AMERICAN NATIONALISM. INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION. AMERICANS DEVELOPED AND PROFITED FROM A VARIETY OF INVENTIONS THAT PRODUCED GOODS AND MATERIALS FASTER AND MORE CHEAPLY FACTORY SYSTEM USING POWER-DRIVEN MACHINERY AND WORKERS WITH SPECIALIZED TASKS DEVELOPED IN THE NORTH
REGIONAL ECONOMIC SYSTEMS
REGIONAL ECONOMIC SYSTEMS
HENRY CLAY’S AMERICAN SYSTEM
THIS WAS AN ECONOMIC PLAN TO IMPROVE THE NATION’S INFRASTRUCTURE AND MAKE THE UNITED STATES A STRONGER NATION. THERE WERE THREE COMPONENTS:
HENRY CLAY’S AMERICAN SYSTEM
TARIFF OF 1816
CLAY SUPPORTED THE TARIFF
1816 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
MONROE BUILT A GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL UNITY, CHOOSING MEN FROM BOTH PARTIES AND ALL REGIONS FOR HIS CABINET.
TO CELEBRATE HIS ELECTION VICTORY IN 1816, MONROE WENT ON A 15-WEEK TOUR THROUGH NEW ENGLAND AND LATER TOURED THE SOUTH AND WEST. A BOSTON NEWSPAPER CALLED HIS RECEPTION IN MASSACHUSETTS THE START OF AN "ERA OF GOOD FEELINGS."
SECRETARY OF WAR JOHN C. CALHOUN, SOUTHERNER
SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, NORTHERNER
THREE NEW LEADERS EMERGED DURING THE MONROE ADMINISTRATION. THESE THREE PLAYED VITAL ROLES IN THE NATION AND IN CONGRESS FOR THE NEXT 30 YEARS.
JOHN C. CALHOUN: 1782-1850
REPRESENTED THE SOUTHERN STATES
SERVED IN CONGRESS, PRESIDENTIAL CABINET, AND AS VICE PRESIDENT
HENRY CLAY: 1777-1852
REPRESENTED THE WESTERN STATES
SERVED IN STATE LEGISLATURE, THE SENATE, AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
DANIEL WEBSTER: 1782-1852
REPRESENTED THE NORTHERN STATES
ARGUED BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, SENATOR, PRESIDENTIAL CABINET MEMBER
SUPREME COURT BOOSTS NATIONAL POWER
PANIC OF 1819
EXPANSION CREATED BOTH NEW FREE AND NEW SLAVE STATES. IT WAS COMMONLY AGREED THAT IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA IF NEW STATES DID NOT UPSET THE BALANCE BETWEEN EXISTING FREE AND SLAVE STATES. THE PROPOSED ADMISSION OF MISSOURI IN 1819 AS A SLAVE STATE THREATENED TO UPSET THIS BALANCE.
11 slave states
11 free states
MISSOURI COMPROMISE, 1820
AREAS THAT WERE FREE AND SLAVE, 1820
JEFFERSON FELT THE SLAVE VERSUS FREE STATE ISSUE WAS NOT FULLY PUT TO REST BY THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE
“BUT THIS MOMENTOUS QUESTION, LIKE A FIRE BELL IN THE NIGHT, AWAKENED AND FILLED ME WITH TERROR. I CONSIDERED IT AT ONCE AS THE KNELL OF THE UNION. IT IS HUSHED, INDEED, FOR THE MOMENT. BUT THIS IS A REPRIEVE ONLY, NOT A FINAL SENTENCE. A GEOGRAPHICAL LINE, COINCIDING WITH A MARKED PRINCIPLE, MORAL AND POLITICAL, ONCE CONCEIVED AND HELD UP TO THE ANGRY PASSIONS OF MEN, WILL NEVER BE OBLITERATED; AND EVERY NEW IRRITATION WILL MARK IT DEEPER AND DEEPER…BUT AS IT IS, WE HAVE THE WOLF BY THE EARS, AND WE CAN NEITHER HOLD HIM, NOR SAFELY LET HIM GO.” THOMAS JEFFERSON, APRIL 1820, MONTICELLO, VIRGINIA.
