US_Ch1_web-1

=**Missouri Compromise and Martin Van Buren**=

Martin Van Buren was a state senator in New York around the time of the Missouri Compromise. In the Missouri Compromise, Missouri was added as a slave state and Maine as a free state to maintain the balance of free and slave states. Also, a line was drawn across the Louisiana Purchase at 36 degrees 30 minutes north latitude and north of the line was free and south of the line open to slavery. No one knew how many states would come from the land (Louisiana territory) but most saw more free soil and possibility of a northern majority that could legislate slavery out of existence. Even though there were those who supported slavery and those who opposed slavery, the nation had learned to live with slavery in harmony. The Missouri Compromise threatened to disrupt that harmony. Van Buren knew that if either side (pro-slave or anti-slave) got control of the government, then the other side wouldn't accept it. Therefore, Van Buren set out to shape a new political structure. He was more concerned over the politics of sectionalism than of the morality of slavery. In the New York legislature he avoided votes on the slavery issue. __To make sure slavery didn't overtake politics__, he'd have to apply what he learned in New York to the whole nation.
 * (1)** **Why did Van Buren feel changes were needed in the party structure after the Missouri Compromise (What didn't he want to see take over politics)?**

At the state level, the Albany Regency was the new political machine that dominated New York politics in which ones of its leaders, Van Buren and the Albany Regency allied with the Richmond Junto, which was the Virginia version. Martin Van Buren, introduced his new theory of political parties that revolutionized politics. The Founding Fathers warned against partisanship, but many didn't see a reasonable alternative. Madison saw factions (interest groups and/or political parties by today's standards) as destructive, but the only way to take away factions would be to take away liberty, according to Madison, which was also unacceptable. However, Van Buren saw parties as a check on ambitions, passions and usurpations (to take or make use of without right) of individuals. Van Buren felt that a national party organization would be necessary to moderate the slavery issue.
 * (2)** **By today's standards, do you agree (your opinion) with the Founding Fathers about political parties (that they are destructive and lead to arguing instead of positive laws) or Van Buren (parties are good because they act on the will of the people based on the party platform)?**

Back to web quest