Nationalism and Sectionalism - Essay Example

1 Nationalism and Sectionalism James Madison became a of colonial history and political theory in his search for a solution to the political and economic dilemmas, which beset the colonies at the time. Madison felt the Articles of Confederation were too weak to serve the needs of the united colonies. He reasoned that the state autonomy clause, precluded the perpetuation of a strong central government.. Which Madison felt was necessary to adequately regulate commerce. This inadequacy left the central government with little ability and rendered the coffers inadequate to wage war. Meantime, inflation began to engulf the country; A pound of tea could cost as much as $100. Of course, this inflation resulted in a contraction of business activity. Some small farmers were arrested for bad debts and many farmers were forced to sell their farms to pay their taxes. James Madison was determined to find a solution for the maladies haunting the stability of the union. No man is an island, and the young Madison realized he could not weather the storm alone. He solicited the assistance of the elder statesman, George Washington. Washington dealt with the issue of credibility; what if the new experiment did not work What light would be cast upon his reputation After all, from his perch in Mt. Vernon, things were good. Nonetheless, after some soul searching, Washington wrote to Madison. "Wisdom and good examples are necessary at this time to resolve the political machine from the impending storm". (Madison) George Washington understood that Madison envisioned a strong central 2 government to provide order and stability. Madison responded to Washington with. "Let it be tried then whether any middle ground can be taken which will once support a due supremacy of the national authority, and providing state power only when subordinately useful". (Madison) This was a mighty issue which would generate much debate and ultimately foster sectionalism, which was so fervent until the label of federalist (those who supported a strong central government) and anti-federalist (opposed to the watering down of state sovereignty created substantial followings. James Madison and John Tyler served together in the Virginia General Assembly. They devised a plan for a states convention to be held at Annapolis, Maryland in September 1786. At this convention the two men proposed that macro commerce be controlled and regulated by the continental Congress. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton issued a report on the Annapolis meeting. The meeting amplified the urgency to reverse the economic trends. In their report to Congress (Madison and Hamilton), included an appeal addressed to Congress, to have the states appoint delegates for a gathering in Philadelphia. Further, that the announcement of purpose to all delegates, was to be a revision in the Articles of Confederation. Though some members of Congress viewed this move as a stepping on their Congressional "toes", nonetheless, the delegates from each state were summarily notified by Congress. "Rhode Island viewed the gathering as an attempt to circumvent their strong state sovereignty. The men of the state had a strong attachment to paper currency; they had 3 low taxes and a state government which was supportive. They sent no delegates to Philadelphia. Many other Americans also had misgivings, which were aligned with the men of Rhode Island. Patrick Henry was rumored to have said." I smell a rat". (Quinn) Patrick Henry articulated his belief in the "sanction of place". It was the precursor of the adage or phenomenon of "states rights". In that the local or state government served the individual better on personal liberties, than a central government can and will. (Quinn) "In May 1787, George Washington headed the Virginia delegation to the constitutional Convention in Philadelphia and was unanimously elected the presiding officer. His presence lent prestige to the proceedings, and although he made few direct contributions, he generally supported the advocates of a strong central government". (Madison) "Of the 55 original attendees at the convention, 19 were never present". (Madison) By the end of May, it was clear that the concept of a central government, supported by The forum favored three branches of government. However, before the end of June, another situation surfaced. "The issue of representation between small and large states became a bone of contention. The large states sought representation in the House of Representatives to be decided solely on the basis of population. Of course this would result in disproportionate representation, which would render the small states powerless on consensus and majority based issues. The small states were insisting that they at least have the same parity, which was afforded them under the Articles of Confederation. Large states were unwilling to compromise on the issue". (Madison) "Luther Martin was catapulted into the forefront of the small state advocacy. His 4 position was that they (small states) were currently in possession of equal representation and why would they now be asked or expected to accept less. By July 12, after two arduous days of debate, it became obvious to all delegates (large and small) that a compromise was in order. The issue in slave holding states on how to count "all other persons", compounded debate on the representation issue. Oliver Ellsworth proposed that representation in the lower House (of representatives), be based