1820 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
FOREIGN AFFAIRS UNDER PRESIDENT MONROE
JOHN QUINCY ADAMS
SERVING UNDER PRESIDENT MONROE, ADAMS WAS ONE OF AMERICA'S GREAT SECRETARIES OF STATE, ARRANGING WITH BRITAIN FOR THE JOINT OCCUPATION OF THE OREGON COUNTRY, FORMULATING WITH THE PRESIDENT THE MONROE DOCTRINE, AND OBTAINING FROM SPAIN THE CESSION OF THE FLORIDAS.
THE U.S. WANTED LATIN AMERICA TO REMAIN FREE
MURAL DEPICTS DISCUSSION AMONG THE PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS OF HIS CABINET; FROM LEFT TO RIGHT ARE PRESIDENT JAMES MONROE, SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM WIRT, SECRETARY OF WAR JOHN CALHOUN, AND SECRETARY OF THE NAVY SAMUEL L. SOUTHARD.
THE UNITED STATES ISSUED THE MONROE DOCTRINE
SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN QUINCY ADAMS HELPED AUTHOR THE DOCUMENT
FLORIDA BECOMES PART OF THE UNITED STATES
JAMES MONROE AS PRESIDENT 1817-1825
THE ELECTION OF 1824
TARIFF OF 1828
TARIFF OF 1828
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1828
JOHN QUINCY ADAMS AS PRESIDENT 1825-1829
1828 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
Analyze the effectiveness of the government under the Articles of Confederation.
Possible thesis statement: From the earliest days of debate about the new central government, little agreement existed about whether power should be centralized in a strong national government, or decentralized with power residing in the separate states. Even though the Articles were ratified, the debate continued and thus weakened the confederation government throughout its eight years.
The Articles attempted to balance state sovereignty with an effective national government. Because the Articles were designed to protect states' rights, they set the following limits on congressional authority: Congress could not draft soldiers or regulate trade; and states, not Congress had the power to tax Congress could only raise money by asking states for funds, borrowing from foreign governments, and selling western lands. The Articles included no provisions for national courts and a chief executive, nor did they establish a republican government. Members of the Congress were selected not by the people but by state governments, and power was concentrated in a single assembly, rather than divided, as in the state governments, into separates houses and branches. Major weaknesses were that one state can prohibit the passage of something agreed upon by the other twelve, that the confederation government cannot deal with issues related to a very large portion of back lands, and that members of the Congress are unwilling to yield points to each other. Weaknesses are also apparent in Article VIII only the states can raise taxes, not the national government; Article IX giving Congress important powers, but only with the consent of nine states; and Article XIII changes in the Articles cannot be made without full consensus of every state.
Possible conclusion: By the mid-1780s, several groups felt the Articles provided for an ineffective government and thus favored the creation of a strong national government to replace the weak confederation government. Artisans and mechanics wanted to replace various state tariffs with a uniformly high national tariff. Merchants and shippers wanted a single, national commercial policy. Land speculators wanted a national Indian policy to help them remove the “Indian menace” from the western territories. Large property owners wanted a national policy that would protect them against the mobs that questioned their privileged status in political and societal circles. People who were owed money wanted a central agency to issue paper money that would insure the value of what they were owed. Almost everyone wanted a central power to tax.
Many scholars have argued that compromise is the essential ingredient of politics. Explain the role of compromise in shaping the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Possible thesis statement: Compromise is the essential ingredient of the political struggle that created both the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Two issues relating to slavery : (1)Creation of a bicameral national legislature with lower house members based upon population with each slave counting as 3/5 of a person in determining the basis for both representation and direct taxation; and an upper house represented by two members for each state. (2)Agreement that Congress could not tax exports, impose a duty of more than $10 a head on imported slaves, and prohibit the slave trade before 1808.
Three issues relating to power and authority : (1)Opening phrase of the Constitution ensured that the new government derived its power from the people not from the federal or state governments.
(2) Distribution of powers between the national and state government ensured both would have distinct powers. (3)Separation of power through a system of checks and balances ensured that power would be divided among various elements within the national government.
