The Mind of Republican Nationalism in the Monroe Years

Introduction

On January 20th, 1816 John C. Calhoun, war hawk and Republican nationalist, rose in the House of Representatives to speak in defense of a bill that would continue as a principle the direct taxation levied during the war of 1812. His defense was based on a firm ideology of nationalism. He asked if the House was of the “opinion that our navy ought not to be gradually improved; that preparation ought not to be made during peace for preventing or meeting war; that internal improvements should not be prosecuted – if these were their sentiments, they were right in desiring to abolish all taxes… .” Calhoun wished the nation to be free from external threats and internal difficulties. “The broad question was now before the House,” he declared, “whether this government should act on an enlarged policy; whether it would avail itself of the experience of the last war … or whether we should go on in the old imbecile mode, contributing by our measures nothing to the honor, nothing to the reputation of the country.” He would not follow such a course.¹

Eleven days later after more remarks from Calhoun on this bill, John Randolph of Roanoke, Old Republican defender of Jefferson’s “pure republicanism,” took the floor of the House to dispute Calhoun’s position. Randolph had a different vision of Calhoun’s “enlarged policy”:

I have long believed there was a tendency in the administration of this government, in the system itself indeed, to consolidation, and the remarks made by the honorable gentleman from South Carolina have not tended to allay any fears I have entertained from that quarter. … these doctrines go to prostrate the State governments at the feet of the General Government. … When speaking of the value of our form of Government, the gentleman might have added to his remarks … that whilst in its federative character it was good, as a consolidated Government it would be hateful; that there were features in the Constitution of the United States, beautiful in themselves, when looked at with reference to the federal character of the Constitution, were deformed and monstrous when looked at with reference to consolidation.²

Here, then, represented in the speeches of these two men, were the two great intellectual forces that would compete for the course of the nation in the years after the War of 1812 – the nationalism of the Republican nationalists and the conservatism of the Old Republicans.

This ideological struggle within the Republican party, waged primarily between the new Republican nationalists and the defenders of the Jeffersonian “principles of ’98,” the Old Republicans, was one of two events that effected the course of politics between the end of the War of 1812 and the rise of the Jacksonian Democratic party in the later 1820s. The other was related to it and a direct result of that ideological battle: the breakup of the Jeffersonian Republican party that had dominated national politics since 1801. These events have not received the attention by historians that they deserve.³

Other reasons also suggest that the period should receive greater scrutiny from both intellectual and political historians. The struggle of visions and ideas between the differing factions of the Republican party provides the ideological underpinning for many political battles that would occur between the National Republicans and the Jacksonians in 1825-1829. Last, the ideologies of the Republican nationalists and the Old Republicans, inherited by later political parties in the 1830s and 1840s, represented two divergent visions of America that ultimately clashed in 1861. To examine these ideologies in one of their earliest confrontations is instructive.

Indeed, intellectual historians have tended to focus on the Revolutionary/Early National Era or the Age of Jackson, and the middle years between these two eras have largely been overlooked. And some political historians have portrayed the period as an “interim.”4 Although the historiography of these areas is minimal, it is not nonexistent. Biographers of the individuals most prominent in this political and ideological confrontation, John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun, and John Randolph, relate their role in the events of the period but do not examine them in detail.5 Several historians have described the political events of the era, most notably George Dangerfield and Charles Sellers.6 Several essays have been written on aspects of the period but few concentrate on ideology and none discuss its relation to the breakup of the Jeffersonian party.7 Several historians have, however, examined the thought and ideology of the principle figures.8 Only Norman Risjord’s The Old Republicans has attempted to examine the thought on one side of the intellectual debate.9 No study has yet attempted to tie these strands together and examine how the national ideology compared to the Old Republican ideology and how this ideological battle affected the political story of the breakup of the Jeffersonian party.

