Welcome back everyone today. We're uh We're really
diving deep into the life of James Monroe the
fifth US president. You definitely know the name
but his story well, it often kind of gets overshadowed
by Washington Jefferson Madison, you know the
really big names, but here's something fascinating
Monroe was Quite literally the last of the founding
fathers to be president the last one who'd actually
served as an officer in the Continental Army
and almost unbelievably, he died on July 4th,
just like Jefferson and Adams. Quite a coincidence,
right? It really is remarkable. He's this unique
figure who sort of bridges these distinct generations.
You have the raw revolutionary spirit of 76,
and then you have this expanding, dynamic, young
nation. Monroe connects those two periods. He
wasn't... just a leader. He was like a living
link back to the origins. His presidency really
does feel like the closing of that founding chapter.
We've got some great sources for this dive, detailed
biographies looking at his personal life, but
also some really sharp historical analyses digging
into the why behind his big decisions. Right.
And our mission today is basically to give you
a shortcut to really understanding Monroe. We
want to get beyond just the list of things he
did. We want to look at the pressures he was
under, the principles that, well, that guided
him, and the personal connections. Those were
huge for him. We were trying to peel back the
layers, get past the textbook stuff, and find
the human story. Get ready for some, hopefully
some real aha moments. His legacy is, I think,
a lot richer and more complex than most people
realize. Okay, so let's start right at the beginning.
Colonial Virginia. Where did he come from? He
was born April 28, 1758, Westmoreland County.
His father, Andrew Spence Monroe, he was a craftsman
but also a patriot, involved in stamp act protests.
And his mother, Elizabeth Jones, she came from
a slightly wealthier background, daughter of
a Welsh immigrant who'd done well. So he wasn't
quite from that top tier planter elite like,
say, Jefferson, but definitely not impoverished
either. Right. And his ancestry is pretty interesting,
too. You've got Swadish roots, clan Monroe, and
even some French Huguenots mixed in there. He
got a solid education early on, Campbelltown
Academy, which was considered pretty good for
the time. It meant when he got to William and
Mary in 74, he could jump straight into advanced
Latin and math. He had a good foundation. But
then things took a really tough turn when he
was just a teenager. I mean, imagine being 16,
something you're the head of the family. Yeah.
His mother died in 72 after childbirth, and his
father passed away not long after that. So as
the oldest son, he had to leave college. He had
younger brothers to support. That's a huge weight
to carry, right? Especially when education was
the path for it. It really was. But that early
loss, it turned out to be... kind of pivotal
in a strange way. It brought him much closer
to his uncle on his mother's side, Joseph Jones.
Jones was childless, influential member of the
House of Burgesses. He basically became a surrogate
father. He helped with debts, but more importantly,
he opened doors. He introduced young Monroe to,
well, the Giants, Jefferson, Patrick Henry, George
Washington. These weren't just casual meetings.
They were the start of mentorships, connections
that really laid the foundation for his entire
public life. And you have to remember the atmosphere
then in Virginia. It was electric. People were
furious about the British intolerable acts. Governor
Dunmore in Williamsburg confiscating militia
weapons that just poured fuel on the fire. When
Roe and his buddies at William and Mary, they
weren't just watching. They marched on the governor's
palace and started doing daily military drills.
And then June 24, 1775, they actually stormed
the palace to grab muskets and swords. This was
direct action, defiance, real revolutionary spirit
from these students. So when the fighting actually
started, Monroe didn't hang back. Early 1776,
his brother, Spence, had died. He left college,
joined the 3rd Virginia Regiment. Because he
was literate, which was a big plus, he got a
commission as a lieutenant. Served under Captain
William Washington, a relation of George's. His
unit went north. They were part of that really
tough retreat across the Delaware River in December
76, a brutal time for the Army. And this is where
it gets really dramatic. You know the painting,
Washington crossing the Delaware, Monroe was
there, right in the thick of it. He was part
of that surprise attack at Trenton, December
26. And during the fighting, he got hit hard,
severed artery, almost bled out. It was a near
fatal wound, but it showed incredible courage.
Washington himself praised him, promoted him
to captain. I mean, think about it, he's 18 years
old, a combat veteran, singled out for bravery
by the commander in chief. That's extraordinary.
Absolutely formative. And what's really insightful,
I think, is how that experience, that brush with
death, the sheer brutality of it all, it didn't
just make him look brave. It fundamentally shaped
his understanding of the... war meant, what public
service demanded. It forged connections, sure,
and an identity he carried his whole life. He
was the last president who'd actually fought
in the revolution. But it also gave him this
deep pragmatism. He saw the cost firsthand. That
definitely influenced how he thought about defense,
diplomacy, force later on. After he recovered,
took about two months, he tried to recruit his
own company. That was, you know, the standard
path for ambitious officers. But he didn't have
the personal wealth, couldn't raise the funds.
That was a huge barrier. So instead, he got reassigned
to General William Alexander's staff. Lord Sterling
he was known as. pretty prominent general. And
it was during this time he became good friends
with Lafayette at the Battle of Brandywine. Then
came that infamous winter at Valley Forge. He
actually shared a log hut with John Marshall,
future Chief Justice. Imagine those conversations.
He got promoted to major, but the financial strain,
the sheer destitution eventually forced him to
resign his commission in December 78. It really
shows the personal toll the war took, even on
connected officers. So he goes back to Virginia,
hoping for another command, but again, trouble
recruiting. His uncle Joseph Jones gave him some
advice. Go back to Williamsburg. Study law under
Governor Thomas Jefferson. And this is where
that really close lifelong friendship begins.
