What do you think?
Rate this book
American Profiles
Martin Van Buren and the Emergence of American Popular Politics
Martin Van Buren was a one-term president whose public life has long been overshadowed by the more fiery personalities of his day—Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and John C. Calhoun. Nevertheless, Van Buren was a transforming political figure in American history, one of the first of the new republic's professional politicians.
In the early part of the nineteenth century, America was skeptical of popular politics, distrustful of political parties, and disdainful of political management. However, as prominent historian Joel H. Silbey demonstrates, Martin Van Buren took the lead among his contemporaries in remolding the old political order as he captured the New York state governorship, a seat in the United States Senate, and ultimately the Presidency. Silbey argues that Van Buren recognized the need for effective national political organization and, in the process, helped remake America's political culture.
Martin Van Buren and the Emergence of American Popular Politics takes a fresh look at the life and political career of one of America's most often overlooked, yet most influential, public figures.
In the early part of the nineteenth century, America was skeptical of popular politics, distrustful of political parties, and disdainful of political management. However, as prominent historian Joel H. Silbey demonstrates, Martin Van Buren took the lead among his contemporaries in remolding the old political order as he captured the New York state governorship, a seat in the United States Senate, and ultimately the Presidency. Silbey argues that Van Buren recognized the need for effective national political organization and, in the process, helped remake America's political culture.
Martin Van Buren and the Emergence of American Popular Politics takes a fresh look at the life and political career of one of America's most often overlooked, yet most influential, public figures.
256 pages, Hardcover
First published July 16, 2002
2 people are currently reading
70 people want to read
About the author
Joel H. Silbey
29 books2 followersA specialist in mid-19th century American politics, Joel H. Silbey was Professor of History Emeritus at Cornell University, where he taught from 1966 until his retirement in 2002. A graduate of Brooklyn College, Silbey earned his master’s degree in 1956 and Ph.D. in 1963 from the University of Iowa. In addition to teaching at Cornell, Silbey taught as an assistant professor at San Francisco State College (now San Francisco State University), the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Maryland.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
June 9, 2021
“Bill resolved that it was time to take action and address the lingering issue of the emptiness of his refrigerator. His skills at preparing food having developed over the years, he pondered the ingredients he might need to craft the meals his experience had taught him that he preferred. Determinedly, he formulated a plan and took steps to carry it out, having identified the problem and the best solution that such a situation called for.”
In other words, “Bill was hungry so he made a shopping list and went to the grocery store.”
That’s kind of what reading this book was like for me. Everything about Martin Van Buren’s life is told in terms of objectives and motivations, and analysis and interpretation of those objectives and motivations, instead of just stepping back every once in a while to simply tell us what happened, when, and why.
This is essentially a political biography of Van Buren, not a traditional biography - the distinction being that, while it covers his life mostly chronologically from birth to death, everything is told through the prism of politics. So in order to devote time to political analysis and fit everything into just about 200 pages, the book goes through events at a dizzying and unsatisfyingly succinct speed. In one paragraph, for example, we’re told “there were long-standing tensions between the United States and France... Van Buren moved to settle them as soon as possible... The two governments soon forged a satisfactory settlement." That's about all the detail you get.
Instead, while actual events zip by, we get a lot of discussion about the political motivations that went into Van Buren’s handling of, and reaction to, those events. This book is something like the polar opposite of John Niven’s “Martin Van Buren: The Romantic Age of American Politics” - while that book contained an overwhelming amount of facts and granular detail at the expense of context and interpretation, Silbey’s book is almost exclusively context and interpretation, at the expense of any detailed discussion about actual things that happened.
There are also no footnotes, so there’s no way to know who Silbey is talking about when he frequently quotes “a historian” or notes that “others have said” something, without naming names or citing sources.
Van Buren’s presidency is covered in a single 26-page chapter. And as much as Silbey appears to admire Van Buren and credits him for his political skills, he’s rather harsh in his appraisal of Van Buren’s presidency. One could criticize Van Buren for not offering bolder plans to combat the Panic of 1837 and the resulting depression, and for clinging too tenaciously to his plan for an independent Treasury at the expense of nearly anything else, but Silbey generally dismisses Van Buren as a do-little, laissez-faire president and chides him for not providing direct relief to the hungry and destitute, when federal government-provided welfare was not really a thing at that time. “Although Van Buren saw examples of human suffering,” he writes, “he never went beyond expressions of pity and concern.” Trying to paint Van Buren as an early 19th-century Herbert Hoover just comes across as an anachronistic simplification.
