Martin Van Buren: America's First Politician

by James M. Bradley

A new biography of the 8th president of the United States, the first chief executive not born a British citizen and the first to use the party system to chart his way from tavern-keeper's son to the pinnacle of power.

Martin Van Buren was one of the most remarkable politicians not only of his time but in American presidential history. The principal architect of the party system and one of the founders of the Democratic Party, he came to dominate New York-then the most influential state in the Union-and was instrumental in electing Andrew Jackson president. Van Buren's skills as a political strategist were unparalleled (he was known as the "Little Magician"), winning him a series of high-profile offices: US senator, New York's governor, US secretary of state, US vice president, and finally the White House. In his rise to power, Van Buren sought consensus and conciliation, bending to the wishes of slave interests and complicit in the dispossession of America's Indigenous population--two of the darkest chapters in American history.

This new biography of Van Buren -- the first full-scale portrait in four decades -- charts his ascent from a tavern in the Hudson Valley to the presidency, concluding with his late-career involvement in an antislavery movement. Offering vivid profiles of the day's leading figures (Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun, John Quincy Adams, DeWitt Clinton, James K. Polk), James Bradley's book depicts the struggle for power in the tumultuous decades leading up to the Civil War.

Genres: Presidents, Biography, History, Nonfiction, American History, Us Presidents, Politics

632 pages, Hardcover

First published October 1, 2024

About the author

James M. Bradley is co-editor of the Martin Van Buren Papers, based at Cumberland University in Lebanon, Tennessee. He is an Adjunct Instructor in the public history program at State University of New York at Albany.

Reviews

[Mark Cheathem · Rating 5 out of 5]

James Bradley has written a much-needed biography of Van Buren, the first full-fledged study of Old Kinderhook in four decades. You won't be disappointed!

[David Shaffer · Rating 4.5 out of 5]

James Bradley's Martin Van Buren: America's First Politician is a very readable, full-life biography of our 8th president, who was both the first president born a U.S. citizen and the first president from New York.

The son of a tavern owner, Van Buren did not attend college but trained as a lawyer. He went on to serve as a member of the New York State Senate, the 14th Attorney General of New York, a U.S. Senator, and the 9th Governor of New York.

Largely recognized as the founder of the Democratic Party, he was the first true political organizer capable of systematically rallying support around a candidate. He served as the Secretary of State under Andrew Jackson, later stepping down to become Minister to the Court of St. James (until his appointment was rejected by the Senate). He then served as Vice President during Jackson's second term, replacing John C. Calhoun.

Overall, it is a well-written book, and I learned a great deal about Van Buren's early life and post-presidential years that I was previously unaware of.

[Mark · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an excellent biography of America’s 8th president. Highly recommended.

[Adam Carman · Rating 3 out of 5]

I've always been somewhat ambivalent on Van Buren. He comes off as a bit slimy and just the born politician, shifting his opinions to align with people who could get him power. On the other hand. he created the two-party system that has dominated American life. In his view, two parties would need to appeal to a majority of Americans, thus making them less prone to extremes. (Obviously this hasn't worked out perfectly, but one could argue that the parties have been WEAKER in recent years.)

This is a very well written book and brings the 8th president some more modern scrutiny. One thing that is amazing is how fresh the stories read, down to claims of election fraud and a government worker motivated by ideology taking a chainsaw to necessary government and making life miserable for Americans at the same time (Jackson mostly, not Van Buren). Bradley announces at the outset he isn't trying to make any "Van Buren was secretly a great president" claims and he mostly hews to this, explaining some things where he thinks historians have done Van Buren wrong (as in his oft-criticized turn as Minister to England/Secretary of State, where he notes that Van Buren did a lot to mitigate Jackson's rough edges) but also recognizing that Van Buren took the lead in stomping out abolitionist mailings and pushed forward with Indian Removal that hurt both himself and the country. Pacing is a bit of an issue here, as the bulk of the biography is his pre-presidency days, especially his role in NYS politics and the creation of the Democratic Party. Word to the wise: if local and state politics aren't your thing, this will be a tough slog. Bradley does stay mostly focused on Van Buren at least, resisting the temptation to spin off and create mini-biographies of every person he ever interacted with. People interested in mid-19th century politics will find this very interesting though!

[Eric · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very good and very informative. From New York's byzantine politics of the era to the creation of the modern party system - perhaps Van Buren's sole notable "contribution," albeit a very important one - Bradley makes the life , the times and especially the develoment of that system, an interesting read. He also includes a superb quote from Henry Adams: "Politics, as a practice, whatever its professions, has always been the systematic organzation of hatreds." And so it mostly remains.

[Liquidlasagna · Rating 5 out of 5]

Kirkus
A gem for students of U.S. history and politics

[Brian · Rating 3 out of 5]

“America’s first politician.” Interesting biography of a little known president during American history between the War of 1812 and The Civil War. Learned a lot and many interesting intersections with other prominent American leaders from that era.

[Ryan Mauldin · Rating 2 out of 5]

It’s a good biography, but it’s hard to accumulate stars when your subject and nation are in a time of meh…

[Christopher A · Rating 3 out of 5]

Was debating between 3 or 4 stars and then sure enough on the last page of text came the inevitable swipe at President Trump.
I had been looking forward to this book for at least 3 years and while it didn’t meet my high expectations it was still more than adequate. The author did an admirable job not trying to lift Martin Van Buren into the upper echelon of Presidential rankings and seemed to be pretty straightforward with his writing. I do think this was as much a book about the Democrat Party in NY as it was about MVB (admittedly they go hand in hand). However I did get bogged down with all the different players in NY state politics. I do wish we got to know more about Van Burens personal life and his thought process and just who he was as a person rather than what he did. It mentions when MVB died a Dutch minister eulogized him but I don’t think there was any mention of him being religious or going to church. Also towards the end it mentions his son MVB Jr was basically his fathers shadow and was always helping him as secretary and other duties. With those two being that close it would have been nice to hear more about that relationship. For me MVB came to life in the text when he started working closely with his son John and the Free Soil Party, thoroughly enjoyed that chapter.
Worth the read but I’m not upset to have finished.

[Melissa Stanley · Rating 2 out of 5]

I would’ve given this book 3 maybe even 3 1/2 (rounded up four) stars if it was just a book on Van Buren. However, this author chooses to give a biography of literally everyone that is mentioned in the book. If he’s talking about a senator‘s wife, he will spend 2 to 3, sometimes four pages on her background before getting to the information that is relative to Van Buren. It is unnecessarily long, but it was the only decent option I had since I was checking this out from my library.