ion the number of free persons and three-fifths of "all other persons". It was commonly held by all the delegates that the compromising was necessary to keep the convention afloat". (Madison) There were many issues of note: the primary issue (commerce), which precipitated the convention, was at the top of the list. The southern states feared the ideology and power of the New England states. Southerners advanced the argument that they (southerners) would be relegated to being the overseers of the North. Of course, this argument had its origin in the larger issue of "slavery". "On August 21, 1787, a proposal was made for the taxation of state import. The proposal sparked the discussion of the institution and its moral and economic relationship to the new government". (Madison) Coming to the aid of his slave holding states and the institution of slavery, was John Rutledge of South Carolina, he said; "Slavery had nothing to do with morality", he went on to say, " if intent alone is the governing principle with nations". All of the southern states feared that the federal government would extend its long arms into its precious and profitable slave trade. Nonetheless, the southern as well as the northern delegates were astute enough to recognize that extended debate on the long standing issue would sabotage the entire convention. The delegates from the two largest 5 slave holding states (South Carolina and Georgia), struck a compromise with the New England delegates. The New Englanders agreed to an additional 20 years of slave importation. The southerners agreed to a clause, which required a simple majority vote on navigation laws. Obviously this compromise leveled a hard hit on southern economic concerns, but again it was necessary to keep the convention alive. "The initial document consisted of 17 Amendments, which was eventually whittled down to ten. On April 30, 1789, George Washington was inaugurated president of the United States, so on this date the executive branch of the government under the constitution became operative". (Castro) "The Era of Good Feelings began with a burst of nationalistic fervor. The economic program adopted by Congress, including the national bank and a protective tariff, reflected the growing feeling of national unity. The Supreme Court supported the spirit of nationalism by establishing the principle of federal supremacy. But the same period also witnessed the emergence of growing factional divisions in politics, including a deepening sectional split between north and south. A severe economic depression between 1819 and 1822, provoked better division over questions of banking and tariffs. Geographic expansion exposed latent tensions over the morality of slavery and the balance of economic power. It was during the Era of Good Feelings that the political issues arose that would dominate American politics for the next 40 years". (Sectionalism) "In 1819 a financial panic swept across the country. The growth in trade that followed the war of 1812 came to an abrupt halt. Unemployment mounted, banks failed, mortgages were foreclosed, and agricultural prices fell by half. Investment in Western 6 lands collapsed. The panic was frightening in its scope and impact. For the first time in American history, the problem of urban poverty commanded public attention". (Sectionalism) The panic had several causes, including a dramatic decline in cotton prices, a contraction of credit by the Bank of the United States designed to curb inflation, an 1817 Congressional order requiring hard currency payments for land purchases, and the closing of many factories due to foreign competition. By 1823 the panic was over. But it left a lasting imprint to American politics. The panic led to demands for the democratization of state constitutions, and heightened hostility toward banks and other "privileged" corporations and monopolies. The panic also exacerbated tensions as northerners pressed for higher tariffs while southerners abandoned their support of nationalistic economic programs. As the panic subsided, a crisis erupted over slavery. Thomas Jefferson wrote; "like a fireball in the night". (Jefferson) Ostensibly, the line drawn at 36 degrees 30 feet of the territories acquired in the Louisiana Purchase would forever be precluded of slavery within their boundaries. States south of this line were slave states; states north of this line had either abolished slavery or adopted gradual emancipation policies. However, west of the Mississippi, there was no clear demarcation line between free and slave territory. Representative James Tallmadge, a New York Republican, provoked the crisis in February 1819 by introducing an amendment to restrict slavery in Missouri as a condition of state hood. The amendment prohibited the further introduction of slaves into Missouri and provided for emancipation of all children of slaves at the age of 25. Voting along 7 ominously sectional lines, the house approved the Tallmadge amendment, but the amendment was defeated in the Senate". (Sectionalism) Southern and northern politicians alike responded with furysoutherners condemned the Tallmadge proposal as part of a northeastern plot to dominate the government. They declared the United States to be a union of equals, claiming that Congress had no power to place special restrictions upon the state, Talk of disunion and civil war was rife. "This was not the first Congressional crisis over slavery. In 1790, a bitter dispute had arisen over whether Congress should accept anti-slavery