The final few chapters on Van Buren’s post-presidency, and his attempts to regain his office, are probably the best parts of the book, as Silbey describes Van Buren’s efforts to steer the party that he created in the direction he believed it should go. But these closing chapters are simply not enough to redeem the rest of the book.
In his introduction, Silbey notes that “Van Buren has not been shy of biographers,” and ticks through the earlier books written by Niven, and Donald Cole, and others. “Why, then, another look at him now?” he asks. “There is always room for a fresh overview,” he answers himself.
But if you’ve never read about Van Buren, this book is unlikely to satisfy your curiosity. And if you have read about him, this book is unlikely to teach you anything new. If the book had been expanded into a full-scale biography, Silbey’s analysis and interpretation might have been welcome. But in a short book, analysis and interpretation without a foundation in facts is really only telling half the story.
In other words, “Bill was hungry so he made a shopping list and went to the grocery store.”
That’s kind of what reading this book was like for me. Everything about Martin Van Buren’s life is told in terms of objectives and motivations, and analysis and interpretation of those objectives and motivations, instead of just stepping back every once in a while to simply tell us what happened, when, and why.
This is essentially a political biography of Van Buren, not a traditional biography - the distinction being that, while it covers his life mostly chronologically from birth to death, everything is told through the prism of politics. So in order to devote time to political analysis and fit everything into just about 200 pages, the book goes through events at a dizzying and unsatisfyingly succinct speed. In one paragraph, for example, we’re told “there were long-standing tensions between the United States and France... Van Buren moved to settle them as soon as possible... The two governments soon forged a satisfactory settlement." That's about all the detail you get.
Instead, while actual events zip by, we get a lot of discussion about the political motivations that went into Van Buren’s handling of, and reaction to, those events. This book is something like the polar opposite of John Niven’s “Martin Van Buren: The Romantic Age of American Politics” - while that book contained an overwhelming amount of facts and granular detail at the expense of context and interpretation, Silbey’s book is almost exclusively context and interpretation, at the expense of any detailed discussion about actual things that happened.
There are also no footnotes, so there’s no way to know who Silbey is talking about when he frequently quotes “a historian” or notes that “others have said” something, without naming names or citing sources.
Van Buren’s presidency is covered in a single 26-page chapter. And as much as Silbey appears to admire Van Buren and credits him for his political skills, he’s rather harsh in his appraisal of Van Buren’s presidency. One could criticize Van Buren for not offering bolder plans to combat the Panic of 1837 and the resulting depression, and for clinging too tenaciously to his plan for an independent Treasury at the expense of nearly anything else, but Silbey generally dismisses Van Buren as a do-little, laissez-faire president and chides him for not providing direct relief to the hungry and destitute, when federal government-provided welfare was not really a thing at that time. “Although Van Buren saw examples of human suffering,” he writes, “he never went beyond expressions of pity and concern.” Trying to paint Van Buren as an early 19th-century Herbert Hoover just comes across as an anachronistic simplification.
The final few chapters on Van Buren’s post-presidency, and his attempts to regain his office, are probably the best parts of the book, as Silbey describes Van Buren’s efforts to steer the party that he created in the direction he believed it should go. But these closing chapters are simply not enough to redeem the rest of the book.
In his introduction, Silbey notes that “Van Buren has not been shy of biographers,” and ticks through the earlier books written by Niven, and Donald Cole, and others. “Why, then, another look at him now?” he asks. “There is always room for a fresh overview,” he answers himself.
But if you’ve never read about Van Buren, this book is unlikely to satisfy your curiosity. And if you have read about him, this book is unlikely to teach you anything new. If the book had been expanded into a full-scale biography, Silbey’s analysis and interpretation might have been welcome. But in a short book, analysis and interpretation without a foundation in facts is really only telling half the story.
May 22, 2012
I should have realized when selecting this particular book the mention in someone's review that only one chapter was dedicated to Van Buren's Presidency. Let this be a warning to anyone interested in learning about his accomplishments and failures that this is fairly skewed toward the impact he had on others; his political views; and his political actions.
I remember as a child learning about the Presidents my fascination with Van Buren's appearance. Bald with huge muttonchop sideburns, my memory of him is still vivid. I recall nothing more about him from then. Whatever was taught about his leadership and style was lost on me.