[Captnamerca · Rating 2 out of 5]

A long book about Martin Van Buren, padded by many sidetracks where the author goes into great detail about supporting characters or the history behind events. These have some value, but when the main subject, Martin Van Buren, isn't very exciting himself, the extra details drag the whole thing out.

[Gary Sosniecki · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Associated Press recently offered this advice to book readers: “When picking your next book, avoid dense nonfiction or a 500-page doorstop.” I should have heeded that advice when I chose to read “Martin Van Buren: America’s First Politician” two months ago. It might have taken a third month to finish if I hadn’t carved out two afternoons to struggle through the final 150 pages of this 511-page biography (623 pages including acknowledgements, notes and the index). “Martin Van Buren” is an important book, painstakingly detailed, that tells the story of America as well as our eighth president’s life in the first half of the 19th century. But it is not an easy book to read. History can be fascinating, and, despite its importance, history can be dull. I rarely surpassed four pages trying to read it at bedtime.

Author James M. Bradley credits Van Buren with founding today’s Democratic Party. Van Buren was a master politician, a keen strategist and a decent man. But (my opinion) he was an ineffective president, too worried about making enemies. He could have taken a stand against slavery but was afraid of losing Democrat votes in the South. He could have stopped the forced, tragic removal of Native Americans from the South. (The Trail of Tears passed just a few miles from my home).

What I enjoyed most about the book was how history repeats itself. See if these examples sound familiar:

“With the obvious exception of slavery, no issue divided regional opinion more than the tariff . . .” (Page 189)

“After his first year as president, Jackson had removed nearly 10 percent of the federal workforce.” (Page 247)

“Clay said the Whigs were ‘ferreting out the abuses and corruptions of an administration, under a chief magistrate who is endeavoring to concentrate in his own person the whole powers of government.’” (Page 291)

“Adopting the mantle of reformer, [the new postmaster general] promised to improve efficiency, reduce costs, and eliminate corruption.” (Page 314)

“After the roundups, the Cherokees were interned in crowded and unsanitary detention camps while they awaited deportation.” (Page 282)

“Executive orders, they argued, were transient and could be rolled back with the swoop of a pen.” (Page 393)

“While dining one night at the White House, he saw much extravagance on display . . . A member of the House Appropriations Committee, he pored over receipts and expenditures to show that Van Buren had turned the White House into a ‘Presidential Palace’ filled with regal splendor.” (Page 408)

“Despite their resounding loss at the polls, Democrats believed the loss would be overturned once the fraud was uncovered.” (Page 420)

[Ted · Rating 3 out of 5]

A long biography which was very detailed - too much so for my interests. I had a hard time keeping all the character's political positions straight as they shifted alliances and altered their views on the various pressing political issues. Van Buren is somewhat credited with starting the Democratic Party but also with making political parties a real power in America. He saw political parties as a way to overcome the sectional issues and regional divides which were threatening the union of American states and making politics so difficult for any who hoped to serve the United States. I have several problems with Van Buren. First his pushing political parties - I think today the two major political parties bear the biggest responsibility for the partisan political chasm in America. The parties push to the extremes and don't want to do the difficult work of hammering out compromises in a democracy. Each party really wants a one party system. The 2 parties have an evil monopoly on American politics and do everything to get and keep power (like redistricting, or gerrymandering). They do everything to prevent other parties from gaining any power and they have almost destroyed the balance of power between the 3 branches of government which the constitution envisioned. They care little about a balance in government power, all they want is total political party power. Second and third for my evaluation of Van Buren - he was a politician's politician, and I think sold his soul to win elections - though from New York, he supported slavery and expelling the native Indian population from all lands east of the Mississippi. To me he didn't hold to principles or policies but was willing to embrace or avoid anything he thought might hurt him politically which in his day meant catering to white men. Late in his life he briefly dabbled with anti-slavery policies but again it seems to me not from conviction but from his hope of getting elected.

[Heather · Rating 3 out of 5]

The library was short on Van Buren books. I tried to read another, but gave up two hundred pages in because it was too boring. I was only able to get this one on audio, which is not preferred for presidential biographies, but it was better-written and less boring than the other, so I went with it.

This author struggles with a common problem of these presidential biographers: they know so much about the times and the people, and don't edit enough out. Half the book was about other people. A lot of times there was a long history of something or someone, and it was only revealed how it related to Van Buren after I'd forgotten it was the whole point. There were probably a hundred pages that were more about Polk (it was funny how much the author hated Polk, though. "shy, awkward and utterly humorless." Of his wife, "she was everything her husband was not: social, outgoing, congenial. . . smart, informed, and canny.")

I didn't realize that Van Buren was every bit as responsible for the Trail of Tears as Jackson. Jackson signed it, but Van Buren enforced it.

Reading these biographies reaffirms that the politics of this country have always been messy, petty, and fucked up. It's not that we had something amazing and strayed from it, but that what we have is linear from what we had. "Long accusing the Democrats of being a party of foreigners, Catholics, godless radicals, and assorted heathens, Evangelicals fit nicely into the Whigs' emphasis on decency and morals. Harrison was described as 'heaven's agent' while the candidate himself called the Democrats 'false Christs.' The party had tapped into the period's Protestant revivalism, even though the focus on family and God was sometimes belied by the heavy drinking and fisticuffs taking place at Whig rallies."

Verdict: Van Buren. Meh.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

I decided to read this book after listening to the author talk about it on a podcast I enjoy. He was very interesting, so I thought the book would be too. Considering the unusual topic (it had been many years since a new biography of Van Buren was published), I thought it was very well done and mostly easy to follow. The only difficult part for me was the beginning, where a lot of names are introduced - I had trouble keeping track of them.

The author does a good job of showing how Van Buren was a big factor behind the development of the party system, which is why the author believes he merits the book's subtitle. I remember learning in school that today's Democratic party originated in the old Jeffersonian Democratic-Republican party. It seems that's not quite right, since the opposition Federalists had collapsed and pretty much everyone called themselves "Republicans" of some sort, even though they bitterly disagreed on many issues. At any rate, Van Buren was one of the main drivers behind today's Democrats.

It's good to remember that this country has been through many troubling periods in the past. It wasn't just "Revolution followed by good times followed by the Civil War followed by good times again." I didn't realize South Carolina actually seceded twice - it was the second time that started the Civil War. Also, the level of corruption was disturbing and eye-opening. Interestingly, when Van Buren lost his re-election bid, his supporters insisted there was fraud and refused to concede. Violence ensued. Apparently this was normal - the author mentions Henry Clay (Van Buren's political opponent) had done the same on several occasions. Plus ça change...