Jefferson wasn't just a mentor. He gave Monroe
access to his amazing library. Epictetus, the
Stoics, that stuff really shaped Monroe's thinking
about duty. Later in the war, Jefferson appointed
a military commissioner. He even became a colonel,
but still struggled to actually raise an army.
And much to his intense frustration, he ended
up missing the siege of Yorktown, the decisive
battle. Wow. So you have this guy, clearly brave,
totally committed, but he keeps getting frustrated
trying to raise troops, misses the big finale
at Yorktown. It really makes you wonder, doesn't
it? How did those repeated setbacks that struggle
with the practicalities of fielding an army,
how did that shape his views later on, when he
actually had power? That's a great question.
And it's clear those experiences left a really
deep mark. His frustrations definitely fed into
his later understanding of just how complex military
organization is and how crucial federal support
is for defense. While he always, you know, championed
the ideal of the citizen militia, his own struggles
probably pushed him towards recognizing the need
for more centralized planning, better funding,
when he was secretary of war and president. It
turned him into a pragmatist who knew that patriotism
alone, well, it wasn't enough to win wars. It's
a key thread we see running through his whole
career. OK, so moving on from the battlefield,
Monroe pivots pretty quickly into politics, right?
It seems like a very deliberate move. He studies
law with Jefferson and he was apparently pretty
candid about it. It wasn't about a love for legal
theory. It was for the most immediate rewards
aren't free. OK, he saw law as the path to. Well,
wealth, social standing, and definitely political
influence, which was a very calculated mind,
I think. Absolutely. He understood the game.
And his rise was pretty fast. Virginia House
of Delegates in 82, then again later. But the
big step early on was the Continental Congress
from 83 to 86. And he wasn't just warming a seat.
He was a major voice for Western expansion involved
in drafting the Northwest Ordinance, which was
huge. And he fought hard for American navigation
rights on the Mississippi, super important economically.
So right away, he's working with Jefferson because
becoming friends with Madison, but also tackling
these enormous territorial issues that would
literally shape the map of the U .S. And while
all this political activity is ramping up, his
personal life is taking shape too. He marries
Elizabeth Courtwright in February 1786. She was
from New York City, high society. That marriage
definitely broadened his network beyond Virginia,
gave him connections in the North and the financial
center. They had three children, Eliza, James,
who died young sadly, and Maria. But it's worth
noting, despite these the Monroe's often struggled
financially throughout his public career. It's
a side of public life back then we sometimes
forget. Salaries often didn't cover the costs.
Right. Now, here's something that I think genuinely
surprises people. James Monroe, founding father,
war veteran. He actually voted against the U
.S. Constitution. At the Virginia Ratifying Convention
in 1788, he was a delegate, and he was part of
that group. the federalists who are for amendments.
He wanted changes before signing on. And his
objections, they sound really modern in some
ways. He was worried about no bill of rights,
giving the central government too much power
to tax, the idea of a standing army. He preferred
federal control over militias instead. And he
really disliked the Electoral College, thought
it was corruptible, wanted direct election of
the president. These were big fundamental concerns.
Absolutely. And his stance tells us so much about
the deep divisions at the founding. It wasn't
all harmony and agreement. His skepticism of
about a strong central government, a powerful
executive that came straight from his Republican
principles, his experience fighting what they
saw as British tyranny. It was a theme that stayed
with him, this caution, even when he held high
federal office himself. It wasn't anti -nation,
it was anti -centralization of power. In the
end, Virginia did ratify, but only just. And
it was after Madison basically promised to push
for a bill of rights, which thankfully he did.
And despite being on the losing side of that
ratification vote, Monroe's political career
kept moving forward. He gets elected to the U
.S. Senate in 1790, filling a vacancy. Interestingly,
he'd actually run against Madison for a House
seat in 89 and lost. In the Senate, he pushed
for transparency, wanted sessions open to the
public. That took a few years to happen, but
he was advocating early. He quickly became a
leader of the new Democratic Republican Party,
aligning with Jefferson against Hamilton's Federalist
vision. He voted against Hamilton's national
bank, sought his federal overreach. One of only
five Southern senators to do so. And this is
where things get really intense personally. Monroe
gets involved in investigating Alexander Hamilton's
finances in 92. Those investigations, which Monroe
helped lead, uncovered the whole Hamilton -Reynolds
affair. America's first big political sex scandal.
Hamilton never forgave Monroe for his role in
that public humiliation. It almost came to a
duel between them. It just shows how raw and
personal politics were back then. And on foreign
policy, Monroe was consistently pro -French,
anti -British, opposed Hamilton's appointment
as ambassador to the UK, supported the French
Republic, even wrote essays supporting the French
Revolution. OK, so given those very strong pro
-French feelings. Maybe it's not a huge surprise
that Washington appoints him minister to France
in 1794, though it sounds like a really tricky
assignment, right? The French Revolution is raging.
The U .S. is trying to stay neutral between France
and Britain. Washington sends Monroe to France
and the pro -British John Jay to Britain at the
same time. Talk about walking a tightrope. Exactly.
His instructions were clear. maintain good relations,
uphold neutrality. But his personal sympathies
were so strongly with France. He got a really
warm welcome in Paris, addressed the national
convention, got a standing ovation for this speech
about republicanism. He had some early wins,
protected U .S. trade, got some Americas released,
including Lafayette's wife Adrienne. He even
sheltered Thomas Paine for a while, though they
apparently had a falling out later. But then
the Jay Treaty. Bam! Can you imagine? He's there,
feeling kinship with the French Republic, and
suddenly finds out his own country has secretly
signed this treaty with Britain, France's mortal
enemy. And he wasn't fully in the loop. He was
furious. Absolutely. outraged, and it completely
torpedoed Franco -American relations. It wasn't
just a diplomatic blunder from his perspective.
