Era of Good Feelings

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 War of 1812.^[1][2] The era saw the collapse of the Federalist Party and an end to the bitter partisan disputes between it and the dominant Democratic-Republican Party during the First Party System.^[3][4] President James Monroe strove to downplay partisan affiliation in making his nominations, with the ultimate goal of national unity and eliminating political parties altogether from national politics.^[1][5][6] The period is so closely associated with Monroe's presidency (1817–1825) and his administrative goals that his name and the era are virtually synonymous.^[7]

Era of Good Feelings
1817–1825
Independence Day Celebration in Centre Square by John Lewis Krimmel, 1819
President(s)	James Monroe
Key events	Missouri Compromise Panic of 1819 Adams-Onis Treaty Monroe Doctrine
Chronology Jeffersonian era Jacksonian era

During and after the 1824 presidential election, the Democratic-Republican Party split between supporters and opponents of Jacksonian Democracy, leading to the Second Party System.

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 Democratic-Republican Party.^[3][8][9]

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 the United States.^[7][10][11]

Post-war nationalism

The Era of Good Feelings started in 1815 at the end of the War of 1812.^[2] Exultation replaced the bitter political divisions between Federalists and Republicans, the North and South, and the East Coast cities and settlers on the American frontier. The political hostilities declined because the Federalist Party had largely dissolved after the fiasco of the Hartford Convention in 1814–15.^[12] As a party, Federalists "had collapsed as a national political force".^[13][14][15] The Democratic-Republican Party was nominally dominant, but in practice it was inactive at the national level and in most states.^[16]

The era saw a trend toward national institutions 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][19][20][21]}

Madison announced this shift in policy with his Seventh Annual Message to Congress in December 1815, subsequently authorizing measures for a national bank and a protective tariff on manufactures.^[22] Vetoing the Bonus Bill on strict constructionist grounds, Madison nevertheless was determined, as had been his predecessor, Thomas Jefferson,^[23] to see internal improvements implemented with an amendment to the US Constitution.^[24][25] Writing to Monroe, in 1817, Madison declared that "there has never been a moment when such a proposition to the states was so likely to be approved".^[26] 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.^[27]

Monroe's landslide victory against Federalist Rufus King in the 1816 presidential election was so widely predicted that voter turnout was low.^[28][29] A spirit of reconciliation between Republicans and Federalists was well underway when Monroe assumed office in March 1817.^[3][30]

Monroe and political parties

 

President James Monroe, portrait by John Vanderlyn, 1816

As president, Monroe was widely expected to facilitate a rapprochement of the political parties 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.^[1][3]

Monroe reaffirmed his conviction that the Federalist Party was committed to installing a monarch and overthrowing republican forms of government at the first opportunity.^[31] He stated that if he appointed a Federalist, he would prolong their inevitable decline and fall, and that his administration would never allow itself to become tainted with Federalist ideology.^[32]

Monroe stated that his drive to eliminate the Federalists was part of his campaign to eliminate party associations altogether from national politics, including his own Republican party. All political parties, he wrote, were incompatible with free government by their very nature. He worked to deflate the Federalist Party through neglect. Federalists were denied political patronage, administrative appointments, and federal support. Monroe indicated that he wished to eradicate Federalists from positions of political power, both Federal and State, especially in its New England strongholds. He believed that any expression of official approval would only encourage hope for a Federalist revival, and this he could not abide.^[33]

Some historians believe that Monroe reduced party politics, evidenced by his unopposed run in the 1820 presidential election. The Federalists ran no candidate to oppose him, running only a vice-presidential candidate, Richard Stockton. Monroe and his vice president Daniel D. Tompkins would have won reelection unanimously through the electoral college, had there not been a handful of faithless electors; one presidential elector cast his vote for John Quincy Adams, while a handful of electors (mostly former Federalists) cast votes for a number of Federalist candidates for Vice President. It remains the last presidential election in which a candidate ran essentially unopposed.^{[citation needed]}

Great Goodwill Tour and national republicanism embrace

 

Benjamin Russell is credited with coining the term "Era of Good Feelings" in 1817

The most perfect expression of the Era of Good Feelings was Monroe's country-wide Goodwill 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.^[34] 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 long, powdered hair in a queue according to the old-fashioned style of the 18th century.^[35] "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 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."^[36][37]

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".^[38] Abigail Adams dubbed the catharsis an "expiation".^[37]

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".^[34] 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.^[37]

In the ensuing years the New England states capitulated, and all but Massachusetts were in Republican Party hands. De-Federalization was virtually complete by 1820, the appointment of former Federalist Party members seemed in order and Monroe feared a backlash. Most anti-Federalist sentiments were political posturing, but he 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. He never consummated his final reconciliation with the Federalists.^[38]

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.^[4] His nearly unanimous electoral victory for reelection in 1820 seemed to confirm this.^[39]

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.^[40] Here, Monroe felt he could manage the factional disputes and arrange compromise on national politics within administration guidelines.^[38] 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.^[4][41] 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.^[4] Former president James Madison had cautioned Monroe that in any free government, it was natural that party identity would take shape.^[40]

The disastrous 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.^[42] The Missouri Crisis in 1820 made the explosive political conflict between slave and free soil open and explicit.^[43] Only through the adroit handling of the legislation by Speaker of the House Henry Clay was a settlement reached and disunion avoided.^[13][44][45]