Founders did not include a bill of rights in the Constitution. During the ratification process, it became clear that without such an addition, there would not be enough support to adopt the new Constitution. The Bill of Rights, then, was a political compromise included primarily to obtain ratification votes from certain states.
Possible conclusion: Without political compromise, neither the Constitution nor Bill of Rights would have been ratified.
Which do you feel best represented the ideals of America in the early 19th century The Jeffersonian Democratic Republicans or the Hamiltonian Federalists? How does this dispute continue to influence 21st century politics?
Possible thesis statement: This will depend on what position you take. Positive and negative attributes of both are discussed below.
Jeffersonian Democratic Republicans (Anti-federalists) believed they were the true defenders of the American Revolution’s principles that a federal government with centralized authority would produce despotism, no government could be trusted to protect the liberties of its citizens, and the only assurance of preserving such liberties was the enumeration of natural rights. They saw the Constitution as betraying such principles by establishing a strong, potentially tyrannical, central government that would increase taxes, destroy state power, favor the aristocracy over the common people, become dictatorial, and perhaps most importantly, terminate individual liberties especially because the Constitution failed to include a bill of rights. They felt America required a modest central government that would encourage the growth of a rural and agrarian society and leave most power in the hands of the states and the people.
Hamiltonian Federalists believed that a federal government with centralized authority would be capable of functioning at a distance from popular passions, strong enough to resist threats to order and stability, and able to check the power of the masses. They saw the Constitution as supporting their vision of the nation America should become a nation with a wealthy, enlightened ruling class, a vigorous, independent commercial economy, and a thriving industrial sector; a nation able to play a prominent role in world economic affairs. They felt America required a strong, national government that would stimulate a complex commercial economy and a competitive standing in world affairs and markets. Many political issues in American today are related to the conflict between federal and states rights (the historical federalist versus anti-federalist argument.) Some of the most controversial are medical marijuana, physician-assisted suicide, abortion, and gay marriage.
Possible conclusion: This will depend on what position you take.
Analyze the ways in which the Great Awakening in the 18th century and the Second Great Awakening in the 19th century influenced the development of American society.
Possible thesis statement: The Great Awakenings of the 18th and 19th centuries were reflections of the diversity of the growing American Republic.
Great Awakening: In the early 18th century, church leaders noted both a decline in the piety of their congregations and in church power. The consequence was the first great American revival the Great Awakening. Its central thrust was that every person had the potential to break away from the constraints of the past and begin a new relationship with God. The most influential preacher of the time, Jonathon Edwards, argued that new doctrines of salvation of all were heresy. God was the absolute sovereign, predestination was absolute, and salvation could be achieved only by God’s grace. The movement led to a division between existing Congregationalist churches between the rivalists and the traditionalists and the founding of new congregations. Many of the “New Light” revivalists deeply influenced the larger society through their belief that education was a means for furthering religion; as such, some founded or led schools to train New Light ministers.
Second Great Awakening: By the early 19th century, Americans still had strong religious convictions, but many were less committed to organized churches and denominations, which they believed had become too formal and traditional. Some had become religious skeptics who argued against traditional Calvinist beliefs and argued that salvation was available to all. Others adopted the beliefs of scientific rationalism. To combat these beliefs, leaders of several different denominations began to revitalize their organizations and in so doing, began the movement known as the Second Great Awakening. This evangelical movement spread throughout the nation but was particularly popular in the West. The movement’s goal was to convince individual Americans to bring God and Christ back into their daily lives by leading lives of piety and rejecting skeptical rationalist beliefs. The movement did not revive the old religious institutions, but rather, increased the growth of different religious sects and denominations, as well as brought order to remote regions where communities were searching for an identity. Diversity of religion and community order, then, were the primary consequences for American society in the early 19th century.
Possible conclusion: Both of these movements were reflections of a society that was becoming more diverse and which, when dealing with such diversity, yearned for order and stability. Americans continued to hold strong religious convictions, but began to express such convictions through more diverse religious beliefs and institutions than had been possible in the 17th century.
