The post War of 1812 period also developed a clearer "American" foreign policy. One of these examples is in the Monroe Doctrine. The following two articles deal with the Doctrine and the long term implications.

 

A chief cornerstone of United States foreign policy, the Monroe Doctrine dates to President James Monroe’s 7^th Annual Message to Congress, given on December 2, 1823. Monroe’s warning that any interference with the newly emerging republics in this hemisphere would be viewed as “the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States” came in response to European continental policies motivated by the conservative Holy Alliance as well as an offer of an Anglo-American joint condemnation. The Monroe Doctrine reflected the belief that the European “system” was diametrically opposed to the new system operating in this hemisphere.

 

European Conflicts and Conservative Responses

 

The precedent of stable governments intervening in the internal affairs of weaker ones was set at the Congress of Troppau in 1820 and again at the Congress of Laibach in 1821. These congresses were led by Austria, Russia, and Prussia and focused on stamping out revolutionary activity that threatened the monarchies reestablished by the 1815 Congress of Vienna in the wake of Napoleon’s defeat. In 1820, a revolution broke out in Spain and King Ferdinand VII, was forced to accept parliamentary reform including a constitution.

 

In October 1822, the European Powers met at the Congress of Verona and supported French intervention in Spain. Britain, however, rejected this decision, reasoning that if successful, the action might lead to renewed efforts on the part of Spain to reclaim lost colonies in Central and South America. Many of the newly independent republics, once former colonies, were recognized by Britain and maintained commercial relations with Britain.

 

Role of the United States

 

President Monroe also knew of the on-going events in Europe. After receiving several communications from George Canning, the new British Foreign Secretary, soliciting joint condemnation of the Spanish intervention, Monroe sought the advice of former presidents Jefferson and Madison. Both men advised Monroe to cooperate with Britain in this matter, but Monroe chose to follow the recommendations of Secretary of State John Quincy Adams instead.

 

The threat of Spanish interference in this hemisphere would be blocked by the British navy, intent on protecting British commerce in the region. Adams counseled an independent approach, one which highlighted the difference between the old conservative system being defended by the Holy Alliance and the new system in this hemisphere. Monroe’s message was that “we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety.” This policy would, of course, also apply to Russian interests on the continental west coast.

 

Doctrine of Geographic Boundaries

 

Monroe’s “doctrine” also noted the distance between Spain and her American colonies. The Atlantic Ocean, viewed in terms of 19^th Century notions of geographic predestination, was a natural boundary. According to historian Albert Weinberg, this view was prevalent from the earliest days of the republic. Weinberg refers to the “conception of hemispheric hegemony as a consequence of isolation”, basing his conclusions on remarks by Alexander Hamilton and others.

 

Historian John Kasson, writing in 1881, likens the Monroe Doctrine to an American version of the Concert of Europe’s goal of preserving a balance of power. In this, geography played a decisive role. Congressman Frederick Stanton, in 1846, best characterized this ideal when he asserted that “The law which makes the ocean a barrier…the law of nature, which has separated continents…forbids that nations on one continent shall have rights on another…” This was the “higher law” that Illinois Congressman Stephen A. Douglas referred to during the same Congressional debate.

 

Effects of the Monroe Doctrine

 

The effects of the Monroe Doctrine reverberated throughout the 19^th and 20^th Centuries. In the contemporary post-Cold War era of Globalism, the Doctrine may have become moot. Although divergent American notions of geographic predestination may still guide economic hegemony, natural boundaries are being erased by financial globalism.

 

References:

 

Donald Kagan and others, The Western Heritage, 10^th Ed., Vol. II (Prentice Hall, 2009)

John A. Kasson, “The Monroe Doctrine,” North American Review, Vol. 0133, Issue 301, December 1881

Library of Congress, papers on the Monroe Doctrine

James Monroe, Seventh Annual Message to Congress, December 2, 1823

Albert K. Weinberg, Manifest Destiny: A Study Of Nationalist Expansionism In American History (Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1958)

Published in Suite101 March 15, 2010 by M.Streich, copyright 

 

John Marshall was the fourth Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, serving from 1801 until his death in 1835. The Marshall Court coincided with the early years of the American Republic and helped to define the scope of the federal judiciary, a movement often called Judicial Nationalism. Marshall’s view of nationalism, broad construction of the Constitution, property rights, and the supremacy of the federal government versus the concept of “states’ rights” strengthened the role of the national government and more particularly the appellate function of the high court. In 1861 President Lincoln turned to Marshall’s decisions highlighting national supremacy and national sovereignty to develop the legal eloquence needed in order to answer a secessionist South.

 

Defining the Role of the Supreme Court

 

Marshall’s contention that one function of the court was to determine the constitutionality of federal laws began with the landmark decision resulting from Marbury v Madison (1803). This decision enunciated the doctrine of Judicial Review. The court’s power to assess the constitutionality of laws passed by the state legislatures began with Marshall’s decision in Fletcher v Peck (1810), also known as the Yazoo Land Company case. In this decision, the Marshall Court voided a Georgia law on the basis of the contract clause in the Constitution.

 

In the 1819 case Dartmouth College v Woodward the Marshall Court upheld the legality of a charter, issued to the college in 1769 by King George III, based on the contract clause. In this case, the New Hampshire state court upheld the contention of the state legislature and several college trustees to abrogate the original charter and bring the institution under public control.