Joel Silbey, the author, uses this platform to describe Van Buren as little more than mediocre. According to the author, he was neither charismatic, nor bold. He was an astute manager who had a vision of pillars of political thought, with structure defining a political party. This was a new and novel approach to the prior definition - one of a group of people with like political ideologies. In fact, this new approach to political parties continues today.
The approach was in fact part of his downfall. He created the party system - one where the party itself agrees on a common platform, them supports it no matter how they feel, was too defining for him. Being "the last of the founding fathers", he believed in strict Jeffersonian democracy. In this view, the federal government subordinates itself to the individual states. At the time of his presidency, failed monetary policies caused a depression. Modern economic theory dictates centralized control of the economy to help with a turnaround. But, Van Buren did nothing to help solve the crisis. This allowed his enemies, the Federalists, to mobilize. The partisan politics of this era were harsh by today's standards, and Van Buren ultimately became an outcast of the party system he developed. This was a shame. He followed one of the more charismatic Presidents, Andrew Jackson, and continued and extended Jackson's policies. But, unlike Jackson, Van Buren was, and was seen as, a professional politician. This made him untrustworthy.
In terms of readability, I rate this book as very difficult. When I picked it up, the book is a fairly slim 225 pages. Yet, the style of writing and the level of detail portrayed made it very hard to keep my interest as I read. In fairness, there are places where the narrative becomes interesting and I was able to stick with it for 25 to 30 pages. But, I found no way to keep enthusiastic about reading a book that I needed to put down and walk away for a few days from before returning.
Unfortunately, I'm realizing that in my quest to read books about every President, that there has been little attention paid to the minor Presidents. The next several include Harrison, Tyler, Polk, Taylor and Fillmore. I'm afraid this will be a downturn in my excitement about reading the presidential history of the United States. It may take me a while to get through them.
I remember as a child learning about the Presidents my fascination with Van Buren's appearance. Bald with huge muttonchop sideburns, my memory of him is still vivid. I recall nothing more about him from then. Whatever was taught about his leadership and style was lost on me.
Joel Silbey, the author, uses this platform to describe Van Buren as little more than mediocre. According to the author, he was neither charismatic, nor bold. He was an astute manager who had a vision of pillars of political thought, with structure defining a political party. This was a new and novel approach to the prior definition - one of a group of people with like political ideologies. In fact, this new approach to political parties continues today.
The approach was in fact part of his downfall. He created the party system - one where the party itself agrees on a common platform, them supports it no matter how they feel, was too defining for him. Being "the last of the founding fathers", he believed in strict Jeffersonian democracy. In this view, the federal government subordinates itself to the individual states. At the time of his presidency, failed monetary policies caused a depression. Modern economic theory dictates centralized control of the economy to help with a turnaround. But, Van Buren did nothing to help solve the crisis. This allowed his enemies, the Federalists, to mobilize. The partisan politics of this era were harsh by today's standards, and Van Buren ultimately became an outcast of the party system he developed. This was a shame. He followed one of the more charismatic Presidents, Andrew Jackson, and continued and extended Jackson's policies. But, unlike Jackson, Van Buren was, and was seen as, a professional politician. This made him untrustworthy.
In terms of readability, I rate this book as very difficult. When I picked it up, the book is a fairly slim 225 pages. Yet, the style of writing and the level of detail portrayed made it very hard to keep my interest as I read. In fairness, there are places where the narrative becomes interesting and I was able to stick with it for 25 to 30 pages. But, I found no way to keep enthusiastic about reading a book that I needed to put down and walk away for a few days from before returning.
Unfortunately, I'm realizing that in my quest to read books about every President, that there has been little attention paid to the minor Presidents. The next several include Harrison, Tyler, Polk, Taylor and Fillmore. I'm afraid this will be a downturn in my excitement about reading the presidential history of the United States. It may take me a while to get through them.
February 14, 2025
Finally found a barely readable biography about MVB that a layman can follow. He was responsible for developing the modern day strategies of political parties and emphasizing the importance of party allegiance.
June 4, 2015
It took me 11 months to get through this book! MVB lived an interesting life, but Silbey writes in a more academic style than, say, Wood, McCullough, or Howe.
