nationalism was on the rise and suffrage expanded to virtually all white male citizens, these sentiments quickly dissipated in the face of issues such as the Panic of 1819, the crisis in Missouri, and a controversial presidential election. When viewed more closely, it seems these years were markedly teeming with bad feelings. One of the first problems faced by Monroe during his presidency was the Panic of 1819. As can be seen in the first document, this financial crisis caused hardships among many citizens throughout the United States. John Jacob Astor highlights the growing economic problems caused by the banks and the rampant inflation stating, “To raise the price of the stock they have discounted too freely and made money so cheap that everything else has become dear…” The banks were not the only example of hardships experienced during the financial panic. James Flint wrote in 1820 about how farmers, laborers, and mechanics alike suffered greatly during the time period from unemployment and low wages for those who were lucky enough to be employed. Even more large scale and influential, the Missouri Crisis over statehood and slavery was at the height of precipitating bad feelings among Americans. Not only did the heart of the issue, slavery, not only bring out the often unchangeable feelings on the issue from common citizens, but it also was an issue of great political value. Whether Missouri was admitted as a slave or free state would go a great way into swaying political power towards southern or northern states, respectively. In document three, it is apparent that Rufus King and Timothy Fuller are well aware of the consequences of such a decision and argue vehemently for the anti-slavery push. Like King and Fuller however, people like William Smith stood up in defense of their views as well, as can be seen in his argument for slavery in Missouri. To cap of an era of struggle and ill will towards the government, the election of 1824 presented its own contribution to the bad feelings. Many citizens, especially ones of Andrew Jackson’s camps, viewed the election of John Quincy Adams (which could not be decided by the electoral college and subsequently sent to congress where the future secretary of state cast his vote in favor of Adams) as controversial at the least. In the essays by Richard Brown, Sean Wilentz, and Matthew Crocker, all three historians use the Missouri Crisis as a focal point for examining the so-called era of good feelings. According to Brown, it was this crisis that pushed the nation toward a proslavery view held by Jacksonians and away from Adams republicanism. With such a change in public views, Brown makes a compelling argument for the rise of Southern political power of the time. Wilentz writes that the Missouri compromise was more of a middle of the road document with both proslavery and anti-slavery points. Finally Crocker outlines his argument using the Missouri Compromise to detail what he calls the “southern strategy”, a view that details how exactly the compromise actually furthered slavery’s prevalence, a view very similar to Brown’s. Whatever the scope being looked at by different historians, I believe it can be concluded that while the years following the War of 1812 may not have been all bad, they certainly did not constitute an era of good feelings.
The Era of Good Feelings was a period with an unrealistic named based off a so-called victory in the War of 1812, which American should never have fought in the first place, and the general popularity and easy election of one man, James Monroe. Once in office, Monroe could easily observe the financial difficulties, sectional crises (notably the right of men to own slaves in the territories out west), and ideological differences between men like John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson that reflected tremendous differences in the nation as a whole. The era of bad feelings was not substantially more bitter or more divided than many other eras (e.g., now), but the widespread use of harsh propaganda in presidential campaigns and the rise of another party in a system that had been dominated by one party for nearly twenty years made it seem that way. Historians who want to describe this period as an era of bad feelings should look not to politics, but to society. There were real, practical reasons why the farmers and laborers of the west wanted to keep slaves out; the massive increase in unpaid competition would drive wages down and create a stagnant economy like the one in much of the South (with obvious exceptions like Baltimore and other major cities and seaports). Documents 2 and 3 show the reactions of political leaders to the crisis in Missouri and their philosophical debate; beneath the banter about the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson's views on slavery, and property rights lies a real economic division between those who would profit from a slave economy and those who would profit from a free economy. When Martin Van Buren proposes an opposition party in Document 6, he is not creating divisions in American society but proposing to take advantages of the divisions that already exist between the wealthy elite and factory workers of New England, the plantation owners of the South, the farmers of the West, etc. John Calhoun can theorize about states rights as much as he wants in Document 7, but the West will never accept slavery because accepting that peculiar institution means the end of social mobility. Jackson's strong patriotism and cultural image was designed to appeal to Westerners who loved their country, despised slavery, and hated blacks and Native Americans.
The Panic of 1819 seems to have tested the common man while the Missouri Compromise tested the leaders of the nation.
In cocument 1 John Jacob Astor references the return of emigrants to Europe and the depreciation of money. This contemporary account does a wonderful job of recognizing the factors that led to crisis and the immediate impact of the crisis.
The Missouri Crisis seems to have tested all of the weak points of the nation's government at once. The fact that there was a one party system (more or less) may at a glance make the era seem tame- the truth is that that 1 party was so divided that there were not enough points of agreement for there even to be one party. This seems more like a no-party system.
The winners in this crisis were the self-interested "compromisers." At the heart of the debate was more than slavery, more than representation: personal interest seems to be the most obvious motivating factor.
Brown characterizes Van Buren as the example of this self-interest over ideology attitude. Van Buren brought South and North together to serve his own goals. Perhaps the only person who benifitted more than Van Buren from Van Buren's politics was Jackson
Wilentz analyzes the votes and the micropolotics of the issue. In his essay it is Clay who takes advantage of the splintered party in order to manipulate strategy. Wilentz argues that the compromise was merely an omen, and that it was at best a temporary resolution.
Crocker widens the scope to consider international politics. He choses to see the Monroe Doctrine and the Missouri Compromise as aspects of the same manipulation. He argues that Clay worked so hard for compromise so that he could focus on expanding the southern influence into the Spanish controlled west and Florida. Here again Crocker's essay relates the self-intrested manipulation that was at play. This was not just North vs South or an argument of ideaology... this was a fight for power, in the absense of a party system there was plenty of power to be drawn from the many disagreeing sides of every argument.
The ten years or so after the War of 1812 do not seem to deserve the title of “The Era of Good Feelings.” In many ways, the era was demonstrably that of bad feelings, or, at least on par with any other period of time in American history. The absence of a two party system does not mean that there was an absence of dissent or disagreement in politics. And James monroe’s ease of election and reelection isn’t anything that uniquely indicates a pacified political environment; he was the last of the remaining “founding fathers” so the nature of his elections are to be expected as logical rather than some example of “good feelings.”
ReplyDeleteIn fact, there are a tremendous amount of events that took place during this “era” that allows an observer to make a case for “bad feelings.” The first is the Panic of 1819. Two of the primary source documents from MPER demonstrate the rise and impact of that panic. From 1818, John Jacob Astor writes about the problems of speculation and other issues problematic with the Bank. And from 1820, James Flint describes how men were actually emigrating back to Europe in efforts to find decent work, if any work at all. I doubt those expatriates or any other American suffering at the time would reflect upon his or her experiences as consistent with “the era of good feelings.” In addition to the economy, the whole issue of slavery meant that there were debates and heated disagreements. This issue never went away. The label of “era of good feelings” connotes that slavery was an issue from the Revolution to the War of 1812, then not an issue at all until Jackson, and then from there on up to the Civil War. This is, of course, preposterous, and the best evidence of this is the debate over Missouri entering the union. Up to that point, states had entered the Union two at a time for the most part: one slave state in the south with one free state in the north. With Missouri’s petitions to join the United States there was strong debate as to whether or not it entered as free or slave. The reasons are numerous. Objection to Missouri as a slave state were more sophisticated and complicated than “slavery is bad and must not be perpetuated.” Although those sentiments existed, the most practical concerns over Missouri’s statehood rested in the implications upon the United States Congress. If Missouri entered as a slave state, the Senate would have a pro-slavery majority, and the House of Representatives would also add more pro-slavery members. This was feared because of the trend it might represent. A compromise was reached in 1820, with Missouri entering as slave and Maine entering as free, but the fact that a compromise was needed is evidence that, despite a one party system, there were tremendous contentions during the time.
