Chapter 13
Nationalism
The War of 1812 brought an upsurge of nationalism- the spirit of nation-consciousness or national oneness (patriotism). There was so much
nationalism that even President Madison, who made many mistakes, left office more popular than when he arrived.
There was nationalism before, but not the same as current nationalism, which resulted from recent victories (New Orleans), setbacks of
Federalist sectionalism and states’ rights, lessening of dependence on England, and growing confidence of the future. More citizens, still not the majority,
saw themselves as Americans first, before citizens of their states.
Distinct American literature developed too. In the 1820s, Washington Irving and James Fenimore Cooper were recognized as the first
important writers to use American scenes and themes. Textbooks, formerly British, were now being written by Americans. The North American Review
magazine started in 1815. American painters drew American scenes.
A new national capital was being built (after destruction), the army expanded to 10,000, the navy defeated North American pirates in 1815, and
War of 1812 and North African naval hero Stephen Decatur celebrated “Our country!”
The Bank of the United States expired in 1811, just before the War of 1812, leaving weak state banks to issue depreciated money, hurting the
war effort. BUS was renewed as the second Bank of the United States in 1816 with a total capital of $35 million. Jeffersonian Republicans supported the
renewal, using old Federalist arguments, while Federalist opposed the “moneyed monster” using old Republican arguments. A national bank increased
nationalism.
Tariff of 1816 and American System
Tariff of 1816
The American embargoes forced America to become more independent and industrial. Britain attempted to strangle young American
companies by flooding America with its excess goods. In response to cries for protection, Congress passed the Tariff of 1816 the first primarily protective
American tariff. Its rate of 20-25% on imports was not enough for complete protection, but was a good start. This began more demands for further
protection.
John C. Calhoun: From supporter to foe
John C. Calhoun (S. Carolina Rep) was a former war hawk, nationalist, and debater of the tariff. He originally supported the tariff. Why?
Because in 1816 it looked like the South had a future in manufacturing and cotton cultivation, which would need protection. However, after a few years he
turned against the tariff. Why? He concluded that it only enriched a few manufacturers rather than help the nation.
Daniel Webster: From foe to supporter
Daniel Webster (citizen New Hampshire) was the same age (34) as Calhoun. He was originally against the tariff. Why? New England hadn’t
completely switched from shipping (which might be harmed by a tariff) to manufacturing (which needs a tariff) yet. But he later was a supporter of
nationalism and high protection. Why? Because New England was gradually trading ‘the mainsail for the loom.’
Henry Clay: The American System
Henry Clay was still a war hawk with a lot of nationalism. He supported the 1824 plan known as the American System. This system would
create a tariff. A tariff would mean protection. Protection would mean flourishing manufacturing industries. A tariff also means revenue. This revenue
would go to build roads and canals. These roads and canals would help transport raw goods from the South and West to the North and East in exchange for
manufactured goods.
Improvement of transportation systems was important, as the lack of efficient systems hurt the Americans during the war.
Calhoun: Bonus Bill of 1817
New Englanders did not like improvements of transportation systems for one simple reason: people could move to the west easier, create newer
states faster, and therefore dilute eastern power quicker. Republicans were advocated power for states and therefore agreed. Calhoun proposed his Bonus
Bill of 1817, which would give $1.5 million to states for internal improvements. This passed through Congress, only to be vetoed by Monroe (Republican)
as unconstitutional. His successor, James Monroe (Republican), also was against this. Therefore, states were on their own, and New York independently
completed the Erie Canal in 1825.
Election of 1816: Madison to Monroe
Election
James Monroe ran for the Republican party in 1816 and won against the last Federalist candidate. He was from Virginia, just like Washington,
Jefferson, and Madison, and therefore continued the Virginia dynasty. He won 183 to 34.
Death of Federalists
The Federalist Party died because of its disgraceful war record, inability to stop the new nationalist programs, and the loss of its ideas to the
Republicans. Some Federalists followed their principles and became Republicans, others stopped doing politics. Original Hamiltonians were very
nationalistic, but later opposed nationalism.
James Monroe
Monroe was the last president to wear an old-style cocked hat, and he reflected two generations: 1.) the Founding Fathers, and 2.) the emergent
age of nationalism. He was never brilliant and not great, and in regards to intellect and personal force he was the least distinguished of the first eight
presidents (sad huh?). However, he was good for his period, and he knew how to sense popular feelings.
Era of Good Feeling
Monroe took a goodwill tour in 1817, north into New England and west to Detroit. He was welcomed even in Federalist New England. A
Boston newspaper announced an Era of Good Feeling, which is commonly used to describe Monroe’s administration. According to the book: The Era of
Good Feeling was a time of “considerable tranquility and prosperity”, yet “troubled” with issues of the tariff, the bank, internal improvements, sale of
public lands, sectionalism and slavery.
