|
M
|
artin Van Buren is one of
the most important politicians in American history. However, his legacy has been one of neglect
or negativity. Sadly, when remembered,
if at all, it is as a failed president, a scheming politician or an Andrew
Jackson lackey. History has been unkind
to Van Buren as his contributions to the modern American political system alone
should have secured his reputation.
During the post-War of 1812 period, the United
States developed a new sense of national unity and purpose. The era of “First Party System” had come to
an end as a result of the Federalist Party’s opposition to the war[i]. With the collapse of organized Federalist
opposition, President Monroe hoped to consolidate the Republican and Federalist
parties through “amalgamation” with the ultimate goal of
Monroe’s eight years in
office came to be known as the “Era of Good Feelings”. Monroe had for all appearances mitigated
party rancor and produced and appearance of political unity in which almost all
Americans identified themselves as Republicans.
He won a nearly unanimous electoral victory when he was re-elected in
1820. He then turned his efforts to the
dangers of intraparty rivalries which had begun to appear. Monroe’s cabinet included three of the most
important political rivals on the national scene, John Quincy Adams (a former
Federalist), John C. Calhoun, and William H. Crawford (Old Republican)[ii]. Monroe felt that he could manage the
factional disputes and arrange compromise on national issues within the
administration.
Unfortunately for
Monroe a number of crises arose during 1819-1820 which refocused sectional
differences and removed any hope of consensus which he had worked toward. The Panic of 1819, McCulloch v. Maryland, and the Missouri Crisis (1820) all
reanimated the disputes over supremacy of state sovereignty and federal power
and the issue of “loose” versus “strict” construction of the Constitution.
It was in this
contentious environment that Martin Van Buren came to the forefront of the
national political scene. Van Buren was
a New Yorker who had entered politics as a young man and spent most of his
early career fighting the influence of the powerful Dewitt Clinton[iii]. The intraparty battlefield existing in New
York in the early decades of the nineteenth century was symptomatic of the
party rancor President Monroe was attempting to rid the nation of. It was in this arena that Van Buren’s skills
were developed and honed. New York was the
proving ground for Van Buren’s ideas on the creation (perhaps restoration) of a
unified and powerful political party dedicated to the ideals of Thomas
Jefferson.
Unlike the Founding
Fathers, Van Buren’s generation did not fear the influence of political
parties, but found value and purpose in such organizations. Van Buren went so far as to espouse that
parties not only held utility, but were essential to the proper organization of
a republic. He held strongly to the
notion that the only way to preserve a democracy was to have two organized
parties holding different principles and openly arrayed against each other. Van Buren went on to state the natural
tensions in society could then find release in the regular contest between
those opposing groups. This tension
would find the people siding with one party for a period of time and when they
grew tired of that party or were offended by its actions they would reverse
their support and turn to the opposition for a change of leadership and
measures. In the end, according to Van
Buren, this regular shifting of political forces back and forth between parties
would check the misuse of power and safeguard liberty for society.
The political climate
in post-war New York provided that only the strongest would survive. Although
Federalist power was receding in New York after 1815, Van Buren feared that
incessant infighting among the Democrat-Republican Party might lead to Federalist
resurgence. He believed the
Democrat-Republicans needed to forgo their personal rivalries in favor of party
and principles. Before he could
accomplish this lofty goal, Van Buren needed to establish a powerbase and
meticulously gathered a large number of supporters within the New York
legislature. This faction was known as
the “Bucktails.” They were committed to
and coalesced around a few core principles and positions. They were firmly opposed to the Federalists
and strong federal government. Above all
else, they valued Jeffersonian ideals and principles and believed the
Democratic-Republican Party was the instrument to defend those principles and
defeat the Federalists[iv]. Cementing the bond of the Bucktails was their
unanimous dislike for New York’s most powerful politician – Dewitt
Clinton. To them Clinton was an
apostate, and his vacillation over core Republican principles was to be opposed
at every turn.
Van Buren’s efforts ultimately proved successful. The
Bucktails managed to wrest control of the state legislature in Albany through
internal discipline and the caucus system.
Members of the faction would gather to debate and select their
candidates by majority vote – all were then bound to support the results. This system was both democratic and
authoritarian at the same time. It was
democratic in that the wishes and opinions of all its members were given equal
consideration; authoritarian in that once a decision was made all were expected
to support it, and if they didn’t it resulted in severe consequences. “…the first man we see step to the rear, we
cut down,” claimed one member of the faction.