Brown, Wilentz and Crocker use the Missouri Compromise in unique ways to understand its implications upon the rest of the 1820s and consequently, the rest of antebellum America. Brown says that the Republican party created its own doom. It had become so successful under the unity of true Jeffersonian Republicanism that it destroyed the opposition Federalist party. What happened to the Federalists? They became Republicans, but they did not leave their Federalist ideas behind. The Republican incorporated those ideas along with the former Federalists, and that destroyed the unity of the party. The Missouri Compromise, then, was a symptom and cause of inner turmoil with the Republican Party. Wilentz credits slavery with much of the problems associated with the Missouri Compromise. There were real issues that directly affected the immediate future of slavery, and this made the nature of Missouri’s admittance hugely important. Brown writes about the regional differences associated with the Missouri Compromise, and a few other implications associated with it.
Even though some historians refer to this period of American history as the “Era of Good Feelings” it clearly was not. It is evident that this period was filled with doubt and concern about the direction of the nation. There were numerous events that occurred during this period that point to making this an “Era of Bad Feelings.” The financial panic of 1819 and the heated debated over the Missouri Compromise help make this the “Era of Bad Feelings.” The financial panic of 1819 came after the expansion in the economy following the War of 1812, and according to contemporaries, “the U.S. Bank is not doing so well as they might have done. There has been too much speculation and too much assumption of power on the part of the Bank.” This panic became so bad that many people were, “returning to Europe without finding the prospect of a livelihood in America” because unemployment was so bad. The other development that led to this period being known as the “Era of Bad Feelings” was the passionate debate about the Missouri Crisis. As Thomas Jefferson states, “this momentous question, like a fire bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror.” After reading document 3 it becomes evident that there was much debate over the question of slavery in the territories. The debate shown in document 3 displays the sectional differences over the issue of slavery and displays that the issue of slavery was going to be and important one in the impending future of the United States and shape the direction of the country. These two events alone can be seen as making this and “Era of Bad Feelings.”
ReplyDeleteBrown, Wilentz, and Crocker all utilize the Missouri Compromise in different ways. Brown sees the Missouri Compromise as the South coming back into national prominence in politics. He also believes that Van Buren helped solidify this power by becoming Jackson’s most trusted advisor. As Brown states, “an administration brought to power by old republican votes would be governed by old republican principles. Wilentz does not focus, as much on the South as Brown does he instead believes that the Missouri Compromise split the Republicans over slavery and he believes that this split was healed in the short term, but eventually lead to the formation of separate parties He asserts that this division helped pave the way for the formation of intersectional parties that included slavery and anti-slavery Jeffersonian Republicans. Crocker, like Brown focuses on the South but he focuses the divisions within the South over this compromise. He also focuses on foreign policy and how it affected the Compromise. He uses the Monroe Doctrine to point to how it affected the outcome of the Missouri Compromise. He believes that these events are mutually exclusive and they are connected and they both influenced each other heavily. I like the way Crocker uses these two seemingly unrelated events to tell the story of the Missouri Compromise and how he connects foreign concerns with domestic concerns some things that modern Americans do not always do.
There are indeed a handful of events that one may pinpoint as to the source of the “era of bad feelings” following the War of 1812. Although many believed the years following the war to be prosperous (seeing as the U.S. had won, political conflict was gone, voting rights were granted to virtually all white male citizens, ect…) these feelings did not last long at all. The assumption of too much power by the banks insinuated the economic crises to come, i.e the Panic of 1819, which left thousands of urban workers jobless and destroyed the livelihood of still more workers in the rural parts of the country. From this “Panic” class resentments resurfaced much like those during the Jeffersonian vs. Hamiltonian era, the feelings that the Second National Bank had screwed the common man over reverberated throughout the country. Land speculators and local elites were attacked as well, especially in the up and coming frontier. Frontiersmen felt as though their “best poor man’s country” was being swept away by greedy land speculators looking to buy up as much land as possible in order to turn out a hefty profit. Coupled with all this resentment was the issue of the statehood of Missouri. Both the North and the South had conflicting views as to the status Missouri would hold upon receiving its statehood; slave or free. Either way the balance between the two differing categories of statehood would be thrown off, therefore something had to be done to appease all, enter the Missouri Compromise. The Compromise may have appeased some for the time being but the issue of slavery still remained a hot topic and would not go away until our nation’s Civil War.
ReplyDeleteBrown, Wilentz, and Crocker all use the Missouri Compromise to illustrate either a unification or schism within the southern society, more specifically in the reinvigorated Jeffersonian Democracy, and all agree that slavery was essential for the nation’s politics. Brown believes that the Missouri Compromise reinvigorated “Old Republicans” and reestablished the South’s domination over the North regarding politics. Brown states, “The Missouri Crisis gave rise not to prophecy alone, but to action… it lead to a successful attempt to revive the old Jeffersonian party.” Brown also claims that the Missouri crisis had put Northern Old Republicans “on the defense.” It is clear that Brown uses the crises in Missouri to illustrate a rise in southern power. Wilentz on the other hand believes that the Missouri crises led to a rupture among the Jeffersonian Republicans over the issue of slavery. Wilentz provides a concrete example in his charts regarding the voting on the issue of restricting slavery in Missouri in the Years 1819 and 1820. The schism is clear: in 1819 the South’s total votes on restricting slavery was one, the following year that number climbed to 76. Wilentz’s chart provides eye-opening evidence of a rupture among southerners. Crocker also focuses on the divisions of southerners regarding the Missouri Compromise. However he believes that the crises had facilitated southern pride and the expansion of slavery. Crocker also includes the foreign troubles the U.S. had during this era of bad feelings leading to the implementation of the Monroe Doctrine, banning European involvement on the “American” continent.