Era of Inflamed Feelings
Now that there was only one party (Republican), this one party starts to split itself into factions. The early 1820s saw the Era of Inflamed
Feelings during which important people (like Clay, Calhoun, Jackson, and JQA) fought for power and their sections.
Panic of 1819 and Land Act of 1820
Panic of 1819
There was an economic panic in 1819 that brought deflation, depression, bankruptcies, bank failures, unemployment, soup kitchens, and
debtors’ prisons. This was the first national financial crisis since Washington took office and it was followed by a new one every twenty years. What
caused this? Many people want the American dream, many people buy land on loans from banks, many people aren’t able to pay back loans, and therefore
you have a crisis. This increased sectionalism as different sections tried to save themselves. The BUS, with sounder currency, had more customers, pushed
the “wildcat” banks aside, and strictly enforced payments, which many couldn’t pay. Hatred for the BUS grew. The panic hit the poorer classes hardest,
with some mothers taken from their children for owing a few dollars. People hated debtors’ prisons.
Land Act of 1820
Under the Land Act of 1800 (amended in 1804), a pioneer could buy a minimum of 160 acres at $2 an acre and pay back over four years with
an $80 down payment. This meant that when hard times hit, entire communities wouldn’t be able to pay because they had to sign their names to so many
acres. The improved Land Act of 1820 made things easier: 80 acres, $1.25 an acre, $100 total. Less acre meant less commitment, less chance of failure.
The West
The West was by far the most nationalistic section, because its’ states were newer or non-existent and it learned to depend on the national
government, which gave it its land. Also, people from many different states created the West.
Nine new states joined the union between 1791 and 1819. They were admitted alternately, slave or free.
The explosive movement westward was partly the usual movement and partly the new “Ohio fever” feeling, in which European immigrants
came in search of cheap land. Also, people moved west after suffering setbacks from the embargo. The defeat of the Indians by Harrison and Jackson
made the west safer. New highways and roads improved transportation, notably the Cumberland Road from western Maryland to Illinois. Also, 1811 saw
the use of steamboats for travel upstream.
The Westerns had a soft voice, because of their small population and influence. They had to ally with other sections and had several demands.
They wanted cheap land, partly achieved by the Land Act of 1820. They wanted cheap transportation, party achieved, but held back by presidents and
New Englanders (see Calhoun: Bonus Bill of 1817). They wanted cheap money, hindered by the BUS.
Missouri Debate and Compromise
Problem: Tallmadge Amendment
Missouri, after reaching the population requirement, asked to become a slave state, since its soil and climate were good for slave labor. The
House passed the Tallmadge Amendment, which stated that no more slaves could be brought into Missouri, and slaves already in Missouri would be
gradually emancipated. Slaveholding southerners, pioneers, and Federalists were against this.
Northern states were growing in prosperity and population much faster than Southern states since 1788. This meant the North would have more
representation in the House. The South therefore relied on the Senate. In order to keep its representation in the Senate, it needed to maintain as many slave
states as free states. Currently, there were eleven to eleven.
Also, Missouri was the first state carved completely west of the Mississippi, and southerners feared for the future of Louisiana Purchase states
and older southern states along with their peculiar institution of slavery. The North also started morally opposing slavery.
Compromise: Missouri Compromise
Henry Clay of Kentucky played a leading role in creating and passing the Missouri Compromise. This compromise had three parts, 1.)
Missouri would become a slave state, 2.) Maine would cede from Massachusetts and become an independent free state to keep the balance, and 3.) slavery
would be prohibited in the remainder of the Louisiana Purchase north of the southern boundary of Missouri.
Although the North won the right to forbid slavery in the Louisiana Purchase, the land wasn’t good for slave labor anyway. Neither side was
completely happy, neither side was completely sad.
The Missouri Compromise lasted for 34 years and preserved the nation until the issue of slavery needed a war to resolve it. However, the
compromise bought time for the North to grow more prosperous and increase its chances of defeating the South.
The South developed its own sectional nationalism and allied the West.
Compromise was necessary to create the nation. When there was no compromise, war broke out.
Election of 1820: Monroe Reelection
The Missouri Compromise and the panic of 1819 should have hurt Monroe’s popularity. But he was so popular, and Federalist opposition was
so weak that he won re-election in 1820 with every electoral vote but one. He was the only president to be re-elected after a financial panic.