A few things that stood out to be about MVB:
1. He was a crafty politician. "He rode toward his object with muffled oars." He was accused of noncommitalism at times (48, 55). He won Jackson's favor by viewing issues the same way (e.g., Peggy Eaton, 70). (It appears to me that he was ultimately defeated by the political machinations he helped create, see 153.)
2. He was loyal.
- To his death, he was loyal to the Jacksonian democracy that he felt was a continuation of Jefferson's ideals. Unfortunately, his loyalty extended to blind support of Jackson's Indian removal (74-75).
- He wanted to be the nominee in 1844 as well, but he had lost much of his support within the party and the nomination went to Polk. MVB was still loyal to his party and supported Polk.
- The relationship soured, however, and MVB viewed himself as the true heir of the Jacksonian Democratic Party (183). In 1848, he ran for president as a third party candidate on the Free Soil Party ticket. (This three-way split allowed the Taylor-Fillmore ticket to win in 1848.) But even this divisive move was motivated by loyalty to Jackson as MVB attempted to rescue the Democratic party from what Polk and his men had made of it.
3. He held to his convictions even when they hurt him. He was so committed to his philosophy of "small government," that he refused to respond to the Panic of 1837 (118). People generally viewed this as uncaring (123).
4. He was gracious in defeat. Even after he lost to Harrison, he was "gracious...fat and jolly" (157).
Interesting fact: At the beginning of the Civil War, former President Pierce wanted to rally the other ex-presidents (Tyler, Buchanan, Fillmore) for a "think tank" session to help solve the crisis. Pierce wanted MVB to lead the council. MVB declined saying he was too old. I wonder what might have come out of such a council.
A few things that stood out to be about MVB:
1. He was a crafty politician. "He rode toward his object with muffled oars." He was accused of noncommitalism at times (48, 55). He won Jackson's favor by viewing issues the same way (e.g., Peggy Eaton, 70). (It appears to me that he was ultimately defeated by the political machinations he helped create, see 153.)
2. He was loyal.
- To his death, he was loyal to the Jacksonian democracy that he felt was a continuation of Jefferson's ideals. Unfortunately, his loyalty extended to blind support of Jackson's Indian removal (74-75).
- He wanted to be the nominee in 1844 as well, but he had lost much of his support within the party and the nomination went to Polk. MVB was still loyal to his party and supported Polk.
- The relationship soured, however, and MVB viewed himself as the true heir of the Jacksonian Democratic Party (183). In 1848, he ran for president as a third party candidate on the Free Soil Party ticket. (This three-way split allowed the Taylor-Fillmore ticket to win in 1848.) But even this divisive move was motivated by loyalty to Jackson as MVB attempted to rescue the Democratic party from what Polk and his men had made of it.
3. He held to his convictions even when they hurt him. He was so committed to his philosophy of "small government," that he refused to respond to the Panic of 1837 (118). People generally viewed this as uncaring (123).
4. He was gracious in defeat. Even after he lost to Harrison, he was "gracious...fat and jolly" (157).
Interesting fact: At the beginning of the Civil War, former President Pierce wanted to rally the other ex-presidents (Tyler, Buchanan, Fillmore) for a "think tank" session to help solve the crisis. Pierce wanted MVB to lead the council. MVB declined saying he was too old. I wonder what might have come out of such a council.
January 4, 2021
Before reading this book, one should note that it is neither a biography or a history of Van Buren as president. It is rather an academic study of the role Van Buren played in the development of political party systems over the course of his political career.
As such, it succeeds well, though there are certainly areas in which I would have liked to see more detail and analysis. However, for a brief work looking at Van Buren's political importance and activities there is quite a lot packed into just over 200 pages.
The best thing that Silby does, however, is provide some directions for further reading and study, though of course this is now somewhat dated as the book itself is almost 20 years old and scholarship on that era has expanded significantly. Still, it's a useful piece of research and I learned quite a bit from it.
As such, it succeeds well, though there are certainly areas in which I would have liked to see more detail and analysis. However, for a brief work looking at Van Buren's political importance and activities there is quite a lot packed into just over 200 pages.
The best thing that Silby does, however, is provide some directions for further reading and study, though of course this is now somewhat dated as the book itself is almost 20 years old and scholarship on that era has expanded significantly. Still, it's a useful piece of research and I learned quite a bit from it.
