The Complexities of the Era of Good Feelings: Nationalism and Beyond

This essay examines the Era of Good Feelings (1816-1824) in the United States, questioning whether it truly lived up to its name. It delves into the surge of nationalism following the War of 1812, which initially united the country and minimized political unrest. The analysis considers the influence of President James Monroe's terms and the impact of events like the enactment of protective tariffs and the establishment of the Second National Bank. While the era saw a decline in Federalism and a sense of national unity, the essay also highlights the emergence of sectionalism, particularly concerning issues like slavery. Ultimately, the essay argues that the Era of Good Feelings was a temporary period marked by both progress and underlying conflicts, concluding that it only partially lived up to its idealistic title.

Running head: ERA OF GOOD FEELINGS
Era of Good Feelings
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author note:

1ERA OF GOOD FEELINGS
The era after the war of 1812 is often regarded as the “era of good feelings”. It was the period from
1816 to 1824, when a tide of nationalism swept the United States, united its citizens and eased the political
prevailing unrest (Campbell and Ratner 2018). This paper is going to elaborate on discussing whether or not the
Era of Good Feelings fully live up to its name. It would further analyse the transformation of the U.S and its
people from the revolutionaries to the nationalists and then, from the nationalists to the sectionalists.
The period of “Era of Good Feelings” is regarded as a coextensive era with two terms of President
James Monroe. It started in the year 1815, when the citizens of America could afford to ignore and pay less
attention to the European military and political affairs. It was finally possible for them to do so as it was the end
of the Napoleonic wars. It was the predominant attitude of the citizens and common people which in twentieth
century was regarded as the isolationism (Huston 2017). It was the good feeling, which were better termed as
complacency, were all stimulated and triggered by the two events of the year 1816, at the time of the last year of
rule of James Madison and they were- a) enactment of the very first United States avowedly protective tariff and
b) establishment or development of the second most National Bank that resulted in bankruptcies, money fell etc.
in U.S.
When the Federalism in United States ended, a one-party state on the domestic level was heading the
Democratic Republicans. President James Monroe saved all but only one electoral vote in the year 1820. It was
then sectionalism was gradually replaced by the unassertive nationalism and it was comparative abeyance.
However, again, by the beginning of 1820, a much longer period of conflict would have been foretold and it
welcomed differed sectional interests of the people, especially about the expansion and the slavery which was
established at the time of the second term of Monroe (Wilson 2018). It is to state that the “Era of Good
Feelings” was proved to be a part-time or temporary period of political and personal clashes of leadership and
was also the period of emergence of new things. It is both accurate and inaccurate in its own way for the period
after the war of 1812 considering the development of sectionalism and nationalism. It is accurate foe the reason
that the sense of nationalism among the people made the United States take some notable decisions. At the same
time, it is inaccurate for the fact that there was growth of sectionalism and debates on the subjects at the time of
this period that made some real unpleasant situations for the public.
Hence, from the above analysis it is to state that the “Era of Good Feelings” did not live up to its name
fully. It was not all about good. The emergence of second National Bank was a significant panic of the year
1819. Majority of the people were left in debt because of this.

2ERA OF GOOD FEELINGS
References:
Campbell, K.M. and Ratner, E., 2018. The China reckoning: how Beijing defied American
expectations. Foreign Aff., 97, p.60.
Huston, R., 2017. Can ‘The People’Speak? Popular Meetings and the Ambiguities of Popular Sovereignty in the
United States, 1816–1828. In Organizing Democracy (pp. 63-83). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Wilson, J.G., 2018. The Republican Empire of Conquest. In The Imperial Republic (pp. 123-152).