 

Two Virginia cases rounded out the Supreme Court’s role as the final arbiter in legal appeals. In Martin v Hunter’s Lessee (1816) the high court declared that state court decisions can be appealed to the Supreme Court. While admitting the existence of concurrent jurisdiction, the court strongly affirmed that this did not prohibit a final appeal. Finally, in Cohens v Virginia (1821) John Marshall declared that states did not have to agree to an appeal to the high court because they were no longer sovereign. This case helped define the doctrine of National Supremacy.

 

National Supremacy Trumps Duel Federalism

 

McCulloch v Maryland (1819) is the most important case demonstrating the doctrine of National Supremacy. In this case, the Marshall Court upheld the constitutionality of Hamilton’s National Bank and declared that states could not tax an agency of the federal government. This case clearly demonstrated that under the Constitution the states held no individual sovereignty; constitutional power, according to Marshall, was derived from the people and not sovereign states.

 

The 1824 “steamboat” case Gibbons v Ogden defined the role of the federal legislature to regulate inter-state commerce. Marshall defined “commerce” broadly as “intercourse” and not just “traffic.” This gave Congress the right to regulate commerce as it relates to nations, states, and even Native American treaties.

 

The Emergence of a Strong Third Branch

 

Historian Alfred Kelly has written that Marshall’s most important contribution to American History was his view that the “Constitution was an ordinance of the American people and not a compact of sovereign states.” In addition, the Marshall Court defined the appellate functions of the Supreme Court but always in terms of constitutional prerogatives. As he declared in the McCulloch case, whenever the laws of the state conflict with federal or national laws, the latter must prevail.

 

References:

 

Robert A. Burt, The Constitution in Conflict (The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1992)

Charles F. Hobson, The Great Chief Justice: John Marshall and the Rule of Law (University Press of Kansas, 2000)

Alfred H. Kelly and Winfred A. Harbison, The American Constitution: Its Origins & Development, 5^th Ed (W. W. Norton & Company, 1976)

R. Kent Newmyer, John Marshall and the Heroic Age of the Supreme Court (Louisiana State University Press, 2007)

Page Smith, The Shaping of America: A People’s History of the Young Republic, Vol. 3 (McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1980)

First published March 11, 2010 in Suite101, M.Streich copyright

The decisions of Chief Justice John Marshall helped shape the growing nation in these early years. Judicial Nationalism can be seen in several of his cases as noted in the articles below.

 

In 1819 the United States Supreme Court handed down it’s ruling in the case McCulloch v. Maryland. An example of judicial nationalism, Chief Justice John Marshall addressed the two issues before the court and ruled in favor of the federal government, establishing the doctrine of national supremacy. The decision was not popular and prompted angry responses from a number of states, particularly in the South. At the same time, Marshall validated Alexander Hamilton’s 1791 explanation of implied powers in the Constitution.

 

Background of McCulloch vs. Maryland

 

Although the Second Bank of the United States (SBUS) had recently been rechartered by Congress, it was not popular. The national bank had always been associated with wealthy speculators and financial interests in the large cities of the Northeast. In 1819, a panic or economic downtown created unemployment and closed many small businesses. Popular disenchantment blamed the bank.

 

Because the bank maintained branches in the states, some state legislatures attempted to restrict it through taxation. This was the case in Maryland. In 1818, the Maryland legislature imposed a steep tax on the Baltimore branch of the SBUS. When the agents of the bank refused to pay, the state took the matter to the courts where, ultimately, the Maryland courts upheld the validity of the tax. The bank appealed.

 

Was the Bank of the United States Constitutional?

 

The first issue addressed by the high court involved the constitutionality of the bank, a question raised by the Maryland suit. The Supreme Court’s decision was unanimous: no state may tax an agent of the federal government. The Maryland law which had authorized the tax was declared unconstitutional.

 

Marshall’s opinion was based on his belief that the Constitution derived power from people and not sovereign states. Additionally, Article I Section 8 of the Constitution gave Congress the power to incorporate a national bank. This was consistent with Alexander Hamilton’s 1791 arguments which Marshall read carefully.

 

In defining implied powers, Marshall concluded that every legislature had to develop means by which it could carry out its direct powers. Thus, the “necessary and proper” clause in Article I (sometimes referred to as the “elastic clause”) gave Congress implied powers to carry out direct powers enunciated in Section 8.

 

Can a State Tax an Agency of the Federal Government?

 

If the position of the Maryland legislature prevailed, a system of “dual federalism” would be created. John Marshall rejected this and defined national supremacy. In any conflict with state law, federal law must always prevail. This argument would be forcefully used in the 1832 Nullification Crisis in South Carolina. Maryland’s attempt to tax the national bank was not only illegal, but, as Marshall stated in his opinion, “the power to tax involves the power to destroy.”

 

A Legacy of Judicial Nationalism

 

Although several states advocated for a Constitutional amendment that would allow states to exclude bank branches, other issues soon overtook the debate over federalism versus states’ rights. In 1824 John Marshall would broaden Congressional commerce power (inter-state commerce) in the case Gibbons vs. Ogden.

 

The Marshall Court left a legacy of defining national supremacy and the power of the Constitution. When Abraham Lincoln became president in 1861, one of his first acts was to reread Marshall’s opinions in order to develop arguments against Southern secession.