[Marshall · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an AMAZING book. Written by the co-editor of the Van Buren papers, this book is not only a biography of Van Buren’s life, but also its times.

Does a failed president like Van Buren warrant a big book like this one. Yes, because possibly the least interesting aspect of Van Buren’s life relates to his career as president.

As Bradley points out, Van Buren is not only the 8th president, he is also the inventor of the American system of political parties. The author makes an excellent case that this is not the political negative that the founders insisted it was.

This is very much a warts and all type of book in which Martin Van Buren is given not only the credit for being America’s first political maven, but blame for his role in accommodating slavery in the north and his brutal contribution to Indian removal.

I 100% recommend this book, surely to be the definitive biography for some time. The author indicates in the end that writing a book like this was fraught with difficulties and uncertainties. I am happy to say that if they lead to a book this good, even this great, this was time well-spent.

Congratulations to James M. Bradley!

[Adam Gabay · Rating 4 out of 5]

A loooooong 27 hour biography of the 8th President, Van Buren doesn’t get enough credit for his architectural role in shaping the modern two-party system, specifically the Jacksonian Democrats. Often in Jackson’s shadow for championing status quo during his own one term before a run of other forgotten presidents, Van Buren was the first true career politician to rise the ladder. But the Jackson-induced Panic of 1837, Treasury system (precursor to the Fed), and division over slavery led to his loss for a second term twice, as a Democrat and Free Soiler. A master strategist, Van Buren was the party leader for decades but economic and North-South turmoil shaped his legacy leading up to the Civil War.

[Brittany · Rating 4 out of 5]

For the last 8 years I’ve read a presidential biography based off a list The Washington Post published of the best bios for each president. This year, however, I deviated from the list to pick up this more recent biography by Bradley, and I’m so glad I did!
I learned a lot about Van Buren, about whom I knew almost nothing, but also a lot about the presidents before & after him, about large cultural & political moments, and about how our current party system is almost entirely due to Van Buren’s ideas about changing politics.
This is an excellent biography!

[Jack · Rating 5 out of 5]

Amazing

I knew how important Van Buren was to the creation of America's two party system, but this book was so well done that I learned a LOT about MVB and antebellum America.

[Rob · Rating 3 out of 5]

I worked at a school named after Van Buren last year so I wanted to learn more about this President who is not as well known as others. VB's biggest contribution to American society according to Bradley is the creation of how influencial political parties are in America.

[Alan · Rating 4 out of 5]

In my quest to read biographies of all the US Presidents through LBJ (nowadays the more obscure ones) I came upon this recently published biography of our 8th president, Martin Van Buren (1782 -1862). In reading these political biographies in general I am more interested in the learning about the times of that presidency, the key players and the major domestic and foreign policy issues of the day. In that regard MBV did not disappoint. Van Buren’s almost 50 year political career spanned the pivotal antebellum era in US history. The author’s discussion of the conflicts and key figures of that era is what makes this book an absorbing read, at least for a US history nerd.
The author makes the convincing case that Van Buren was America’s first politician because he was a key figure in the transition to modern elections (and political parties) driven by expansion of the right to vote to all, or nearly all, white men. During the early Revolutionary Era (1788 to 1824) presidential selection was largely made by aristocratic insiders—elites who managed politics through consensus and deference. The aristocratic era of consensus is generally considered to have ended with the controversial Election of 1824 – decided in the House of Representatives by so-called “Corrupt Bargain” which handed the Presidency to John Quincy Adams over Andrew Jackson. Mass popular participation in voting required a new kind of political organization. Van Buren typified this new style -- he was a master political organizer who built a national party structure designed to manage and mobilize this newly enfranchised, egalitarian voting base. The election of Andrew Jackson in 1828 marked the beginning of modern mass participation in US presidential elections.

Van Buren is closely identified with the founding of the modern Democratic Party because he organized a truly national, disciplined, and enduring political machine. During The Revolutionary Era the Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton and John Adams, favored a strong federal government, a national bank, commercial growth, and often a more aristocratic view of governance. The Republicans (Democratic-Republicans), led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, championed agrarianism, limited federal power (states' rights), a strict interpretation of the Constitution, and were deeply skeptical of national banks and centralized finance. Van Buren took the remnants of the Jeffersonian Republicans and forged them into the disciplined, nationwide structure that became the Democratic Party. His party was built on organization, patronage, and a consistent political ideology that appealed directly to the common man and the growing mass electorate.

Van Buren’s political ascent began in his home state of New York, and he is famously associated with his family (of Dutch descent) home in Kinderhook, NY and the initials “OK” (“Old Kinderhook”). New York was then the most populous state and commanded the most electoral votes. Winning New York State was crucial in early 19th century presidential elections and NY was a proving ground for several national figures who emerged in this period, including Aaron Burr, Alexander Hamilton, Martin Van Buren, DeWitt Clinton, Benjamin Butler, Millard Fillmore, William Seward and Samuel Tilden. The Albany Regency was the name given to the sophisticated, disciplined political machine Van Buren built and ran in New York State. It was a group of influential, loyal, professional politicians headquartered in Albany who controlled appointments, legislation, and elections across the state. It served as the model for the future national Democratic Party.

The campaign for the Erie Canal was a central issue in New York politics during Van Buren’s early career. Completed in 1825, it connected the Hudson River to the Great Lakes and helped transform New York into an economic powerhouse (thus the “Empire State”) and elevated its key sponsor, DeWitt Clinton – a Van Buren antagonist -- to national prominence. The intense debate over construction of the canal exemplified the political divide of that era. The Federalists generally favored large-scale infrastructure and internal improvements like the Canal, believing it was essential for economic growth, even if it required federal support, centralized finance and an expansive view of government power. In contrast Republicans (Jeffersonians and Van Buren's faction) were opposed to the Canal, due to their core beliefs in limited government and states' rights. They worried about the associated public debt, centralized finance (monetary policy, banking), and the potential for corruption inherent in large public works. However, the Canal's success and enormous popularity eventually forced all factions to engage with the reality of large-scale infrastructure spending.

