Banking, Currency & Protection / Second Bank of the United States rechartered in 1811
State banks- not as stable as the BUS; issued currency
Tariff to protect textile mills; hurts farmers, helps factories
Transportation / Pres. James Madison’s veto of John C. Calhoun’s proposal to establish a system of roads connecting the nation
National Road Potomac, MD to Ohio River, VA
Canals: Erie
Steamships Mississippi/Great Lakes traffic
The Great Migrations / Reasons:
Growth of population in the east
Lands for agriculture were largely occupied, South plantation system limited opportunities for new settlers
Native American opposition diminished
‘Factor system’ government agents drove out Canadian traders, created a dependency situation w/Indians
New fertile lands were secure for settlement (Old Northwest, today Midwest)
Improvements in transportation made it easier than ever to go west.
The Plantation System in the Southwest / Principal attraction was cotton
Black Belt of central Alabama and Mississippi
First arrivals were usually small farmers who made rough clearings
Wealthier planters followed and bought them out
Small farmers moved farther west and started over again
Planters journeyed in style in carriages
Cabins were soon replaced with imposing mansions
Symbolized the emerging wealthy class, later assuming airs of aristocracy
By the Civil War, few planters had been there more than two generations
Rapid growth in the NW and the SW after the war of 1812 resulted in the admission of 4 new states:
1816 Indiana
1817 Illinois
1817 Mississippi
1819 Alabama
Trade and Trapping in the Far West / Before 1821, few Anglo-Americans has much knowledge or interest in the far western areas of the continent
Mexico won its independence from Spain in 1821.
Almost immediately, it opened its northern territories to trade with the United States
Traders poured into Texas and New Mexico, and by sea to California
U.S. merchants quickly displaced both Indian and Mexican traders who previously dominated trade
A steady flow of commercial traffic ensued on the Santa Fe trail
Between Missouri and New Mexico
John Jacob AstorEstablished the Astoria American Fur Company
At first, most fur traders purchased pelts from Indians
Increasingly, white trappers entered the region and began to hunt on their own.
Trappers, aka ‘mountain men’ moved west into Utah and part of New Mexico
Rocky Mountain Fur Company – dispatched supplies in exchange for furs.
The arrival of a supply train became on occasion for a gathering of mountain men.
Some were employees of this company, others nominally independent
Many trappers lived peacefully & successfully with Native Americans and Mexicans who shared the land
Almost 2/3 married Indian or Hispanic women
Relations were not always peaceful or friendly
Jedidiah S. Smith
Smith, raised in upstate New York, loved nature, moved west survived three massacres and one bear mauling,led a series of forays deep into Mexican territory that ended in disastrous battles with the Mojaves’
1827 Smith set out for New Mexico and was killed by a group of Comanche
Eastern Images of the West / Smith and others became a source of dramatic and exaggerated stories. Few trappers wrote of their lives
Stephen H. Long led nineteen soldiers up the Platte and South Platte Rivers thru Nebraska & eastern Colorado; he returned east along the Arkansas River thru Kansas and wrote an influential report on his trip.
Agreed with Zebulon Pike’s assessment fifteen years earlier that the Great Plains were instead the “Great American Desert”
The Era of Good Feelings / The expansion of the economy, the growth of white settlement and trade in the West, the creation of new states all reflected the rising spirit of nationalism after the War of 1812
This spirit found reflection for a time in the character of national politics
The End of the First Party System / The Virginia Dynasty: Washington*, Jefferson, Madison,
Monroe
Some were tiring of Virginia’s over representation in the executive office, however, in the Election of 1816, Monroe received 183 ballots to his federalist opponent Rufus King, who received only 34 (MA, CN, DE)
James Monroe 5th President
Monroe, soldier, diplomat and secretary of state entered office under remarkably favorable circumstances
With the decline of Federalists, his party faced no serious opposition
With the conclusion of the War of 1812, the nation faced no international threats
In the prosperous post-war years, Monroe attempted to use his office to turn into reality American politicians dream since the beginning of the republic: the end of partisan divisions and factional disputes
His cabinet selections reflected this:
Sec of State - John Quincy Adams (MA) former Federalist *
Sec of War - John C. Calhoun (SC)
In other appointments, Monroe included northerners, southerners, easterners, westerners, federalists and Republicans
Monroe then embarked on a ‘Goodwill Tour’ throughout the country
A Federalist newspaper in Boston, The Columbian Centinel, observed that an “era of good feelings had arrived.”
1820- Monroe was re-elected without opposition. The Federalist Party ceased to exist
John Quincy Adams and Florida / Adams was a committed nationalist.
