Era of Good Feelings 1817-1825
This term was coined by a newspaper writer while following Monroe on his
1817 inspection tour of military bases.
After Madison, James Monroe was elected president in 1816. He continued
the Virginia dynasty where 4 out of 5 of the initial presidents were from
Virginia. (32 of the first 36 years) He came with good credentials: he had
fought in the American Revolution; served as minister to France; was copurchaser of Louisiana; and was an excellent administrator. And it didn’t
hurt that the country had come out of the War of 1812 feeling good about
itself. He straddled two generations.
After his election, the Federalist Party, if not its philosophy, would die out.
They had liabilities:
 They were seen as being disloyal during the War of 1812.
 They became sectional regarding their own interests and even
considered seceding from the Union.
 Jefferson, the strict constructionist, had stolen his opponent’s political
clothes. (Hamilton’s financial plan; expansion; and loose
constructionist when it was needed)
 Ironically, Federalists reversed many of their initial positions.
(Originally nationalistic they were now opposed to Republican
nationalism; and became strict constructionists regarding internal
improvements)
This “Era of Good Feelings” however, masked some growing national
concerns:
 Emerging sectionalism –east, west, south
 Tariff issue –east and south opposed; west in favor
 Internal improvements –east and south opposed,; west in favor
 Bank of the US (BUS) –west and south opposed; eastern bankers in
favor
 Sale of public lands –east opposed; west and south in favor
 Panic of 1819 resulted in western hostility toward eastern bankers
 Issue of slavery in Missouri created increased sectionalism –N v S
 Republican Party enjoying 1-party rule began developing factions
eventually leading to the two party system of the 1830’s. –
‘Federalists’ had to turn up somewhere. *Federalist Paper #10 (Clay,
Calhoun, Jackson, and John Quincy Adams)
Monroe’s presidency oversaw two major events:
 Panic of 1819
 Missouri Compromise of 1820
Panic of 1819:
Economic panic and depression hit in 1819; this was the first financial panic
since the ‘Critical Period” of the 1790’s under the Articles. (Since then,
panics and depression would occur about every 20 years)
It was caused by:
 Immediate cause: Over speculation on frontier lands by banks
(especially BUS)
 Inflation from the War of 1812 and the economic drop-off after the
war –especially cotton. –left the economy vulnerable
 We had a significant deficit in balance of trade with Britain
 BUS forced ‘wildcat’ western banks to foreclose on western farms –
BUS stopped allowing payment in paper and demanded payment in
gold or silver. State banks were affected by this and called in loans in
gold and silver. Many farmers didn’t have the cash, so they lost their
land.
 This resulted in calls for reform and pressure for increased
democracy. Now western farmers viewed banks as evil financial
monsters. As usual, the hardest hit was the poor and they were now
looking for a more responsive government. (Beginnings of Jacksonian
democracy are found in the issues we just discussed.)
 New land legislation resulted in smaller parcels being sold for lower
prices. (By the Civil War, western land would be given away nearly
for free)
 There was now widespread sentiment to end the practice of
imprisoning debtors. (C. Dickens: Great Expectations)
However, Monroe was reelected in 1820 with all but on electoral vote –only
president in history to be elected after a major panic.
The West was now growing rapidly and the new states had similar
characteristics:
 They were not focused on states’ rights issues like the South and East.
 They received most of their land from the federal government so they
were more dependent on it.
 They contained a wide diversity of peoples immigrating from the
East.
 Nine new western states joined the union between 1791 and 1819.
Most of these had been admitted alternately free and slave and
maintaining this sectional balance in Congress was a supreme goal.
(Did you ever wonder why the western states are so much larger in
territory than the eastern states? And it’s not population.)
The Missouri Compromise of 1820:
In 1819, Missouri asked Congress to enter the union. In response to this, the
House of Representatives passed the Tallmadge Amendment. Among other
things, it said that no more slaves could be brought into Missouri and the
children of the slaves already there would be gradually emancipated.
As you might guess, the Southerners saw this as a huge threat to sectional
balance. The ghost at the banquet is now sitting at the table! Missouri was
the first state entirely west of the Mississippi made from the Louisiana
Territory and this amendment might set a precedent for the rest of the region
to be free. The most important implication from this was that if Congress
could abolish slavery in Missouri, it could abolish it in the South.
The South was also concerned about the fast increase in northern population
and economy. The N and S in 1790 were about the same…why the
difference now?
The Senate refused to pass the amendment and a crisis hung over the nation.
The Compromise:
Henry Clay of KY led the mediation of a compromise:
 Congress agreed to admit Missouri as a slave state
 To maintain the balance, Maine was admitted as a free state. It would
remain 12 to 12 for the next 15 years.
 Future slavery was prohibited north of the 36 degree 30 degree line;
the southern border of Missouri –which left Missouri above it and
they stuck out like a sore thumb.
The compromise was largely accepted by both sides –South got Missouri;
north of 36/30 would be slave free. Southwest of this lie Spanish territory
which prevented the South from spreading. Southerners were not concerned
with land above the 36/30 because it was to cold to grow cash crops
requiring slavery.
