American Sectionalism in the 1820s: An Analysis of the Early Fault Lines for Civil Strife

The Era of Good Feelings brought about in the wake of the War of 1812 and the dusk of Virginian dominance in Washington, D.C. was not long lasting. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 and the tumultuous regional presidential election of 1824 exposed the early fault lines for the Civil War, especially aspects of states’ rights and perceptions of how each region was represented. The Northeast, the South, and the West were divided along lines of the tariff issue, the Bank of the United States, internal improvements, and western development.

The Northeastern political bloc was led by Secretary of State and future president John Quincy Adams and Senator Daniel Webster. The Northeast was responsible in part for the power vacuum contributing to the Era of Good Feelings, considering the former Federalist Party arose and died within the New England states by 1816. The animosity of the south and west towards the Northeast was related not only to the fact that Federalists were seen as treasonous but also that they were die-hard advocates for the Hamiltonian economic method. Northeastern politicians were pro-tariff, pro-Bank of the United States, pro-internal improvement (which was one of Adams’ major issues), and proponents of slow but sure development of western lands.

The South, or Plantation South as referred to by many historians, were strongly opposed to many of the issues favored by the North easterners. Led by John C. Calhoun of South Carolina and William Crawford of Georgia, the Southerners resented the dominance of Northern states in Congress and in the presidency and wanted more balanced leadership in Washington. Calhoun especially advocated for lower tariffs to help farm prices, little manufacturing development, rapid Western development, and an end to the Bank of the United States. The South’s most fervent politicians were purely Jeffersonian in their approach to an agricultural ideal that was diametrically opposed to the North’s pro-manufacturing economic policies.

The Western states, however, were a unique beast in that they presented a more ad hoc approach to the aforementioned political criteria, as they faced the unexplored West in their backyards. Western politicians, led by Henry Clay of Kentucky and Andrew Jackson of Tennessee, were split on the tariff and manufacturing, though their tendencies were probably closer to the South than to the Northeast. The main political issues for Westerners were the decrease of Western land prices and the destruction of the Bank of the United States in favor of smaller, state banks that would keep money in the hands of western developers.

These forces ran up against each other in the 1824 presidential election. All of the major figures mentioned in this analysis were up either as presidential or vice presidential candidates and all of these sticking points provided for a hotly contested battle. The lack of electoral consensus led to a congressional decision on who would win the election and Adams was able to forge a relationship with Henry Clay in order to get the electoral majority. The results of this election were three fold: the unrequited political will of Jackson led to the creation of the Democratic Party, new political techniques like campaign biographies and newsletters were used for the first time, and the failure of pure regionalism to create a consensus government. While the Era of Good Feelings temporarily relieved the nation of partisan bickering, it only fanned the flames lying underneath the nation that would rise again in the 1860s.