 

Sources:

 

Alfred A. Kelly and Winfred A. Harbison, The American Constitution:  Its Origins & Development, Fifth Edition (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1976)

Page Smith, The Nation Comes of Age: A People’s History of the Ante-Bellum Years, Volume Four (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1981)

First published in Suite101 October 31, 2009, M.Streich copyright

The Rise and Fall of Political Parties

As of the 2020 Election, it may be time for the current major parties to begin to redefine themselves and, in some cases, explore new parties based on evolving ideologies. The bottom line is that any party led by an obvious thug is no better than a Roman barbarian who, having seen the Forum, thinks he can fit into established society.

 

When George Washington returned to Mount Vernon in 1797 after two terms as U.S. president, he left a political last will known as his Farewell Address. Washington warned against party factionalism which he believed led to “frightful despotism.” By this time, however, two distinct factions had already formed. The Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, had a radically different interpretation of the Constitution than Thomas Jefferson’s Republicans or Republican-Democrats. Both early parties also diverged on their future vision for the new Republic.

 

Interpreting the New Constitution

 

Federalists followed an interpretation based on loose construction. In essence, they rejected the literalist approach held by the Republicans*, strict construction. The best illustration of this is seen in the dispute over the creation of the Bank of the United States. No clause in the Constitution authorized Congress to charter a national bank.

 

Over the protests of Jefferson and his fellow Republicans, Hamilton developed the Constitutional doctrine of implied powers. He based his reasoning on the final clause in Section 8 or Article I of the Constitution: Congress had the power to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing powers…”

 

These “foregoing powers” included authorization to coin money, raise taxes, and borrow money. Hamilton concluded that the national bank, based on the “necessary and proper” clause, was a logical extension of Congressional direct powers. In 1819, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall would reread Hamilton’s logical arguments in deciding the landmark case, McCulloch v. Maryland, as a basis for holding the national bank constitutional.

 

Differing Visions of the Future United States

 

Thomas Jefferson envisioned an agricultural society, dominated by a pastoral mission closely tied to the land. Jefferson even extended this vision to Native American cultures, believing that the Indian problem would be resolved if Native Americans turned to agriculture. Jefferson himself owned a large Virginia plantation with 600 slaves.

 

Hamilton saw the future of America in terms of manufacturing and industrialization. Unlike Jefferson, Hamilton was more familiar with the British model, already in the throes of early industrialization which was promoting national prosperity through growing consumerism. Hamilton’s vision reflected the needs of the fledgling industries of the Northeast, infant enterprises that pointed to future prosperity and national growth.

 

The Role of the Central Government in Relation to the States

 

Federalists believed in a strong central government. They based their view on the conviction that the Constitution represented the supreme law of the land and represented the will and consent of the people. Republicans disputed this interpretation, placing greater emphasis on the individual states. According to their interpretation, the Constitution represented an agreement or contract between sovereign states and existed in a subordinate role to states’ rights.

 

As confrontation between the United States and France appeared imminent during the John Adams’ administration, Federalists in the Congress increased defense spending and enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts, measures deplored by Republicans. Jefferson believed that the Federalists were bending the Constitution to suit their own political future at the expense of the common man.

 

Demise of the Federalists

 

The proverbial death knell of the Federalists occurred when in 1800 Jefferson became president and the Federalists lost control of Congress. By the end of the War of 1812, Federalists had ceased to exist as a party, although their Constitutional interpretations would be carried on by subsequent smaller parties and ultimately the Whig Party.

 

Sources:

 

Samuel H. Beer, To Make A Nation: The Rediscovery of American Federalism (Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1993)

Gordon S. Wood, The Radicalism of the American Revolution (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992)

United States Constitution

* Jefferson’s “Republicans” should not be confused with today’s Republican Party, which was formed in the early 1850s.

BEWARE OF "FRIGHTFUL DESPOTISM"

This article was first published in Suite101 10/30/2009, M.Streich, copyright

The Missouri Compromise was a harbinger of the coming storm for the post War of 1812 American nation. The following essay was first published in Suite101 March 10, 2010 by M.Streich

 

The Missouri Compromise debate represented the first time that the North and the South interjected the question of slavery into westward expansion. At issue was the meaning of two clauses in Article IV of the Constitution. To what extent did Congressional power extend to the territories and could a new state be admitted automatically or could Congress impose limitations on the new state’s constitution? The Missouri Compromise ignited passions in the North and the South, prompting Thomas Jefferson to liken the debate to a “fire bell in the night.” Additionally, the debate corresponded to other forces, notably in the South, championing state’s rights over Congressional and Judicial Nationalism.

 

The First Missouri Compromise Debate

 

The passage of the Missouri Bill in December 1819 was not the final step toward statehood. Missouri had begun the process in 1817. The December 1819 measure was an enabling act; statehood would be fully achieved after Congressional passage of a resolution once the state constitution had been received. This same process had been followed in the admittance of Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana.

 

The Missouri Territory, however, sought admittance as a slave state. Until the controversy, a Congressional balance resulted in eleven free states and eleven slaves states. In response, the House Committee on Territories reported a bill that included an amendment attached by New York Representative James Tallmadge which outraged Southerners. The Tallmadge Amendment banned further slavery in Missouri and provided for the emancipation of slaves in Missouri upon attaining the age of 25.

 

Movement toward Compromise

 

Under the leadership of Speaker Henry Clay, a compromise was cobbled together that included admitting Maine as a free state and banning all further slavery above the 36/30 line through the Louisiana Purchase territory. Southerners countered that the 1803 Louisiana Purchase Treaty in Article III guaranteed the right to own slaves within the entire territory.