John Marshall
Chief Justice John Marshall was a “deathbed” Federalist appointee of John Adam’s lame duck period. As the Federalist party died and no
longer held office, Marshall, who would serve for life, still remained and maintained Federalist sentiments. He served at Valley Forge and felt the pain of a
weak national authority, asserted the judicial branch’s authority in the case of Marbury v. Madison, served for thirty-four years, only had six weeks of
legal schooling, had the support of newly nationalistic Republicans in appointed to the Supreme Court, was Jefferson’s cousin, liked the wealthy, and
disliked the “unwashed masses.”
Marshall v. States’ Rights
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
Cause: Maryland attempted to destroy a branch of the BUS by taxing its notes.
Ruling: Marshall re-asserted the right of the BUS to exist and denied Maryland the right to tax it. He reasoned that the US has the right to
create what the nation needs. It also has the right to preserve what it creates. Having the power to tax means having the power to destroy. Therefore the
states do not have the power to destroy what the nation is responsible for preserving.
What this means: strengthened federal authority, slap at state infringements; strong example of “loose construction”
Cohens v. Virginia (1821)
Cause: The Virginia courts found the Cohens guilty of illegally selling lottery tickets, and they appealed.
Ruling: The Cohens were convicted, but Marshall asserted the Supreme Court’s right to rule over state supreme court decisions regarding
concerning federal powers.
What this means: slap at states’ rights, assertion of federal rights
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
Cause: New York attempted to give a company a monopoly on sea trade between New York and New Jersey.
Ruling: Marshall reminded New York that Congress has control over interstate commerce.
What this means: slap at states’ rights, assertion of federal rights
Marshall v. Democratic Excesses
Fletcher v. Peck (1810)
Cause: The George legislature was bribed into granting 35 million acres of Mississippi country land to private speculators. The next legislature,
responding to public anger, canceled the transaction.
Ruling: The Supreme Court declared that the Constitution forbids state laws from violating contracts and that the legislative grant was a
contract.
What this means: protected property rights against popular pressures, early assertion of Supreme Court right to invalidate state laws conflicting
with federal Constitution
Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819)
Cause: Dartmouth College was given a charter by King George III in 1769, but the New Hampshire state legislature wanted to change it.
Alumni Daniel Webster defended the college.
Ruling: Marshall decided that the charter was a contract and the state couldn’t violate the contract.
What this means: businesses protected from domination by states (good), chartered corporations more able to escape public control (bad)
Webster, Marshall, and J. Q. Adams
Webster constantly left his seat in the Senate to speak before the Supreme Court. Webster often agreed with Marshall. Marshall increased
nationalism, supported the federal Union, and created a stable, uniform environment for business. Monroe’s secretary of state, John Quincy Adams, son
of John Adams, proved to be one of the greatest secretaries of state.
Treaty of 1818
Monroe’s administration negotiated the Treaty of 1818 with Britain, which 1.) permitted Americans to share the Newfoundland fisheries with
Canada, 2.) fixed the northern limits of Louisiana at the 49 th parallel, and 3.) provided for a 10-year joint occupation of the Oregon country between
America and Britain
Florida
Earlier Information
Uninvited American settlers claimed West Florida against Spain in 1810. Congress ratified this grab in 1812, and in the War of 1812, during
which Spain was allied to Britain, a small American army seized the Mobile region of Florida, which currently forms part of Mississippi and Alabama.
The rest of Florida remained under Spanish control.
America’s Opportunity
Revolutions broke out all over South America against Spain (Argentina 1816, Venezuela 1817, Chile 1818, and more). Spain was forced to
divert forces from Florida to suppress them. Indians, runaway slaves, and white outcasts from Florida took advantage of the decrease in authority and
poured over the border, burning and scalping before running back across the border.
In 1817, the US responded by reviving General Andrew Jackson to punish the Spanish outlaws and pursue them into Spanish territory if
necessary, but to respect all Spanish posts. Jackson swept through Florida, hanged two Indian chiefs, executed two British subjects for assisting Indians,
seized the two most important Spanish posts in the area (St. Marks and Pensacola), and overthrew a Spanish governor.
Jackson had disobeyed instructions to respect Spanish posts. Monroe and his cabinet generally agreed to avowing or disciplining Jackson,
except for the patriot and nationalist John Quincy Adams, who had a milestone suggestion. He declared that Spain violated the Spanish American Treaty
of 1795 by not suppressing its outlaws, and gave Spain two options, 1.) control its people (nearly impossible for Spain), 2.) cede Florida to the United
States).
Adams-Onís Treaty
Spain decided to get rid of Florida, which Spain thought it would lose anyway, while it could still gain something for it. The Adams-Onís
Treaty, informally named the Florida Purchase Treaty of 1819, had three points: 1.) Spain cedes Florida, 2.) Spain cedes shadowy claims to Oregon, 3.)