Like so much of the national rhetoric that is used after a war, the "era of good feelings" was no different. Brown, Wilentz, and Crocker all express the concerns for the country at this time and easily show how this time was not an "era of good feelings" but more of anxiety of the future. Brown's essay focuses on the Old Republicans and the revival of Jeffersonian politics. I feel like this was the countries or governments attempt to remind itself who it was. Why were we America again? It seems in the turmoil of war and conquest, slavery and abolition, and foreign and domestic threats, people and the bottom of society and the political elite all share the similar anxieties. What was going to happen as time went on? When were we going to go ahead and confront issues that have been put aside? As these questions start arising you start to see politicians strategically align themselves with what idea seemed best for them as this mess continues to unfold. As this unfolding occurs, how do we maintain the power, or lifestyle, or rights, or monetary policies, or our institutions of slavery? Wilentz I think does a good job examining the evolution of this crisis involving Missouri and the events leading to the Civil War. As states were entering the Union, debates swelled, nationalism grew on opposing sides, and within those opposing sides were factions of ideals that were struggling to see its manifestation. Each political perspective saw that this was ultimately a time of great opportunity, for example, Calhoun's call for state's rights. Crocker's essay examines how the debates over slavery and state's rights only flared with the Missouri debates and slavery expansion debates. I feel like this "era of anxious" feelings resulted in the "shady" election of Adams and the following election of Jackson. Adams' new view of republicanism pushed a new idea of Jeffersonian ideals and improvements. Whereas Jackson was idolized by those who sought opposition to those ideas such as Van Buren. Politics was no focused more on the mad grab for power and influence, rather than the basis for which the Declaration was written. Missouri as seen in the 3 essays was only the culmination of competing ideas about old problems.
ReplyDeleteI would not describe the decade or so after the War of 1812 as an ‘Era of Good Feelings.’ While the Federalist Party was nearly extinct, the one party system did not bring a period without dissent or disagreement, rather there were many events during this period, which split the American public and politics. On of these events was the Panic of 1819 in which John Jacob Astor foresees happening in his letter to Albert Gallatin in 1818 in which Astor expresses his concern over the rising number of Banks and the borrowing of Specie in the U.S. The second letter written by James Flint examines the hardships many working class citizens faced during the Panic. He writes of many jobless and homeless men looking for work, sleeping in fields outside of Baltimore. Many emigrate back to Europe after failing to make a reasonable living in the U.S. Those with jobs are unable to pay all their necessary expenses to live and are forced to sleep in the woods. The Panic of 1819 took its toll on many and set the precedent for further crises. The next was over the eventual statehood of the Missouri territory and whether it would be a slave or free state. This pitted many northern free states wanting Missouri to be free and fearing the spread of slavery westward against the southern slave states looking to expand their agricultural empire to the frontier. Another event which shook the American political scene was the Election of 1824 in which after Andrew Jackson won the most electoral votes but not a majority the vote went to the House where fourth place Henry Clay was the Speaker and a suggested but never proven deal went down between Clay and Adams leading to John Quincy Adams becoming the next president, infuriating Jackson and his large group of supporters. Making the whole event even more questionable is the fact that Henry Clay was appointed Secretary of State, a position that was seen as grooming future presidents. These events and more highlighted the ‘Era of Good Feelings’ where politics became public, the debate over slavery was just heating up, and the American economy was in shambles.
ReplyDeleteThe period often referred to as the "Era of Good Feelings" is nothing of the sort. After the War of 1812, many elements were in place that would cause conflict throughout the country. One of these elements was strong sectionalism. Although it was not yet as defined as it would be in later years, the North versus South game had already been at play since the beginning of the country. Not only was that a conflict, but there were also sectional differences between West and East. Along with that, the Panic of 1819 rocked the financial sector and many questioned the future prosperity of the new nation. At the same time, the Missouri Compromise began the strong divide within the nation that would eventually end with the Civil War. With this eventually disastrous conflict brewing within such a young nation, bad feelings had to occur. Perhaps the most notable aspect of the "Era of Good Feelings" was the eventual birth of the Democratic Party. The party of the "little man" would continue to maintain this image until modern events.
ReplyDeleteWith regards to the essays, all three authors seem to perceive the Missouri Compromise as a symptom of a much larger problem--yet they disagree on what exactly the larger problem is. Crocker, for the most part, points out how the regional differences within the South had effects on larger, national-level politics (like the Missouri Compromise). Also delving into Southern political influence, Brown focuses on the over-success that the Republicans achieved, which eventually lead to the brief single party system at hand during the Missouri Compromise. This, he argues, lead to differences and conflicts within the party--which rippled out and caused problems. At the same time, Wilentz concludes that the Missouri Compromise occurred as a result of slavery--implying it had inherent problems to begin with. Similarly to Crocker and Brown, Wilentz finds sectional divisions associated with the Missouri Compromise, but as being much more emphasized as a result of the compromise itself.
The 1820’s and beyond may have been an era of one party rule, but that hardly promoted harmony in America. What it effectively did was re-align the opposition, this time in a more toxic combination of North vs. South over the expansion of slavery. The Missouri issue really brought this new reality out into the open for Americans and stirred up passions that according to the authors and sources were latent in the North. True, the North sought a balance between slave and free states, but this was the first real issue that divided Republicans along this regional divide, what Jefferson termed a lethal fire. Old vs. New Republicans set the stage for a tumultuous debate over slavery and it’s expansion, eventually culminating in the Civil War.
ReplyDeleteThere were of course other issues that characterized this era as one of bad feelings. The Panic of 1819 had a very detrimental effect on the national spirit. Astor detailed some of the myriad issues facing the National Bank, including rampant land speculation that had a detrimental effect on farmer’s livelihood. James Flint chronicled the stories of Europeans who, for lack of employment in the States, returned to Europe, where he noted that some work is better than none at all. Describing in one breath the men who simply lived in the forest and hoped for work on a daily basis, the mechanics petitioning for a wage increase described how their pay barely covered their rent and clothes and provided what was very Marxian critique of the capitalists whom they worked for. These events did not denote and Era of Good Feelings by any measure.
Of course, this era (presumably 1814 through 1820) was not at all one of Good Feelings, but it took a much more virulent form with the Missouri territory petitioning for statehood in 1820. Up to that point states had entered into the Union in pairs, thus negating any concerns over Southern domination of the Senate. This event had a clear and dramatic affect on national politics, and some of these affects were highlighted by the authors. All agreed that the movement really brought forth the ensuing divide, but some also assert it strengthened Southern unity as well. Brown wrote that the controversy re-invigorated the “Old Republicans”, galvanizing them in defense of slavery at the expense of their Northern counterparts thus reasserting the South’s dominant role in politics (much like it held over the defunct Federalist party).
Where Brown sees a consolidation of Southern Republicans, Wilentz sees a genuine rupture in their ranks over the issue of slavery. He uses the charts of votes over restriction to indicate this rupture among them. Crocker also focuses on these splits, but focuses more on the international events surrounding them and understands them in this context. Simply put, the Monroe Doctrine was a political cover for a shaken Adams and Monroe, reeling from criticism that the treaty with Spain ceded too much and did not gain the coveted territory of Texas, even providing Mexico with a valid claim to the territory and proving Madison’s vision of a Texas unified with Spain’s retreat incorrect. Brown saw the desire to retain Texas as the real reason for this divide, and preventing the treaty superseded in Clay’s mind any efforts to stymie Congressional authority to restrict slavery, encapsulated in the 36-30 line.