Despite historians’ lack of interest the years 1816 – 1824 are very important, for it is during these years that the ideology of nationalism that triumphed in 1865 first emerged.¹⁰ Nationalism held sway almost unopposed except by the few Old Republicans from the end of the War of 1812 through 1818. After that year the Republican nationalists’ ideology and the political program they had fashioned faced a series of challenges that forced nationalism onto the defensive. The waning of nationalism as the dominant ideology in the years after 1818 is linked with the break up of the Jeffersonian party and thus the two must be studied together. This paper will show the links between the two. By the election of 1824, the Jeffersonian party was gone, replaced by several different factions all claiming the Republican mantra but a unified party was long gone. Nationalism had receded to the ideology of only two factions: Clay’s and Adams’ that would unite after the election as the National Republicans. Although the Adams administration continued to pursue a nationalist agenda, it became increasingly apparent in the course of his administration that the ideology of the National Republicans was no longer shared by the majority in Congress, and the next election would prove that it was no longer shared by the American electorate. The nationalists' ideology had failed, but its failure as an ideology is instructive. And from this brief review it is clear that that failure cannot be divorced from the politics of the era. This essay must then examine issues of both ideology and politics.

My goals in this essay are to examine several critical questions. The first and foremost question is why did the expansive national vision of 1816-1817 that sought to “bind the nation together” fail to achieve its object? Secondly, although it is clear that the nationalism of this era was far from a unified ideology, how important were the differences among its proponents and did they contribute to the failure? Third, in the years after 1818 sectionalism and economic crisis offered severe challenges to the nationalists’ ideology. How far do they explain the demise of nationalism and the Jeffersonian party? And how large an impact did the Old Republican ideology have on limiting the success of nationalism? Finally, prior to the election of 1824 new factions and new forms of party organization arose. What impact did they have?

Although the limited scope of this paper cannot provide definitive answers to these questions, it can point toward some possibilities. In the years immediately following the War of 1812, a period that might be called “the nationalist moment,” leading men in the party, both in the administration and Congress, firmly believed in the nationalist vision and were ideally positioned to implement it, but they failed to achieve it. This paper will show that the conflicts between ideology and politics destroyed all hope of bringing the vision to reality. This failure reveals much about the conflict of ideology and politics. And this too can inform our study of the subsequent decades. The differing versions of nationalism that competed within the disintegrating Republican party also contributed to the political divisions of the era. The ideology of nationalism did not end after 1824, but after that year it was not able to unite statesmen from all sections of the nation in a common vision. Several events, chief among them the Panic of 1819 and the Missouri crisis, and the rise of a new type of party organization would force the wane of Republican nationalism. And although the Old Republican ideology itself did not destroy nationalism, in the hands of such potent speakers as John Randolph of Roanoke it constantly challenged the nationalist vision. Later, it proved potent in the hands of sectionalists. The era, then, offers a look at the interplay between ideology and politics. For these reasons the era should not be passed over by intellectual historians; it is far too rich.

Due to limitations of scope noted above, although this study will cover the entire period 1816 – 1824, it will primarily focus on the earlier part of this period from about 1816 to 1821, because it is in these years that the nationalist ideology saw it early triumphs. Moreover, it was in this earlier period that most of the events that would lead to its decline occurred. The essay will not attempt a comprehensive survey of all the political events of the era, a task far beyond its scope. These events have been amply covered by the biographers and political historians. It will only examine those political events that bear on the ideological struggle of nationalism and the associated breakup of the Jeffersonian party. No attempt will be made to examine the host of issues involved in the election of 1824, only those that have an impact on nationalism. Although a complete study of this subject should include an examination of the social and cultural factors pertinent to the intellectual history of the era and the thought of the Republican nationalists, given the limited scope of this paper I have chosen to leave these as areas for future study. I will instead center my current study around the thought and politics of two of the central figures of the nationalist ideology – John C. Calhoun and Henry Clay. John Quincy Adams, Secretary of State during these years, though not as directly involved in the ideological battle, will also be examined, though not in as great detail. John Randolph of Roanoke, as the leading voice of the Old Republican ideology, will also receive some attention in the study.

Although as already noted the National Republicans carried the nationalist vision into the Adams administration in the years 1825-1829 and although Henry Clay would continue to expound its tenets in the new Whig party, after 1825 this vision was little more than the policy of a party rather than a grand vision uniting national statesmen in a common policy. Only when the Civil War removed party competition and provided a stimulus for action would the vision of nationalism be implemented. That vision, however, had been born in the years 1816 – 1824.

---