Van Buren is closely identified with presidency of Andrew Jackson, serving as his Vice President (1833–1837) and loyal Secretary of State (1829–1831). Several key policy conflicts marked that period. One was the ongoing controversy over a national bank. The First Bank of the United States (1791–1811) was chartered by Alexander Hamilton. It was intended to stabilize the nation's credit and manage federal finance. Jeffersonian Republicans opposed it on constitutional grounds (strict construction). After a lapse, The Second Bank of the United States (1816–1836) was rechartered but became the focus of the "common man's" resentment against centralized financial power. Andrew Jackson and Van Buren viewed the Bank as an unconstitutional monopoly and a tool of aristocratic Eastern elites. Jackson's refusal to recharter the Bank led to a dramatic Bank War during his first term (1829–1833), with Van Buren firmly supporting Jackson's anti-bank stance. This fight defined the Democratic Party's commitment to "hard money" and limited federal finance.

Another was Indian Removal. Jackson's administration implemented the Indian Removal Act of 1830, forcibly relocating thousands of Native American tribes (most notably the Cherokee on the "Trail of Tears") from their ancestral lands in the Southeast to territories west of the Mississippi River. Van Buren, as Jackson's political heir, was associated with and continued to support this policy, which was driven by the desire for land and the prevailing belief in Anglo-American expansion.

A third was Texas Annexation and War with Mexico: Jackson supported the annexation of Texas (which had declared independence from Mexico in 1836), viewing it as key to American destiny. This was highly controversial because it risked war with Mexico and, critically, because it raised the politically explosive issue of slavery's expansion.

Van Buren’s tenure in the executive branch (as President and VP) parallelled the formation of the Whig Party and the book profiles of three political giants of this period who often opposed Jackson and Van Buren: Henry Clay (KY) -- "The Great Compromiser" and the architect of the Whig Party. He championed the "American System" (high tariffs, internal improvements, and a national bank); John C. Calhoun (SC). – the powerful intellectual and defender of the South and slavery. Initially Jackson's VP, he became famous as the foremost proponent of Nullification -- Calhoun’s theory that states had the right to nullify federal laws they deemed unconstitutional; and Daniel Webster (MA) -- the greatest orator of his time. A staunch Unionist and defender of the Constitution, he allied with Clay and the Whigs, opposing Jackson's attack on the National Bank. The Whig Party was formed specifically to oppose the perceived "tyranny" of "King Andrew" Jackson and the power of the Democratic Party. The Whigs were united by their opposition to Jackson's aggressive use of executive power, particularly his actions in the Bank War. Led by Henry Clay, the Whigs embraced his American System, advocating for a national bank, federal funding for internal improvements (like roads and canals), and a protective tariff to support American industry. The Whigs challenged the Democrats until the 1850s, winning the Presidency twice (William Henry Harrison in 1840 and Zachary Taylor in 1848). However, the party fractured and ultimately dissolved in the 1850s due to internal divisions over the expansion of slavery, leading to the formation of the Republican Party and ultimately the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860.

Inevitably Van Buren’s story entwines inextricably with the escalating political controversies and compromises over slavery and its expansion into new territories. Calhoun was the foremost political defender of the South and slavery. The Nullification Crisis (1832–33) saw South Carolina, following Calhoun's theory, declare federal tariffs null and void within its borders. The crisis threatened disunion and demonstrated the immense political volatility of states' rights and Southern resistance to federal power. In the Missouri Compromise of 1820 Missouri was admitted to the Union as a slave state and Maine as a free state, maintaining the balance in the Senate. It drew the 36°30' parallel across the Louisiana Purchase, prohibiting slavery north of that line. The slavery issue, always boiling below the surface, reared its head in the aftermath of the Mexican War with the Polk administration’s proposal to purchase California and New Mexico. In 1846, Rep David Wilmot’s failed amendment to an appropriations bill, the Wilmot Proviso, sought to ban slavery in any territory acquired as a result of the Mexican War. Though it never passed, it forced the issue of expansion to the forefront and shattered political unity. The Compromise of 1850 was a package of bills passed by Congress to once again address sectional tensions over slavery and territorial expansion: California was admitted to the Union as a free state, while New Mexico and Utah territories were organized with the principle of popular sovereignty; and a stricter Fugitive Slave law was enacted which inflamed abolitionists. While the compromise temporarily averted succession and civil war, increasing hostilities erupted following the passage of The Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854) which organized the territories of Kansas and Nebraska. Crucially, it repealed the Missouri Compromise line, allowing settlers in the territories to decide the slavery issue. This led to violence ("Bleeding Kansas") and ultimately destroyed the Whig Party, giving rise to the anti-slavery Republican Party.

The author writes, “Vân Buren’s career can be seen as a series of conflicts with the days’ leading figures: DeWitt Clinton, James Monroe, John Quincy Adam’s, John C. Calhoun, Henry Clay, Daniel Webster and James K. Polk. Those conflicts led to some of the day’s most crucial ideological battles involving federalism, state’s rights, executive power, economic equality, continental expansion, war and the two great moral abominations of the era: slavery and Indian removal… Van Buren was one of the most controversial and polarizing figures of his era … In the name of building a party and winning elections, he perpetuated slavery and carried out Indian removal, two policies that strengthened southern power and brought the nation closer to war.”

[Earl Ecklund III · Rating 4.5 out of 5]

Martin Van Buren is one of the most overlooked figures in American history. While he had a highly successful political career that ultimately led to the presidency,  his biggest legacy is that of the political party structure that is still is the basis for today's major parties.

In this biography James Bradley navigates Van Buren's lengthy career and life while providing new insights into both. Bradley does not try to recast Van Buren into one of the great presidents or into an iconic figure, rather Bradley shows how Van Buren built a seeies of truly organized political organization, first in New York State in what became known as the Regency and then on a national scale in the founding of the Democratic party built around the expansion of the popular vote in what history has called "Jacksonian Democracy". While Andrew Jackson is remembered as public symbol of the age, it is Van Buren who frequently helped shape and refine the direction of Jackson's presidency.

One of the most interesting chapters focuses on Van Buren's role in the removal of the Cherokee from their land in Georgia to the reservations in the Midwest, it was under Van Buren that the actual Trail of Tears was carried out which was far worse than any of Jackson's actions towards Native Americans as president.

Overall I loved this book and consider it the essential read on this forgotten president.

[Joe · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is the man that really turned the US political system into the mess that it is now. He is most responsible for the cronyism and patronage system that still invades our politics. Not a really likeable person but a well-written biography.

[Ryan McCarthy · Rating 3.5 out of 5]

Martin Van Burn: America’s First Politician by James M. Bradley (8/47)

Beefiness: 🥩🥩🥩🍗

This book gets a 3.5/5 on the beefometer weighing in at a merciful 511 pages of content, reasonable font and spacing (this is actually very important).