It felt like a betrayal, and it really exposed
the deep divisions within Washington's own administration
about foreign policy. Yeah, and that led directly
to his recall, didn't it? It did. What's really
instructive here is how Monroe, despite his orders
about neutrality, let his strong pro -French
feelings kind of, well, color his diplomacy.
This led to accusations back home inefficiency,
not protecting U .S. interests. Washington recalled
him in November 1796, and adding insult to injury,
the actual dismissal letter was deliberately
held back, apparently to influence the presidential
election happening then. It really highlights
that tightrope walk of diplomacy, balancing personal
beliefs with national interest, especially during
a major war. Monroe didn't go quietly, though.
He published this defense, a view of the conduct
of the executive, in 97, basically attacking
Washington's administration over the Jay Treaty.
Washington famously scribbled angry notes all
over over his copy, accusing Monroe of being
naive, easily flattered by the French. It was
a very bitter end to that first diplomatic mission.
Wow. So after that whole difficult experience
abroad, he comes back and jumps right back into
Virginia politics. Governor from 1799 to 1802.
And he seems pretty active, pushing for state
support for transportation, education, better
militia training. He started the whole state
of the Commonwealth Address tradition, and he
established the state's first penitentiary. That
was a significant reform, moving away from some
of the harsher colonial punishments. He was definitely
an active governor, but his term also saw a major
crisis. Gabriel's Rebellion in 1800. This was
a large planned slave uprising near Richmond.
Monroe acted swiftly, called out the militia,
suppressed it decisively. Gabriel and 27 others
were executed. Yeah, that's a really somber part
of his story. His response was firm. But you
mentioned there was some nuance working with
the legislature on maybe banishing suspects.
There was some discussion about alternatives
to execution, like transportation or banishment.
Yes, it shows the complexity the balancing act
leaders faced regarding slavery. And that event,
that direct confrontation with the slave rebellion,
plus hearing from Jefferson, who urged some mercy.
It must have deeply affected Monroe's own thinking
on slavery, which, as we know, was complicated
and often conflicted. We'll definitely circle
back to that. It's also worth remembering, during
this time, Monroe was a huge supporter of Jefferson
in that really contentious 1800 election. Used
his influence in Virginia, even reportedly considered
using the state militia to help Jefferson win
shows how high the stakes were. OK, so after
his governorship, Jefferson calls him back to
the national stage pretty quickly for something
huge, the Louisiana Purchase. That's right. 1803,
Jefferson sends him to France as a special envoy.
Robert Livingston was already there as ambassador.
Their mission was critical by New Orleans and,
as possible, West Florida from France. Napoleon
had secretly gotten Louisiana back from Spain
just a few years earlier. Jefferson was absolutely
determined to secure control of the Mississippi
outlet. He even told Monroe, if the French refuse,
you're authorized to talk to the British about
an alliance. That's how important it was. Wow.
Alliance with Britain if France wouldn't sell
New Orleans. That shows the stakes. Huge stakes.
But what happened next was even more remarkable.
Monroe and Livingston, they just went way beyond
their instructions. Jefferson had authorized
maybe $9 million tops. just for New Orleans and
West Florida. Instead, they struck a deal for
the entire Louisiana territory. $15 million.
They basically doubled the size of the United
States in one go. Just like that. Talk about
audacity. They must have known they were exceeding
their authority, right? Oh, absolutely. It was
a massive gamble, a breathtaking example of seizing
a strategic moment, even if it meant risking
serious trouble back home. But what an opportunity.
So looking at the big picture. Louisiana Purchase
wasn't just land. It was, I mean, it defined
westward expansion for generations, completely
changed the country's future. And Monroe, even
though he technically disobeyed orders, played
this absolutely crucial role. Crucial, yes. And
Jefferson, despite his own initial constitutional
worries about whether the federal government
even could buy that much land, he saw the immense
value. He backed Monroe and Livingston fully,
got Congress to approve it quickly. Monroe's
follow -up mission to Spain in 1805 to try and
get West Florida, though that didn't go so well.
The Spanish were annoyed, the American ambassador
there was apparently quite aggressive, and they
made no progress. So that peace remained unresolved
for a while. OK, so after the Louisiana Triumph,
his next big posting is Minister to Great Britain,
1803 to 1807. And the big issue there was impressment,
right? Exactly. That was the constant major point
of friction. The British Navy desperately needed
sailors for the Napoleonic War, so they'd stop
American ships and just take sailors off them.
Now sure, some were probably British deserters
hiding on U .S. ships, but they also grabbed
plenty of legitimate American citizens. It caused
absolute outrage in the states. And Monroe didn't
have much luck stopping it. Very little success,
unfortunately. Part of the problem was that Jefferson
had kind of alienated the British minister in
Washington, Anthony Merry. So the diplomatic
climate wasn't great to begin with. It was just
this period of ongoing tension, unresolved grievances,
over -impressment that really poisoned relations
and pushed things closer to conflict later on.
Which leads us to the Monroe -Pinkney Treaty
in 1806. What was that about? Right. Monroe,
working with William Pinkney, managed to negotiate
this treaty with Britain. It was basically an
attempt to renew the old Jay Treaty, keep trade
flowing for another 10 years, try to stabilize
things. But Jefferson made the really controversial
call not to even send it to the Senate for ratification.
Why not? After all that work. Because it didn't
explicitly end impressment. That was Jefferson's
absolute red line. Plus, he'd always disliked
the original Jay Treaty anyway. By this point,
Jefferson was really leaning towards using economic
pressure, commercial warfare, against Britain.
