Era of Good Feelings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Era of Good Feeling)
Jump to: navigation, search

The Era of Good Feelings marked a period in the political history of the United States that reflected a sense of national purpose and a desire for unity among Americans in the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars.[1] The era saw a brief lull in the bitter partisan disputes that had plagued the Democratic-Republican and Federalist parties during the First Party System.[2][3] President James Monroe endeavored to consolidate the Republican and Federalist parties through "amalgamation”, with the ultimate goal of eliminating parties altogether from national politics.[4][5] The period is so closely associated with the Monroe's presidency (1817-1825) and his administrative goals that his name and the era are virtually synonymous.[6][7]

The designation of the period by historians as one of “good feelings” is often conveyed with irony or skepticism, as the history of the era was one in which the political atmosphere was strained and divisive, especially among factions within the Monroe administration and the Republican Party.[8][9][10]

The phrase “Era of Good Feelings” was coined by Benjamin Russell, in the Boston Federalist newspaper, Columbian Centinel, on July 12, 1817, following Monroe's visit to Boston, Massachusetts as part of his good will tour of America.[11][12]

Contents

[edit] Post-war nationalism

The Era of Good Feelings started in 1815 in the mood of victory that swept the nation at the end of the War of 1812. Exaltation replaced the bitter political divisions between Federalists and Republicans, the North and South, and the East coast cities and settlers on the western frontier. The political bitterness declined because the Federalist Party had largely dissolved after the fiasco of the Hartford Convention in 1814-15.[13] As a party, Federalists were largely extinct.[14],[15] The Democratic-Republican Party was nominally dominant, but in practice it was largely inactive at the national level and in most states.[16]

The era saw a nationalizing trend that envisioned “a permanent federal role in the crucial arena of national development and national prosperity.”[17] Monroe ’s predecessor, President James Madison, and the Republican Party, had come to appreciate – through the crucible of war – the expediency of Federalist institutions and projects, and prepared to legislate them under the auspices of John C. Calhoun and Henry Clay’s American System.[18]

Madison announced this shift in policy with his Seventh Annual Message to Congress in December 1815,[19] subsequently authorizing measures for a national bank and a protective tariff on manufactures.[20] The emergence of “new Republicans” – undismayed by mild nationalist policies – anticipated Monroe’s “era of good feelings” and a general mood of optimism emerged with hopes for political reconciliation.[21]

Monroe’s landslide victory against Federalist Rufus King in 1816 was so widely predicted that voter turnout was low[22][23] A spirit of reconciliation between Republicans and Federalists was well underway when Monroe assumed office in March 1817.[24][25]

[edit] Monroe and political parties

As president, Monroe was widely expected to facilitate a rapprochement of the political parties[26] in order to harmonize the country in a common national outlook, rather than party interests. Both parties exhorted him to include a Federalist in his cabinet to symbolize the new era of “oneness” that pervaded the nation.[27]

Monroe approached these developments with great caution and deliberation. As president-elect, he carefully crafted the stance he would assume towards the declining Federalists in a letter to General Andrew Jackson of Tennessee in December of 1816.[28]

First, Monroe reaffirmed his conviction – an “anti-Federalist” article of faith - that the Federalist Party was committed to installing a monarch and overthrowing republican forms of government at the first opportunity.[29] To appoint a member of such a party to a top executive position, Monroe reasoned, would only serve to prolong the inevitable decline and fall of the opposition. Monroe made absolutely clear in this document that his administration would never allow itself to become tainted with Federalist ideology.[30]

Secondly, he was loath to arouse jealousies within his own party by appearing to accommodate any Federalist, at the expense of a Republican. This would only serve to create factions and a revival of party identity.[31]

And third, Monroe sought to merge former Federalists with Republicans as a prelude to eliminating party associations altogether from national politics, including his own Republican party. All political parties, wrote Monroe, were by their very nature, incompatible with free government. Ideally, the business of governing was best conducted by disinterested statesmen, acting exclusively in the national interest – not on behalf of sectional interests or personal ambition.[32] This was “amalgamation” – the supposed end of party warfare and the beginning of the “politics of consensus.”[33]

His policy echoed the arguments put forth by President George Washington in his farewell address in 1796 and his warnings against political “factions”.[34][35]

The method Monroe employed to deflate the Federalist Party was through neglect: they were denied all political patronage, administrative appointments and federal support of any kind. Monroe pursued this policy dispassionately and without any desire to persecute the Federalists: his purpose was simply to extirpate the Federalists from positions of political power, both Federal and State, especially in its New England strongholds. He understood that any expression of official approval would only encourage hope for a Federalist revival, and this he could not abide.[36]

In his public pronouncements, Monroe was careful to make no comments that could be interpreted as politically partisan. Not only did he never attack the Federalist party, he made no direct reference to them in his speeches whatsoever: officially, they ceased to exist.[37] In his private encounters with Federalists, he made favorable impressions -[38][39]committing himself to nothing, yet eliciting good feelings, and reassuring them that his policies would be “generous” - as be proceeded quietly with a program of “de-Federalization”.[40]

[edit] Great Goodwill Tour and national embrace of republicanism

The most perfect expression of the Era of Good Feelings was Monroe’s country-wide "good-will" tour in 1817 and 1819. His visits to New England and to the Federalist stronghold of Boston, Massachusetts, in particular, were the most significant of the tour.[41] Here, the descriptive phrase “Era of Good Feelings” was bestowed by a local Federalist journal.