This book is called the “America’s First Politician” because Martin Van Buren’s role in modernizing the party system.

Every president before Van Buren engaged in partisan politics but they all pretended to hate it. Van Buren was revolutionary because he saw how parties promoted democracy. Rather than voting on men with ambiguous positions competing on personal character and accomplishments, Van Buren saw the benefit of organized parties with clear policy platforms.

This is a good book about Van Buren. It’s not quite as scholarly as Remini’s books on Jackson or Ketchum’s on Madison. Nor does it match the quality of Ron Chernow’s or David McCullough’s books. A better book on Van Buren and the time period probably could and should be written, but this one is worth reading.

Readability: (4/5)

This was pretty easy to read, though maybe not always the most compelling. Part of that is probably due to the subject. While it wasn’t all that exciting, it was never boring and most importantly I rarely had to look up fancy words I didn’t know. Nor did it hurt my brain like Remini’s Jackson books occasionally did.

Credibility: (5/5)

Martin Van Buren is not a guy who typically elicits strong opinions. At least not since Seinfeld or the 1840s. This book is neither a defense nor a screed, and James M. Bradley takes a more objective stance than any presidential book I’ve read so far.

I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing for presidential historians to be reasonably defensive of their subjects, and often it’s even helpful to hear those perspectives. Especially when you can compare them to assessments in other books.

James M. Bradley offers those perspectives, but in a more sanitized way that’s both helpful and sometimes not. He provides a clear picture of what was going on, but in the process Van Buren tends to fall through the cracks of his own book. This book does not care whether you come away from it with a newfound admiration for Martin Van Buren, and you probably won’t.

Tea: (4/5)

The Eaton/Petticoat Affair didn’t make it into Andrew Jackson’s tea section, so it’s being spilled here.

Van Buren was skilled at interpersonal relationships, though also a pathological intriguer. He meddled and toyed with New York politics before meddling and toying with national politics which eventually brought about President Jackson.

Jackson chose Van Buren as his Secretary of State, opening the door to his future presidency. Meanwhile, Jackson’s Vice President, John C. Calhoun, had long held chronic presidential fever.

Jackson began his presidency living vicariously through the Eaton Affair. When running for office, Jackson’s opponents attacked his wife so viciously that he believed she died because of it.

After Rachel’s death and later his inauguration, Jackson appointed John Eaton as his Secretary of War, who had recently married Peggy Eaton. Peggy was a widow who married John suspiciously soon after her first husband died at sea. Rumors swirled that Peggy’s husband had killed himself over her affair with John. This quickly led to problems and personal beefs.

There were many rules to polite society in the early 19th century. If one “called” on another by visiting their home, it was expected that the other would return such a call to show proper respect. Even, and perhaps especially, if they didn’t actually want to visit with each other.

Following such exhausting protocols was vital to ensuring a harmonious cabinet. Unfortunately, the cabinet wives did not approve of the flirtatious and opinionated Peggy Eaton. And their husband’s refused to submit their wives to be scandalized by association.

The leader of this prudish posse was Floride Calhoun, who doesn’t seem to be the easiest person to work with (she sold a house to her son and then filed to to foreclose on her grandchildren while practically on her deathbed). This placed her husband on a collision course with Jackson, who was obsessively defensive over Peggy.

Van Buren, however, was a widower who never remarried. Therefore, he had far less maneuvering to do around the Mean Girl energy developing in Washington. Van Buren happily returned the Eaton’s social calls and made sure to invite them to his parties. As Jackson became increasingly frustrated over his cabinet’s treatment of Peggy, Van Buren’s hospitality was especially politically astute.

Soon enough, the drama exacerbated to the point where it was grinding the Executive Branch to a halt. Van Buren had the solution to this impasse. He resigned along with Eaton, providing Jackson with the cover to replace most of his cabinet.

Van Buren’s conduct elevated himself in Jackson’s eyes, especially during a social crisis of profound stress and frustration. Meanwhile, Calhoun found himself caught in suspicion and conspiracy.

There were several factors leading to Calhoun’s inevitable break with Jackson, but the result was a clear runway for Van Buren’s 1836 presidential campaign.

Overall/impressions (3.5/5)

This is a quality book about Martin Van Buren. It’s very readable and provides a helpful amount of information and context. But it’s just not quite as good as a lot of presidential books I’ve read so far.

Martin Van Buren began his career fearlessly ascending through New York politics before becoming the primary driver of Andrew Jackson’s presidential campaign. But the higher he climbed, the more afraid he got of heights, and he took an increasingly cautious approach.

Van Buren’s caution made him overly deferential to his predecessor, overly deferential to the South, and overly deferential to fate, resulting in a presidency with only limited energy or success.

After a contentious 8 years of Andrew Jackson where tensions reached boiling point between the Executive and Legislative branches, Van Buren came into office determined to calm things down. But in 1837, the economy was about to panic.

From Jackson, Van Buren inherited an unstable banking system and an untenable monetary policy. That boiled down to the U.S. treasury held by a large pool of unregulated banks and monetary policies that both demanded a reliance on hard currency while failing to balance the concentration of that currency evenly across the nation. This caused currency shortages with banks unable to cover deposits.

Further, since it was Jackson who took it upon himself to establish this system, Van Buren inherited something else. After Jackson, the president was now responsible for the state of the nation’s economy.

When the economy crashed almost 20 years earlier in 1819, President Monroe went on a road trip. He did absolutely nothing to address the crisis. The next year, his political position was so strong that he won the 1820 election unopposed. Monroe survived the Panic of 1819 because addressing it was beyond the scope of the president’s duties as accepted at the time.

When the economy crashed in 1837, people did look at Van Buren because for the past 5 years Jackson had thrust the Executive Branch into economic and monetary policy.

Van Buren’s response was weak. Repudiating the strict hard-currency monetary policy and system of “pet” banks handling federal deposits would alienate Jackson, who was still the effective leader of the Democratic Party. For a long time, Van Buren simply waiting and trusted that the economy would bounce back.

But it didn’t. The economy continued to suffer as did Democratic prospects. Van Buren had to do something and he came up with the Independent Treasury.

The Independent Treasury was a conservative approach to the nation’s banking. To Van Buren and most Democrats, banks were easily corruptible institutions beholden to shareholders and friendly politicians. The Independent Treasury simply removed banks from the equation of national finances. Van Buren started putting all federal deposits into a vault meant to be free of all that manipulation.