A treaty that just continued trade without solving
impressment didn't fit that strategy at all.
So rejecting the treaty, what were the long -term
consequences of that decision? Well, it's a big
what -if, isn't it? Many historians argue that
rejecting a treaty that offered peace, offered
economic stability, mostly because of impressment.
Well, it pretty much guaranteed the drift towards
the War of 1812. It closed off a potential path
to de -escalation, a really significant missed
opportunity, you could argue. And how did Monroe
take this? He negotiated it, after all. He was
reportedly severely pained, felt his hard work
was completely repudiated, and it caused a major
rift, a real falling out, with James Madison,
who was Secretary of State and had backed Jefferson's
decision. That friendship took a big hit. The
political fallout spilled right into the 1808
election. People urged Monroe to run against
Madison. Monroe apparently felt Jefferson had
snubbed the treaty, partly to help Madison succeed
him. He did run against Madison, showed he still
had support in Virginia, but lost pretty badly
overall. Only got about 3 ,400 votes in Virginia.
A clear defeat. Man, that's a rough patch. You
go from the high of the Louisiana Purchase to
getting your treaty shot down, losing a presidential
bid to your former friend. shows how brutal politics
could be. Absolutely. So he withdrew for a bit,
went back to his farm in Charlottesville, focused
on agriculture, tried growing wheat instead of
tobacco. Thankfully for the country's sake, he
did eventually patch things up with Jefferson
and importantly with Madison by around 1810,
which was crucial because his return to service
was just around the corner, right as war clouds
were gathering again. Right. So after a very
brief second stint as governor of Virginia in
1811, like only four months, Madison calls him
back. Yep. Madison appoints him Secretary of
State in April 1811. Madison needed to shore
up support, especially with the more radical
wing of his party. And the previous secretary,
Robert Smith, hadn't been great. Madison apparently
told Monroe their past disagreements were just
a misunderstanding. So the friendship was back
on track and they started working together again.
And the Senate confirmed him unanimously. 30
-0. That says a lot about his standing. It really
does. Shows broad respect, perceived competence.
He was seen as a steady hand, which was needed.
As Secretary of State, his first job was, again,
trying to deal with Britain and France attacking
American ships. He hoped he could negotiate treaties
to stop the attacks, stop impressment. The French,
who were a bit more receptive, agreed to ease
up. The British, though, especially on impressment,
they weren't budging. So diplomacy wasn't working
with Britain. Pretty much. And this is where
you see Monroe's thinking evolve again. He'd
always worked for peace, for diplomatic solutions.
But now, facing British refusal to compromise,
he started to favor war. He joined the Warhawks
in Congress, people like Henry Clay. He came
to believe diplomacy had failed and war was the
only option left to defend American rights and
honor. So he supported Madison when he asked
Congress to declare war in June 1812. And the
War of 1812. It didn't start well for the U .S.,
did it? No, it went badly at first. The administration
tried to sue for peace pretty quickly, but the
British weren't interested then. Monroe, as Secretary
of State, did manage to persuade Madison to let
the Navy ships actually go out and fight rather
than stay in port. That led to a few important
morale boosting victories at sea. But the Army
leadership was struggling. The Secretary of War
William Eustace resigned. Madison asked Monroe
to step in, do both jobs, state and war. The
Senate balked at that initially, so he could
only be acting Secretary of War for a while.
And he clashed quite a bit with the man who eventually
got the job officially, John Armstrong Jr., over
how to run the war. And then came that really
dramatic moment in 1814 with the British threatening
Washington, D .C. Monroe really stepped up there,
didn't he? He absolutely did. As British ships
started probing the Chesapeake Bay, Monroe was
sounding the alarm bells loud and clear. He was
urging defensive preparations for the capital,
wanted better military intelligence. But Armstrong,
the Secretary of War, basically dismissed his
concerns, thought he was being alarmist. Unbelievable.
So what did Monroe do? He took matters into his
own hands. He literally formed his own small
cavalry troop and rode down himself to scout
the British movements in the bay. Can you imagine
a Secretary of State doing that today? No way.
That's incredible initiative, especially when
the guy fickily in charge was ignoring the threat.
It really highlights his commitment, his willingness
to act decisively, even outside his official
lane when he saw a threat. That experience must
have profoundly shaped his views on executive
responsibility and military readiness later on.
And tragically, his warnings were right. The
British did invade. They did. A large force landed.
Monroe scouted them again, sent an urgent message
to Madison on August 21st warning of the imminent
attack. That warning gave Madison and Dolly just
enough time to flee the Capitol. And then, August
24th, the British marched in and burned the Capitol
building and the White House. A devastating blow
to national morale. Just awful. And that finally
got Armstrong fired. Yes. After that disaster,
Madison removed Armstrong and formally appointed
Monroe as Secretary of War on September 27th.
Monroe resigned as Secretary of State on October
1st. But crucially, Madison didn't appoint a
successor right away. So for several critical
months, from October 1814 to late February 1815,
Monroe was effectively running both the State
Department and the War Department during wartime.
Incredible responsibility. And he seems to have
grabbed the reins pretty firmly. He did. He immediately
ordered Andrew Jackson down to defend New Orleans,
anticipating a British attack there, which turned
out to be spot on. He went to Congress, asked
for bold measures, draft 100 ,000 men, increased
pay for soldiers, and crucially established the
Second Bank of the United States to fund the
war effort properly. His leadership really seemed
to energize the war effort in those final months.
