In analyzing the influence and legacy of Martin Van Buren, historians have usually differentiated between the presidency of Van Buren, which they frequently consider lacking and distressed, and his contributions to the growth of the American political system, which they consider to be unique and significant. Surely, one of the most powerful leaders in American history was Martin Van Buren. In the early 1800s, he entered politics and joined Thomas Jefferson's faction, the Democratic Republicans. At a time when his party was beset by factionalism, by bitter in-fighting, and by a lack of internal and intellectual discipline, Van Buren rose to prominence, first in New York state and then nationwide. Van Buren acknowledged these shortcomings and set out to rectify them by creating, first in New York and then nationwide, a coherent and unified political party. Van Buren argued that political strife was inevitable, both among allies and between opponents. The trick, however, was handling this dispute. Therefore, the value of his crowning success, which Van Buren believed might regulate this intra-party rivalry in order to defeat his rivals, the Democratic Party. Although Van Buren was praised by historians for his contributions to the growth of the American political system, he was not known to be a great president, or even a decent one. The principal obstacle faced by President Van Buren was the economic downturn of the country. His chief response expressed his Jeffersonian and Jacksonian political views, a proposal for a separate treasury system. Ironically, Van Buren, the great party builder and Progressive unification supporter, lacked the political ability to gain the independent treasury's swift congressional endorsement; Congress accepted it only in late 1840, after the depression had been running for three years, essentially uninterrupted.
Explanation:
hope this helps! :)