In contast to what is typically taught in high school history classes, the decade after the War of 1812 was not an “era of good feelings” at all. On the surface, the lack of inter-party conflict and the relative ease with which James Monroe was elected president in 1816 and 1820 may seem to be signs of political comity, but they do not account for the increased intra-party conflict within the Republican party, especially in Congress. As John Jacob Astor observed, a “general blow up” appeared with the Panic of 1819, which, as it has today in the “economic crisis of 2008,” proved to be extraordinarily divisive. Interestingly though, the main combatants were ostensibly members of the same party. But perhaps the most divisive issue centers around the introduction of Missouri as a slave state into the union. Each side proposed convincing arguments, although they differed sharply in nature. The pro-slavery side argued that the federal government should not dictate whether slavery was allowed within a state, arguing that slavery was part of the rights of the landowners and was in the interest of both slaves and their owners. Additionally, Thomas Jefferson and others even believed that the extension of slavery into the new states to the west would result in better treatment for slaves everywhere, arguing that slaves would be “generally happier” and assured of their eventual emancipation. However, those who were against the introduction of Missouri argued the depravity of the institution of slavery itself; as Rufus King and Timothy Fuller argue, the institution of slavery threatened the republican and egalitarian ideals upon which the nation was founded, and its complete abolition was necessary for the continuation of those values. Thus, the issue of introduction of slavery into the new state of Missouri highlighted the growing tensions between those like John C. Calhoun who were troubled about the increasing role of the federal government in affairs of the individual states, a fear that would eventually lead to the “nullification crisis” and the onset of secession. This conflict within the Republican party also led to the eventual formation of opposition parties in the short term, a cause championed by future president Martin Van Buren who aimed to elevate Andrew Jackson as a future political leader. Brown, Wilentz, and Crocker, each attempt to examine these events, but approach them differently. Brown prefers to see the Missouri Compromise as the resurgence of the South as a political force. He sees the eventual fracturing of the Republican party as a function of the misrepresentation of southern interests; thus, I believe he overemphasize the South’s importance in the development of new parties. Wilentz approaches the issue as a conflict between the state and the federal government, an argument I find to be much more convincing. Interestingly, both sides advocated the preservation of individual rights; one side promoted the idea that states should protect individual slaveowners’ rights, while anti-expansionists argued that slavery violated the basic rights of the slaves. Finally, Crocker draws an interesting parallel between major tenets of American foreign policy and domestic political concerns. At the heart of both the Missouri conflict and the issuing of the Monroe Doctrine late in Monroe’s presidency, was the United States’ interests in expanding not only its borders but also its influence. Not only did southerners want Missouri to be a slave state, but they were also excited at the prospect of introducing Florida and Texas as future slave states, ensuring their hold on power in Congress. Crocker argues that the issuing of the Monroe Doctrine was aimed to keep Spain (and Mexico) away from the coveted territories of Florida and Texas, a fact which also can help explain the debate over slavery in Missouri.
ReplyDeleteThe Era of Good Feelings or, more appropriately, the Era of Bad Feelings at first celebrated a united political party in Congress, but was soon also characterized by an economic panic in 1819, the formation of workers unions “[…] to ward off from ourselves and families those numerous evils which result from an unequal and very excessive accumulation of wealth and power into the hands of a few[…]”, the heated 1828 presidential election between the intellectual John Qunicy Adams and the adventuresome Andrew Jackson, and, of course, the crisis in Missouri (Wilentz 288). The importance of the crisis in Missouri and the resulting Missouri Compromise during this era and the effects it had on American politics are both issues addressed by historians Richard H. Brown, Sean Wilentz, and Matthew H. Crocker. Brown argues that Southerners were particularly concerned about disrupting the national balance of slave and freed states in the Union. This, they feared, would open the floodgates for a series of anti-slavery legislation that could cripple the South’s economic and social lifestyle. Wilentz, like Brown, also addresses the tensions that arose between Congressmen in the national government during the months leading up to the Missouri Compromise and the underlying issue of slavery, which shaped the entire debate: “Southerners worried that a ban on slavery in Missouri, already home to 10,000 slaves—roughly fifteen percent of its total population—would create a precedent for doing so in all the entering states from the trans-Mississippi West, thereby establishing congressional powers that slaveholders denied existed,” (Wilentz 305). However, Wilentz also pays close attention to the political divisions the Compromise created in what Americans had not so long ago seen as a strong, united, one-party national government. “Firmly rooted in Jeffersonian writ, their [restrictionist Republicans] nationalism would neither seek to expand the powers of the federal government beyond the strictest construction nor endorse the idea, dear to Southern Old Republicans, that the Union was merely a compact of the several states. […] Rather, it would restrict an old national evil,” (Wilentz 310). The issue of slavery split the Era of Good Feelings Republican party and divided Southerners from Northerners, both of whom were convinced that the other side posed a threat to their security and well-being. In the final essay of this chapter, Matthew Crocker argues most similarly to Brown, but also gives due attention to the territory of Texas, which, as Crocker says, Southerners hoped would eventually enter the Union as a slave state and tilt the balance of Congressional power back into the hands of the South: “Indeed, it was commonly believed that the Texas Territory would yield three to four more slave states, which, coupled with Florida and Arkansas, would significantly counteract the growing influence of the free-labor states…” (Wilentz 315). Unfortunately, however, the Missouri Compromise and the hope that Texas would join the other slave states in the South did not put an end to sectional divisions in Congress. In fact, it was only the beginning of conflict between the North and the South.
ReplyDeleteThe phrase borrowed from a contemporary journalist, “Ear of Good Feelings”, seems to be quite the opposite from what was going on after The War of 1912. The Era was not as prosperous was some historians would make us believe. The victory over the British (Was it even a victory?) and not having a two party system where constant fighting would take place amongst politicians and parties would make it seem like a time of “Good Feelings.” There were still many issues to be dealt with during this glorious time in political history, a time that has been interpreted quite different than what it should have been. Economic crisis was waiting to happen as a result of the 2nd Bank of the United States. Slavery just can’t seem to go away in Congress and I wonder why? The Missouri Compromise would continue to split the nation apart on the issue of slavery, ultimately becoming a slave state. Nationalism was not on any steady decline and the Monroe Doctrine just fed fuel to the Nationalism fire. John Quincy Adams presidential term after the Election of 1824 was tainted when it appeared he was elected in some backroom deal. One of the first documents that I found useful was Congress’s debate on the Missouri Compromise. Constitutionally, Congress had the power to completely do what they wanted to with the new state of Missouri. However, Timothy Fuller piece was very intriguing. His argument was clear, “The existence of slavery in any State is so far a departure from republican principles.” He refers to the Constitution and that “all men are created equal” and since slaves are considered men then they must be born free. To counter his argument came William Smith. He uses Thomas Jefferson as an great example. He talks about what Thomas Jefferson stood for, enlarging the sphere of human happiness , promotion of civil liberties and during this whole time, Thomas Jefferson held hundreds of slaves and still to that day was holding an abundant number of slaves which was another great example of Thomas Jefferson’s contradictories. John Calhoun was extremely hesitant about the large role the national government was playing in the nation’s decisions and he felt that it would eventually lead to a succession. He explains how the system they had been under, had not been there for a significant amount of time to display “its real character in reference to the point now under discussion.” John Quincy Adams description on liberty and power in 1825 was another useful document because he explains how a nation with a large portion of liberty would be an extremely powerful nation. This explanation was of course one year after the Election of 1824 where he was thought to have gotten the highest job in the government unjustly. The essays were well thought off were not in agreement. Brown implies that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 is what started the fire again to the southern politics. He goes into detail about the Jackson administration, claiming they were brought into power by Old Republicans. Wilentz argument is clear saying that it is an issue with the State and Federal government. The state should not protect the rights of the slave holders. Crocker explains about how the spreading of the interest from not only domestic but far beyond its borders, the parallel between the Missouri Compromise whether being a slave state or not and America trying to keep foreign nations out of their acquired land. His argument was my favorite because of the similarities in the two.
