There is no contradiction. Carrol was just being careless. It was not the entire 1810's but only their closing that was the Era of Good Feelings. The War of 1812, which did not fully end until 1815, was most certainly not an Era of Good Feelings. Indeed, it was the de facto support of the British by the Federalists during that war that brought about their collapse. However that collapse was not total until the end of the decade. 1820 was the only uncontested presidential election of US history after the two in which Washington was elected, although one elector did not vote for Monroe out of respect for the memory of old George.
Of course the "Good Feelings" election of 1820 was followed by the utter chaos of that of 1824 in which four candidates won electoral votes and the election went to the House of Representatives. Although Andrew Jackson had won a plurality of both the popular and electoral votes, John Quincy Adams won by cutting a deal with Henry Clay, the third place candidate. Jackson would get his revenge in 1828. Ironically, in today's political perspective Adams, scion of the old capitalist Federalists, is now viewed as the progressive for his anti-slavery views, whereas the populist Jackson is reviled for his anti-Indian and pro-slavery views. But the celebration in the White House after Jackson's election may have been the closest thing to a revolutionary celebration Washington, D.C. has ever seen. Or maybe just a drunken orgy... Barkley Rosser On Sun, 14 Jun 1998 23:59:54 EDT MScoleman at aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 98-06-14 15:30:18 EDT, carroll writes:
>
> <<
> The 1810s in U.S. history are know as the "era of good feeling" because
> there were no issues at stake in electoral politics (the Federalists had
> collapsed), and I understand that for personal attacks and ill feeling no
> period in our history matched that "era of good feeling." We are now again
> in such an era. Debate over issues has almost entirely disappeared from
> the political "debates" of our "One-Party-with-two-right-wings" state.
> Take away the personal attacks on Clinton on the WSJ ed and op-ed pages
> and what you have left is praise for Clinton's program. And indeed they
> should praise him for he has done better by WSJ principles than did either
> Reagan or Bush.
>
> Carrol >>
>
> I don't know carrol. Maybe that's how it's referred to in the history books,
> but there was tremendous upheaval in different parts of the u.s. about that
> time. For one thing, there was huge nationalist sentiment because of the
> impending war with the brits (1812) -- alot of merchants selling foreign goods
> were trashed. According to M. Carey, there were several armed rebellions in
> the states about this time. I would have to look up the dates, but there was
> one in Pennsylvania in opposition to whiskey taxes, and there were a couple of
> New England states who had armed insurgents take over the state legislators
> because there was no currency and taxes were being demanded in gold and
> silver.
> maggie coleman mscoleman at aol.com
-- Rosser Jr, John Barkley rosserjb at jmu.edu