The Compromise lasted for another 34 years until the Kansas-Nebraska Act
of 1854, but the issue of slavery had become a dominant issue in American
politics. This was a serious setback in national unity.
After this, the South began to develop a sectional nationalism of its own.
(A hierarchy based on subjugation rooted in slavery)
Foreign Policy after 1812:
 Rush-Bagot Treaty –1817—it limited naval armament on the Great
Lakes. So, by 1879, U.S. and Canada shared the longest unfortified
border in the world –about 5,500 miles. (Madison)
 Treaty of 1818 with England – (Madison) –It was negotiated by one
of our greatest diplomats, John Quincy Adams. It: fixed the Am/CA
border at the 49th parallel from Lake of the Woods to the Rocky Mts.;
we would hold a 10 year joint occupation of Oregon w/o surrender of
claims; and America was share Newfoundland fisheries with Canada.
 The U.S. also gained Florida. The U.S. already claimed West Florida
where settlers forcibly arrived in 1810 and Congress ratified the
conquest during the War of 1812. Then, revolutions in South America
forced Spain to move troops out of Florida. Indians, runaway slaves,
and white outcasts poured across the border to attack settlers and flee
south of the border. Monroe ordered A. Jackson to attack the Indians
and, if necessary, pursue them back into Florida. So, he swept through
Florida during the First Seminole War -1816-1818. He disobeyed
Monroe’s orders and captured Spanish cities and deposed the Spanish
Governor. Jackson executed 2 Indian chiefs. John Q. Adams stepped
in with a brilliant idea. Tell Spain that they had to control their
outlaws or cede Florida to the U.S. Spain couldn’t control the area and
decided to negotiate. Adams-Onis Treaty (Florida Purchase Treaty
–for $5M) of 1819. The U.S abandoned claims to Texas and Spain
ceded Florida and claims to Oregon to the U.S.
Monroe Doctrine –John Q. Adams: Sec. of State:
Many European monarchies were concerned about Latin America’s
democratic revolutions and Europe’s emerging democratic movements.
They saw democracy as a threat to absolute monarchy. They wanted to
restore Latin American republics to Spain after the defeat of Napoleon. On
September 10, 1814, Austria, Great Britain, Prussia, and Russia formed the
Quadruple Alliance to strengthen monarchial rule, mercantilism, and
discourage democracy. This alarmed Americans because it threatened our
security. So, the United States formally recognized the countries of
Argentina, Chile, Colombia, and Mexico. With the recognition of the Latin
American states by the United States, the position of the United States
among the nations of the world was strengthened. Not only was the
continuance of economic trade with Latin America assured, but
republicanism was also enhanced with the addition of several new republics.
The establishment of more nations with republican forms of government lent
prestige to the United States government, formerly the only republican
government among the nations of the world. The United States government
was therefore assured of a stronger position when it participated in
diplomatic discussions with other nations.
By now, Great Britain was the undisputed ruler of the seas, and the United
States decided that Great Britain was the one nation that could do us the
most harm, but with her on our side, we need not fear the world.
Great Britain sought an alliance with U.S. to protect its interests in Latin
America –economic ones. In 1823, British foreign secretary, George
Canning, proposed a joint declaration to warn European despots to stay
away from LA republics. JQA smelled a rat. He thought that Gt. Britain
wanted an alliance to keep us from taking territory in LA and hurting
Britain’s trade deals. He believed that the alliance was not necessary
because Europe was not a threat.
In 1823, Monroe, in his annual message to Congress warned Europeans that
 Colonial powers could keep existing colonies but gain no others (The
original idea was Adam’s and had it’s origins in the Russian/US
border dispute in the NW.)
 Leave America alone; let new republics govern themselves
 Was directed also at Russia with designs on the Pacific coast
 Democratic America had separated itself from monarchial Europe.
Nationalistic Americans widely supported it and we avoided entangling
alliances.
In Europe:
 Canning was concerned that it was aimed at Britain as well.
 British press favored protection of LA markets.
 Monarchs angered.
 LA saw the U.S. protecting its own interest.
The immediate impact was small. The U.S. Army and Navy remained weak,
but in 1845, Polk would revive it and make it important.
The long-term effect was that the Monroe Doctrine became the cornerstone
of U.S. foreign policy during the last half of the 19th century and most of the
20th.
Analysis of the Monroe Doctrine:
1. What effects did it have on the nations of Europe?
 Without the support of Great Britain, armed intervention would be
impossible.
2. How has the Doctrine shaped the foreign policy of the United States?
 The Doctrine contained two warnings and two assurances: The first
warning stated that the western hemisphere was closed to European
colonization; -know as the principle of non-colonization. The second
warning said that European nations should abstain from affecting any
influences upon the new American republics; -know as the principle
of non-intervention. The first assurance said that the United States had
no intention of intervening directly or becoming involved in the
affairs of Europe. The second assurance was that the United States
had no designs toward and would not attempt to gain control or
influence over the remaining colonial territories in the Western
Hemisphere. But it did not preclude the possibility that the people of
Cuba or Texas might desire annexation.