What were the causes and consequences of the War of 1812? What role did the
Indians play in the conflict?
Possible thesis statement: Some people have argued that the War of 1812 was America’s second war for independence. An examination of the causes and consequences will provide greater insight into this belief.
Causes: Serious American political grievances with the British began after the French and Indian War, and were heightened by the Revolutionary War. In the decades thereafter, many ongoing grievances with Britain continued to fester. The first issue had to due with naval policies especially over American shipping rights on the Atlantic Ocean, the freedom of American trade, and impressments. Congress passed the Embargo of 1807, the Non-Intercourse Act of 1809, and Macon’s Bill No. 2 to deal with ongoing free seas and trade problems with both Britain and France. Problems continued both domestic and foreign with the bills, which led President Madison to announce that an embargo against Britain would begin early in 1811 unless Britain renounced its restrictions on American shipping. The second issue related to the “Indian Problem.” Since the late 18th century, many Indian nations had turned to the British for protection against westward encroachment of Americans on their land. The British attempted to renew past friendships with the Indians and to provide them with supplies needed in various Indian uprisings against western settlers. The third issue was a growing interest in obtaining Spanish Florida. Some Americans believed that war with Spain, Britain’s ally, would provide a pretext for the American taking of Spanish Florida.
Consequences: The war signaled the willingness of American foreign policy to destroy Indian nations who stood in the way of western expansion and thus, it was a disastrous blow to the capacity for Indian nations to resist white expansion. Caused a great deal of internal domestic conflict. Opposition to war was strong, especially in New England where some Federalists celebrated British victories and others developed a secession scheme at the Hartford Convention in 1814. Brought about an ambiguous political settlement with the Treaty of Ghent. The final treaty did little but end the fighting. U.S. relinquished their demand for a British renunciation of impression and for ceding Canada to the U.S., and, in return, the British abandoned the call to create an Indian buffer state in the Northwest. Contributed to the long-term improvement in Anglo-American relations. Paved the way for a commercial treaty in 1815 in which the U.S. received the right to trade freely with England and most of the British Empire, and for the Rush-Begot Agreement in 1817 in which the U.S. and England agreed to mutual disarmament on the Great Lakes.
Possible conclusion: Rather than being a second war of independence for America, the War of 1812 was more like a final chapter in over 40 years of ongoing struggle between the Americans and the British. The end of this war paved the way for better long-term relations between the two powers.
Describe the Jeffersonian-Federalist struggle over the judiciary. What were the causes, points of conflict, and consequences of the struggle?
Possible thesis statement: One of the most important judicial decisions in the history of the U.S. was decided during Jefferson’s Presidency. Thus, the struggle over the role of the judicial branch became a struggle between the Federalists and Jeffersonian Republicans.
Causes: In the Election of 1800, the Jeffersonian Republicans won control over the Executive and Legislative branches. The judicial branch, however, remained in the control of Federalist judges. The Jeffersonian Republicans repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801 and eliminated the judgeships Adams had made in the final hours of his presidency. This led to the great debate about the role of judicial review.
Points of conflict: Federalists believed that the Supreme Court was, in essence, the supreme law in the land, and had the authority to nullify acts of Congress. They supported the Court’s position in 1796 that the Court could exercise the power of judicial review. Theirs was a broad interpretation, as the Constitution did not specifically support this belief. The Jeffersonian Republicans, arguing from the position of strict constructionists, argued that the Constitution defined the powers of the judiciary and that did not include the ability to strike down executive and legislative laws. To Jefferson and his followers, federal judges were obstructionists who stood in the way of executive and legislative law making.
Consequences: In Marbury v. Madison, 1803, the matter was laid to rest. This was the first Supreme Court case actually to declare a congressional act unconstitutional. In its decision, the Court repudiated a relatively minor power to force the President to deliver Marbury’s commission as a justice of the peace in the District of Columbia while asserting a much greater power to nullify an act of Congress that was interpreted to be inconsistent with constitutional intent.
Possible conclusion: Although Jefferson sought to limit the power of the judiciary, under his administration the struggle between the Jeffersonian Republicans and the Federalists resulted in a dramatic expansion of the power of the Supreme Court.