In 1820 the Bucktails
used their control of the state legislature to defeat the Clintonians and elect
Van Buren to the United States Senate.
Their opponents began calling Van Buren’s supporters the Albany Regency,
and the name stuck. The Regency was among the first American political
organizations to be compared to a machine –“an order, once given, was executed
right down to the last officeholder in the smallest hamlet in New York.” Van Buren’s rise to power in New York
demonstrated the power of the party at the state level and provided him a
powerful base of support while he entered the political fray at the national
level.
In 1821 as a U.S.
Senator, Van Buren assumed leadership of the most conservative wing of the
Republican Party known as the “Radicals.”
Van Buren demonstrated the traits necessary to be a successfully party
leader and coalition builder during this period. He was a brilliant organizer and had a
personal charm and ingratiating manner that influenced all who dealt with
him. “He was courteous to all and
possessed the “high art of blending dignity with ease and suavity,” stated a
fellow Congressman. Another claimed Van
Buren was, “as polished and captivating a person in the social circle as America has ever known…” His political skills which all too often
seemed to verge on the miraculous (achieving legislative victory when all
appeared lost), soon earned him the sobriquet, the “Little Magician.”
While serving on the
finance committee and as chair of the judiciary committee, Van Buren quickly
found that the Democratic-Republicans were split into a multitude of factions
over a wide array of issues – especially internal improvements and the
tariff. He immediately began to work to
bridge the divides and build a cohesive party like he had in New York. However, the situation was more complicated
on the national stage with each member having his own political views,
constituencies, and alliances to maintain.
Despite the obstacles he forged ahead, making a number of important
alliances, among them Virginia’s Richmond Junto[v]. During this time Van Buren even managed to
spend a couple of days with his icon, the elder statesman Thomas Jefferson,
which gave him a renewed sense of purpose.
All was going extremely well until he made an almost fatal miscalculation
in the 1824 presidential election.
Van Buren backed
Secretary of Treasury William H. Crawford for president in the 1824
election. Crawford, a Georgian, received
the New Yorker’s support because they shared the same (very strong)
Jeffersonian political beliefs. The
1824 election was contentious because there was no real delineation between the
candidates as a result of Monroe’s fusion policy. While Van Buren was up for the challenge, his
chosen candidate was not – Crawford suffered a paralytic stroke, leaving him
unable to speak, see, or move, before he was even officially nominated[vi]. Crawford was incapable of serving in the
capacity of chief executive. Despite
Crawford’s condition, Van Buren continued to push his candidacy which did not reflect
well on his record. Crawford still
managed to garner 41 electoral votes which kept Andrew Jackson from getting the
majority he needed and as a result pushed the issue to the House of
Representatives for a final decision.
The result came to be known as the “Corrupt Bargain,” with John Quincy
Adams gaining the presidency as a result of Henry Clay’s machinations in the
House vote[vii]. Despite, Van Buren’s poor choice in Crawford,
the disastrous 1824 election brought a great gift to him in John Quincy Adams. No politician conjured the “ghosts” of
Federalism more than Adams, giving Van Buren the perfect foil in his renewed
attempts to create a new party.
Van Buren became a
vocal opponent of President Adams in the Senate after the election and spent
much of his time reconsolidating his power-base in Albany and fending off the
Anti-Masonic Party and their attempts to eliminate his hold on New York
politics. However, he continued his
quiet effort to build a party made from a coalition of Crawford, Jackson, and
Calhoun men into a united opposition against the administration. It had become clear that Jackson was the best
hope for representing Van Buren’s coalition and the “Little Magician” spent the
next four years bringing the different factions behind “Old Hickory”. In an
1826 visit to John C. Calhoun during a coalition-building tour of the south,
Van Buren managed to strike an agreement with Senator Calhoun to promote
Jackson’s election, with Calhoun continuing on as vice president. In supporting Jackson, Van Buren hoped to
build a lasting national party, drawing a line between themselves and Adam’s
supporters as clear as the one that once divided Jeffersonian Republicans and
the Federalists.