His first challenge was Florida
The United States had already annexed West Florida, but that claim remained in dispute
Most Americans believed the nation should gain possession of the entire peninsula
1817 Adams begins negotiations w/Spanish minister Luis de Onis
However, events were taking their own course.
Andrew Jackson, in command of American troops along the Florida frontier, had orders from Sec. of War Calhoun to ‘adopt measures necessary’ to stop continuing raids on American territory by Seminole Indians
Jackson used those orders as an excuse to invade Florida, seize Spanish forts at St. Marks and Pensacola and order the hanging of two British subjects on the charge of supplying & inciting the Indians
The operation became known as the Seminole War
Adams urged the government to assume responsibility, under international law, the U.S. has a right to defend threats from across the border
Jackson’s raid showed Spain that the U.S. could easily take Florida by force.
Onis realized there was little choice but to come to terms w/the Americans.
1819 Adams-Onis Treaty, Spain ceded all of Florida to the U.S. and gave up its claim to territory in the Pacific Northwest north of the 42nd parallel
In return, the American government gave up its claims to Texas.
The Panic of 1819 / The Napoleonic Wars in Europe had created a high demand for American agricultural products
Rising prices for goods for American farmers stimulated a land boom in the western United States
Fueled by speculative investments, land prices soared
The availability of easy credit to settlers and speculators from the government (under the land acts for 1800 and 1804), from state banks, and even for a time from the rechartered Bank of the United States, fueled the land boom
Beginning in 1819, new management at the national bank began tightening credit, calling in loans, and foreclosing mortgages.
This triggered a series of failures by state banks.
The result was a financial panic, which many Americans, particularly those in the West, blamed on the national bank.
Six years of depression followed and began a process that would eventually make the Bank’s existence one of the nation’s most burning political issues
Sectionalism and Nationalism / Briefly between 1819-1820, the increasing differences between the North and the South threatened the unity of the United States-until the Missouri Compromise temporarily averted a sectional crisis
The Missouri Compromise / 1819 – Missouri applied for admission to the Union as a state
Slavery was already well established there.
Rep. James Tallmadge, Jr. (NY) proposed an amendment to the Missouri statehood bill prohibiting the further introduction of slaves into Missouri and provide for the eventual emancipation of those already there
So far, partly by chance, partly by design, states had come into the Union more or less in pairs, free or slave.
The admission of Missouri as a ‘free’ state would upset that balance and increase the political power of the North over the South.
Complicating the question was the application of Maine (previously a part of Massachusetts) for admission as a free state.
Speaker of the House Henry Clay informed Northern members of Congress that if they blocked Missouri from entering as a slave state, southerners would block the admission of Maine.
Maine ultimately offered a way out of the impasse. The Senate agreed to combine the Maine & Missouri proposals into a single bill.
Maine would be admitted as a free state; Missouri would be admitted as a slave state.
Sen. Jesse B. Thomas (IL) proposed an amendment prohibiting slavery in the rest of the Louisiana Purchase territory north of the southern boundary of Missouri (36/30 parallel)
Congress adopted the Thomas Amendment, which became known as the Missouri Compromise.
While nationalists in both the North and South hailed it as a happy resolution to a dangerous problem, the bill revealed a strong undercurrent of sectionalism that was competing with the powerful tides of nationalism.
Marshall and the Court / John Marshall
1801 to 1835 - John Marshall served as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and he dominated the Court more fully than anyone else before or since. He:
Molded the development of the Constitution
Strengthened the judicial branch at the expense of the executive and legislative branches
Increased the power of the federal government at the expense of the states
Advanced the interests of the propertied and commercial classes
1810 - Fletcher v. Peck
Defended the inviolability of contracts;
Georgia land fraud cases; held that a land grant was a valid contract and could not be repealed even if corruption was involved
1819– Dartmouth College v. Woodward
(Woodward was the state appointed secretary of the new board of trustees)
Further expanded the meaning of the contract clause of the Constitution
NH Republicans controlled state govt. tried to revise the college’s charter to convert a private college into a state university.
Daniel Webster, a Dartmouth grad argued the college’s case.
The charter was a contract, protected by the same doctrine that upheld Fletcher v. Peck. The decision put important restrictions on the ability of state governments to control corporations
After the Dartmouth decision, many states wanted more control so they passed laws or constitutional amendments giving themselves the general right to alter or revoke at will, which the courts found to be a valid reservation. The courts have established, however, that the alteration or revocation of private charters or laws authorizing private charters must be reasonable and cannot cause harm to the members (founders, stockholders, and the like).