How were sectionalism and nationalism able to exist at the same time?
Possible thesis statement: At the same time that sectional forces were working to pull the nation apart, strong national forces were working to keep the nation together.
Sectionalism: Protective tariff was supported by industrialists and opposed by agricultural interests. Internal improvements was supported by those who wanted a national transportation network to link the nation politically and economically, and opposed by those who believed Congress lacked the authority to fund improvements without a constitutional amendment. Missouri Compromise issues revolved around the balance of power in Congress and the fact that entering Missouri as either slave or free would upset the current balance; the compromise was admission of Missouri as a slave and Maine as a free state. The bill was amended to prohibit slavery in the rest of the Louisiana Purchase territory north of Missouri’s southern boundary. Nationalists supported the Missouri Compromise, saying it held the Union together; the south loathed the bill but was unable to derail it.
Nationalism: Federal government asserted strong national efforts: chartered the Second National Bank, passed a protective tariff, ushered the Missouri Compromise through Congress. Shared patriotism: Americans remembered the Revolutionary War and its ideals, revered the Constitution and the Founding Fathers, and believed America had a special destiny in the world.
Possible conclusion: The issue over who would control the western territory threatened the unity of the growing nation in the early 19th century. At the same time that these sectional differences acted to tear the nation apart, strong national forces continued to work to hold it together. By the middle of the century, the national forces would no longer be strong enough to overcome sectional divisions.
What caused the “Era of Good Feelings?” What were the reasons for its demise?
Possible thesis statement: Beginning with President Monroe’s presidency, his goodwill tour, and the end of the Federalist Party, the “Era of Good Feelings” appeared to mark the end of rabid political partisanship.
Causations: The end of the First Party System via the collapse of the Federalist Party; early successes of the Monroe presidency’s foreign policy with the first Seminole War and the Adams-Onis Treaty; the Missouri Compromise which keeps sectional issues from derailing the federal government; the Marshall Court decisions that supported nationalistic goals; and the good spirit of the Monroe Doctrine.
Demise: By the 1820s, party divisions reemerged. The Republicans had adopted many of the nationalist programs for economic growth and centralized government. The opposition objected to further federal government power in the economy. Both groups favored economic growth, but they could not agree upon how the nation should expand westward.
Possible conclusion: In reality, the “Era of Good Feelings” was very short lived beginning with the Presidency of James Monroe in 1816 and ending just over four years later. In reality, the period was marked by the continuing debate between advocates of nationalism and sectionalism. This debate eventually led to the demise of the era.
What were the reasons for the dramatic surge in westward expansion in the years after the War of 1812? Once Americans moved to the west, how was life different on the northwestern and southwestern frontier?
Possible thesis statement: After the War of 1812, more white settlers pushed beyond both the Appalachians and the Mississippi River than ever before. Others were pulled to the west by various opportunities.
Push Reasons: Population pressures; nation nearly doubled between 1800 and 1820. Land pressures; much of the eastern agricultural lands were occupied and some were exhausted. Labor pressures; especially in the south, the slave labor force provided few opportunities for white laborers.
Pull Reasons: Less Indian opposition; War of 1812 victories cleared many Indians out of the Ohio River Valley and the Great Lake regions. Available fertile land; land was less expensive in the west than in the east. Better transportation; rivers and canals made it easier to move westward.
Life in the northwest: People lived a rough existence in small settlements. Communities developed in which people were dependent upon each other for mutual aid, clearing land and raising buildings, harvesting and sharing crops. Economies were largely devoted to growing grain and raising livestock.
Life in the southwest: The profitability of cotton influenced the advance of southern settlement. Wealthy planters built plantations and introduced slavery to the west. Small farmers also arrived, but in both cases, plantation life consumed the political, social, and economic lives of the southerners.
Possible conclusion: Westward expansion dramatically influenced the nation’s economy by bringing huge new regions into the capitalist system, the nation’s political climate by stimulating sectional divisions over the role slavery would play in the new regions, and the nation’s Indian policy.