 

The Sixteenth Congress and Missouri Statehood

 

The next Congress grappled with Missouri statehood as soon as the electoral votes from the preceding election were received in their chambers. Missouri’s three electoral votes were discounted under pressure from the North which contended that Missouri was not yet a state. Further complicating matters was the Missouri state constitution that included two provisions onerous to the North. The first provision barred free blacks from entering Missouri and the second prohibited the Missouri legislature from ever emancipating slaves without the consent of owners.

 

Constitutional Issues

 

Article IV, Section 3, Clause I asserts that “New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union…” Northern Congressmen interpreted this as conditional but Southerners saw it as an absolute. Anti-slavery men focused on the word, “may,” and asserted that Congress could reject applications for statehood, in this case based on the Missouri constitution.

 

Clause II of the same section also gave the Congress the power to, “…make all needful Rules and Regulations…” in regard to territories. This clause would begin a long Congressional battle over the extension of slavery, particularly after the Mexican Cession in 1848. The issue was only partially resolved by the 1857 Dred Scott Decision by the Supreme Court.

 

Missouri Admitted to the Union

 

President Monroe signed the final legislation admitting Missouri as a slave state on August 10, 1821. The 36/30 line would divide the nation into free and slave and keep the national peace until 1848. Jefferson, reflecting on the debate and the passions, wrote “This is a reprieve, not a final sentence.”

 

References:

 

Alfred H. Kelly and Winfred A. Harbison, The American Constitution: Its Origins and Development, 5^th Ed. (W. W. Norton & Company, 1976)

Frederick Merk, History of the Westward Movement (Alfred A. Knopf, 1978)

Page Smith, The Shaping of America: A People’s History of the Young Republic, Vol. III (McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1980)

The Rise of Nationalism and Individualism in the Post War of 1812 Period

 

Following the end of the War of 1812, the United States embarked on a transition taking it from a post-colonial identity to a society with nationalistic perspectives. Within the emerging market economy, individualism was the order of the day. The War of 1812, often called America’s second war for independence, ended the tensions with Great Britain that were still evident after the 1783 Treaty of Paris. As America began to grow economically and develop a mature self-identity based on a unique providential mission, nationalism instilled pride and challenged individuals to succeed in what would later be called the “American Dream.”

 

Innovation and the Work Ethic Created an Industrial America

 

New England poet Henry Wadsworth Longfellow published “The Village Blacksmith” in 1841. Nearly four years after the onset of the economic downturn known as the Panic of 1837, Longfellow’s “village smithy” reminded readers that work produced “with honest sweat” was rewarded. The poem also emphasized the bonds of family and the role of religion in American life.

 

Ralph Waldo Emerson, the great transcendentalist thinker, said that “America is another name for opportunity.” These opportunities were in the Northeastern urban areas where industrialization was beginning to transform the nation. They were beyond the Mississippi River, where a Westward Movement brought opportunity-seekers to the fertile territories, expanding America’s agricultural output.

 

Innovation and invention improved transportation and communication, such as the development of steamboats and railroads. Congressional leaders like Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun – at least in his early years, pushed the American System which included, in part, a National Bank, tariffs, and internal projects designed to improve infrastructure financed by federal dollars. The hallmark of this effort was the Erie Canal, completed in 1825.

 

Nationalism and the Mission of America

 

More Americans served in the military during the War of 1812 than had in the Revolutionary War. No generals of the stature of George Washington or Nathaniel Greene emerged out of the conflict. Yet the 1812 war resulted in a surge of nationalism. Americans came to define patriotism in terms of their uniquely egalitarian society, ideally a community without rigid social classes – the three estates of European history. It was a nation founded as a “city on a hill,” a beacon of hope and land of opportunity blessed by God.

 

American children learned to uphold the heroes of America’s birth, memorizing famous quotes such as, “I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.” (Nathan Hale, September 22, 1776) Biographies were published on the lives of early patriots like Patrick Henry and George Washington. Many of those works mythologized the past, such as the story of Washington chopping down a cherry tree.

 

Longfellow’s “Midnight Ride of Paul Revere” was memorized by school children for over one hundred years. In the 1950s and 1960s it was still included in the popular Childcraft series sold to American parents. Such poems and stories emphasized, in part, America’s mission as a freedom-loving republic.

 

Nationalism and the Growth of Federalism in Pre-Civil War America

 

Although federalism was tied to Henry Clay’s American System, it was also evidenced through Judicial Nationalism. The Marshall Court, led by Federalist John Marshall until his death in 1835, strengthened the role of the federal government in such decisions as McCulloch v Maryland (1819), Cohens v Virginia (1821), and Gibbons v Ogden (1824).

 

Nationalism was also evident in foreign policy. The 1823 Monroe Doctrine audaciously prohibited European nations from attempts to re-colonize the western hemisphere. The United States purchased Florida from Spain in 1819, formally established the U.S. – Canadian border with Britain, favorably settled the Oregon territory boundary dispute, and went to war with Mexico over millions of acres that resulted in a continental America, from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

 

Characteristics of American Self-Identity

 

If Americans were imbued with a spirit of Nationalism, they were also fiercely individualistic. Emerson wrote that, “Death comes to all, but great achievements build a monument which shall endure until the sun grows cold.” Much later, Andrew Carnegie, the Industrial Era’s great apologist of wealth, told others to “Aim for the highest.” This was the chief characteristic of American self-identity as the nation moved from post-colonial status to prosperity and ultimately global competition. A combination of work ethic, providential mission, and economic opportunity defined Americanism within an evolving democracy that saw itself as a unique experiment in human history.