The traditional view holds that this case is one of the most important Supreme Court rulings, strengthening the Contract Clause and limiting the power of the States to interfere with private charters, including those of commercial enterprise
1819 - McCulloch v. Maryland
Marshall confirmed the ‘implied powers’ of Congress by upholding the constitutionality of the Bank of the United States.
The Bank had become so unpopular in the South & West that several states tried to drive branches out of business by outright prohibition or confiscatory taxes.
Two constitutional questions:
- Could Congress charter a bank?
- If so, could individual states ban it or tax it?
If the states could tax the bank at all, they could tax it to death.
Marshall adopted Webster’s words in deciding in favor of the Bank.
1821 – Cohens v. Virginia
The Cohen brothers sold D.C. lottery tickets in the Commonwealth of Virginia, violating state law. State authorities tried and convicted the Cohens and fined them $100. The state courts found that Virginia law prohibiting lotteries could be enforced, notwithstanding the act of Congress which authorized the D.C. lottery. The Cohens appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that their conduct was protected by the Act of Congress authorizing the D.C. lottery. It was argued by Virginia that the Constitution does not give the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over criminal judgments by the state courts.Virginia thereby asserted that it had an unreviewable right to interpret and apply (or not apply) federal law as it saw fit.
Marshall explicitly affirmed the constitutionality of federal review of state court decisions. The states had given up part of their sovereignty in ratifying the Constitution, and their courts must submit to federal jurisdiction, otherwise the federal government would be powerless ‘at the feet of every state in the Union.’
1824 – Gibbons v. Ogden
The Court strengthened Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce.
NY indirectly granted Ogden a license to ferry people across the river b/t NY & NJ.
Gibbons, w/a license granted under an act of Congress, began competing w/Ogden.
Ogden filed suit and won in the NY courts.
Gibbons appealed to the Supreme Court
The question was: Did Congress’s power to give a license to Gibbons supersede the state of New York’s power to grant Ogden a monopoly in river ferry traffic?
Marshall claimed that the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce, including navigation, was ‘complete in itself’ and might be exercised to its utmost.
Ogden’s state-granted monopoly was therefore void.
The decisions of the Marshall Court established the primacy of the federal government over the states in regulating the economy and opened the way for an increased role in promoting economic growth.
They protected corporations and other private economic institutions from local government interference.
They were highly nationalistic decisions, designed to promote the growth of a strong, unified, and economically developed United States
The Court and the Tribes / 1823 Johnson v. McIntosh
The Illinois & Pinakeshaw tribes sold land to white settlers, including Mr. Johnson
They later signed a treaty with the federal government ceding territory that included parcels previously sold to the white settlers.
The government proceeded to grant homestead rights to new white settlers (among them Mr. McIntosh)
The Court had to decide which claim had precedence.
Marshall’s ruling, not surprisingly, favored the United States
Marshall offered a preliminary definition of the place of Indians within the nation: The tribes had a basic right to their tribal lands that preceded all other American law. Individual American citizens could not buy or take land from the tribes; only the federal government could do that.
1832 Worcester v. Georgia
The Court invalidated Georgia laws that attempted to regulate access to Cherokee country. Only the federal government could do that.
Marshall further defined the nature of the Indian nations. The tribes were sovereign entities in much the same way Georgia was a separate entity, ‘distinct political communities, having territorial boundaries within which their authority is exclusive.’
In defending the power of the federal government, he was alos affirming, even expanding the rights of the tribes to remain free from the authority of state governments.
The Marshall decisions did what the Constitution itself had not done: they defined a place for Indian tribes with the American political system.
The federal government was like a ‘guardian’ governing its ‘ward.’ And had ultimate authority over tribal affairs.
However, these provisions were seldom enough to defend Indians from the steady westward march of white civilization, but they formed the basis of what few legal protections they had.
The Latin American Revolution and the Monroe Doctrine / Revolutions were breaking out all over the South American continent.
After the war of 1812, the U.S. looked on as the Spanish empire was in its death throes.
The U.S. was already trading in Latin America, rivaling great Britain as the principal trading nation there.
Many Americans believed the success of the anti-Spanish revolutions would further strengthen America’s position in the region.
1815- The United States proclaims neutrality in the war between Spain and its rebellious colonies.
The U.S. sold ships and supplies to the revolutionaries
1822 – President Monroe established diplomatic relations with five new nations: La Plata (Argentina) Chile, Peru, Colombia, and Mexico.
1823 – Monroe announces a policy (later known as the Monroe Doctrine but written mostly by JQA) that the ‘American continents are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.’