ReplyDelete“The South” viewed slaves as property and “the North” viewed slaves as potential votes. The south had dominated U.S. politics because they owned slaves. Things like the 3/5 compromise allowed southern politicians to have more representation than their northern counterparts. Allowing slavery to continue and spread was a way for the southern politicians to hold on to their ideals of the small independent farmer which today could translate into the small business farmer. The unequal representation that slavery allowed made it possible for the south to stand against the North’s plans for a system of capitalism that would establish a new aristocracy. The only way the South could defend against a liberal reading of the Constitution and the expansion of government was keeping their foothold in national politics and they used slavery as a tool to spread those ideals. Of course there were those people who wanted to expand slavery to the West to make money and did not care about the ideals of small government but in doing so they were able to keep representation at a national level in those Western states. If slaves had not been taken into those Western states, the citizens of those Western states would not have had any noteworthy representation in national politics and their hopes of keeping a small federal government would have been extinguished. The ideals of a small federal government had already taken hold in the established slave states and as more territory opened up West people took their slaves to these new states to guarantee representation. Is it a coincidence that a slave state and a free state joined the Union at the same time? No, both types of states entered in at the same time to balance the political ideologies of “the North” and “the South.” If the North really wanted to abolish slavery on the grounds that it was inhumane then they would have. If the North would have had a need for slaves then they would have kept slavery. The reason that the North did not need slaves is because they had a constant flow of immigrants that were easily manipulated. The North contained all of the port cities where immigrants arrived and those immigrants provided the number of people needed for representation in the North just like the slaves provided in the South. The immigrants were new to the country and did not understand the concepts within the Constitution and the founding of America which enabled Northern politicians to get immigrants to agree to a liberal reading of the Constitution and the expansion of the federal government. Slaves and immigrants were used as pawns in the political chess game between the political ideologies of “the North” and “the South.” The Northern politicians wanted to end slavery because they could paint themselves at the benevolent people that freed the slaves and therefore gain more representation. They understood that once the slaves were free most of them would venture north providing more representation for northern politics and once those free slaves were eventually allowed to vote they would vote for the people that set them free. Ploys like the Emancipation Proclamation were used to gain votes.
ReplyDelete. In the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln freed the slaves IN THE SOUTH and the south HAD ALLREADY SUCCEEDED which meant he had no power of the southern states. It was a good gesture to secure more votes for his political party. It just like to today, do you really think the Democratic Party cares about illegal immigrants? No, Obama and his supporters want to grant them amnesty in order to secure more votes for the Democrats. When polls are conducted asking African Americans and Mexican America about their political views the majority of their views align with the Republicans. But because the Democrats are able to wage a successful PR campaign they make African Americans and Mexican Americans vote for them. This is the same reason George Bush did not protect the border when he was in office. He knew it would lose the Mexican/Latino vote for Republicans because the Democrats would have launched a PR campaign against the Republicans that Republicans are racist and do not like Mexicans and Latinos. The North was tired of Southern politics running the country so they had to find a way to end slavery and get African Americans on their side. They did this by getting the support of their constituents by saying that slavery was evil and inhumane. Is it a coincidence that the abolition movement really took off when the North was losing battles in national politics? No, they pulled on the heart strings of their constituents to get them to back them in limited and abolishing slavery. I do not approve of slavery, I am making the point that northern politicians did not care about ending slavery until it threatened their stand in national politics and by ending slavery they would secure enough votes to do whatever they wanted. It just like today with national health care. The democrats pulled on the heart strings of Americans by calling them baby killers, senior citizen killers, and that they must hate the poor. The poor have something called Medicaid and seniors have something called Medicare. The only way they could be dying is because the Federal Government has allowed a broken system ENACTED AND RUN BY THEM that are allowing the people they are supposed to be caring for to die. And babies, all hospitals are required to stabilize their patients which also include illegal immigrants of all ages. The politicians did not care if slavery was right or wrong, they only cared about who could use slavery or the abolition of slavery to secure representation.
ReplyDeleteOur reader’s focus on the negativity of the early republic is blatantly obvious in the play on words it uses in chapter 10’s title. While the time period after the War of 1812 may not be a complete “Era of Good Feelings,” it does have some positives, like the return of nationalism. The reasons behind naming the time period this mainly have to do with the decline of a two-party system (reasons I’ve gathered from different readings). While the decline of the Federalist party can be seen as a good event as there was less strife between political leaders on the national stage, it did raise a problem. As the 1820s Presidential elections rolled around it became clear that the use of a one-party system was not working out the way it should. In the midst of the so-called Era of Good Feelings one occurrence blemished the national political scene. The election of 1824 pitted the Republican party versus…um…itself. The Federalists hadn’t even managed to nominate a Presidential candidate (and even if they did what would that have done). The Republicans, always eager to pick up a bigger base, welcomed the ex-Federalists. With such a range of political philosophy, it didn’t seem possible that one party could hold it all. The corrupt bargain of 1824 evidenced that it couldn’t. Without a majority of electoral votes, three of the four leading candidates were sent to the House for them to decide the next President. This spelled the end for the one-party system. Document 6 shows what political leaders (in this case future President Van Buren) were doing to fix the issue. Van Buren calls for a new opposition party and for it to hold caucuses to decide on its candidates before the main election. So, through the troubles the nation experienced in 1824, a modern two-party system was developing and would prove to be more efficient (though some don’t believe that) than the Republicans trying to run things on their own. The second important point to make concerning the Era of Good Feelings was the crisis in 1820. The issue of slavery in Missouri was the most significant event concerning slavery since the Constitutional conventions held way back in 1787. Thirty years later slavery once again hit the national scene hard. Missouri was threatening to tip the balance of Senators in favor of the South. Southern secession was a possibility and some Northerners such as Tallmadge of NY were ready for it. We all know what ended up happening with the big compromise and Henry Clay beginning his illustrious career as mediator. However, opinions on the crisis’ origins and outcomes differ. In the first essay by Richard Brown, he credits the Missouri crisis to giving rise to the Jacksonian wing of the Republican party. Jefferson’s Republicans only worked as well as they did because they had the competition of the Federalists to keep them in check and “maintain discipline.” Hence TJ’s “foreign policy for national politics would become, when resurrected, Martin Van Buren’s formula for national politics.” Brown goes on to explain about the reactions from the Old Republican strongholds in Richmond and Albany. There does seem to be sufficient evidence to suggest that Brown is correct and that the Missouri crisis resulted in sectionalism in the Republican party. I believe Brown sees the Missouri Compromise and Crisis as the beginning of the end of the one-party system, whereas Wilentz believes it was “remembered more as an omen than as a turning point.” These two historians contrast so probably because of the different times that the essays were written.