This was a good enough system that it basically remained in place until President Wilson established the current Federal Reserve in 1913. It also came too late and Van Buren lost a rematch to William Henry Harrison in 1840. Had Van Buren responded in 1837 with more independence and energy, he may have had a better chance.

Van Buren applied his cautious and deferential approach in other areas as well. This helped prevent controversies with Britain along the borders of New York and Maine from spiraling toward war (the disputed border between Maine and New Brunswick would be settled by the Tyler Administration).

It also made him a willful accomplice in Indian Removal.

While the “Trail of Tears” has come to describe the entire horrid process of Native American removal, the “Trail of Tears” itself happened under Martin Van Buren and specifically refers to the banal genocide of the Cherokee Indians.

Indian removal was brutal in general. But what happened to the Cherokee feels particularly egregious. We forced them by gunpoint from their lands onto overcrowded steamers, drove them on forced marches through the winter, and kept them packed into detention facilities. Reading what we did feels like a prequel to the Holocaust.

Up to 20,000 Cherokees forcibly removed, up to 4,000 of them dead in the process.

And then there’s slavery and sectional tension. While organizing the Democratic Party, Van Buren sought to revive the old Democratic-Republican political alliance between New York and the South that had swept the Jeffersonians into power in 1800.

And that’s what he got. Along with its baggage. Van Buren was no firebrand supporter of slavery. But he was happy to accept the institution to preserve his coalition. And the Union.

Like Jackson, Van Buren was terrified of the slavery issue, recognizing slavery as a powder keg of civil war. Like Jackson, Van Buren sought to placate the South by obstructing abolitionism from becoming a national discussion.

This included the Amistad case, where Spain tried to assert its “property rights” over abducted Africans caught up in the now illegal international slave trade.

The Africans aboard the Amistad heroically hijacked their slave ship, which landed in New York. Fearing the Southern reaction, Van Buren sought to resolve the issue quietly in favor of Spain.

The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, where John Quincy Adams defended the African men. SCOTUS found in favor of the abducted men and they were freed and returned to Africa.

To Van Buren’s credit, after losing reelection in 1840 and failing his comeback bid for the Democratic nomination in 1844, Van Buren became the nominee for the Free Soil party in 1848.

The Free Soil Party did force slavery into the national discussion. This party consisted primarily of Northern Democrats who believed slavery imposed unfair competition to free labor and Northern Whigs who found the nomination of a Southern slaveholder like Zachary Taylor morally reprehensible.

And so, for one election night only, the sons of two former presidents (Abraham Van Buren and Charles Francis Adams) united behind Martin Van Buren in a campaign to stop the expansion of slavery.

It’s important to keep in mind the Free Soil party included abolitionists but was not an abolition party. The primary goal of the Free Soilers was to block slavery from expanding into the new territories.

The motivation was usually more economic than humanitarian. Less of a moral clash over the evils of slavery than a battle between wealthy landowners and the working free man.

It was also short lived. Van Buren lost again in 1848 and subsequently returned to the Democratic Party. But when Civil War broke out, he did strongly support the Union.

Van Buren died in 1862 in the obscurity he perhaps deserved. The Civil War distracted a shattered nation from paying him the respect of a former president. It’s hard to imagine the uncertainty and lack of closure he must have felt dying in the midst of a conflict he tried to prevent.

But a conflict he tried to prevent by placating the South, silencing the abolitionists, and (just like his handling of the Panic of 1837) weakly hoping it would go away. An unsatisfying end to an unsatisfying political career.

[Tim Murphy · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a decent, if a little ponderous, treatment of the life of Martin Van Buren, our nation’s 8th President and successor to the 19th-century version of Donald Trump: Andrew Jackson. Mr. Bradly uses the theme noted in his subtitle to evaluate the life of Van Buren and his impact on our nation.

Short summary: Van Buren was, in Mr. Bradley’s view, the first major American political figure to unabashedly embrace political parties and being a politician. This sounds cynical to the ears of a 21st-century American reader and some readers will find plenty of evidence to support that view. But in Van Buren’s time, his objective was to stabilize the political chaos of the time that had driven two of the seven Presidential elections before his into the House of Representatives for a final decision. Van Buren saw this as undemocratic and caustic to the American polity.

Three observations from this reader is sufficient for a short review:

First, if Mr. Bradley is right and Van Buren invented the politics that have defined us for the 200 years since, not much has changed. In his time—before and after his Presidency—we can find propaganda, outright lies to undermine an opponent, slick (and loose with the truth) marketing, and howls of stolen elections and ballot fraud. Not much has changed in 200 years.

Second, all of those dirty details which defined politics in his day and ours have, in this reader’s view, a common source: the siren call of political power that draws a certain personality and makes it easy to justify casting off clear, ethical standards for the ends of “doing good” once power is achieved. Van Buren was not immune. He lasted only one term (more on that in a moment) atop the greased pole of American politics and spent the rest of his life trying to regain the top. He never did.

Finally, as I read of his life and single four-year term at the top, I could readily count in my head a half dozen other Vice Presidents who met a similar fate. It caused me to wonder how many who have served as Vice Presidents have gone on to seek the top spot and how their own presidencies turned out. Below is a list of those who served as Vice President, then immediately sought the top spot, or those who succeeded a deceased (or resigned) President then sought their own presidency. Here’s what I discovered (spoiler alert: it’s not pretty):

John Adams (Washington)—1 term / lost
Thomas Jefferson (Adams)—2 terms
Martin Van Buren (Jackson)—1 term / lost
John Tyler (succeeded WH Harrison)—Formed own political party and Lost
Millard Fillmore (succeeded Zachary Taylor)—Not renominated
John C. Breckenridge (Buchanan)—Lost
Andrew Johnson (succeeded Lincoln)—Impeached (not convicted), sought nomination from the other party, not nominated
Chester A Arthur (succeeded Garfield)—Not renominated
Theodore Roosevelt (succeeded McKinley)—1 term (pledged not to run for 2nd)
Harry S Truman (Roosevelt)—Elected (barely)—1 term (unpopular, did not run for 2nd)
Richard Nixon (Eisenhower)—Lost
LBJ (succeeded Kennedy)—1 term (unpopular, did not run for 2nd)
Hubert Humphrey (LBJ)—Lost
Gerald Ford (succeeded Nixon)—Lost reelection
Walter Mondale (Carter)—Lost
George Bush (Reagan)—1 term / lost
Al Gore (Clinton)—Lost
Kamala Harris (Biden)—Lost

Main lesson: if you want to be a great President, don’t approach it from the platform of the Vice. Of the 17 men and one woman on the list, only Thomas Jefferson was a stand-out, two-term President in his own right. Perhaps Theodore Roosevelt could have served a second full term had he not committed to ending his presidency in 1908. All the others either never reached the top of the greased pole, or had a short stay there.

