<p>Write an essay that integrates your understasnding of the documents that follow and your knowledge of the period.</p>
<p>"Despite the nationalistic sentiments expressed during the Era of Good Feelings, sectionalism was in fact of much greater importance in explaining both the economics and the poitics of the period."</p>
<p>Assess the validity of this statement.</p>
<p>The ideas of both nationalism and sectionalism can be controvertible in times such as the Era of Good Feelings. Despite the widespread of nationalism during this time, intense sectional rivalry was in fact of much greater importance following the War of 1812. Sectionalism, not nationalism, was the battleground for the unpleasant controversy over Missouri's admission to the Union in 1820 and economic and states' rights issues.</p>
<p>Is this a strong intro for a DBQ essay? How can I make it better?</p>
<p>The ideas of both nationalism and sectionalism can be controvertible in times such as the Era of Good Feelings. Despite national sentiments at this time, intense sectional rivalry was in fact of much greater importance following the War of 1812. Sectionalism, not nationalism, was the battleground for the unpleasant controversy over Missouri's admission to the Union in 1820 and economic and states' rights issues.</p>
<p>Is this better? Because if I take it "widespread of nationalism", the sentence would read "Despite nationalism during this time, intense sectional rivalry was in fact of much greater importance following the War of 1812." This is quite weird.</p>
<p>I am having a very hard time writing this DBQ essay. Can someone explain what the Missouri Compromise says, its importance, and if Jefferson agrees with this?</p>
<p>Missouri Compromise: Missouri remained a slave state but all future slavery was prohibited in the remainder of the Louisiana Purchase north of the line of 36 (degrees) 30' (The southern boundary of MIssouri).</p>
<p>Significance: South won Missouri as unrestricted slave state; North won the negotiation that Congress could forbid slavery in the remaining territories and liked the fact that the entire area north of 36 30' would remain slavery-free. Lasted 34 years. Did not resolve issue of slavery, only further put it off.</p>
<p>YES! I am almost there. Can someone explain the impact of Eli Whitney's cotton gin in enlarging the South's dependence on slavery, and explain the difference between single-crop agrarianism in the South with industrial development in the North? I am so confused... :(</p>
<p>The Missouri Compromise also admitted Maine as a free state. "Balance of power."</p>
<p>Ok....the cotton gin. I knew most of the following, put didn't feel like typing it up (it is too late). I hope this helps.</p>
<p>"While it was true that the cotton gin reduced the labor of removing seeds, it did not reduce the need for slaves to grow and pick the cotton. In fact, the opposite occurred. Cotton growing became so profitable for the planters that it greatly increased their demand for both land and slave labor. In 1790 there were six slave states; in 1860 there were 15. From 1790 until Congress banned the importation of slaves from Africa in 1808, Southerners imported 80,000 Africans. By 1860 approximately one in three Southerners was a slave.</p>
<p>Because of the cotton gin, slaves now labored on ever-larger plantations where work was more regimented and relentless. As large plantations spread into the Southwest, the price of slaves and land inhibited the growth of cities and industries. In the 1850s seven-eighths of all immigrants settled in the North, where they found 72% of the nation's manufacturing capacity. The growth of the 'peculiar institution' was affecting many aspects of Southern life."</p>
<p>in an intro you must introduce the background for the era of good feelings like the effects of the war of 1812
always introduce the time period in the introduction and end it with a strong thesis statement that affirms or rejects the validity of the statement
this advice comes from my ap us history teacher that has been grading AP us dbqs and essays for more than 20 years</p>
<p>My APUSH class is a 2 year course. We are actually up to some Yeoman farmers stuff. My teacher just wanted to wait for winter break to give us a DBQ Essay. I am really bad at understanding History.</p>
<p>I have one more question. I understand that tariffs were taxes on imported goods. Why would the South vote against the tarifs and the north vote for it?</p>
<p>The North wanted tariffs because they made their own goods. If imported goods were taxed, thereby making the price higher, then the local populace would buy the cheaper goods (in this case that of the North).</p>
<p>However, the South mostly exported their goods (cotton, etc.). If we placed tariffs on our goods, then other countries would most likely do the same. This would limit the amount of Southern goods that were sold abroad. More importantly, the South just wanted to buy the cheapest goods they could find. They did not care if the goods came from the North or not. The South felt that if they were forced to buy all of their manufactured goods from the North, thereby sending all of their capital to the North, they were making themselves dependent on the North (wanted to be self-reliant).</p>
<p>In both cases, the respective geographical locations were just trying to make a profit. For the North, this meant protective tariffs. For the South, this meant low tariffs, if none at all.</p>
<p>on a totally unrelated note, my APUS class designed a history <em>film</em> last year (we all got 5's in spite of our slight diversion from academia) and it was called 'The era of good feelings.' Horace Mann, Dorthea Dix and Neal Dow were the stars ;-) if you catch the drift...</p>
<p>Can someone explain what this means and how it is possible?</p>
<p>"Sectional divisions were only masked, not eliminated, by the appearance of party unity during Monroe's presidency. In fact, opposition by eastern Republicans prevented passage of national support for internal improvements - a key component of Henry Clay's American System. While John C. Calhoun supported internal improvements in 1817, he would soon become a leading champion of states' rights. Tensions between southern and northern factions of the Republican party shattered even the appearance of national harmony in the bitterly contested election of 1824."</p>
<p>basically it means that many while it was called "the era of good feelings" because of the single political party, everyone did not get along. sectional divisions were in fact growing more, rather than diminished during Monroe's presidency. this is exemplified by the results of the election of 1824. </p>
<p>lilkiller - any intro to a DBQ or really any AP history essay needs to conclude with a thesis statement outlining three + reasons/events that support your assertion.</p>