Then the Treaty of Ghent was signed, ending the
war. basically returning things to how they were
before. News of the treaty arrived just after
Jackson's huge victory at New Orleans. Even though
the battle technically happened after the peace
treaty, that victory was a massive boost for
American confidence. And with Napoleon defeated
in Europe, the British stopped impressment anyway.
Congress also approved the second bank. So Monroe
comes out of this war looking pretty good. Very
strong. He'd proven himself as a capable wartime
leader under extreme pressure, resigned as Secretary
of War in March 1815, went back to being Secretary
of State. But yeah, he was clearly positioned
as a leading presidential contender. OK, so his
wartime leadership definitely set him up as Madison's
successor. Heading into the 1816 election, it
seemed like his nomination was pretty likely.
It was. The Federalist Party was basically falling
apart by then, especially after their opposition
to the War of 1820. which made them look almost
disloyal to many. So the real contest was within
the Democratic Republican Party's Congressional
Caucus, which chose the nominee back then. He
faced some challenge from William H. Crawford
of Georgia and Daniel D. Tompkins of New York,
but Crawford eventually stepped aside. Monroe
got the presidential nomination, Tompkins for
VP. And the election itself was a landslide.
Well, completely. He crushed the Federalist candidate,
Rufus King, got 183 electoral votes out of 217,
won every state except Massachusetts, Connecticut,
and Delaware. Imagine that today, being elected
with virtually no real opposition. So, his inauguration
in 1817 kicks off this period we call the era
of good feelings. What did that actually mean?
Was it really all good feelings? Well, good feelings
might be stretching it a bit. It wasn't that
political disagreements vanished entirely, but
the term reflected a real national mood, a desire
for unity after the war. The collapse of the
Federalists meant less partisan fighting, at
least on the surface. And Monroe himself really
leaned into this idea of national unity. He consciously
tried to downplay old party loyalties in his
appointments. He went on these two long national
tours, traveling all over the country, which
was unusual then, trying to build goodwill and
foster a sense of shared American identity. And
symbolically, he really was this bridge figure.
The last president, who was also a founding father,
served in the revolution, delegate to the Continental
Congress, also the last of that so -called Virginia
dynasty. His presidency definitely felt like
a transition. And his cabinet choices reflected
that unity goal. Very much so. He deliberately
built a cabinet that was geographically balanced,
bringing in people from different regions. He
kept Crawford from Georgia at Treasury. But crucially,
he appointed John Quincy Adams from Massachusetts
as Secretary of State. This was a big deal. Adams
wasn't a Virginian, and Secretary of State was
seen as the stepping stone to the presidency.
It immediately made Adams the likely successor,
which helped ease northern concerns about Virginia's
dominance. He also brought in John C. Calhoun
from South Carolina as Secretary of War. So you
had key figures from the South, New England,
Georgia, a truly national team. One historian,
William Earl Weeks, described Monroe's overall
strategy perfectly, I think. Expanding the union
externally while solidifying it internally. That
really captures his approach. Managing expansion,
dealing with slavery somehow, keeping the country
together. Expand outwards, strengthen inwards.
It sounds good, but how did that actually work?
Especially with slavery becoming more and more
divisive. How did he manage to hold things together
during this supposed era of good feelings? It
was an incredible balancing act. Part of it was
his persona. He projected this image of calm,
steady leadership above the fray. The national
tours helped that. Part of it was shrewd politics,
like the cabinet appointments. And part of it
was, frankly, kicking the can down the road on
the toughest issues, like slavery, finding compromises
that delayed the inevitable confrontation. He
was very skilled at building consensus, or at
least the appearance of it, even if the foundations
were sometimes shaky. That ability to navigate
those deep divisions was probably his greatest
domestic achievement, keeping the union intact
during a potentially explosive period. OK, let's
talk foreign policy during his presidency. It
seems like a really successful area for him.
He managed to settle some longstanding issues,
didn't he? Absolutely. Big achievements, first
off, with Britain. Remember all the tension leading
up to 1812? Well, after the war, things calmed
down considerably. In 1817, they signed the Rush
Bagot Treaty. This basically demilitarized the
Great Lakes and Lake Champlain, a huge step in
normalizing the border with British Canada, then
the Treaty of 1818, also with Britain. This formally
set the border at the 49th parallel, all the
way from Minnesota out to the Rocky Mountains,
and it agreed on joint U .S.-British occupation
of the Oregon Country for 10 years. So after
literally decades of conflict and your conflict,
these treaties brought real stability to that
northern border. That's huge. We kind of take
that peaceful border for granted now. Exactly.
Laid the groundwork for a peaceful relationship
moving forward. And it wasn't just Britain. There
were issues brewing with Russia up in the Pacific
Northwest. Russia was expanding its claims down
the coast. The Russo -American Treaty of 1824
settled that, setting the southern limit of Russian
claims at the 54 degree 40 Ori parallel resolved
another potential flash point. OK. And then there's
the acquisition of Florida. How did that come
about? Spain wasn't just giving it away, were
they? Not exactly giving it away, but Spain was
definitely in a weak position. They were exhausted
from the Napoleonic Wars in Europe. Their American
colonies were revolting all over the place. Florida
was becoming more trouble than it was worth for
them. You had American settlers pushing in, runaway
slaves finding refuge there, Seminole Indians
raiding across the border into Georgia. Spain
couldn't really control it. So the U .S. saw
an opportunity. Pretty much. There were ongoing
Seminole raids and they were known to be harboring
escaped slaves. Monroe ordered a military expedition
into Spanish Florida under Andrew Jackson, now
Jackson being Jackson. He went way beyond his
official orders. He chased the Seminoles, burned
their towns, and then he seized Pensacola, the
Spanish capital there, basically took de facto
control of Florida. That sounds controversial.