 

References:

 

Paul Johnson, The Birth of the Modern (NY: HarperCollins, 1991)

Alfred H. Kelly and Winfred A. Harbison, The American Constitution: Its Origins & Development, fifth edition, (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1976)

John Clark Ridpath, A Popular History of the United States of America from the Aboriginal Times to the Present Day (New York: Phillips & Hunt, 1880)

Published in Suite101 July 30, 2010, M.Streich, copyright

Result of the War of 1812

 

The ending of the War of 1812 resulted in significant changes in the United States. The events of the war had encouraged American unity, characterizing a post-war period aimed toward building a nation. The government under President James Monroe, who became the chief executive in 1816, undertook efforts to vastly improve infrastructure, re-charter the National Bank, and pass legislation designed to protect fledgling American industries from cheaper European imports that were flooding the Northeastern port cities. Despite high unemployment and a frenzied financial structure following the dissolution of the first National Bank, the Boston Centinel called the post-war years the beginning of an “era of good feeling.”

 

The Development of National Unity during the War of 1812

 

The War of 1812 demonstrated that the United States had the resolve and the ability as a nation to defend itself. Although grossly unprepared at the start of the war, Americans rallied, fighting Great Britain to a virtual stalemate position as evidenced by the terms of the Treaty of Ghent which ended the war. The war ended with status quo ante bellum.

 

Although the mighty British navy blockaded American Atlantic ports (Boston remained open until 1814), the British suffered unprecedented losses on the Great Lakes. The British managed to burn Washington City in 1814, but could not take Baltimore. Significantly, the American defense of New Orleans under Andrew Jackson resulted in the destruction of a veteran British army commanded by the brother-in-law of the Duke of Wellington.

 

American determination not only proved that a national spirit existed, but showed Britain and Europe that the United States was a viable power. Even in Federalist New England any lingering thoughts of secession were eradicated.

 

Relations with Great Britain after the War of 1812

 

Americans never stopped buying goods imported from Britain. During the war years, these goods were missed even though American infant industries were in the process of manufacturing similar products such as textiles. Import/export figures for the post-war years demonstrate that Americans were exporting far less than they were importing in dollar amounts. This prompted new tariffs measures designed to stabilize the imbalance.

 

In matters of foreign policy during the Monroe administration, the United States aligned its goals with those of Britain, as evidenced by the Monroe Doctrine. Additionally, British banks invested in American enterprises and loaned money to American organizations, businesses, and even state governments.

 

The Absence of Political Parties after the War of 1812

 

The Republican-Democrats of Jefferson’s day absorbed many of the views of the waning New England Federalists. Where once the followers of Jefferson had been strict constructionists of the Constitution, they now advocated an expanded role of government. Congressional and national leaders like Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun advocated for the “American System,” a national program to fund highways, canals, and other infrastructure improvements.

 

These same men saw the need for a new national bank in order to bring order to the disorganized banking system in which over 200 banks were issuing paper currency. By 1824, presidential candidates in the national election represented not parties but sections of the United States. The recognizable two-party system would not fully re-develop until the Andrew Jackson years.

 

National Unity Preserved the Nation until 1860

 

The greatest issue threatening to divide the North from the South was slavery. Yet the spirit of unity following the end of the War of 1812 might have contributed to a national understanding that would defer the issue to future years. Historian Page Smith, for example, suggests that this unity “paved the way” for the successful Compromise of 1820 which kept the peace over slavery until the decade of the 1850s and was viewed, at least in New England, as a sacred “covenant.”

 

A Deeper Understanding of American Unity in the Post-1814 Years

 

Some historians point to tariff discrepancies as a growing source of disunity, yet others cite evidence that tariffs were not a cause of eventual Civil War. The initial tariffs enacted after the War of 1812 were actually opposed by New England and Daniel Webster spoke against these measures in the Congress. New England importers were benefiting handsomely from the profits of imported goods.

 

Psychologically, the War of 1812 demonstrated that American independence was real. It legitimized all earlier attempts to draw distinctions between Britain and a people that called themselves “Americans.” Smith writes that the war “ratified” the revolution. In the process, Americans reinvented their identities as a unique and separate people, called by providential forces to create an egalitarian Utopia. This was the most significant change brought about by the War of 1812 and the start of the so-called era of good feeling.

 

Sources:

 

George Dangerfield, The Awakening of American Nationalism: 1815-1825 (Waveland Press, 1994)

Frederick Merk, History of the Westward Movement (Alfred A Knopf, 1978)

John Clark Ridpath, A Popular History of the United States of America (Phillips & Hunt, 1880)

James Schouler, History of the United States of America: 1817-1831, Era of Good Feeling (Nabu Press, 2010)

Page Smith, The Shaping of America: A People’s History of the Young Republic, Volume Three (McGraw Hill Book Company, 1980)

October 12, 2010, Suite101, M.Streich, copyright

 

 

 

 

While crucial maritime issues formed the bulk of American grievances against Great Britain in 1812, and these are copiously detailed by President Madison in his war message to the Congress, the ancillary issue of expansionism, particularly with the view of taking Canada, cannot be discounted. Historian Paul Johnson, identifying this cause, [1] states, that the  “South and the burgeoning West favored war for imperial reasons…they thought of appropriating…British Canada.” Albert Weinberg [2] writes that, “It has been plausibly argued by Professor Pratt [1925] that this war, long explained by reference to impressments and commercial restrictions, was caused fundamentally by the desire of Western States for the annexation of Canada.”

