Posted by
Rilaly on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 11:29:21 PM
One of the more obscure figures in this country’s history was a man named Martin Van Buren. Not only was Van Buren the 8th president of the United States, but he was also a founding member of the Albany Regency. This regency was a political machine that was instrumental in creating the Democrat party. He was also instrumental in electing our 7th president Andrew Jackson.
It’s interesting to note that while the Republicans wildly claim that they are the party of Lincoln, the first major politician of Owen Lovejoy’s Republican Party, the Democrats say very little of their founder Martin Van Buren. More often than not, you hear them site Thomas Jefferson as their party’s founding father, but as we all know Jefferson was a Democrat-Republican. Few know that Van Buren was in fact a member of the New York Regency that created this splinter group called the Democrat Party. Is this a factual inaccuracy on the part of DNC chairmen and their officials, or is it a purposeful act to avoid the heritage of their party?
It could be declared a slight omission if it had not occurred over two hundred years ago, for some historian most assuredly would’ve corrected this omission if it were. If it is a more likely purposeful avoidance, then we must ask why. The first, most obvious reason occurs when one sees a photograph of Van Buren. To say that Van Buren lacked sex appeal is a grand understatement. The again, Lincoln was no beauty queen by his own admission. So, if it isn't the looks through which we honor our historical figures, what causes one to be revered and another ignored?
The day was nearly 40 years before the onset of the Civil War when Van Buren set about forming the Democrat party, and tensions over the issue of slavery had begun percolating to the surface. As we know now, this issue of slavery would nearly rip this nation apart. It would pit brother against brother, man against man, and north against south. At the time, it was causing internal strife among the two most prominent parties of the day: the Whigs and the Democrat-Republicans. The Whigs were the anti-slavery party, and the Democrat-Republicans were seen as primarily soft on slavery.
While the Whig party was anti-slavery, many in the party felt the platform was not strong enough to eventually abolish the institution of slavery. Abraham Lincoln was one of these men who eventually began to stand with the men who took to the more passionate abolitionist movement of Owen Lovejoy’s Republican party.
The Democrat-Republican party, on the other hand, faced the foreseeable threat of losing major elections in the near future. The tide was turning against them. How would they win major elections in the heavily populated, abolitionist New England territories of the north while maintaining their hold on the south? Enter Van Buren and his New York State political machine who basically proposed that they stand for nothing.
Of course, the party platform was not some Seinfeld joke of standing for nothing, but they probably theorized that there would be a political marketplace for a passionless party that would be a welcome retreat for those who feared the rising passions occurring on both sides.
This summation may seem preposterous, but when we think about the tensions of the day this approach may have been seen as a natural alternative. Van Buren and his Regency probably watched as the parties imploded and exploded over this issue and realized that this alternative may have been a necessary evil. They probably heard the people express concern for the rancor and violence, that was occurring on a small scale, and realized their alternative was viable. They probably saw the Democrat-Republicans and Whigs shouting each other down to their own demise and realized there may be a place for them. They probably believed, so say the actions of Van Buren, that what the United States needed more than anything was a little moderation. A moderate who presented a non-partisan approach to peace with a nuanced and more reasoned approach could be the call of the day.
A guy in the middle can attract the factions, for he can counter both positions by spinning his words to attract the less partisan of each party. Either that or find someone who promotes the salvation of the country first with a solution to the slavery issue "down the road" a phrase for which moderate politicians usually express such fondness. A man who speaks peace first and solution later would probably have been a very popular candidate of the day. He could've used terms like "Non-partisan" to basically loft a passionless party to the fore.
It was, indeed, a time of turmoil. Passions were running high on both sides. The next forty years would see a Civil War in this country after all, and there needed to be a calming influence on the country while the two sides decided, once and for all, how to co-exist with one another.
Moderates are a funny breed though. Most of them are intelligent enough to tell you everything that you want to hear to get your vote. The modern day terminology, developed by--and for--the Clinton campaign is spin. Once moderates get in office, however, the modus operandi changes. The story is no different with Martin Van Buren. Once in office, Van Buren took a prosouthern position on slavery, as an attempt to keep his Democrats together. He identified himself as "the inflexible and uncompromising opponent of the attempt on the part of congress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia." In August 1837, he refused Texas’s offer to join the union. He feared a renewed controversy over slavery. Finally, though it is difficult to blame a president for a panic that occurs two months into his presidency, some blame Van Buren’s mismanagement and lack of confidence for the Panic of 1837 and the depression that followed. To add salt to the wound of the suffering nation, Van Buren chose the depression era as a great time to redecorate the White House.