Hartford Convention-1814

The Hartford Convention was an event during the War of 1812 in which New England's opposition to the war reached its peak. Thomas Jefferson's anti-foreign trade policies, particularly the Embargo Act of 1807 and James Madison's Non-Intercourse Act of 1809, were very unpopular in the northeast. Jefferson's successor, President James Madison, was even less popular in New England, particularly after his prosecution of the War of 1812, which ended legal trade with England. The opposing Federalist Party regained strength especially in New England, and the Hartford Convention was held do discuss possible succession. This is a clear example of sectionalism in the United States government. The two political parties at the time were the Republicans and the Federalists. Since the Federalists were located mainly in New England, the blockage of commerce was severely affecting them. They held the Hartford Convention in hopes to possibly break away from the rest of the country because they felt betrayed and disrespected by the loss of trade due to the Republican's incessant war cries. The mere fact that the Federalists wanted secession clearly shows a split in the United States government, that being "Republicans vs. Federalists."

American System-1815

The American System, originally called "The American Way", was a mercantilist economic plan that played a prominent role in American policy during the first half of the 19th century. The plan consisted of three mutually reinforcing parts: a tariff to protect and promote American industry; a national bank to foster commerce; and federal subsidies for roads, canals, and other 'internal improvements' to develop profitable markets for agriculture. Congressman Henry Clay was the plan's foremost proponent and the first to refer to it as the “American System”. This plan is an excellent example of nationalism in our nation's history. In the aftermath of the War of 1812, the Era of Good Feeling was formed and the moral of the United States was high. Although there was some animosity between political parties, this American System really brought the country together. It created a more firm economic foundation, and with financial stability comes national stability. Although Clay never won presidency (after several tries) he made a huge impact in the self esteem of the nation.

Monroe Doctrine-1820

The Monroe Doctrine stated that further efforts by European nations to colonize land or interfere with states in North or South America would be viewed as acts of aggression requiring U.S. intervention. The Doctrine noted that the United States would neither interfere with existing European colonies nor meddle in the internal concerns of European countries. The intent of this act falls under the category of nationalism. President Monroe's intent with this act was to close off the United States to further colonization, which simply means that the United States was now its own country and own land. The Doctrine appears to be an attempt at a threat, however it is clear that the other countries did not fear the US and the Doctrine was almost laughed at. Nevertheless, this was a clear attempt at nationalism by President James Monroe.

Missouri Compromise-1820

The Missouri Compromise was an agreement passed in 1820 between the pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions in the United States Congress, involving primarily the regulation of slavery in the western territories. It prohibited slavery in the former Louisiana Territory north of the parallel 36°30' north except within the boundaries of the proposed state of Missouri. The Missouri Compromise was, of course, a compromise which was reached with much quarreling and debate between the two sides. It highlights the split between those who favor slavery and those who do not in Congress. Although this split clearly illustrates sectionalism, the two sides were able to come together and compromise, which is an example of nationalism as well.

Corrupt Bargain-1824

After the votes were counted in the U.S. presidential election of 1824, no candidate had received a majority of the Presidential Electoral votes, thereby putting the outcome in the hands of the House of Representatives. To the surprise of many, the House elected John Quincy Adams over rival Andrew Jackson. It was widely believed that Henry Clay, the Speaker of the House at the time, convinced Congress to elect Adams, who then made Clay his Secretary of State. Supporters of Jackson, who won a plurality of those popular votes which had been counted (though not necessarily of all votes) as well as the greatest number of electoral votes, denounced this as a "corrupt bargain." This is a clear example of sectionalism within the government. It's obvious that the election of 1824 was "bought," and this outraged Jackson so much so that he began a campaign of revenge against Adams in the campaign of 1832 which he won by a landslide. Jackson vs. Adams is the beginning of a new political era, where there is a shift in parties and the Jacksonian Democrats evolve. This entire Corrupt Bargain of 1824 clearly shows a divide between the vicious political parties of the 19th century.

Tariff of 1832

Enacted on July 14, 1832, this was referred to as a protectionist tariff in the United states. The purpose of this tariff was to act as remedy for the conflict created by the Tariff of 1828. Mainly, the protective Tariff of 1828 was created to protect the industry in the North. So the Tariff of 1828 was also called the Tariff of Abominations by Southern states as it seemed unfair for the government to favor the North by sidelining the South. This tariff represents an act of sectionalism by the government. Because the government picked sides and favored the North over the South, it created a divide between the two regions. It is arguable that this decision was a major contributor to the fuel that fed the fire of the Civil War. Regardless, this tariff is clearly favoring one side over the other by protecting the industry in the North. This is a vivid indication of sectionalism.

Treaty of Guadalupe Hildago-1848

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo is the peace treaty, largely dictated by the United States to the interim government of a militarily occupied Mexico City. It ended the Mexican-American War on February 2, 1848. With the defeat of its army and the fall of the capital, Mexico surrendered to the United States and entered into negotiations to end the war. This treaty is an example of nationalism largely because it is responsible for the end of the Mexican War, which brought together the country. As is the case after every war victory, the country experiences a period of patriotism and unity. This period is all due to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildago. Without this peace treaty, the war never would have ended as quickly and there would be more and more frustration within the country. 

Fugitive Slave Law-1850

The Fugitive Slave Law or Fugitive Slave Act was passed as part of the Compromise of 1850 between Southern slave holding interests and Northern Free-Soilers. This was one of the most controversial acts of the 1850 compromise and heightened Northern fears of a 'slave power conspiracy'. It declared that all runaway slaves be brought back to their masters. This law is clearly an act of sectionalism. It is basically declaring that the slaves are not free if they have escaped to the North, and not only that but if you harbor a fugitive slave then you become a fugitive of the law. This made the North extremely angry, and was a huge factor in the starting of the Civil War. 

Democratic Convention of 1860

The 1860 Democratic National Convention was one of the crucial events in the lead-up to the American Civil War. Following a fragmented official Democratic National Convention that was adjourned in deadlock, two more presidential nominating conventions took place: a resumed official convention, and a convention of disgruntled Democrats, primarily Southerners. The convention of 1860 highlighted a split between the Northern and Southern democrats. Every other event on this timeline shows sectionalism on a broad nation-wide scale, however this is a more microscopic scale within the Democratic party. The main issue being disputed was, of course, slavery. The Southern democrats wanted more of a lenient candidate for president that would not completely abolish slavery. In contrast, the Northern government wanted a very strict, enforcing candidate that would completely abolish slavery. The two sides clashed, and what immediately followed was the beginning of the American Civil War.

Compromise of 1877

The Compromise of 1877 refers to a purported informal, unwritten deal that settled the disputed 1876 U.S. Presidential election and ended the Reconstruction of the South period. After the Civil War, Congress started the Reconstruction. The South, of course, didn't want this Reconstruction and wanted to be more independent from the North. The North also really wanted the Republican candidate, Rutherford B. Hayes, to win the presidential election. Due to these factors, the Republicans and Democrats cut a deal: reconstruction would end as long as Hayes became president. This, like the Corrupt Bargain, was a purchased presidency. However, unlike the Corrupt Bargain, it can be shown more as nationalism than sectionalism. The Corrupt Bargain highlighted the divide within the political parties, where as the Compromise of 1877 brings out a unity of the parties. Although the parties only favored the compromise because it was in their best interests, they still came together and reached just that...a compromise.