The period of time after the War of 1812, lasting from 1815-1825 is labelled “the Era of Good Feelings” by many historians due to the dissipation of political parties at the time, sparking a remarkable political unity. This unity was fueled on by a destruction of Britain’s invincibility during the War of 1812, creating a sense of nationalism while the country was still harshly divided geographically on economic grounds and interpretations of the Constitution, especially regarding power and labor in the economy. The “Era of Good Feelings” is wrongfully named when considering the sectionalism arising from disagreements regarding power and economy, specifically slavery and disputes over tariffs, though it is aptly named when considering the rise of American cultural nationalism in the post-war period; nonetheless, the sectionalism during this era overshadows the post-war nationalism.
Contrary to the utopic denotation of the name “the Era of Good Feelings,” the post-war period was marked by sections disagreeing over powers of the federal government, such as the ability to control the institution of slavery. In 1820, the Missouri Compromise was passed, a result of much debate in Congress and a piece of legislation that angered many. Generally, those who were infuriated were those in the South and the West because they were more dependent on slavery than those in the Northeast, where labor in manufacturing was prominent. During this time, antislavery groups emerged in the Northeastern region of the United States, arguing that slavery was immoral, and trying to make the future of slavery uncertain and one day, nonexistent. Thomas Jefferson is terrified of the implications of a “geographical line” caused by the moral and political issue of the institution of slavery shortly after the Missouri Compromise is passed. In his letter to John Randolph, a U.S. Congressman from Virginia, he foreshadows that the Union may one day split apart due to slavery being a sectional issue regarding the powers of the federal government (Document 5). In 1817, John C. Calhoun agrees that disunion is “the greatest of calamities” in a speech addressed to Congress (Document 2). Despite the opinions of prominent politicians of the time, conflict between the different parts of the United States continued to rage over the morality of slavery and its right to exist. Though there were no rival political parties at this time, opinions separated by geographical lines still kept the post-war period from being peaceful and amicable.
In this era, sectional tension emerged due to tariffs, a struggling economy in the Panic of 1819, and the purpose of the National Bank. These tensions also pushed the different geographical regions of the United States apart, further contrasting with the name, “the Era of Good Feelings.” In 1816, a tariff was passed and enforced, protecting American manufacturing which was based mostly in New England and the middle states. Virginia congressman John Randolph, in an address to Congress in 1816, voiced an argument of the agriculturists reliant on manufactured goods, who were mainly in the South and West, saying that the tariff was unfair to the agriculturists because they are the ones who “bear the brunt of the war and taxation, and remain poor” while manufacturers profit and grow rich (Document 1). Tariffs, by nature, are for revenue or protection of manufacturing and industry, and since manufacturing was only prevalent in certain geographic regions of the country, those regions that did not use slave labor, tariffs further exacerbated the existing sectional conflicts. Next, in 1818, the State of Maryland imposed taxes on the Bank of the United States, saying that the state was above the bank, citing compact theory. McCulloch, a cashier of the National Bank, refused to pay taxes to Maryland. In the McCulloch v. Maryland case in 1819, the Supreme Court determined that the National Bank could not be taxed because it was an execution of Constitutional powers, and the states had no right to tax instruments of the National Government (Document 4). Maryland was not the only entity to question the validity of the Bank of the United States and its constitutionality. Many Americans thought it was an unfair institution, putting financial power and therefore political control in the hands of the rich aristocrats of the nation, and not necessary for the development of the nation. This distaste was only increased as branches of the Bank of the United States foreclosed on farms in the West due to overspeculation in frontier lands and put people in debtors’ prisons during the Panic of 1819. Those who were afflicted by debt were once again the farmers in the Southern and Western regions of the United States, rather than the manufacturers in the Northeast; the same line would be carved through the United States once again, a separation of morality, opinion, and lifestyle.
Despite the inaccuracies of the name “the Era of Good Feelings” in regards to debates on power and economy, the emergence of cultural nationalism in the United States between 1815 and 1825 as a result of the War of 1812 supported the notion that the period was accurately named “the Era of Good Feelings.” In late 1814, Federalist opposition to the War of 1812 became extreme at the Hartford Convention. When the Battle of New Orleans was victorious, the radical federalists were shamefaced. The Federalist party fizzled out, leaving the Democratic-Republicans alone in the political sphere. This one-party dominance prevented much conflict. New political parties did not emerge until 1828, the Democratic Party. This allowed President James Monroe to be re-elected almost unanimously in 1820, the closest any president has gotten to the unanimity that George Washington had in his presidential elections (Document 7). In this way, Washington’s Farewell Address proves to be true; political parties only served to divide the country, and without political parties, the United States was almost entirely in agreement. In 1819, an artist named John Krimmel depicted the Fourth of July celebration in Centre Square of Philadelphia, symbols and heroes of the War of 1812 still prominent, with a banner depicting the victorious Battle of New Orleans (Document 3). The continued celebration of a several-year-old victory from the War of 1812 shows the hold of nationalism over the country, while the simple existence of the drawing shows an emergence of culture in the United States. In 1823, Great Britain extended a hand to the United States, asking the young nation to join her in colonization. John Quincy Adams wrote in his diary that President Monroe was opposed to taking any position subordinate to Great Britain (Document 6). This document refers to Monroe’s message sent in the Monroe Doctrine, where Monroe rejected the English proposition for alliance and boasted noncolonization and nonintervention towards European affairs in the Western Hemisphere. His blatant refusal to be subservient to the historically strong European Powers showed the post-1812 Nationalism once again, uniting the country in solidarity and strength. A lack of the bipartisan system, and a lasting sense of pride and dominance from the War of 1812 created amicable political relations throughout the entirety of the United States, in agreement with the name “the Era of Good Feelings.”
All in all, in the 10 years after the end of the War of 1812, the name “the Era of Good Feelings” was accurate to the cultural and political aspects of the United States because the young nation was finally developing its own culture and pride in being a significant world power. Simultaneously, the nation was still split along sectional lines due to different lifestyles which defined conflicts between opinions and moral values revealing the inaccuracies of the label “the Era of Good Feelings.” Due to conflicts originating from the primarily inaccurately named “Era of Good Feelings,” the sidewalk chalk line between the North and South had already turned into a crack in the sidewalk, and would expand into a canyon as the nation headed towards Civil War in 1861. Any post-1812 nationalism and unity was not enough to hold the country together in the long run.