petitions. In 1798, a furor had erupted over a proposal to extend the Northwest Ordinance prohibition on slavery to Mississippi. In 1804, a new uproar had broken out over a proposal to bar new slaves from emigrating to Louisiana. In 1801 and again in 1814-1815, federalists had protested the three-fifth compromise. But never before had passions been so heated or sectional antagonisms so overt". (Sectionalism) If the south was to defend its political power against an anti slavery majority, it had but two options in the future; it would either have to forge new political alliances with the north and west, or it would either have to acquire new territory in the southwest. The latter would ultimately ignite opposition to the further expansion of slavery. By 1850 southerners were convinced that the northern agitators were bent on dictating the course and fate of their precious and profitable institution (slavery) and to show how much they opposed the dictates and meddling, John C. Calhoun, an elder statesman from South Carolina and a slave owner, wrote a speech, which was delivered by another senator because Calhoun was so ill, he could not rise to deliver it. In part 8 the speech of Calhoun said; Calhoun posed the question, how can the union be preserved "those who know the strength of party ties will readily appreciate the immense force which this cause exceeds against agitation and in favor of preserving quiet. But, great as it was, it was not sufficient to prevent the widespread discontent which now pervades the section. No; some cause far deeper more powerful than the one supposed must exist; to account for discontent so wide and so deep. The question then recurs: What is the cause of this discontent It will be found in the belief of the people of the southern states, as prevalent as the discontent itself, that they cannot remain, as things now are, consistently with honor and safety, in the union. The next question to be answered is: What has caused this belief One of the causes is, undoubtly, to be traced to the long term-continued agitation of the slave question on the part of the north, and the many aggressions which they have made on the rights of the south during the time". (Calhoun) Four years later on May 30, 1854, the Congress passed the Kansas-Nebraska act, and the controversy over slavery in the territories reopened. Congress tried repeatedly to organize a single territory for the area west of Missouri and Iowa, but was unsuccessful. "Stephen O. Douglas of Illinois introduced a bill dividing the land into two territories. His proposal left the issue of free state or slave state up to the people. This ushering in the new concept of "popular sovereignty". Then the debates, the bickering and displeasure fermented among the pro and anti slavery proponents. The residents of Kansas became violently divided on the issue of free state or slave state. The concept of "popular sovereignty", was proving a nemesis, as the pro slavery and anti slavery 9 contingents engaged each other in many gorilla warfare battles. Kansas became known as bleeding Kansas". (Quinn) The issue became so divisive until it was issued a writ of centorari by the United States Supreme Court. The Court of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, also issued a writ to hear the Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) on the same calendar. There was much debate and anticipation surrounding the cases of the Kansas-Nebraska act and Dred Scott. In view of the Missouri Compromise, many in the legal community (Including Abraham Lincoln who makes mention of the two cases in his House Divided speech), Lincoln was neither pro neither anti slavery. He had no more compassion for an African slave as he had for a southern white slave owner. However, Lincoln possessed a considerable amount of passion for the constitution and the union. The point which Lincoln makes in hi9s House Divided speech is that the union can not forever exist as half free and half slave. It must commit fully to one or the other. Lincoln and many others in the legal community felt assured that the issue had now come full circle with these two cases before the supreme court and some closure would come after all on the issue of expanding slavery into additional territories. Much to the chagrin of many, the Taney court ruled that the Missouri compromise was unconstitutional; stating that Congress had overstepped its bounds in determining which states could be free or slave states. Further the Taney court consistently rules that Dred Scott being an African did not have the right to file in case in federal court, because he (Scott) was not a citizen of the United States, as described in the constitution .The majority decision of the Taney Court is considered to be the most bone headed decision in the annals of jurisprudence. This ruling festered old wounds and 10 opened larger ones. The pro slavery issue received a boost, but this decision ignited the civil war. Works Cited Castro, William, R. Dictionary of American Biography; the creation of the federal republic; New York: second Circuit Committee on History and events, 1997 Madison, James, the United States Manual of Biography and History. Philadelphia: James B. Smith & Company 1956. Retrieved on line on April 18, 2006, from www.colonialhill.com The Era of Good Feelings: The Growth of Political Factionalism and Sectionalism, Retrieved on line on April17, 2006, from www.digitalhistory.uh.edu Quinn, C. R. Vigilant Discourse, A History of America 1621-2003 Read More