 The Doctrine was formulated by the executive branch without the
participation of Congress. It was a unilateral declaration. These were
bold moves for such a young nation.
 The declaration of the United States foreign policy involved national
self-defense, peace, and security. For if the Alliance were to regain
control of the colonies, they would threaten the safety of the United
States.
 The Monroe Doctrine had been intended only as an immediate policy
applying to the threatened aggression of the Alliance. Monroe was
simply stating the direction of our foreign policy. It was short-term. It
was contrary to international law at the time because nations had the
right to colonize and intervene.
 Monroe gave no pledge to abstain from interfering in European
affairs.
 In the final analysis, one might view the Monroe Doctrine as the pure
and simple embodiment of the isolationist and neutrality tradition of
the US government.
In 1928, Department of State Reuben Clark wrote: “In the normal case, the
Latin American state against which aggression was aimed by a European
power, would be the beneficiary of the Doctrine not its victim….. The
Doctrine makes the United States a guarantor, in effect, of the independence
of Latin American states, though without obligations of a guarantor to those
states, for the Unite States itself determines by its sovereign will when,
where, and concerning what aggressions it will invoke the Doctrine, and by
what measures, if any, it will apply a sanction. In none of these things has
any other state any voice whatsoever. Furthermore, while the Monroe
Doctrine as declared has no relation in it terms to an aggression by any other
state than a European state, yet the principle ‘self-preservation’ which
underlies the Doctrine… would apply to any non-American state in
whatever quarter of the globe it lay … if the aggressions of such state
against …Latin American states were ‘dangerous to the peace and safety,’ or
were a ‘manifestation of an unfriendly disposition towards the United
States,’ or were ‘endangering our peace and happiness;’ that is, if such
aggressions challenged our existence…. The Monroe Doctrine is not a
pledge by the United States to other American states requiring the United
States to protect such states against real or fancied wrongs inflicted by
European powers, nor does it create an obligation running from the United
States to any American state to intervene for its protection … Finally, it
should not be overlooked that the United States declined the overtures of
Great Britain in 1823 to make a joint declaration regarding the principles
covered by the Monroe Doctrine or to enter into a conventional arrangement
regarding them. Instead this government determined to make the declaration
of high national policy on its own responsibility and in its own behalf. The
doctrine is thus purely unilateral. The United States determines when and if
the principles of the Doctrine are violated, and when and if violation is
threatened. We alone determine what measures if any, shall be taken to
vindicate the principles of the Doctrine, and we of necessity determine when
the principles have been vindicated. No other power of the world has any
relationship to, or voice in, the implementing of the principles which the
Doctrine contains. It is our Doctrine, to be by us invoked and sustained, or
abandoned as our high international policy or vital national interests shall
seem to us, and to us alone, to demand. It may in conclusion, be repeated:
The Doctrine does not concern itself with purely inter-American relations; it
has nothing to do with the relationship between the Unites States and other
American nations, except where other American nations shall become
involved with European governments in arrangements which threaten the
security of the United States, and even in such cases, the Doctrine runs
against the European country, not the American nation, and the Unites States
would primarily deal there-under with the European country and not with the
American nation concerned. The Doctrine states a case of the Unites States
vs. Europe, and not of the Unites States vs. Latin America. Furthermore, the
fact should never be lost to view that in applying this Doctrine during the
period of one hundred years since it was announced, our government has
over and over again driven it in as a shield between Europe and the
Americas to protect Latin America from the political and territorial thrusts of
Europe; and this was done at times when the American nations were weak
and struggling for the establishment of stable, permanent governments;
when the political morality of Europe sanctioned the acquisition of territory
by force; and when many of the great powers of Europe looked with eager
eyes to the rich, underdeveloped areas of the American hemisphere. Nor
should another equally vital fact be lost sight of, that the United States has
only been able to give this protection against designing European powers
because of its know willingness and determination to expend its treasure and
to sacrifice American life to maintain the principles of the Doctrine. So far
as Latin America is concerned, the Doctrine is not an instrument of violence
and oppression, but an unbought and wholly effective guaranty of their
freedom, independence, and territorial integrity against the imperialistic
designs of Europe.
From this Doctrine we have sought to prevent opposing military forces from
encroaching on American territory; opting to confront them on foreign soil.
We have entered into defensive organizations such as OAS, NATO, and
SEATO.
Monroe, a Virginia slave owner, pushed in 1819 for the establishment of a
colony in Africa where freed American slaves could go. In 1824, the colony
of Liberia was established, with its capital of Monrovia, named after
Monroe.
John Quincy Adams is one of the most significant secretaries of state in
U.S. history.
 Oversaw Convention of 1818 establishing the U.S. CA border
 Adams-Onis Treaty resulted in Florida
 Monroe Doctrine