ReplyDeleteThe “era of bad feelings” came about from one central issue that grew from many constituent parts. Meant to be just the opposite because of no opposition to the Republican party after the death of the Federalists, the era of bad feelings revolved around the issue of slavery and slavery’s future in the nation. Slavery, by the institutions very nature, needed ever more land to gobble up and ever more slaves to trade around to sustain the Southern way of life. Without such a land, prices of slaves would drop and many speculators and landowners would lose a lot of money. As this peculiar institution depopulated the more eastern states of their slaves and sold them for ever increasing prices south and westwards, new slave states needed to be added to perpetuate the Southern economic model. This constant need for more human capital and land to cultivate would create tensions between the Northern and Southern states. These tensions grew as Southern slave owners and politicians felt their preeminence on the nation’s political scene was being threatened by the shrinking frontier, hostile opposition in the North, and a general questioning in all areas of the nation of the morality of slavery.
ReplyDeleteBrown’s essay uses the Missouri Compromise as the impetus to the rise of Jacksonian Democracy and slavery’s critical role in this transformation of the South. Because of the Republican party’s victory and lack of any opponents, the party slowly lost its identity and usefulness argued Brown. It also put the Old Republicans of the South on the offensive, creating greater tensions when any questions of slavery and expansion were presented. Wilentz, on the other hand, holds the Missouri Compromise to be a binding force between the Jacksonians and their future opponents. Of all three of these essays, Crocker’s is the most convincing.
Crocker specifically focuses on America’s foreign policy at the time and connects events such as the Adams-Onis Treaty with domestic issues such as the debate and fallout from the Missouri Compromise of 1820. Crocker argues that the Kentuckian Henry Clay, who was the architect of the Missouri Compromise, believed the issues with the Spanish Crown were much more important to the “Southern strategy” than was the blocking off of slavery’s expansion to the west. By prohibiting slavery north of 36 30’ and the release of claims on the Texas territory, America had essentially blocked the South (and therefore slavery) from any further expansion to the west, less newly acquired Florida. Naturally the Southern politicians felt bottled up, without the prospects of Texas to the west and relatively little land to be had in the Florida territory, the South would be out populated and out voted within Congress.
ReplyDeleteAs an olive branch to the South, exiting President James Monroe issued his famous doctrine on December 2, 1823. What would be later called the Monroe Doctrine, this hugely influential axiom would be an outlet valve for slavery and for American expansionists. The doctrine in no uncertain terms, told the European powers to not meddle in the affairs of any Latin American or Western Hemisphere affairs. Although probably not in a position to stop a concentrated and sustained effort by the European powers, France, Great Britain, and Russia recently fought the Napoleonic Wars and were in no hurry to start another fight a long way from home. This doctrine would be the driving force of American expansion westward, which would lead slavery to be introduced into the Texas territory and elsewhere. Where the Missouri Compromise checked slavery’s expansion and Southern preeminence on the national political scene, the Monroe Doctrine effectively opened the frontier back up all the way to the Pacific and beyond.
“The Era of Good Feelings,” or the ten to fifteen year span following the end of the War of 1812 and the few years before the election of 1828, was coined this title by a journalist who believed due to the “limited” American victory over Britain and the end of the War of 1812, the Federalist party declining and Monroe’s election to presidency in 1816 which lead to a strong decrease in factional conflict, and the nationalist enthusiasm that led to many internal changes in the American political arena, such as the elimination of almost all property requirements for voting; America seemed to be all smiles and laughs and the democratic dream the Founders once envisioned America of becoming was soon on its way.
ReplyDeleteBut how “good” was this era? Actually, this era was not very “good” at all and many historians have begun to argue that in fact this era was one of “bad” feelings. First off, as 1819 approached, a severe financial panic hit the urban workers of America and left the jobless and homeless as they were forced to find work and home in the countryside. Meanwhile in the same year of 1819, Congress debated over the Missouri issue, the issue of allowing Missouri to enter the union as a free state or a slave state, creating extreme sectional rivalry between the North and the South that would haunt this nation 30-40 years down the road. As shown in Document 3, northerners such as Rufus King and Timothy Fuller not only disagree with admitting Missouri into the union as a slave state, but also believe that slavery should be dismissed totally and that the institution itself is “unrepublican.” On the other hand, southerners like William Smith defend the institution of slavery. Here, the sectional crisis developing over the issue of slavery in the form of the Missouri Compromise was the first main national and political scale of debate that demonstrated the extreme sectional differences and opinions between the North and the South. The development of extreme sectional conflict cannot be seen as “good,” but rather as “bad” due to the fact that sectionalism was the main reason for the Civil War of the first few years of the 1860s.
As historians Richard H. Brown, Sean Wilentz, and Matthew Crocker see it, the debate over Missouri and slavery in 1819-1820 created massive change for America and the so-called “Era of Good Feelings.” In Brown’s essay, he argues that the Missouri debates led to a reassertion of how southern politicians were beginning to dominate national politics. Wilentz sees it a little differently than Brown, and in his essay he argues that the Missouri Compromise and debates embodied the sectional divide between Jeffersonian Republicans and the antislavery northerners. Crocker’s essay delves into the divisions among southerners on the compromise and how it affected American foreign relations in the future such as the Monroe Doctrine of 1823.
Overall, “The Era of Good Feelings” was in fact not an era of good feelings. The intense national and sectional debate over Missouri and slavery would only be the beginning of differing opinions between the North and the South that led to the onslaught of the American Civil War. How can an era be called “good” when in the heart of the era the main conflict for the Civil War is introduced to the national spectrum? Exactly, it can’t so in a way “The Era of Good Feelings” was actually “The Era of Bad Feelings.”
Chapter ten asks the question as to whether the changing political climate during the James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, and Andrew Jackson administrations harkened the north/south divide which would eventually rupture the country. Unlike many of the previous chapters, “The Era of Bad Feelings” focuses more on scholarly responses to the period’s aforementioned political climate as opposed to primary sources. The primary sources that are provided, however, give a picture of a society in flux. Political leaders such as the aging Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, and Martin Van Buren all attempt to peer into the future, in an attempt to uncover what the next chapter in American political history would be. It is clear from the writings of each of these men that they all understood that a new era in American history had been entered into, gone were the days of Federalists vs. Democratic Republicans and along with it the leadership of the founding fathers.
ReplyDeleteThe difficult economic times that centered on the financial panic of 1819 are perhaps best encapsulated by sources one and five. Source one comprises a letter between two American businessmen regarding the depressed economic times. Also, an English traveler’s account of the contemporary difficulties in the United States is provided. The system which supports a national bank, so writes John Jacob Astor, has directly lead to the depressed economy as a result of “too much speculation” and the accumulation of power and haughtiness within the institution. The traveler’s account laments the harsh realities of the impoverished classes and their absolute destitution during these times. Source five relates a manifesto by the Philadelphia in which they organize a union, stating their case for organizing largely on the greedy profit seeking attitudes of their bosses.
