Henry embarked upon an educational journey of complexities and confusion, fraught with many twists and turns.
That a representative of the heartland of Federalism could speak in such positive terms of the visit by a Southern president whose decisive election had marked not only a sweeping Republican victory but also the demise of the national Federalist Party was dramatic testimony that former foes were inclined to put aside the sectional and political differences of the past.
James Monroe, oil sketch by E. Library of Congress, Washington, D. Abetting the mood of nationalism was the foreign policy of the United States after the war. The Monroe Doctrineactually a few phrases inserted in a long presidential message, declared that the United States would not become involved in European affairs and would not accept European interference in the Americas; its immediate effect on other nations was slight, and that on its own citizenry was impossible to gauge, yet its self-assured tone in warning off the Old World from the New reflected well the nationalist mood that swept the country.
Maryland and Gibbons v. Ogden promoted nationalism by strengthening Congress and national power at the expense of the states.
The readiness of Southern Jeffersonians—former strict constructionists—to support such a measure indicates, too, an amazing degree of nationalist feeling. National disunity For all the signs of national unity and feelings of oneness, equally convincing evidence points in the opposite direction.
The growth of the West, encouraged by the conquest of Indian lands during the War ofwas by no means regarded as an unmixed blessing. Eastern conservatives sought to keep land prices high; speculative interests opposed a policy that would be advantageous to poor squatters; politicians feared a change in the sectional balance of power; and businessmen were wary of a new section with interests unlike their own.
European visitors testified that, even during the so-called Era of Good FeelingsAmericans characteristically expressed scorn for their countrymen in sections other than their own.
Economic hardship, especially the financial panic ofalso created disunity. The causes of the panic were complex, but its greatest effect was clearly the tendency of its victims to blame it on one or another hostile or malevolent interest—whether the second Bank of the United States, Eastern capitalists, selfish speculators, or perfidious politicians—each charge expressing the bad feeling that existed side by side with the good.
If harmony seemed to reign on the level of national political parties, disharmony prevailed within the states. In the early 19th-century United States, local and state politics were typically waged less on behalf of great issues than for petty gain.
That the goals of politics were often sordid did not mean that political contests were bland. In every section, state factions led by shrewd men waged bitter political warfare to attain or entrench themselves in power.
The most dramatic manifestation of national division was the political struggle over slaveryparticularly over its spread into new territories. The Missouri Compromise of eased the threat of further disunity, at least for the time being.
The sectional balance between the states was preserved: Yet this compromise did not end the crisis but only postponed it. The determination by Northern and Southern senators not to be outnumbered by one another suggests that the people continued to believe in the conflicting interests of the various great geographic sections.
The weight of evidence indicates that the decade after the Battle of New Orleans was not an era of good feelings so much as one of mixed feelings.
The economy The American economy expanded and matured at a remarkable rate in the decades after the War of The corporate form thrived in an era of booming capital requirements, and older and simpler forms of attracting investment capital were rendered obsolete.
Commerce became increasingly specialized, the division of labour in the disposal of goods for sale matching the increasingly sophisticated division of labour that had come to characterize production. Edward Pessen The management of the growing economy was inseparable from political conflict in the emerging United States.
At the start the issue was between agrarians represented by Jeffersonian Republicans wanting a decentralized system of easy credit and an investing community looking for stability and profit in financial markets.The years between the election to the presidency of James Monroe in and of John Quincy Adams in have long been known in American history as the Era of Good Feelings.
The phrase was conceived by a Boston editor during Monroe’s visit to New England early in his first term. Urban Education in the Nineteenth Century: Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the History of Education Society of Great Britain London: Taylor and Francis Tholfsen, T.R.4/4().
“was the theme that the differences between biblical literalists and mainstream scientists are minor. They are not minor; they are poles apart. This is not to say that science and religion are incompatible; many scientists believe in some kind of higher power, and many religious people accept the idea of .
Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and workers' self-management of the means of production as well as the political theories and movements associated with them.
Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity. There are many varieties of socialism . A brief history of education; a history of the practice and progress and organization of education, (Boston, New York, Houghton Mifflin Company, [c]), .
On May 25 th at the Computers & Writing Conference, Kairos awarded Teacher-Scholar-Activist the John Lovas award for best academic blog. The editors of TSA are deeply honored. We want to thank the committee and all of our contributors from the last year and a half.
John Lovas was a teacher, scholar, and public intellectual whose work continues to influence the Teacher-Scholar-Activist.