With the decline in political consensus, it became imperative to revive Jeffersonian principles on the basis of Southern exceptionalism.^[46][47] The agrarian alliance, North and South, would be revived to form Jacksonian Nationalism and the rise of the modern Democratic Party.^[48] The interlude of the Era of Good Feelings was at an end.^[31]

References

1. Ammon 1971, p. 366
2. Wilentz 2008, p. 181
3. Ammon 1971, p. 4
4. Brown 1970, p. 23
5. Ammon 1971, p. 6
6. Dangerfield 1965, p. 24
7. Dangerfield 1965, p. 35
8. Remini 2002, p. 77
9. Dangerfield 1965, p. 32,35
10. Unger 2009, p. 271
11. Patricia L. Dooley, ed. (2004). The Early Republic: Primary Documents on Events from 1799 to 1820. Greenwood. pp. 298ff. ISBN 9780313320842. from the original on January 20, 2023. Retrieved November 17, 2015.
12. Banner, James M. (1970). To the Hartford Convention: the Federalists and the origins of party politics in Massachusetts, 1789-1815.
13. Wilentz 2008, p. 42
14. Ammon 1971, p. 5
15. Schlesinger 1953, p. 9
16. McCormick, p. 14–16
17. Berstein & Issenberg 2010, p. 564
18. Remini 2002, p. 27
19. Dangerfield 1965, p. 5
20. Reynolds, David S. (2008). Waking Giant: America in the Age of Jackson. New York: Harper Collins. p. 9. ISBN 9780060826567.
21. Wilentz 2008, p. 243
22. Dangerfield 1965, p. 5,6,20
23. Dangerfield 1965, p. 18
24. Schlesinger 1953, p. 19
25. Ammon 1971, p. 387
26. Dangerfield 1965, p. 19,20
27. Dangerfield 1965, p. 20
28. McCormick, p. 102
29. Burns 1982, p. 264
30. Dangerfield 1965, p. 143
31. Dangerfield 1965, p. 3
32. Ammon 1971, p. 5,6
33. Ammon 1971, p. 6,7
34. Ammon 1971, p. 7
35. Wilentz 2008, p. 202
36. Dangerfield 1965, p. 22
37. Ammon 1971, p. 8
38. Ammon 1971, p. 9
39. Ammon 1971, p. 11
40. Ammon 1971, p. 10
41. Ammon 1971, p. 380
42. Dangerfield 1965, p. 97–98
43. Wilentz 2008, p. 217,219
44. Brown 1970, p. 25
45. Wilentz 2008, p. 240
46. Brown 1970, p. 23,24
47. Varon, Elizabeth R. (2008). Disunion!: The Coming of the American Civil War, 1789-1859. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. p. 39,40.
48. Brown 1970, p. 22

Bibliography

• Ammon, Harry (1971). James Monroe: The Quest for National Identity. New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 9780070015821.
• Brown, Richard H. (1970). "The Missouri Crisis, Slavery, and the Politics of Jacksonianism". South Atlantic Quarterly: 55–72. Cited in Gatell, Frank Otto, ed. (1970). Essays on Jacksonian America. New York City: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
• Burns, James M. (1982). The Vineyard of Liberty. New York: Knopf.
• Berstein, Andrew; Issenberg, Nancy (2010). Madison and Jefferson. New York: Random House.
• Dangerfield, George (1965). The Awakening of American Nationalism: 1815-1828. New York: Harper & Row.
• McCormick, Richard P, New Perspectives on Jacksonian Politics, cited in American Historical Review, LXV (January 1960), pp. 288–301.
• Remini, Robert V. (2002). John Quincy Adams. New York: Holt.
• Schlesinger, Arthur M. Jr (1953). The Age of Jackson. New York: Little, Brown.
• Unger, Harlow G. (2009). The last founding father: James Monroe and a nation's call to greatness. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Da Capo Press.
• Wilentz, Sean (2008). The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln. New York: Horton.

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 (2008).
• Jenkins, Jeffery A., and Charles Stewart III. "Committee Assignments as Side Payments: The Interplay of Leadership and Committee Development in the Era of Good Feelings." Annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association 1998. online
• Kaplan, Lawrence S. "Jefferson as Anglophile: Sagacity or Senility in the Era of Good Feelings?" Diplomatic History 16.3 (1992): 487–494.
• Phillips, Kim T. "Democrats of the Old School in the Era of Good Feelings." Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 95.3 (1971): 363–382. online
• Silbey, Joel H. "The Incomplete World of American Politics, 1815–1829: Presidents, Parties and Politics in 'The Era of Good Feelings'." Congress & the Presidency: A Journal of Capital Studies 11#1 (1984) 1–17.
• Sprague, Stuart Seely. "Town Making in the Era of Good Feelings: Kentucky 1814–1820." Register of the Kentucky Historical Society 72.4 (1974): 337–341. online

Primary sources

• Patricia L. Dooley, ed. (2004). The Early Republic: Primary Documents on Events from 1799 to 1820. Greenwood. p. 298ff. ISBN 9780313320842. text of Benjamin Russell editorial
• . March 3, 1817. Archived from the original on March 4, 2016.
• . May 4, 1822. Archived from the original on February 11, 2018.
• . May 4, 1822. Archived from the original on February 5, 2018.