The President’s physical appearance, wardrobe and personal attributes were decisive in arousing “good feelings” on the tour. He donned a Revolutionary War officer's uniform and tied his powdered hair in a cue in the old style. “Tall, rawboned, venerable”, he made an “agreeable” impression and had a good deal of “charm” and “most men immediately liked him… [in] manner he was rather formal, having an innate sense of dignity, which allowed no one to take liberties. Yet in spite of his formality, he had the unusual ability to put men at their ease by his courtesy, lack of condescension, his frankness, and what his contemporaries looked upon as the essential goodness and kindness of heart which he always radiated.”[42][43]

Monroe’s visit to Boston elicited a huge outpouring of nationalist pride and expressions of reconciliation. New England Federalists were especially eager to demonstrate their loyalty after the debacle of the Hartford Convention. Amidst the festivities – banquets, parades, receptions – many took the opportunity to make the most “explicit and solemn declarations” to remove, as Monroe wrote afterwards, “impressions of that kind, which they knew existed, and to get back into the great family of the union.”[44] Abigail Adams dubbed the catharsis an “expiation”.[45]

Here, in the heart of Federalist territory, Monroe gained the primary goal of his tour; in effect, permitting “the Federalists by solemn public demonstrations to reaffirm their loyalty to the government and their acceptance of Republican control.”[46] Even in this atmosphere of contrition, Monroe was assiduous in avoiding any remarks or expressions that might chasten or humiliate his hosts. He presented himself strictly as the head of state, and not as the leader of a triumphant political party.[47]

In the ensuing years the New England states capitulated, and all but Massachusetts was in Republican Party hands. De-Federalization was virtually complete by 1820 and the appointment of former Federalist Party members seemed in order; however, Monroe feared a backlash even at this advanced stage in the process of amalgamation. Most “anti-Federalist” sentiments were political posturing, but Monroe was not so secure of support for his domestic and foreign programs and was concerned at the mounting hostilities over the upcoming presidential contest in 1824, a purely intraparty affair. Monroe’s final reconciling with the Federalists was never consummated.[48]

[edit] Failure of amalgamation and rise of the Old Republicans

Monroe’s success in mitigating party rancor produced an appearance of political unity, with almost all Americans identifying themselves as Republicans.[49]. His nearly unanimous electoral victory for reelection in 1820 seemed to confirm this.[50]

Recognizing the danger of intraparty rivalries, Monroe attempted to include prospective presidential candidates and top political leaders in his administration. His cabinet comprised three of the political rivals who would vie for the presidency in 1824: John Quincy Adams, John C. Calhoun and William H. Crawford. A fourth, Andrew Jackson, held high military appointments.[51] Here, Monroe felt he could manage the factional disputes and arrange compromise on national politics within administration guidelines.[52] His great disadvantage was that “amalgamation” deprived him of appealing to Republican “solidarity” that would have cleared the way for passage of his programs in Congress.

“From the moment that Monroe adopted as his guiding principle the maxim that he was head of a nation, not the leader of a party, he repudiated for all practical purposes the party unity” that would have served to establish his policies. The result was a loss of party discipline.[53][54] Absent was the universal adherence to the precepts of Jeffersonianism: state sovereignty, strict construction and stability of Southern institutions. Old Republican critics of the new nationalism, among them John Randolph of Roanoke, Virginia, had warned that the abandonment of the Jeffersonian scheme of Southern preeminence would provoke a sectional conflict, North and South that would threaten the union.[55] Former president James Madison had cautioned Monroe that in any free government, it was natural that party identity would take shape.[56]

The disastrous, yet brief Panic of 1819 and the Supreme Court’s McCulloch v. Maryland, reanimated the disputes over the supremacy of state sovereignty and federal power; between strict construction of the US Constitution and loose construction.[57] The Missouri Crisis in 1820 made the explosive political conflict between slave and free soil open and explicit. Only through the adroit handling of the legislation by Speaker of the House Henry Clay was a settlement reached and disunion avoided.[58]

With the decline in political consensus, it became imperative to revive Jeffersonian principles on the basis of Southern exceptionalism.[59][60] The agrarian alliance, North and South, would be revived to form Jacksonian Nationalism and the rise of the modern Democratic Party.[61]The interlude of the "Era of Good Feelings" was at an end.[62]