March 18, 2014
Martin Van Buren is the first President of the United States to be born an American citizen. As a natural born American he had a different view of his country than many of his predecessors. This was a view of America from the ground up. He saw the country as it was not what the makers wanted to be. Van Buren was not afraid of the concept of popular democratic participation and, in fact, embraced it. He was our first president who was a natural politician.
"To the Van Burnenites, on the other hand, political parties were not threatening to the American nation. They did not corrupt society or its politics. Contrary to established belief, they were necessary, proper, and, in fact, a positive good in the existing political environment." (p.26)
Silbey's book shows Van Buren coming to power at a time when the parties were in complete flux. The Federalists had been vanquished, although Van Buren always felt they were on the way back, the Democratic-Republican Party of Thomas Jefferson was only game in town. However with the divisive election of 1824, America would see a change in party alignment.
Van Buren emerges as the political mastermind of the Jacksonian movement, leading a relentless campaign against John Quincy Adams. Jackson would emerge as the winner in the election of 1828. Van Buren was persuaded to resign his recently elected position as Governor of New York in order to become the U.S. Secretary of State. Rising up through the Jackson Administration he displaces Calhoun as Vice President at the first ever Democratic National Convention in 1832. In 1836, he is elected to replace Jackson.
From there everything goes downhill. The economics policies of the Jackson Administration helped usher in an economic depression that severely hurt Van Buren's reelection chances. In fact it could be argued that President Van Buren was the first president ever to be denied re-election due to economic circumstances.
Van Buren was an architect of Democratic Party populism. The same methods Van Buren used to get Jackson and himself elected President were also used to undermine his presidency. The tactics that the Democrats used to dislodge John Quincy Adams from the White House were turned on him. The Whigs had their own popular military hero from the War of 1812, William Henry Harrison, and were able to portray Van Buren as an out of touch elitist. That was the same strategy the Democrats used against Adams in favor of Jackson, but this time Martin Van Buren was the target.
The election of 1840 was not the last time Van Buren's own ideas came back to haunt him. In 1832 the first Democratic National Convention issued a two-thirds rule requiring that a candidate to be nominated only if he had two-thirds of the delegates[1]. This was great for Van Buren in 1832, 1836, and 1840 where the President enjoyed clear support all over the party. In 1844 however the former President could only muster a majority of the delegates. In addition, his agreement with Henry Clay to keep Texas out of the national political conversation opened up Van Buren and Henry Clay to being part of a corrupt bargain, the second of Clay's career. Van Buren had been one of the people to accuse Clay and Adams of the first one in 1824, now Van Buren was on the other side of the coin. That made it impossible to win any more support and worse it cost him Andrew Jackson's. With only a majority of the delegates and too many hardliners against him, the nomination went to James K. Polk of Tennessee. As the first former president to attempt to regain the office, his efforts ended in failure[2].
Van Buren ran again in 1848 shocking everyone when the preacher of party discipline bolted from his party to the free-soil party. He would be the first of three presidents to attempt a comeback in this manner. It stood no chance but Van Buren got his revenge at the Democrats, who in his mind betrayed him, by throwing the election to the Whigs, electing Zachary Taylor over Lewis Cass.
Joel Silbey's book is small and easy to read. It is a good starting point for anyone who would like to know something about our eight president. Van Buren was quite a trailblazer but every new political weapon he could find was then used against him. He in many ways was his own worst enemy.
[1] This would not be overturned until 1936.
[2] Only Grover Cleveland,in 1892, was ever able to successfully regain the office.
"To the Van Burnenites, on the other hand, political parties were not threatening to the American nation. They did not corrupt society or its politics. Contrary to established belief, they were necessary, proper, and, in fact, a positive good in the existing political environment." (p.26)
Silbey's book shows Van Buren coming to power at a time when the parties were in complete flux. The Federalists had been vanquished, although Van Buren always felt they were on the way back, the Democratic-Republican Party of Thomas Jefferson was only game in town. However with the divisive election of 1824, America would see a change in party alignment.
Van Buren emerges as the political mastermind of the Jacksonian movement, leading a relentless campaign against John Quincy Adams. Jackson would emerge as the winner in the election of 1828. Van Buren was persuaded to resign his recently elected position as Governor of New York in order to become the U.S. Secretary of State. Rising up through the Jackson Administration he displaces Calhoun as Vice President at the first ever Democratic National Convention in 1832. In 1836, he is elected to replace Jackson.