Sources two, three, four, six, and seven all relate (either directly or indirectly) to the political problems which had grown to a fever pitch in the 1810s and 20s. In source two, Thomas Jefferson (in the last half decade of his life) writes of his fear and dismay at the discourse of the Missouri Crisis which was embroiling the nation. Source three provides some of the differing opinions regarding the debate, anti-slavery candidates in the north such as Rufus King and Timothy Fuller opposed Missouri’s acceptance into the union as a western bastion of slavery. By contrast, South Carolina Senator William Smith saw and defended slavery as a morally good institution. Source four lays out John Quincy Adams’ beliefs that scientific and infrastructural progresses were the future of the nation, Adams’ reliance on these principles made him politically vulnerable in the south when he ran for a second term. Source six provides us with Marin Van Buren attempting to take American back to a political era which had already disappeared by reconstituting an opposition party made up of southerners and “southern leaning northerners.” Although Van Buren was somewhat successful in the short-term, the coalition he helped foster was ultimately untenable and became a mere band-aid on a festering wound. Finally, in source seven the quintessential firebrand of the south John C. Calhoun writes balking at the notion that northern industrialists in the congress have any positive input to provide the south on economic matters and that it should be within the power of the states to throw off tariffs which seek to single some states out.
The last source in the collection gives a dual account of the nastiness of the 1828 campaign for president between John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson. For Jackson it the campaign was personal, and it appears from the source that his supporters might have felt similarly.
ReplyDeleteThe three scholarly essays provided at the end of the section all focus on the Missouri Crisis and more importantly the roles of pro and anti-slavery sentiments through out the nation in politics during this time. Richard H. Brown connects the efforts of Martin Van Buren to reconstitute a party based largely on “northern men with southern feelings” with the return of southerners to the political forefront. Curiously, many of those same southerners (who Brown differentiates as “Old Republicans”) would continue to bash the events of this period as the destruction of southern political power. Sean Wilentz sees the Missouri Compromise as just that, a compromise. Southern politicians forfeited their constitutional principles that the federal government could not metal with slavery in the states in exchange for Missouri’s statehood which lead to more votes in the senate. Finally, Matthew H. Crocker displays the foreign policy aspects of the Missouri Compromise. The deal was struck on the backdrop of negotiations with Spain that ceded Florida, but cost the United States (the south) Texas, although not for very long.
There are quite a few events and developments in this time that make it a potential era of bad feelings. Bad feelings between the north and south, the political parties, people of the same party and regional differences just in general. With the panic of 1819 to kind of depress everyone’s feelings it could have almost been a potential downfall of the government a few years earlier than the Civil War. With panic ensuing in 1819 during one of the biggest immigration movement into America since the 1700’s it also created a lot of turmoil between immigrants and citizens because of competition with jobs and such. Big issues began to ensue between land speculators and the people and major class resentments became a big issue in the was things worked. Along with all of this issues began to prominently arise between the north and the south with the issue of slavery. The government began to divide between northern influence and southern influence and the issue of whether or not slavery was moral. With the southern preachers preaching that slavery was the moral obligation of slave-owners and then the southern plantation holders and elites arguing that if slavery was eradicated they would succeed from the union it was hard for there not to be a divide between regions. There was also the issue of keeping representation virtually equal between the north and south and not wanting either region to become more influential or powerful than one another. As these bad feelings between regions began to show more prominently it would be clear there would eventually be a big clash between the two. This began to show with the Missouri compromise and crisis and the elections of the 1820’s. The 1824 between Adams and Jackson made the gradually growing bad feelings even worse. There were speculations that Jackson was cheated out of the Presidency by a deal occurring between Henry Clay and Adams. As Jackson was a great southern hero this did not bode well with southern democrats. Adams was northern in his politics and his views on slavery were not very strong. During Adams presidency the country began to unite around Jackson and eventually he was elected which caused a dramatic change in the political direction of the nation. The Missouri compromise was one of the biggest deals of the early 1800’s that began to cause a split between the nation. Brown says that this was the basis that “which eventually would divide the nation free against slave.” He was very focused on the southern and pro slave side to the compromise. Whereas Wilentz was more focused on the northern and anti slavery side of the issue. With this compromise he showed that they were trying to do everything possible to maintain the balance of free states and slave states to preserve the union as best as they possibly could. He showed how difficult it was to figure out the agreement and finally come up with the solution they did to keep the peace as best as possible. Crocker was more like Brown in that he focused on the south sides issues during this compromise. With his work the significance of this decision and the Monroe doctrine could be seen in the formation of the gradual worsening of feelings between the north and south.
ReplyDeleteIt seems confusing to me why this era would be called “The Era of Good Feelings.” My immediate thought upon learning this title was “According to whom?” Certainly the United States at this time was not a homogeneous society, just as today. I don’t believe American Indians who were consistently having their land stolen by settlers would refer to this era as one of “good feelings”. The Mexicans who were having their land ceded from them quite likely would not have thought of this as a good time as well. Not to mention that slavery was still going on in the country and causing all types of political and social controversy. These groups, as well as people left behind in a capitalist society as we learned in Sean Wilentz’s monograph, would not have agreed with this title in the least. Political controversies, like the three way tie between Jackson, Adams, and Clay would have let to public unrest across the republic. Also, economic activities such as the Panic of 1819 would have led to more of a sense of negativity in the United States rather than “good feelings,” in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteThe three works in this section go back to offering different points of view. Each states a different divides in society concerning the controversial issue of slavery. Brown, Wilentz, and Crocker all make points concerning the passage of the Missouri Compromise and apply it to rising movements, feelings, and power shifts in the South. In his section, Brown argues that the Missouri Compromise was a rallying cry for “Old Republicans” in the South who had lost some vigor. Brown believed that this document was a huge victory for Southern voices and that it but Northern Republicans in an even more difficult position. Wilentz’s section tends to focus on the divide that was created in the South because of the Missouri Compromise. As in his past works that we have read, Wilentz gave a large amount of empirical evidence to prove his position that the South was now becoming more and more divided about the issue of slavery. I thought the chart was the most interesting part of Wilentz’s section because it gave visual proof to what he was saying, rather than his typical inundation of facts that can tend to be difficult to work through. Similarly, Crocker wrote on Southern divisions. However, he tended to focus more on the international effects of this and other policies like the Monroe Doctrine during this time. I though Crocker raised several interesting points, namely because I think we typically view this portion of history in a vacuum where nothing is happening in the rest of the world during this time. After reading this section, I think it is safe to say that this was definitely not an “Era of Good Feelings” and would be quite interested to hear someone try to defend it as such.