Didn't that cause problems? Duh. An American
general invading Spanish territory. Oh, big time.
Congress was highly critical, debated whether
Jackson had started an undeclared war. It was
a real diplomatic headache. But here's where
Monroe and his secretary of state, John Quincy
Adams, were very shrewd. Monroe publicly backed
Jackson, defended his actions as necessary. But
Adams, behind the scenes, carefully spun the
situation. He basically told Spain, look, you
can't control Florida. It's causing problems
for us. Jackson's actions were defensive. He
removed the parts of Jackson's justification
that were most aggressive. This diplomatic maneuvering
put Spain in a position where ceding Florida
seemed like the best option. Clever. So Jackson's
aggression created the opening and Adams skillfully
exploited it. Exactly. It led directly to the
Adams Onus Treaty of 1819. Spain formally ceded
Florida to the U .S. In return, the U .S. agreed
to assume about $5 million in claims that American
citizens had against Spain. And crucially, the
treaty also drew a clear boundary line between
U .S. territory and Spanish possessions running
all the way from the Sabine River, border of
Louisiana and Texas, out to the Pacific Ocean.
The U .S. gave up claims to Texas for the time
being, but Spain gave up its claims to the Oregon
country, a massive of territorial gain and clarification
of boundaries. Wow. So Florida secured, borders
defined, that's huge. And this is all happening
while Latin America is fighting for independence
from Spain, right? How did Moreau handle that?
That's another key part of his foreign policy
legacy. He was personally very sympathetic to
the independence movements in South America.
He saw them as fellow republics throwing off
European monarchy. But initially, while the delicate
Florida negotiations with Spain were ongoing,
he maintained official neutrality, didn't want
to jeopardize getting Florida. However, as soon
as the Adams -Onnes Treaty was ratified in 1821,
the U .S. moved decisively. They became the first
nation in the world to officially recognize the
new independent republics, Argentina, Peru, Colombia,
Chile, Mexico. Monroe took great pride in this.
He felt the U .S. was setting an example, supporting
liberty in the hemisphere. It marked a real shift
towards seeing the Americas as a distinct sphere.
OK, so this leads us directly into the most famous
part of his foreign policy, the Monroe Doctrine.
Where did that come from? Was it entirely his
idea? Not entirely his alone. It evolved. John
Quincy Adams, the Secretary of State, had actually
floated the core idea earlier, back in 1821.
The idea that the American continent should be
considered closed to future colonization by European
powers. This thinking was shaped by the Adams
-Onus Treaty defining borders and the ongoing
disputes about Oregon, especially with Russia.
The immediate treasure though was the fear that
European powers, particularly France and the
conservative holy alliance of Russia, Prussia
and Austria, might try to intervene in Latin
America to help Spain restore its colonies. That
was a real concern. So how did the U .S. respond
to that threat? Well, interestingly, the British
actually proposed a joint Anglo -American declaration.
The British Foreign Secretary, George Canning,
suggested they issue a statement together warning
against European intervention in the Americas.
Monroe himself was initially inclined to accept
the British offer. It seemed like a safe way
to achieve the goal with British naval power
backing it up. But Adams disagreed. Adams argued
very forcefully against it. He basically said,
why should we come in as a cock boat in the wake
of the British man of war? He argued that a joint
declaration would limit future US options, maybe
prevent future US expansion, like into Cuba,
which some Americans coveted. And he suspected
Britain had its own imperial interests, not just
a love for Latin American independence. He urged
Monroe to make a purely American statement. And
Monroe listened to Adams? He did. Persuaded by
Adams' logic and genuinely concerned about potential
European recolonization efforts, Monroe decided
to act unilaterally. In his annual message to
Congress on December 2, 1823, he laid out the
principles that became known as the Monroe Doctrine.
What were the key points? There were basically
three main tenets. First, the U .S. would stick
to its traditional policy of neutrality in purely
European wars. Second, the U .S. would not accept
the recolonization of any independent nation
in the Americas by its former European ruler,
though it wouldn't interfere with existing colonies.
And third, and most famously, the Western Hemisphere
was henceforth closed to new European colonization.
This was aimed partly at Russia's ambitions on
the Pacific coast. So this was a really bold
statement, wasn't it? The U .S. basically declaring
the entire Western Hemisphere off limits to further
European meddling. Incredibly bold for a relatively
young nation. It was a unilateral declaration
principle, rejecting British partnership, asserting
American leadership in the hemisphere. And its
impact. How significant was the Monroe Doctrine
long term? Immense. It became a cornerstone of
U .S. foreign policy for over a century. It defined
America's sphere of influence, signaled a decisive
turn away from European entanglements towards
a focus on the Americas. It fundamentally shaped
how the U .S. saw its role in the world. A truly
defining moment. Okay, so foreign policy looks
like a big success story. But domestically, that
era of good feelings label starts to look pretty
shaky when you dig into things like slavery,
right? Absolutely. The facade of unity cracked
badly over slavery. The country was expanding
rapidly. Mississippi, Illinois, Alabama all became
states between 1817 and 1819. This rapid westward
growth highlighted the growing economic differences
between north and south and shifted the balance
of power in Congress, which terrified the southern
slave states. And then Missouri applied for statehood
in 1819. That really blew things up. It ignited
a firestorm. A New York congressman, James Tallmadge
Jr. proposed an amendment to Missouri's statehood
bill. The Tallmadge amendment had two parts.
prohibit any more slaves from being brought into
Missouri, and free the children born to slaves
already there once they reached age 25. It passed
the House, where the North had more population
and thus more votes, but it was soundly rejected
by the Senate, where the South had equal representation.
So we instantly polarized everyone. Completely.