From there everything goes downhill. The economics policies of the Jackson Administration helped usher in an economic depression that severely hurt Van Buren's reelection chances. In fact it could be argued that President Van Buren was the first president ever to be denied re-election due to economic circumstances.
Van Buren was an architect of Democratic Party populism. The same methods Van Buren used to get Jackson and himself elected President were also used to undermine his presidency. The tactics that the Democrats used to dislodge John Quincy Adams from the White House were turned on him. The Whigs had their own popular military hero from the War of 1812, William Henry Harrison, and were able to portray Van Buren as an out of touch elitist. That was the same strategy the Democrats used against Adams in favor of Jackson, but this time Martin Van Buren was the target.
The election of 1840 was not the last time Van Buren's own ideas came back to haunt him. In 1832 the first Democratic National Convention issued a two-thirds rule requiring that a candidate to be nominated only if he had two-thirds of the delegates[1]. This was great for Van Buren in 1832, 1836, and 1840 where the President enjoyed clear support all over the party. In 1844 however the former President could only muster a majority of the delegates. In addition, his agreement with Henry Clay to keep Texas out of the national political conversation opened up Van Buren and Henry Clay to being part of a corrupt bargain, the second of Clay's career. Van Buren had been one of the people to accuse Clay and Adams of the first one in 1824, now Van Buren was on the other side of the coin. That made it impossible to win any more support and worse it cost him Andrew Jackson's. With only a majority of the delegates and too many hardliners against him, the nomination went to James K. Polk of Tennessee. As the first former president to attempt to regain the office, his efforts ended in failure[2].
Van Buren ran again in 1848 shocking everyone when the preacher of party discipline bolted from his party to the free-soil party. He would be the first of three presidents to attempt a comeback in this manner. It stood no chance but Van Buren got his revenge at the Democrats, who in his mind betrayed him, by throwing the election to the Whigs, electing Zachary Taylor over Lewis Cass.
Joel Silbey's book is small and easy to read. It is a good starting point for anyone who would like to know something about our eight president. Van Buren was quite a trailblazer but every new political weapon he could find was then used against him. He in many ways was his own worst enemy.
[1] This would not be overturned until 1936.
[2] Only Grover Cleveland,in 1892, was ever able to successfully regain the office.
February 28, 2012
This book was disappointing on one level. I would have liked to see more attention paid to the fact that Van Buren followed through on the Indian Removal Act, passed during the administration of his predecessor. I also miss the sense of the person that one gets from a more thorough biography like Chernow's Washington, or McCullough's John Adams. However, the book was more concerned with the way in which Van Buren shaped party politics, and on this level it is very successful.
In many ways John Quincy Adams's statement that Van Buren's "principles are subordinate to his ambitions" seems absolutely true, despite Silbey's blunting of them by showing his wider motivations.
However, from his early days on, Van Buren was the quintessential politician, and his activities in New York and subsequently nationally with the Democratic Republicans turned Democrats really set the tone for partisan politics in which the party line is more important than any reservations an individual member might feel. paradoxically, even as he formed these organizations he was always angling to be at their helms.
For what it was trying to accomplish, this was a good book, though in retrospect I may have chosen a different Van Buren bio.
In many ways John Quincy Adams's statement that Van Buren's "principles are subordinate to his ambitions" seems absolutely true, despite Silbey's blunting of them by showing his wider motivations.
However, from his early days on, Van Buren was the quintessential politician, and his activities in New York and subsequently nationally with the Democratic Republicans turned Democrats really set the tone for partisan politics in which the party line is more important than any reservations an individual member might feel. paradoxically, even as he formed these organizations he was always angling to be at their helms.
For what it was trying to accomplish, this was a good book, though in retrospect I may have chosen a different Van Buren bio.
June 5, 2012
Van Buren isn't one of our more noted or remembered Presidents and this book does nothing to help improve history's view of him. While reading this book, I often found myself wondering if the author was a text book writer, because it was about as interesting as most school text books. Look elsewhere for a book on Van Buren. This one's a dud.
May 4, 2014
It doesn't speak much to the subject of a biography when what's going on around the person is of more interest than the person himself. It also doesn't help when the author has a clear bias and doesn't bother trying to hide it or seem to give any real insight on the opposing views.
September 15, 2012
fairly interesting book about an otherwise not-so-noteworthy president.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews