# Conspectus of the History of Political Parties and the Federal Government/Conspectus of Political History/Monroe

Monroe’s Administration.
Era of Good Feeling.—When Monroe’s administration began, the questions involved in the old controversy between the parties had ceased to have any practical significance. He adopted the doctrine of the new school of Republicans, of which Clay and Calhoun were leaders, and thus became acceptable to the Federalists, “who were gradually yielding to the liberal views of new generations of men.” The Clintonians and the friends of Crawford acquiesced in the decision of the last election, and “most of them signified their intention of supporting the administration.”
Wherever party differences existed, they were subsiding by degrees into calm serenity. The President visited the states, the summer after his inauguration, and the favorable greeting which he received, added to the political peace which the country enjoyed, caused it to be announced that the “Era of Good Feeling” had begun. By this designation the whole of Monroe’s administration is known, though it belongs more distinctly to the second term.
Jackson’s advice.—General Jackson, gratified at the auspicious circumstances attending Mr. Monroe, advised him as follows: “Now is the time to exterminate that monster, called party spirit. By selecting [for cabinet officers] characters most conspicuous for their probity, virtue, capacity, and firmness, without regard to party, you will go far to, if not entirely, eradicate those feelings, which, on former occasions, threw so many obstacles in the way of government. The chief magistrate of a great and powerful nation should never indulge in party feelings. His conduct should be liberal and disinterested; always bearing in mind, that he acts for the whole and not a part of the community.”
Mr. Monroe, believing that a free government can exist without parties, concurred generally in the views of Jackson, but thought that he could bring all the people quietly into the Republican fold, and at the same time let his administration rest strongly on that party. All of his cabinet members were Republicans.
Internal improvements.—In his inaugural address the President dwelt at length upon the subject of internal improvements. He believed that the government should encourage the system, but did not think Congress was clothed by the constitution with sufficient power to authorize measures supporting it. During the first session of the Fifteenth Congress, measures in the interest of internal improvements were earnestly discussed. A majority of the Republicans, headed by Henry Clay, were advocates of the system, but learning that the President would veto any bill in favor of such improvements, they gave the subject no further attention till the next session, when it was renewed under the pressure of petitions from several states. A bill for the repair and preservation of the Cumberland road was vetoed by the President, with the objection that the constitution would not authorize such legislation without an amendment to that effect.
The Florida cession.—The treaty ceding Florida to the United States, and concluded in 1819, provided that the latter, for the territory acquired, should give Spain $5,000,000 and the Federal claim to Texas.
To the purchase of Florida there was no opposition; but it was claimed that in acquiring Florida, Texas had been given away; that this relinquishment dismembered the Mississippi Valley; and that it would lead to a war for the establishment of boundaries. Though the treaty was denounced and the motives of its authors attacked, it was at last unanimously ratified by the Senate, and met with the approbation of the people.
The Missouri question.—When the bill to admit Missouri as a state into the Union had passed to its legislative stage Gen. Tallmadge, February, 1819, moved the following proviso: “And provided, That the further introduction of slavery or involuntary servitude, be prohibited except for the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted and that all children born within the said state, after the admission thereof into the Union, shall be free at the age of twenty-five years.” This marks the beginning of the famous struggle between the free and the slave states. In the debate which ensued those opposing the proviso argued that Congress had no constitutional right to impose restrictions as to slavery upon a state wishing admittance into the Union; that the right to hold slaves was guaranteed to the original states by the constitution; and that the right applied to the new states as well as to the old. On the other hand, it was maintained that to leave slavery in the old states was a violation of principle, and to permit it in new ones was a violation of the constitution. During the discussion ​it was declared that the adoption of the proviso would be the death knell of the American Union. The bill as restricted passed the House, but failed in the Senate. The subject was dropped till the first session of the Sixteenth Congress, when Missouri a second time applied for admittance into the Union. The House and the Senate failing to agree upon the terms of admission, a joint committee of conference was appointed, which reported and suggested that Missouri should be admitted as a slave state, and that slavery should be prohibited from all territory north of 36° 30′ and west of the Mississippi. The measure passed both Houses, became a law in March, 1820, and has since been known as the Missouri Compromise. It quieted for awhile the storm raised by the proviso, on which the Republicans took issue among themselves.
The last struggle on the Missouri Question was in 1821, when the state submitted its constitution to Congress for approval. The instrument contained a clause which excluded “free negroes and mulattoes from coming to and settling in this state under any pretext whatever.” Congress required that this be so changed as to “guarantee to the citizens of every state the same rights in Missouri that they enjoyed at home.” This condition was enacted by the Missouri legislature, and the state was admitted in August, 1821.
Preceding the discussion of the Missouri Question, slavery had not entered to a great extent as an element in politics, and now the discussion on the question was geographical rather than political. Those favoring the extension of slavery were mostly from slave states; the advocates of restriction were generally from the free states. At this time the opposition to the Republicans was twenty-seven in the House and seven in the Senate.
Election of 1820.—In April, 1820, a call for a Republican nominating caucus was published by Samuel Smith, who had been chairman of the caucus in 1816. Pursuant to the call, on the following Saturday, fifty Republicans assembled in the House of Representatives, but owing to the absence of so many members and the general opposition to caucuses the assembly adjourned sine die. There was no necessity for a nomination at this time, for “the people had preordained that Monroe and Tompkins were to be re-elected.” Mr. Monroe received all the electoral votes but one, which, was cast for John Q. Adams; Mr. Tompkins, all but fourteen, which were given to three other Republicans. The Federalists presented no candidates, because of their disorganized condition and the rapidity with which they were commingling with the Republican party.
Republicans unopposed.—The beginning of Monroe’s second term closes the second era in our political history. Old party distinctions were obliterated and opinions on new issues were in a formative condition. In a few of the states where the Federal party had been strongest, its existence was nominally maintained for awhile, but it advocated no distinct issues of its own. Federalism was dismissed as an obsolete idea.
The Monroe doctrine was announced in a message to Congress, December 2d, 1823. The following words contain the principle involved: “We owe it to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and the European powers to declare 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, with the accompanying reasons for the position taken, was a statement of the doctrine that “America is for Americans,” and exemplified the policy of Washington—“No entangling alliances.” Congress deemed the position necessary, but did not enforce it. The doctrine was called out by an attempt of the Holy Alliance to check liberty on both sides of the Atlantic, and to extend a fostering care to the revolted Spanish provinces of Central and South America. When the protest of the United States was joined by England, the attempt of the allies was abandoned.
Protective tariff.—A bill for reviving the tariff was passed during the first session of the Eighteenth Congress. The vote showed that since 1816 political changes had been made on the question. At that time the southern states voted for a protective tariff; now they voted against it. The navigating and the planting states opposed the bill, the former thinking it would be injurious to commerce, and the latter to agriculture. The grain-growing states favored the tariff, in the belief that it would benefit agriculture. The question was superior to all others during the session. Clay was champion of the protective system, and Webster of its opposition.
Democratic.—Since the adoption of the term “Democratic” as an equivalent for “Republican,” the popularity of the former had steadily increased as well as the frequency of its use in political literature.
Election of 1824.—Jackson, Adams, and Clay, were nominated by state legislatures and other political machinery. Crawford was chosen by a caucus. This injured his prospects, for the caucus system had become so odious that the Republicans would unite on no man nominated in that way. Each candidate was a Republican. The canvass was exciting, but the considerations were local and personal rather than political, Republicanism being not at issue with any opposing measure. This quadrangular contest, known as the “scrub race,” completely overthrew “king caucus” and failed to indicate a choice of the candidates; accordingly, it devolved upon the House to choose a President out of the three highest on the list—Jackson, Adams and Crawford. It rested upon Mr. Clay to decide which of these should administer the government. His position was so delicate and critical that no path was left him on which he could move without censure. He was equal to the task, and determined to vote for Mr. Adams, basing his objection to Mr. Crawford on the ground of ill health, and the circumstances under which he was before the House, and to General Jackson, on the fact that he was a military chieftain.
People’s Party.—In the state of New York, at the fall elections of 1823, the Republicans were divided upon the choice of presidential electors. Some wished them to be chosen by the state legislatures; others, by the people. The latter portion developed into a political organization called the “People’s Party.”
Monroe’s retirement was accompanied with the completion of the work undertaken at the beginning of his administration—that of converting his enemies into friends and of effecting a Republican fusion. His foreign policy had been excellently managed by John Q. Adams; commerce had recovered from its prostration by war and the embargo; domestic industry had revived; the Missouri Compromise had quieted apprehensions regarding a dissolution of the Union; and partisan feuds had quieted into a condition of peace and harmony.