Without diving carefully into the details of each one’s life, my guess is that Vice Presidents are usually chosen not for their compelling leadership, vision or wisdom but because the President needs shored up support from a state or perhaps to fill in one of his own political weakness. And without a compelling vision of their own to move the nation, they simply aren’t attractive candidates in their own right. Those few who do succeed (Adams, Van Buren, Andrew Johnson, Bush I, etc.) almost always follow a larger-than-life leader and at the end of 12 years, without charismatic political skills of their own, the electorate tires of them and sends them home.

This was the story of Marin Van Buren. But it was an interesting story that sparked some thinking so definitely worth the trip through that era of history.

[Joel · Rating 4 out of 5]

As a Presidential nerd, news of a new biography of a President for the first time in 4 decades is cause for excitement. There are still a fair amount of lesser known Presidents for whom there is not a modern scholarly but readable biography so it was welcome news to hear about this new Martin Van Buren biography. Apparently the author was involved in a project to organize Van Buren's Presidential papers (hard to believe there are former Presidents that still need this done, but once again the perils of the lesser known Presidents) so is as much as an expert on the 8th president as there can be.
Prior to reading this, I knew about Van Buren's huge role as Andrew Jackson's number 2 (in his second term) and how he was the last sitting VP to be elected President until George HW Bush (and there have been none since, with Kamala Harris being the most recent one to make an attempt). I also knew there was a huge economic crisis soon after he became President which sunk his chances of reelection. Finally, I knew about his nickname the "Little Magician" for his political strategy abilities. I went to college and law school in upstate New York and used to drive by the exit for Van Buren's National Historic Site on my way and strongly considered taking a detour to visit but never did. I always regretted that and especially so after reading this book.

The book's central thesis is that it was Van Buren who created the modern political system we have today with political parties and conventions. Though he was a big part of pushing our country in that direction, I'm not sure if he is the singularly responsible figure (the Anti-Masonic party had a convention before Van Buren's Democrats, for instance) but he certainly was a new kind of political figure: the political strategist candidate. As mentioned, he was a central figure in the Age of Jackson and by virtue of the fact that he lived a long time, he lived to see more Presidents take office after him than any President since (a total of 8). He was born at the end of the Revolutionary War and lived to the middle of the Civil War. Therefore, a book about Van Buren's life is really a history of America during its early years through to the Civil War and this book does not disappoint.
The book extensively covers Van Buren's rise from a tavern owner's son to power broker in New York politics. As someone who has lived in the tri-state area for many years and, as mentioned earlier, spent many years in upstate New York, I appreciated learning about the early days of New York politics, formation of Tammany Hall politics etc.

Van Buren's central role in national politics from the election of 1824 for about the next 35 years follows. Throughout we learn (or re-learn) about the colorful characters of the day, including Jackson, Henry Clay, John C Calhoun, Presidents Adams through Lincoln, Winfield Scott, etc etc.

We hear about the positives and negatives of Van Buren's political career and there are many on both sides of the spectrum too numerous to list here, except to say he is a bit of a flip flopper on slavery depending on the time going from a slavery-friendly northern Democrat to "Free Soil" party nominee in 1848 to supporting Stephen Douglas and then Lincoln.

The book is highly readable and learning Van Buren's role in many events of the day was enlightening to even a history nerd like myself. There were times when it's easy to get lost in a lot of the "inside baseball" of politics, especially in the earlier New York chapters. Also, there were times I got confused as a person's name would be dropped and then not appear for several pages and i forgot who they were (or at least i think it was several pages). But these are minor criticisms in an otherwise well written and fascinating book telling the story of a President that should be better known, flaws and all.

[J. Scott · Rating 5 out of 5]

Martin Van Buren — James M. Bradley

Goodreads Review

I picked up this biography almost by chance, looking for something to read while waiting for another book to become available. What I found was one of the most illuminating accounts of early American political history I’ve encountered.

James M. Bradley is an extraordinary storyteller and historian. I’ve read extensively about this period, but Bradley brought me into the rooms where decisions were made, introduced me to the personalities and competing ambitions, and allowed me to see events unfolding through the eyes of people who had no idea how things would turn out. He is insightful, balanced, sometimes scathing, and remarkably good at making complicated political developments intelligible.

Martin Van Buren was a fascinating man. Rising from modest circumstances with limited formal education, he became a successful attorney, an accomplished political organizer, and eventually president of the United States. His ability to build coalitions and organize political parties helped establish the foundations of our modern political system. In some respects, his rise reminded me of Abraham Lincoln.

But Bradley reveals something even more interesting: much of what Van Buren deliberately accomplished had consequences he never intended. His political alliances, particularly between Northern Democrats and Southern slaveholders, helped sustain a national party system while accommodating slavery. Yet the expansion of slavery eventually fractured those alliances and contributed to the political realignment that made Lincoln’s presidency possible.

I came away with deeply mixed feelings about Van Buren. I admired his political abilities, his resourcefulness, and his accomplishments. But I was troubled by his willingness to compromise on matters of enormous moral consequence, particularly slavery and Indian removal.

Bradley’s treatment of Indian removal is especially memorable. He presents it as a prolonged national policy involving numerous Indigenous nations, not simply the Cherokee Trail of Tears. His account of coercion, paternalism, broken promises, and the legal fictions used to justify dispossession is among the most powerful historical treatments I’ve read. He also documents the considerable opposition that existed at the time, reminding us that these injustices were neither universally accepted nor beyond contemporary moral criticism.

Another revelation was the complexity of Northern opposition to slavery. Opposition to its expansion did not necessarily imply a belief in racial equality. For many white Northerners, the issue was also the threat that an expanding slaveholding aristocracy posed to free labor, economic opportunity, and political independence.

Perhaps what impressed me most was Bradley’s ability to illuminate the human element in politics. Ambition, prejudice, principle, rivalry, compromise, and sheer happenstance repeatedly altered the course of events. Van Buren was a remarkably capable political strategist, but even he could not control the forces he helped organize.

I finished the book neither hating Van Buren nor embracing him. I understood him better, appreciated his achievements, and questioned some of his choices more deeply.

More importantly, I understood the political system he helped create in ways I hadn’t before.

Human beings are history’s wild card, and human passions are the wild card within human beings. Bradley’s biography illustrates how those passions can be organized into political power—and how the consequences can escape even the most accomplished political organizers.