 

From Their Own Words

 

Samuel Taggart’s June 24, 1812 speech opposing the war was never given during the closed-session vote, but it was published in the Annals of Congress. Taggart, a representative from Massachusetts, devotes his final paragraphs to the issue of Canada. “For whose benefit is the capture of Canada,” he asks. “What advantages are we likely to reap from the conquest?” That Canada was to be an indemnity for maritime grievances is addressed earlier when Taggart says, “Canada must be ours; and this is to be the sovereign balm, the universal panacea, which is to heal all the wounds we have received either in our honor, interest, or reputation.”

 

Donald Hickey, whose causes for the war focus on maritime issues, allows that, “advocates of war also hoped to put an end to British influence over American Indians by conquering Canada…” [3] and begins his third chapter with a speech by John Randolph [December 16, 1811] in which Randolph says, “Agrarian cupidity not maritime right, urges war. Ever since the report of the Committee of Foreign Relations came into the House, we have heard but one word…Canada! Canada! Canada!” That certain members of Congress harbored thoughts of acquiring Canada seems indisputable.

 

Weinberg applies the term “geographic predestination” to the expansionist elements present at the start of the War of 1812. He cites Representative John Harper (NH) as stating, “it appears that the Author of Nature has marked our limits in the south, by the Gulf of Mexico; and on the north, by the regions of eternal frost.” [4] Taking Canada served several purposes. Canada would be an appropriate reparation for the economic ills suffered because of British policies such as the Orders in Council, but would also fall within the natural and inevitable expansionist mode that, as Weinberg argues, had been a part of American land lust since the first days of colonization. Additionally, the British, through Canada, were thought to be behind incessant Indian raids along the frontier. Walter R. Borneman writes that, “ Thoughts of quelling Indian influence for good and ousting Great Britain from Canada became the rallying cry for Henry Clay and…the ‘war hawks.’” [5] This feeling was boosted by Tecumseh’s attempt to rally disparate tribes against frontier settlements.

 

Expansionism may have been a powerful underlying reason some political leaders supported war with Britain in 1812. Notwithstanding years of impressments, trade disruptions, losses of cargoes, and commercial strangulation, the lure of Florida and Canada cannot be discounted, if nothing else than a fitting remuneration for years of turmoil and loss. Expansionist motive was often cloaked by public and patriotic reasons that the citizenry can more readily accept and react to. More than just a theory, enough evidence exists that Canadian annexation figured into the overall strategy of war in 1812.

 

Sources:

 

[1] Paul Johnson, The Birth of the Modern: World Society 1815-1830 (New York: HarperCollins, 1991) p. 10.

[2] Albert K. Weinberg, Manifest Destiny: A Study of Nationalist Expansion in American History (The Johns Hopkins Press, 1958) p.52ff.

[3] Donald R. Hickey, The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1989) p.47.

[4] Annals of Congress, 12^th Congress, 1^st Session, col. 657.

[5] Walter R. Borneman, 1812: The War That Forged A Nation (New York: HarperCollins, 2004) p. 28.

From Suite101, November 21, 2008 M.Streich copyright 

Historians often refer to the War of 1812 as the second American Revolutionary War. It is also true that the Jefferson administration's lack of preparedness helped the still seething animosity between Britain and her former American colonies. The following article, published in September 19, 2009 in Suite101, focuses on this topic.

When the War of 1812 began, the United States was ill prepared for what would be a prolonged conflict with Great Britain. Years of frugal monetary policies, begun by Thomas Jefferson, had left the army and more particularly the navy in a weakened position. Earlier Federalist defense measures had been scraped as the Jefferson and Madison administrations came to rely on militias and privateers in the event of war. When the war came, it dragged on for several years, ending in late 1814 after bleeding the national treasury. The lack of war preparedness was a direct cause of poor performance and lackluster leadership.

 

Jefferson’s Republicans Control the National Government

 

Unlike George Washington and several of the early founders of the young nation, Thomas Jefferson had no history of leading troops into battle during the Revolution. Safely ensconced in his Virginia plantation, his closest brush with the enemy came late in the war when Colonel Tarleton, under the command of Lord Cornwallis, came within ten minutes of capturing him. Jefferson was an idealist whose Enlightenment inspired writings produced some of the greatest documents associated with independence and government by the consent of the governed.

 

This idealism and lack of first-hand military experience contributed to Jefferson’s determination as president to severely cut defense spending. Opposed to massive government spending and determined to end what he believed to be unnecessary taxes, Jefferson decreased the size of the regular army from 5,400 men to 3,300 men, eliminating many veteran officers in the process. The navy suffered even more as the new administration halted the building of new ships-of-the-line, replacing them with less reliable and cheaper gunboats. When war broke out in 1812, the US navy could count on seven warships to defend its ports.

 

Jefferson’s Republicans did spend large sums on improving coastal fortifications, but without adequate naval support the effort would prove fruitless. In 1814, the British easily landed near the national capital, defeated an army sent to defend the city, and burned most of the public buildings, including the president’s mansion or White House.