There does seem to be an overall era of bad feeling during the early middle 19th century. This can be seen in various documents and issues. The main issues that brought about bad feelings were the issue of slavery in Missouri along with the election of Adams in 1824 with the dubious appointment of Clay as the Secretary of State, another issues that pushed the insecurity of the age is that of the panic of 1819. In document 1 and 2 there are evidence of the American people falling on hard times. The 2nd document in particular talks about the lack of money among many of the American people. This affects the feelings of the people during the time. The document by Thomas Jefferson on “a Fire Bell in the Night” sums up the fears that are prevalent in this era. Jefferson knows that the Missouri slave issue is kicking up a hornets’ nest. Both sides in the Missouri issue do not want to lose. The battle is all about control. If the south loses it then slavery could be in jeopardy while if the north loses, they lose more political control. Brown in his essay brings up the point that the representatives were at each other’s throat in the house. To say there was a little animosity would be an understatement. In Wilentz’s essay, he brings up the point that the compromise got shot down and redone multiple times before it was passed. This shows the desire of both sides to get their way completely. Other then the Missouri issue, the election of the president in 1828 became very hostile. The last two documents in the chapter show this. The first one attacks Adams wisdom and political leadership while the other attacks Jackson’s character. This shows a presence of an era of bad feelings. Now on the essays, each author describes the Missouri compromise in a similar but differing way. Brown points at the shaping of a new political party. He focuses on the split of the Republican Party and the emergence of old ideals. He provides that the Missouri issue was a main cause of this rift. He also points out the rise of Van Buren with the new party and his help to Jackson. Brown does focus on the division between the north and south on the issue but Wilentz focuses more on the division. He places the importance of place on voting as well as showing the rewording of the Missouri compromise due to both the northern and southern parties wanting complete control or receiving all their demands. In contrast, Crocker portrays the southern people as hating the compromise. He talks about how after the Compromise was signed that the southern people were enraged at the idea of it. He also describes that the voting to pass the Compromise was shocking. He provides it was due to Clay’s involvement and mediating skills.
ReplyDeleteIn the years following the War of 1812, often ironically known as the “Era of Good Feelings”, the United States was plagued by multiple events that made it an era of not-so-good feelings. While Sean Wilentz and Jonathan Earle concede that following the election of James Monroe there was a brief period of apparent “good feelings” as nationalism was on the rise and suffrage expanded to virtually all white male citizens, these sentiments quickly dissipated in the face of issues such as the Panic of 1819, the crisis in Missouri, and a controversial presidential election. When viewed more closely, it seems these years were markedly teeming with bad feelings.
ReplyDeleteOne of the first problems faced by Monroe during his presidency was the Panic of 1819. As can be seen in the first document, this financial crisis caused hardships among many citizens throughout the United States. John Jacob Astor highlights the growing economic problems caused by the banks and the rampant inflation stating, “To raise the price of the stock they have discounted too freely and made money so cheap that everything else has become dear…” The banks were not the only example of hardships experienced during the financial panic. James Flint wrote in 1820 about how farmers, laborers, and mechanics alike suffered greatly during the time period from unemployment and low wages for those who were lucky enough to be employed.
Even more large scale and influential, the Missouri Crisis over statehood and slavery was at the height of precipitating bad feelings among Americans. Not only did the heart of the issue, slavery, not only bring out the often unchangeable feelings on the issue from common citizens, but it also was an issue of great political value. Whether Missouri was admitted as a slave or free state would go a great way into swaying political power towards southern or northern states, respectively. In document three, it is apparent that Rufus King and Timothy Fuller are well aware of the consequences of such a decision and argue vehemently for the anti-slavery push. Like King and Fuller however, people like William Smith stood up in defense of their views as well, as can be seen in his argument for slavery in Missouri.
To cap of an era of struggle and ill will towards the government, the election of 1824 presented its own contribution to the bad feelings. Many citizens, especially ones of Andrew Jackson’s camps, viewed the election of John Quincy Adams (which could not be decided by the electoral college and subsequently sent to congress where the future secretary of state cast his vote in favor of Adams) as controversial at the least.
In the essays by Richard Brown, Sean Wilentz, and Matthew Crocker, all three historians use the Missouri Crisis as a focal point for examining the so-called era of good feelings. According to Brown, it was this crisis that pushed the nation toward a proslavery view held by Jacksonians and away from Adams republicanism. With such a change in public views, Brown makes a compelling argument for the rise of Southern political power of the time. Wilentz writes that the Missouri compromise was more of a middle of the road document with both proslavery and anti-slavery points. Finally Crocker outlines his argument using the Missouri Compromise to detail what he calls the “southern strategy”, a view that details how exactly the compromise actually furthered slavery’s prevalence, a view very similar to Brown’s. Whatever the scope being looked at by different historians, I believe it can be concluded that while the years following the War of 1812 may not have been all bad, they certainly did not constitute an era of good feelings.
The Era of Good Feelings was a period with an unrealistic named based off a so-called victory in the War of 1812, which American should never have fought in the first place, and the general popularity and easy election of one man, James Monroe. Once in office, Monroe could easily observe the financial difficulties, sectional crises (notably the right of men to own slaves in the territories out west), and ideological differences between men like John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson that reflected tremendous differences in the nation as a whole. The era of bad feelings was not substantially more bitter or more divided than many other eras (e.g., now), but the widespread use of harsh propaganda in presidential campaigns and the rise of another party in a system that had been dominated by one party for nearly twenty years made it seem that way. Historians who want to describe this period as an era of bad feelings should look not to politics, but to society. There were real, practical reasons why the farmers and laborers of the west wanted to keep slaves out; the massive increase in unpaid competition would drive wages down and create a stagnant economy like the one in much of the South (with obvious exceptions like Baltimore and other major cities and seaports). Documents 2 and 3 show the reactions of political leaders to the crisis in Missouri and their philosophical debate; beneath the banter about the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson's views on slavery, and property rights lies a real economic division between those who would profit from a slave economy and those who would profit from a free economy. When Martin Van Buren proposes an opposition party in Document 6, he is not creating divisions in American society but proposing to take advantages of the divisions that already exist between the wealthy elite and factory workers of New England, the plantation owners of the South, the farmers of the West, etc. John Calhoun can theorize about states rights as much as he wants in Document 7, but the West will never accept slavery because accepting that peculiar institution means the end of social mobility. Jackson's strong patriotism and cultural image was designed to appeal to Westerners who loved their country, despised slavery, and hated blacks and Native Americans.
ReplyDeleteThe Panic of 1819 seems to have tested the common man while the Missouri Compromise tested the leaders of the nation.
ReplyDeleteIn cocument 1 John Jacob Astor references the return of emigrants to Europe and the depreciation of money. This contemporary account does a wonderful job of recognizing the factors that led to crisis and the immediate impact of the crisis.
The Missouri Crisis seems to have tested all of the weak points of the nation's government at once. The fact that there was a one party system (more or less) may at a glance make the era seem tame- the truth is that that 1 party was so divided that there were not enough points of agreement for there even to be one party. This seems more like a no-party system.
The winners in this crisis were the self-interested "compromisers." At the heart of the debate was more than slavery, more than representation: personal interest seems to be the most obvious motivating factor.
Brown characterizes Van Buren as the example of this self-interest over ideology attitude. Van Buren brought South and North together to serve his own goals. Perhaps the only person who benifitted more than Van Buren from Van Buren's politics was Jackson
Wilentz analyzes the votes and the micropolotics of the issue. In his essay it is Clay who takes advantage of the splintered party in order to manipulate strategy. Wilentz argues that the compromise was merely an omen, and that it was at best a temporary resolution.
Crocker widens the scope to consider international politics. He choses to see the Monroe Doctrine and the Missouri Compromise as aspects of the same manipulation. He argues that Clay worked so hard for compromise so that he could focus on expanding the southern influence into the Spanish controlled west and Florida. Here again Crocker's essay relates the self-intrested manipulation that was at play. This was not just North vs South or an argument of ideaology... this was a fight for power, in the absense of a party system there was plenty of power to be drawn from the many disagreeing sides of every argument.