You had the Northern restrictionists who wanted
to stop slavery spread versus the Southern anti
-restrictionists who insisted Congress had no
right to interfere with slavery in the territories
or new states. The debate was incredibly bitter.
It really exposed that deep, dangerous fault
line running through the nation. And the solution
was the Missouri Compromise of 1820. What did
that entail? It was a classic political compromise
brokered largely by Henry Clay. Three main parts.
First, Maine, which had been part of Massachusetts,
was admitted as a free state. Second, Missouri
was admitted as a slave state, maintaining the
balance between free and slave states in the
Senate. Third, and perhaps most significantly
for the future, slavery was prohibited in the
rest of the Louisiana Purchase Territory, north
of the 36 degree 38 is first parallel. That line
was Missouri's southern border. So it settled
the immediate crisis, but it didn't really solve
the underlying problem, did it? Not at all. It
was a temporary fix, a band -aid. Monroe himself
signed it, apparently reluctantly. He saw it
as the least bad option to preserve the Union
and protect slaveholders' interests for the time
being. But the whole crisis showed that even
with the Federalist Party gone, the most dangerous
divisions weren't between parties, but between
sections, rooted fundamentally in slavery. The
compromise just kicked the can down the road,
allowing expansion to continue for a few more
decades, but the fundamental conflict remained.
Okay, what about other domestic issues? Infrastructure,
the economy. Monroe definitely saw the need for
better infrastructure, roads, canals. He believed
a good transportation network was vital for economic
growth, national unity, even defense. But he
had serious constitutional doubts about the federal
government's role in actually building and running
these things. Strict constructionist views again.
Exactly. He didn't think the Constitution gave
Congress the power to create a national transportation
system. He kept urging Congress to pass a constitutional
amendment to grant that power explicitly. Congress
never did. So, in 1822, he stuck to his principles
and vetoed a bill for collecting tolls to repair
the Cumberland Road, a major federal project.
He argued the repairs were okay, but federal
operation via tolls was unconstitutional. That
seems like a fine distinction, but it shows his
commitment to that strict interpretation. It
does. It sparked a lot of debate about the federal
role in internal improvements, a debate that
continued for years. However, things did start
to shift later in his presidency. The Supreme
Court ruling in Gibbons v. Ogden in 1824 gave
the federal government much broader authority
over interstate commerce. After that, Congress
felt more empowered. They passed the General
Survey Act, authorizing planning for national
roads and canals, and started appropriating money
for things like river navigation improvements,
often using the Army Corps of Engineers. So federal
involvement began to grow, despite Monroe's earlier
reservations. And the economy wasn't all smooth
sailing either, right? The Panic of 1819? No,
definitely not. That panic was the first major
economic depression the country faced under the
Constitution. It really shook things up. It had
complex causes, global markets readjusting after
the Napoleonic Wars ended, leading to falling
demand for American exports, falling agricultural
prices. But it was made much worse by domestic
factors, rampant speculation in Western lands,
and way too much paper money being issued by
poorly regulated state banks. Yeah. A classic
boom and bust cycle. And could Monroe do much
about it? Very little, actually. The federal
government just didn't have the tools or the
accepted authority to intervene directly in the
economy back then. Banks were mostly state chartered
and state regulated. So the crisis led to widespread
unemployment, bankruptcies, foreclosures, lots
of popular anger directed at banks and speculators.
Monroe's administration ended up cutting the
federal budget pretty drastically in response,
including defense spending. He asked Congress
for higher tariffs to protect American industries
in 1819, but they didn't actually pass a significant
tariff increase until 1824. So yeah, the panic
really exposed the economy's vulnerabilities
and the limits of federal power at the time.
And finally, Native American policy during this
era. How did Monroe approach that? It's a difficult
and frankly tragic part of the story intertwined
with westward expansion. He put his Secretary
of War Calhoun in charge of managing relations
with tribes in the west. Monroe himself advocated
a policy that on the surface, sounded somewhat
progressive for the time. He talked about dividing
up territories, assigning specific lands to different
tribes, even setting up civil governments and
schools within those lands. But he also, quite
explicitly, in an 1824 speech to Congress, advocated
for the resettlement of Native Americans living
east of the Mississippi to lands west of the
frontier. So removal, basically, even if it was
framed differently? Essentially, yes. He shared
the view, common among leaders like Jackson and
Calhoun, that sovereign Indian nations within
U .S. borders were obstacles to national development
and expansion. He genuinely seemed to believe
he was acting in their best interest, presenting
the benefits of American culture to save them
from what he saw as an inevitable extinction
if they stayed put. Paternalistic, certainly.
But the practical effect of this policy, this
push for resettlement, was to pave the way for
the forced removals and assimilation policies
that came later under Jackson and subsequent
presidents. It's a stark reminder that even during
the era of good feelings, the drive for expansion
often came at a terrible human cost for Native
Americans. So after two terms, Monroe leaves
the presidency in 1825. What was his retirement
like? Did he enjoy a peaceful elder statesman
role? Well, he certainly tried to pursue intellectual
interests. He retired to his estates. Monroe
Hill, near UVA, and Oak Hill. He read extensively,
apparently had a library of over 3 ,000 books,
many picked up during his time in Europe. He
even started writing a couple of books, one on
political theory, the people, the sovereigns,
and then an autobiography. Neither was finished,
unfortunately. But you mentioned earlier he had
money problems. Did those continue into retirement?
Oh, severely. It's actually quite shocking. Here's
a man who served in top posts for decades. Senator,
governor, diplomat, cabinet secretary, president,
and he was plagued by financial worries his whole
life right up to the end. How could that happen?