[edit] References

  1. ^ Ammon, 1971, p.366
  2. ^ Ammon, 1958, p.4
  3. ^ Brown, 1966, p.23
  4. ^ Ammon, 1958, p.6
  5. ^ Dangerfield, 1965, p.24
  6. ^ Dangerfield, 1965, p.35
  7. ^ Dangerfield, 1952
  8. ^ Ammon, 1958, p.4
  9. ^ Remini, 2002, p. 77
  10. ^ Dangerfield, 1965, p.35
  11. ^ Dangerfield, 1965, p.35
  12. ^ Unger, 2009, p.271
  13. ^ James M Banner, To the Hartford Convention: the Federalists and the origins of party politics in Massachusetts, 1789-1815 (1970)
  14. ^ Ammon, 1958, p.5
  15. ^ Schlesinger, 1945, p. 9
  16. ^ Richard P. McCormick, The Second American Party System: Party Formation in the Jacksonian Era (1966) pp. 14-16
  17. ^ Bursten and Esenberg, 2010, p.564
  18. ^ Reynolds, p. 9
  19. ^ Dangerfield, 1965, p.5-6
  20. ^ Dangerfield, 1965, p. 20
  21. ^ Dangerfield, 1965, p. 20
  22. ^ McCormick, 1960, p.102
  23. ^ Burns, 1981, p. 264
  24. ^ Ammon, 1958, p.4
  25. ^ Dangerfield, 1965, p.143
  26. ^ Ammon, 1958, p.4
  27. ^ Ammon, 1971, 366
  28. ^ Ammon, 1958, p. 5
  29. ^ Dangerfield, 1965, p. 3
  30. ^ Ammon, 1958, p.5-6
  31. ^ Ammon, 1958, p.5-6
  32. ^ Ammon, 1971, p. 366
  33. ^ Ammon, 1971, p. 367
  34. ^ Ammon, 1958, p.5-6
  35. ^ Freehling, 1965 p. 224
  36. ^ Ammon, 1958, p.6-7
  37. ^ Ammon, 1958, p. 7
  38. ^ Ammon, 1958, p. 7
  39. ^ Unger, p. 287
  40. ^ Ammon, 1958, p.6-7
  41. ^ Ammon, 1958, p. 7
  42. ^ Dangerfield, 1965, p.22
  43. ^ Ammon, 1958, p.8
  44. ^ Ammon, 1958, p.9
  45. ^ Ammon, 1958, p.8
  46. ^ Ammon, 1958, p.7
  47. ^ Ammon, 1958, p.8
  48. ^ Ammon, 1958, p.9
  49. ^ Brown, 1966, p.23
  50. ^ Ammon, 1958, p.11
  51. ^ Ammon, 1958, p.10
  52. ^ Ammon, 1958, p.9
  53. ^ Ammon, 1971, p.380
  54. ^ Brown, 1966, p. 23
  55. ^ Brown, 1966, p.23
  56. ^ Ammon, 1958, p.10
  57. ^ Dangerfield, 1965, p. 97-98
  58. ^ Brown, 1966, p.25
  59. ^ Brown, 1966, p. 23-24
  60. ^ Varon, 2008, p.39-40
  61. ^ Brown, 1966, p.22
  62. ^ Dangerfield, 1965, p.3

[edit] Bibliography

[edit] Cited in footnotes

  • Ammon, Harry. 1971. James Monroe: The Quest for National Identity. McGraw-Hill , New York.
  • Ammon, Harry. 1958 James Monroe and the Era of Good Feelings. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, LXVI, No. 4 (October 1958 ), pp. 387-398 in Essays on Jacksonian America , Ed. Frank Otto Gatell. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. New York. 1970.
  • Brown, Richard H. 1966. The Missouri Crisis, Slavery, and the Politics of Jacksonianism. South Atlantic Quarterly. pp. 55-72 in Essays on Jacksonian America , Ed. Frank Otto Gatell. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. New York . 1970.
  • Burns, James M. 1981. The Vineyard of Liberty. Alfred A. Knopf. New York. 1982.
  • Burstein, Andrew & Isenberg, Nancy. 2010. Madison and Jefferson. Random House. 832pp ISBN:978-1-4000-6728-2
  • Dangerfield, George. 1965. The Awakening of American Nationalism: 1815-1828. Harper & Row. New York.
  • McCormick, Richard P. 1960. New Perspectives on Jacksonian Politics American Historical Review, LXV (January 1960), 288-301.
  • Remini, Robert V. 2002. John Quincy Adams. Time Books, Henry Holt & Co. New York.
  • Reynolds, David S. 2008. Waking Giant: America in the Age of Jackson. Harper/Harper Collins. 466 pp.
  • Schlesinger, Arthur M. Jr. 1945. The Age of Jackson. Little, Brown and Company, 1953.
  • Unger, Harlow G. 2009. The last founding father: James Monroe and a nation's call to greatness Da Capo Press, Cambridge, Mass.
  • Varon, Elizabeth R. 2008. Disunion!: The Coming of the American Civil War, 1789-1859. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. 416 pp.

[edit] Further reading

  • George Dangerfield. The Era of Good Feelings (1952).
  • George Dangerfield. The Awakening of American Nationalism: 1815–1828 (1965).
  • Howe, Daniel Walker. What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848 (Oxford History of the United States) (2008)
  • Unger, Harlow G. The last founding father: James Monroe and a nation's call to greatness (2009) ch 15
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Era_of_Good_Feelings&oldid=478489332"
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export
Languages