President Martin Van Buren does not usually receive high marks from historians, writes Jeffrey Rogers Hummel. In sharp contrast to his political mentor, Thomas Jefferson, Van Buren managed to hew more closely to principle while occupying the White House than outside of it. Indeed, a close examination of his four years in office reveals that historians have grossly underrated his many remarkable accomplishments against heavy odds. These, in Hummel’s opinion, rank Van Buren as the greatest president in American history. FULL ARTICLE
{ 8 comments }
Nice. I always assume that the presidents I know the least about are the best, since they didn’t do anything that historians have much fun writing about.
From what I’ve read, I like Calvin Coolidge too. Perhaps we could have a Obscure Dead Presidents Non-Celebrity Deathmatch to determine the victor.
Obscure Presidents need respect!
I too would like to see more respect for obscure Presidents. Particularly Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge. I would love to see a “Silent Cal” type in the White House today.
Nice to see documentation of a “full-employment depression” in the piece, with stats and all.
Where are these truly extraordinary Americans now that we really NEED them? Unfortunately they don’t even have a chance in today’s corrupt, overblown, and filthy politics!
If you consider the grotesque and perverse standards by which political, espeicially Presidential “greatness” is measured, There is certainly a case to be made for memorializing people like Martin van Buren, Samuel Tilden, Fernando Wood (the extraordinary mayor of NY during the War for Southern Independence) who wanted New York City to seceed from Lincoln’s abominable “union”, and perhaps even Grover Cleveland…
The existing procedures for determining greatness, by most contemporary historians, give politicians an enormous, apparantly irresistable impetus to commit to the expansion of government power, perhaps especially in ways which relate to war.
War and militarism allow utterly mediocre leaders to pose as “strong”, “decisive” and “resolute” leaders under circumstances which, left to themselves, in more normal times, they would barely be able to dress and feed themselves! The occupant of the Oval office today certainly comes to mind, although he isn’t the only one, and probably not the worst!
Maybe what is needed is not merely “revisionist” history, but “inversionist” history. If the history we have been provided with is supporting a politics which is clearly sociopathic and defective, especially from the considerations of liberty, private property, and peace, then we need a fundamentally new method of doing history!
Procedures of scholarship and research which emphaisize “normalcy”, which emphaisize the extent to which leaders refused to use their powers either for their own glorification or for the glorification of their government, a historiography which emphasises the NON-POLITICAL, both in terms of personality and in terms of the larger society, may be what is called for!
An inversion of the way we Americans do our history, focusing on market and society rather than politics, won’t correct our politics by itself, indeed, probably nothing can do that, but at least it would result in the long-overdue honoring of individuals who deserve honor, and the disgrace of politicians and bureau(c)rats wno deserve disgrace!
PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller
i am doing a project about martin van buren for school and i thought wow i never heard of him this might be lame but i was wrong. the day i started my research i got really interested in him. now i know about a president that i never heard of and he is very cool
I recently made my own list of the top 10 best and worst U.S. Presidents and I awarded Martin Van Buren the slot as the third greatest. I attached the video. Enjoy.
I caught the History channel show “The Presidents” today, for the second time was able to specifically watch the second episode that covered J.Q.Adams through Tyler. I wanted to make sure that I had really heard what I thought I’d heard the first time.
Yep.
They specifically cited Jackson’s hostility toward Calhoun as THE ONLY REASON for his veto of the Second Bank of the US, and then blames the panic of 1836 to be the RESULT of that veto. “Van Buren inherited the economic chaos resulting from that veto.”
Van Buren is specifically labeled as “indecisive” because of “not facing tough choices such as the annexation of Texas”, then, being unable to decide to do anything about the economy, is faced with a second depression of 1839 which makes his re-election impossible.
Other than talking about personal attacks one way and the other, basically the stuff of daytime TV, that’s IT. That’s all they say, and move on to Harrison and Tyler.
The smiling sycophant with is comment about being indecisive made me sick.
Anything on the History Channel beyond dates and names, don’t trust without independent confirmation.
Comments on this entry are closed.