Government salaries back then were modest, especially
for diplomats abroad. He'd taken out large personal
loans while minister to France just to cover
expenses. He spent years trying, unsuccessfully,
to get Congress to reimburse him for expenses
dating back to the 1790s. He eventually had to
sell his highland plantation just to pay off
debts. His wife's poor health also added significant
expenses. It's a really stark contrast to how
former presidents live today. It underscores
the personal sacrifices involved in public service
then. Incredible. But he didn't completely withdraw
from public life, did he? No, not at all. He
remained very involved with the University of
Virginia, serving on its Board of Visitors alongside
Jefferson and Madison. He even argued for including
military drill in the curriculum, though Madison
apparently overruled him on that. And even though
he was getting older and had been injured in
a horse riding accident, he was elected as a
delegate to the Virginia Constitutional Convention
in 1829 -1830. They even elected him presiding
officer, which shows the immense respect he still
commanded. But his health was failing, and he
had to withdraw before it concluded. Still, that
commitment to public service almost literally
to the end is quite remarkable. Let's circle
back to his views on slavery, especially in these
later years. You said it was complex. How did
he reconcile owning slaves with his stated dislike
for the institution? It's the great contradiction,
isn't it? He owned dozens of slaves throughout
his life. His plantations weren't profitable,
and he sometimes had to sell enslaved people
to cover his debts, which is just awful to contemplate.
Yet by all accounts, he genuinely disliked slavery
personally. He supported the idea of private
manumission, freeing slaves individually. He
read and apparently respected abolitionist writers
like William Wilberforce. He publicly called
slavery a blight. But he never freed his own
slaves during his lifetime, did he? And he defended
the institution's permanent in the South. That's
the agonizing conflict. He seemed to believe
that immediate large -scale emancipation would
cause chaos race war like in Haiti, class war
like in France. He feared it would destroy the
social order of the South. So while he might
have wished it away, he saw it as too entrenched,
too dangerous to dismantle quickly. At that 1829
Virginia Convention, he repeated his view that
Virginia had tried to end the slave trade as
a colony, but was overruled by Britain. And he
proposed a plan there for gradual emancipation
funded by the federal government, but crucially,
coupled with deporting the freed slaves to colonies
outside the U .S. like Liberia. So his solution
was emancipation plus removal? Exactly. He couldn't
envision or perhaps couldn't accept a biracial
society with free African Americans living alongside
whites. It reflects the deep -seated racism of
the era, even among those who found slavery morally
troubling. He was very active in the American
Colonization Society, which promoted establishing
colonies in Africa for free blacks. Liberia's
capital, Monrovia, is named after him for that
reason. It was seen by many white leaders then
as the only viable solution. It's a really difficult
legacy to grapple with. A man caught between
revolutionary ideals, and the entrenched reality
of slavery. Absolutely. He embodies that profound
dilemma faced by many in the founding generation.
His final years were marked by more personal
loss, weren't they? Very sad ending. His son
-in -law died, and then his wife, Elizabeth,
passed away just two days later in 1830. A double
blow. After that, he moved to New York City to
live with his daughter, Maria. And it was there
that he died, on July 4th, 1831, age 73. Heart
failure and tuberculosis were cited. The third
president to die on Independence Day. Just incredible.
Truly remarkable coincidence. He was initially
buried in New York, but later his remains were
moved back to Richmond, Virginia, to Hollywood
Cemetery, where his tomb is now a landmark. So
how do historians generally view his presidency
now? What's the consensus on his legacy? Generally,
he's ranked as an above average president, not
usually in the top tier with Washington or Lincoln,
but consistently seen as effective and significant.
He presided over that key moment when the U .S.
really turned from focusing on European conflicts
towards its own hemisphere and internal development.
He settled major boundary disputes, acquired
Florida, navigated the Missouri crisis, asserted
American influence with the Monroe Doctrine.
Some historians, like Fred Greenstein, argue
he was actually a more effective executive, a
better manager, than perhaps even Madison or
John Adams, despite their greater intellectual
reputations. He was a pragmatist, a unifier,
a bridge figure. The last cocked hat, they called
him, because he's the last president to wear
the old -style knee britches and powdered wig.
But his legacy is clearly much more than just
fashion. Definitely. He left a huge mark on the
nation's geography and its place in the world.
His contributions from the battlefield at Trenton
to the diplomacy behind the Monroe Doctrine were
substantial, which does make you wonder, considering
everything he accomplished, navigating expansion,
foreign threats, internal crises, does above
average really capture the full impact of his
presidency. He solidified so much for the young
nation. Yeah, that's a good point. From that
young soldier bleeding at Trenton. to the architect
of the Monroe Doctrine, James Monroe's journey
really does mirror the evolution of the American
experiment itself, doesn't it? He guided the
nation through some really choppy waters, internationally
and domestically, leaving a pretty significant
mark, a pragmatist, definitely. He really was
that bridge figure, you know, steeped in the
ideals of the revolution, but having to deal
with the messy realities of a growing, changing
and deeply divided nation. His knack for pulling
together different strands, managing complex
issues, allowed him to craft policies that shaped
the U .S. for decades, defining its role on the
continent while wrestling with those fundamental
contradictions at its core. So as we wrap up
this deep dive into James Monroe, thinking about
his presidency, that balancing act he performed
between pushing for national unity while also
driving expansion, dealing with those deep internal
splits, kind of makes you wonder, doesn't it,
how much of that struggle those compromises still
echoes in the challenges we face today. And maybe,
just maybe, are there lessons we can pull from
that era of good feelings? An era of both ambition
and deep contradiction for our own very polarized
times? Something to think about.