America abandons shadowy claims to Texas land, later part of Mexico. The western boundary of Louisiana would run zigzag along the Rockies and then
along the 42nd parallel.
Foreign Affairs, Pre-Monroe Doctrine Information
Think back to European history to find out what’s going on in the 1810s and 1820s. Napoleon lost at Waterloo. The Congress of Vienna made
its ruling. And European powers banded together against revolutions and democracy in something called the… Concert of Europe or Metternich System!
Rebellions in Italy (1821) and Spain (1823) were suppressed and America feared Russian, Austrian, Prussian, or French involvement in the Western
Hemisphere against the South American revolutions, which the US cheered on.
Russian influence in Alaska already frightened America. In 1821, Russia issued a decree claiming jurisdiction over 100 miles of open sea down
to the line of 51 degrees. Russians already had posts as far down as San Francisco Bay, threatening America’s future possession of California and
therefore its outlet to the Pacific.
Britain was not part of the Concert of Europe, partly because the revolutions opened up trade that benefited Britain and America.
In August 1823, British foreign secretary George Canning approached the American minister in London and proposed that the US and Britain
jointly renounce any interests in acquiring Latin American territory and warning against involvement with the Latin American republics.
Monroe Doctrine
Reactions
President Monroe and his advisors, including Jefferson and Madison, wanted to work with England. However, John Quincy Adams again
spoke differently. His thoughts: Britain, with the strongest navy in the world, doesn’t need America, with barely a navy, as an ally. Britain wanted to make
this agreement so that America would keep out of Spanish territory, particularly Cuba, as to not threaten the British Caribbean possessions. The agreement
would unnecessarily hamper American expansion, since European powers weren’t planning any invasion of the Americas and Britain would prevent them
anyway in order to defend trade.
Monroe Doctrine
Monroe agreed with Adams, and on December 2, 1823, as part of his regular annual message to Congress, he issued a warning to European
powers in what’s known as the Monroe Doctrine. Features:
1.)
2.)
noncolonization- the era of colonization in the Americas has ended and is permanently closed; what great powers have they may keep, but Old
World powers may not seize or acquire more; this was particularly resented by nations like Germany and Italy who were not unified in time to
colonize
nonintervention- European powers need to keep their monarchical systems out of the western hemisphere, specifically away from the new
Spanish-American republics; the United States, in turn would stay out of the Greek war with the Turks for their independence
Reactions to the Monroe Doctrine
American reaction- Americans were thrilled to feel that they have power, even though they didn’t have a fist to shake at Europeans. But
Monroe defended national pride, democratic rule, and trade with the Latin American markets.
English reactions- British press generally favored the doctrine, swimming in Latin American trade. Canning was worried because the doctrine
was a warning against British land grabbing.
European reactions- The monarchs of Europe were angered. They hadn’t liked America from the beginning. They were also frustrated because
they couldn’t invade the Americas anyway because of the British navy, which meant the US had free protection that allowed it to say whatever it wants.
Latin American reaction- The doctrine had little effect on the new republics. It was obvious that America was only interested in protecting
itself. The few Latin Americans who heard of the doctrine realized that their real protector was Britain, not America.
The Monroe Doctrine didn’t have much contemporary significance, although it grew more important in 1845 and mid-century. The doctrine
wasn’t even necessary, since Adams already warned Russia against trespassing and the tsar already decided to retreat. In the Russo-American Treaty of
1824, the Russian tsar formally retreated and fixed his southernmost limits at the present southern tip of Alaska.
What the Monroe Doctrine Really Was
The Monroe Doctrine could have been more accurately called the Self-Defense Doctrine, since it was only developed to defend America. The
doctrine would mean nothing without the British navy and was only have been as strong as America’s military. Monroe and Adams receive about equal
credit for the doctrine, which was basically a collection of Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, and other presidents’ policies. The doctrine was never a law,
pledge, or agreement, but rather a personalized statement of Monroe’s policy that another president may unsay. The doctrine was mostly a result of the
postwar upsurge of nationalism, which is the title of this chapter.
Chronology (since there’s room)
1810- Fletcher v. Peck case
1815- North American Review founded
1816- Second Bank of the United States founded
Protectionist Tariff of 1816
Monroe elected president
1817- Madison vetoes Calhoun’s Bonus Bill
1818- Treaty of 1818 with Britain
Jackson invades Florida
1819- Panic of 1819
Spain cedes Florida to United States
McCulloch v. Maryland case
Dartmouth College v. Woodward case
1820- Missouri Compromise
Land Act of 1820
Monroe reelected
1821- Cohens v. Virginia case
1823- Secretary Adams proposed Monroe Doctrine
1824- Russo-American Treaty of 1824
Gibbons v. Ogden case
1825- Erie Canal completed