 

The Coming of War and the Fruits of Poor Preparation

 

As late as 1811, Congress refused to increase the size of the army or authorize needed naval upgrades. Taxes were raised, however, and included both internal excises as well as increases on import duties. When war finally came, the army was greatly increased but hampered by poor leadership. Historian Page Smith writes that, “The generals on whom Madison relied to command a virtually nonexistent army were…survivors of the Revolutionary conflict.”

 

Most of these men were in poor health and, according to Winfield Scott, ruined by excessive drinking. They inspired little confidence within the ranks, a fact demonstrated by initial failures, notably in regard to the haphazard invasion of Canada. Only in the navy was superb young leadership exhibited, attributed to experience gained fighting the Barbary pirates.

 

War Successes Driven by Diplomacy and not the Battlefield

 

Historians point out that the Treaty of Ghent resulted in status quo antebellum. Although the ending of the War of 1812 was prompted in large measure by British war-weariness following over a decade of intermittent continental conflict with Napoleon Bonaparte, the United States gained substantially despite its poor military performance.

 

British garrisons finally evacuated frontier posts held since the end of the French and Indian War in 1763. American trade and commerce would not be interdicted by the British navy. Finally, the war, often called the Second American Revolution, resulted in widespread feelings of nationalism rooted in a distinctive spirit of Americanism. This national pride would help forge a modern nation and society unlike any the world had ever seen.

 

Sources:

 

Joseph E. Gould, “The End of British Interference,” Challenge and Change: Guided Readings in American History (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1969)

Donald R. Hickey, The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1989)

Page Smith, The Shaping of America: A People’s History of the Young Republic Volume Three (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1980)

M.Streich, copyright

For Teachers:

Teaching With Supreme Court Cases

 

 

 

For a different approach to teaching high school American History, the adventurous teacher can plot a course of study based on landmark Supreme Court cases. Each of these cases offers enough historical background for commentary on the affected period. Additionally, students are taught to analyze, think critically and logically, and enjoy American History in a uniquely different way. Using precedent cases as a base of study also allows for greater debate opportunities as well as possible simulations.

 

Supreme Court Cases that Provide a Good Base of Study

 

All of the following cases correlate to important times and events in American History, although some may overlap. Each one addresses a key issue, often overturned in later years. Taken together, a superb curriculum can be based on the use of these cases against the backdrop of history

 

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

 

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

 

Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819)

 

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

 

Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge (1837)

 

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

 

Ex parte Milligan (1866)

 

Munn v. Illinois (1877)

 

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

 

Northern Securities Company v. United States (1904)

 

Muller v. Oregon (1908)

 

Schneck v. United States (1919)

 

Schecter v. United States (1935)

 

United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936)

 

Korematsu v. United States (1944)

 

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

 

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

 

Reynolds v. Sims (1964)

 

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

 

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964)

 

United States v. Nixon (1974)

 

By no means exhaustive, the list covers basic themes that can be woven into the particular time periods. Teachers may wish to add cases that introduce other areas to cover such as Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) if tracing the court’s use of the right to privacy, a newly opened door that would affect abortion.

 

Sample Lesson Plan Involving a Court Case

 

Devoting a week to Dred Scott might be briefly summarized in the following way:

 

Monday: Introduce the case (assuming you have given an overview for students to read over the weekend). Discuss the 1820 Missouri Compromise Line. Ask students to form small groups to discuss if Dred Scott was right.

 

Tuesday: Look over key elements of Chief Justice Taney’s opinion. Ask students to determine how Taney arrived at his conclusions.

 

Wednesday: Discuss the historical background, especially in 1857 when the opinion was publicized. Include public opinion (such as Abraham Lincoln’s) and review the chronology of events leading up to 1857 starting with the Compromise of 1850.

 

Thursday: Hand the class a copy of the 14^th Amendment. After reading the Amendment, ask the class to discuss how the Amendment overturned the Dred Scott Decision.

 

Friday: Review the case by having students participate in a mock simulation of the court case. Assign roles for Supreme Court Justices, attorneys for both parties, and expert witnesses. (This final activity can be stretched to two days by consolidating other above detailed activities)

 

Creativity Involves Time and Lots of Energy

 

Teachers that embark on such a study of American History must feel the passion of teaching and be prepared to devote time and energy to the endeavor. However, following a format such as the example above, each case can be plugged into similar lesson plans. Students will look forward to the final simulation and in most cases will prepare well.

First Published 1/19/09 in Suite101, M.Streich, copyright

The Supreme Court case Marbury v Madison is associated with the Jefferson presidency. It is still considered one of American History's most important cases, focusing on the important doctrine of "judicial review."

 

In the final days of the John Adams’ presidency, the president and his Secretary of State, John Marshall, conspired to fill the Judiciary with Federalists. Thomas Jefferson’s Republican-Democrats had won clear majorities in the Election of 1800, controlling both the Congress and the Executive branch. Exercising his right as President, John Adams sought to keep the third branch of government solidly in the hands of the Federalists and appointed men that followed this ideology. William Marbury was one of those men.

 

Midnight Judges

 

Although many of the commissions signed by Adams were delivered by the “midnight” hour of his presidential tenure, Marbury’s was not. After the inauguration of Thomas Jefferson, his Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to have Marbury’s commission delivered. It was an attempt to keep Federalists out of the Federal Judiciary and both Jefferson and Madison knew that federal judges served for life, although Marbury’s term as a magistrate would have been for five years.