An exceptional biography. I hope Bradley writes much more history.

[David Nye]

I really enjoyed the book. Bradley provides excellent background about the social landscape of colonial New York, especially the dynamic between the British and Dutch, and how this played out before, during, and after the Revolution. He provides insight into the legal profession and how Van Buren entered into practice and rose through the ranks until he had a comfortable practice. Bradley really illuminates the role of taverns, obviously because he was raised in one, but these were central to social and political life of the period. Bradley provides a good account of party machinery and how Van Buren shaped a party landscape. Biographers always a favorable view of their subject, and this was no exception. Partisanship always had a negative connotation with me, but Bradley argues that Van Buren made a positive contribution by making the modern party system, i.e. conventions, campaigning, mudslinging, etc. Van Buren, in fact, had to overcome party prejudices, since it was indecent to run for office and to run on a ticket, even more deplorable. The thesis is complex, but Van Buren sees himself as an extension of a struggle between Jefferson and Hamilton, or the struggle between aristocracy and oligarchy against the will of the people. The party system provided a means for the people to offset the influence of the wealthy on government. In his time, most states enacted popular voting so most males earned the right to vote. A base was created that could respond to fear mongering, at its worst, and corruption, at its best. Thus, we see the Bank War, which may have provided some suspicious loans, but was predominantly dedicated to sound credit policies. Interestingly, dissolving the bank may have led to a depression during his actual presidency and for political reasons he could not restore the national bank so he developed a reserve system. I think Van Buren is the first president who could not adopt a sound policy that was good for the country simply because it would make his party look bad (they would need to reverse themselves). I’m not sure I agree that the party system saved democracy, but he may have believed this and perhaps it did give the people more power (assuming they were well informed). Bradley provides a balanced view too. Even though Jackson pressed for the Indian Removal Act, Van Buren enforced it. Bradley connects the atrocities to his administration, and recognizes that he had choices. Finally, Van Buren was connected to the Free Soil Party, dedicated to stopping the spread of slavery into free states, and he even ran for a second term on their ticket. Now, he also was fully prepared to sacrifice the slaves on the Amistad, but in his support of the Free Soilers, he made abolitionism a broader movement at a higher level. He most likely did this to support his son who entered politics because this was very inconsistent with his own career, but he did it. I was more impressed with Van Buren than expected because I believe the founders’ suspicions towards parties was well-grounded. On a note about style, I wish he would have added a bibliography.

[Sam Brief · Rating 4 out of 5]

The rancorous party politics we’re familiar with today — the sport-like competition, relentless attacks, and heated debates — can, in many ways, be traced back to Martin Van Buren.

In Martin Van Buren: America's First Politician, James M. Bradley eloquently guides readers through the eighth president’s outsized role in shaping the two-party structure that endures to this day.

As a die-hard fan of Hamilton: An American Musical, I was especially intrigued to learn that Van Buren first cut his teeth in the world of politics amid a conflict so intense it ended in murder. He began his career working for the powerful Van Ness family, which was closely allied with Aaron Burr. Van Buren was deeply loyal to them and learned directly from Burr. But in a bold political move, he broke from the Van Ness camp shortly before Burr killed Alexander Hamilton in the infamous 1804 duel. In backing DeWitt Clinton ahead of the 1807 elections, Van Buren distanced himself just in time — had he not, he might have been historically linked with Burr and the complicit William P. Van Ness.

Van Buren’s rise was swift. He became a central figure in the “Albany Regency,” a group that effectively controlled New York politics in the 1820s and 1830s. It was in this brutal arena that Van Buren honed his political instincts.

Throughout his career, he held firm to a vision: professionalize American politics and avoid the chaos of the 1800 and 1824 elections, both of which were decided by the House of Representatives. Van Buren viewed those outcomes as anti-democratic and sought to build a true national party that could unite Northerners and Southerners. This effort led to the founding of the Democratic Party — under which he served as Vice President to Andrew Jackson and later as President.

Bradley doesn’t shy away from Van Buren’s biggest criticism, often leveled by political enemies like John Calhoun and opposition newspapers: his lack of clear moral conviction. Southerners saw him as a threat to slavery; Northerners accused him of appeasing the South (which, early on, he did). Later in life, however, Van Buren ran for president as a Free Soiler, leading a party that opposed the expansion of slavery into new territories.

Some may view this shift as opportunism; others, as a genuine evolution. Either way, critiques of Van Buren’s often flexible positions are valid. He tolerated slavery, but never championed it.
Van Buren famously wrote a dreadful autobiography — full of grammatical errors, run-on sentences, and suspect details. That’s part of what makes Bradley’s illuminating biography so important. It offers clarity on a figure whose influence on today’s political landscape remains surprisingly relevant.
By the end, I came away with a solid understanding of Van Buren the politician — but less so of Van Buren the man. His inner character remains somewhat elusive. Perhaps that was intentional. Still, it left me wanting more from Old Kinderhook.

[Rob1992 · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found this book way more interesting than I thought I would, I was dreading the period between Jackson and Lincoln but I thought this was possibly the most surprising biography I’ve read on this project.

The final sentences sums up this book nicely: “in creating the mold and formula for the mass party, Van Buren had the daring and foresight to overturn the anti-party prejudices of the politicians who had preceded him. Many of them belonged to the generation that won independence and created the U.S. Constitution - the people we typically call the nation’s founders. They are the ones who get the most attention in history books and civic discourse, but the political system that Americans live under today is the realization of Martin Van Buren’s vision, not theirs.”

I find it fitting that Jackson and Van Buren were the founders of America’s first true political party - the Democratic Party - because they were the first two presidents that were not from privileged backgrounds. I find it even more fitting that the son of a tavern keeper who grew up listening to political debates, watching court cases, and organizing elections was the creator of the modern American political system. Van Buren understood the common American better than nearly any politician since Ben Franklin because he grew up one of them and listened to them for twenty years before he even entered politics.

Van Buren’s legacy, to me, is complicated because it could be argued that he was one of the most influential American politicians ever, but that has had positives and negatives through the two centuries since he was the unquestioned boss of New York. Van Buren gave a voice to the common American and founded the convention system that dominated American political parties until the mid-20th century, and the same qualities that led to his creation were also the qualitities that made him indecisive and prone to simply following the will of the majority around him in order to maintain political favor, is that really a good thing?

I think this book is appropriately named and I wouldn’t change it. Martin Van Buren was, unquestionably, America’s First [Professional] Politician.