The Jackson-Van Buren
coalition’s work paid off in 1828 when Jackson defeated Adams. The contest was a bitter one, with a great
deal of vitriol, but it was also notable for the massive turn-out of
voters. The 1828 election saw 800,000
more voters going to the polls than in 1824.
The surge in participation was largely a result of Jackson’s popularity,
the passage of franchise laws in key states that allowed more people to vote,
and the concentrated efforts of Democratic leaders, like Van Buren, to turn out
the vote[viii]. Jackson’s campaign was better organized, paid
more attention to detail, and recruited a broader range of supporters –
especially state-level party leaders and newspaper editors. These men were invaluable in raising funds,
publicizing party dogma, and smearing Adams in the press. The Democrats had succeeded in painting their
opponents as aristocratic, class conscious, and undemocratic. Van Buren had helped create a new democratic
era in American politics, one dominated by political parties – with his own,
the Democratic Party leading the way.
[i]
The Federalist Party had largely dissolved as a result of its role at the
politically disastrous Hartford Convention (1814-15). Monroe was responsible for quashing what was
left of the Federalists early in his administration. Advisors appealed to him to include former
Federalists in his administration.
Believing that this move would only prolong the inevitable decline and
fall of the opposition, he made it clear that he would not taint his
administration with Federalist ideology.
He also worried about sparking jealousies within in his own party should
he appoint former Federalists. Monroe’s
main goal was to merge the former Federalist with Republicans as a prelude to
eliminating party associations altogether from national politics- he hoped to
create an end of party warfare and a new era of “political consensus.” In the end, he killed the Federalists through
neglect. They were denied all political
patronage, administrative appointments, and federal support of any kind. Monroe managed to conduct this policy
dispassionately and without any ire, allowing former Federalists the
opportunity to join the Republicans without any personal animosity.
[ii]
All three of these men, and Andrew Jackson would run for the presidency in
1824. They used much of their time in
Monroe’s cabinet vying for influence and preparing for the next election.
[iii]
Dewitt Clinton (1769-1828) was a U.S. Senator, Governor of New York, and
largely responsible for the construction of the Erie Canal. Clinton was a major rival of Martin Van Buren,
who served as Attorney General during Clinton’s governorship. To Van Buren,
Clinton represented Federalist ideals and he did everything in his power to
lessen his influence in New York.
[iv]
Republican principles as they were understood by “true” Jeffersonians were the
opposition of a strong federal government and a strict interpretation of the
Constitution. Republicans supported the
authority of states as a countermeasure against too much federal control over
its citizenship. They were opposed to
federally funded public works projects and advocated economy in operating
government. It was also a matter of
faith that the Bank of the United States should be destroyed because it laid
power and privilege in the hands of the elite.
[v]
The Richmond Junto was Virginia’s version of the Albany Regency and restored
the traditional political alliance between New York and Virginia that existed
in the early years of the republic. The
leader of the Richmond Junto was newspaper editor Thomas Ritchie, the man who
controlled the Virginia political scene, and who became very close and fast
friends with Van Buren.
[vi]
Crawford, whom Calhoun concerned a radical, had suffered a series of short-term
illnesses which had progressively debilitated him. He
suffered paralysis from the over usage of lobelia for an attack of erysipelas.
Lobelia is a flower that was widely used in the early 19th century to combat a
variety of infections. Erysipelas is better known as "St. Anthony's
Fire," which is a skin and subcutaneous tissue infection caused by
streptococcus and is identified by extreme inflammation and redness of the
infected area. Lobelia is one of those old remedies that may have been
effective combating certain infections when used in small doses, but dangerous
to administer because of the ease of overdosing. Lobelia contains toxins that
can cause paralysis and death. This
usage resulted in Crawford’s stroke in 1824.
[vii]
Andrew Jackson who won the popular vote, and garnered the most electoral votes,
was outraged by the outcome. He and his
supports swore that they would undo the “Corrupt Bargain” that Adams bestowed
on the nation. Claiming the election was
fraudulent and accusing Clay of being the “Judas of the West”, Jackson received
the sympathies of the nation and increased his popularity exponentially. This support would be critical in the 1828
presidential election.
[viii]
The term Democratic Party did not surface until Jackson’s first term in office,
up until the election of 1828, it was known as the Jackson Coalition.
No comments:
Post a Comment