 

William Marbury sued and filed a Writ of Mandamus with the national Supreme Court, taking his cue from Section 13 of the recently passed Judiciary Act of 1789. The Writ of Mandamus, a harbinger of English Common Law, sought to order the government – James Madison, to fulfill his duty and delivery the commission.

 

The Court’s Response

 

Chief Justice John Marshall, appointed by Adams to lead the high court, was faced with a dilemma. Clearly Marbury deserved his commission, but there was no guarantee that the Jefferson Administration would honor such a decision. Marshall noted, however, that Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution defined the Federal Supreme Court as an appellate court, not a court of “original jurisdiction.” If the high court ruled in Marbury’s favor, it would be acting as a trial court and thus violating its Constitutional mandate.

 

The unanimous decision declared that Section 13 of the 1789 Judiciary Act was unconstitutional in that it allowed petitioners to bring requests for remedy before the Supreme Court without beginning the legal process in a lower court. The Judiciary Act was held unconstitutional. This decision is regarded as the precedent for Judicial Review, a process whereby the Supreme Court can review cases brought before it and determine the Constitutional merits of acts of Congress.

 

Jefferson’s Response

 

President Jefferson wisely accepted the court’s findings although his Congressional surrogates would attempt to remove Federalist judges through the impeachment process beginning with Associate Justice Samuel Chase one year after the Marbury decision was handed down. Chase was acquitted and the high court was vindicated.

 

Marbury v Madison (1803) represents a significant victory for the third branch of government and opened the door for other landmark decisions of the Marshall Court that highlighted Judicial Nationalism and preserved the Court as an integral part of the checks and balances system provided by the Founding Fathers.

First published 2008 in Suite101, M.Streich, copyright

Let us begin November with the 19th Century in American History, focusing on those topics relevant to that time period. The first one comes from the presidency of Thomas Jefferson: the Louisiana Purchase.

 

 

 

 

When Robert Livingston and James Monroe returned from Paris with the 1803 Louisiana Territory Purchase Treaty, President Thomas Jefferson was faced with a dilemma. Jefferson had sent Monroe to Paris to negotiate the purchase of New Orleans for $2 million. A treaty selling the United States all of the territory was another matter and posed Constitutional issues for the leader of a party that believed in strict construction (interpretation) of the Constitution. Jefferson and the Congress had already authorized the Lewis and Clark Expedition, but not with the intent of owning the vast lands.

 

Constitutional Issues and Federalist Opposition

 

The Constitution did not appear to give direct assent to the purchase of land from another country. To remedy this, Jefferson, not wishing to violate his views of Constitutional construction, drafted two Amendments, the first one being lengthy and detailing all aspects of the purchase. His Cabinet rejected the notion of an Amendment, pointing out that the deadline for ratification of the treaty was October, not nearly enough time to ratify a Constitutional Amendment. Further, the Congress was not in session.

 

Congress was called into a special session to deal with the issue. It was Jefferson’s Treasury Secretary, Albert Gallatin, who pointed out that the Constitution allowed for the acquisition of territory through treaties. Interpreted as an implied power, it allowed President Jefferson to offer the treaty for Senate ratification.

 

Although Jefferson’s party, The Republicans (or Democrat-Republicans), were in the majority, Congressional Federalists opposed the Louisiana Purchase vehemently. They viewed the additional of western lands as an opportunity to create more states that would invariably align themselves politically with the Republicans (not to be confused with the Republican Party of the 1850s).

 

Article III of the Treaty

 

The third article of the treaty clearly states that the inhabitants of the Louisiana Territory would enjoy “all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States…” Federalists took issue with the implication of this guarantee. Congressman Roger Griswold firmly stated that Louisiana should hold the status of a colony and not be incorporated into the Union. This argument reflected the notion of the superiority of the original 13 colonies to other states and territories.

 

Another Federalist, Senator Thomas Pickering (MA), argued that any new state arising out of the territory should only be admitted by unanimous consent. His view was based on the principle that the Federal Union’s power was derived from the states rather than from the people.

 

Putting the Nation First: The Treaty is Ratified

 

President Jefferson explained his support of the treaty by putting the national interest before ideological considerations. “The laws of necessity, of self preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation.” Jefferson and Secretary of State James Madison had been privy to the dangers posed by the machinations of Napoleon Bonaparte. “To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, “Jefferson stated, “would be to lose the law itself…”

 

Thirteen new states would be formed out of the territory. In 1828, the US Supreme Court would validate Jefferson’s treaty-making power in the case of American Insurance Company v. Canter. Acquisition of the Louisiana Territory would provide further lands for expansion, motivating a westward movement that would continue throughout the century. The Louisiana Purchase was a major accomplishment of the Jefferson Administration.

 

Sources:

 

Thomas Fleming, The LouisianaPurchase (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2003)

 

Jon Kukla, A Wilderness so Immense: The Louisiana Purchase and the Destiny of America (New York: Anchor Books, 2004)

 

Page Smith, The Shaping of America: A People’s History of the Young Republic Vol. 3 (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1980)

 

John J. Patrick and Richard C. Remy, Lessons on the Constitution (Social Science Education Consortium, Inc., 1987)

First published 12/28/08 in Suite101, M.Streich copyright