Politics and the Erie Canal
How DeWitt Clinton and Martin Van Buren Turned a Public Work into a Political Battleground
New York State’s Erie Canal was widely recognized as a marvel of its time when it was completed in 1825. The best—and best-known—of what contemporaries called “internal improvements,” the canal dramatically reduced the cost of transporting goods from the interior to New York City’s harbor, where they could be exported to world markets. In doing so, it helped transform New York into the Empire State.
The canal’s economic benefits were celebrated in newspapers and have been chronicled by generations of historians. Far less familiar is the role the Erie Canal played in New York State—and national—politics between 1812 and 1825, when it became a powerful instrument in the rivalry between two ambitious political figures.
Clinton, Van Buren, and a Presidential Gambit
DeWitt Clinton, the man most responsible for implementing the canal and shepherding it to completion, stepped onto the national stage in 1812 when he ran for president of the United States against the incumbent, James Madison.
New York State senator—and future president—Martin Van Buren agreed to serve as Clinton’s floor manager in the legislative caucus that selected the state’s presidential electors. Though skeptical that Clinton could generate enough southern support to win the presidency, Van Buren worked diligently to secure New York’s 29 electoral votes for the man admirers dubbed “Magnus Apollo.”
Despite those efforts, Madison won re-election.
From Allies to Adversaries
After the election, Van Buren set his sights on becoming New York’s attorney general. When he was denied the post through behind-the-scenes political maneuvering, Van Buren—incorrectly—concluded that Clinton had deliberately blocked his advancement.
By this time, Van Buren was already building a disciplined political organization, the “Bucktails,” designed to challenge Clinton’s dominance. When Clinton sought Van Buren’s support in his 1813 gubernatorial bid, Van Buren refused. Reflecting later on the rupture, he wrote, “From that day, we never met as political friends.”
The Canal as a Political Weapon
Chosen as New York attorney general in 1815, Van Buren initially opposed Clinton’s signature project, the Erie Canal. Over time, however, he lent his support when political necessity demanded it.
Clinton won election as governor in April 1817 after Governor Daniel Tompkins resigned to become vice president. Van Buren, meanwhile, maneuvered to shape the canal commission in ways that advanced Bucktail interests. At one point, he uncharacteristically denounced Clinton in private correspondence—remarks that eventually found their way back to the governor. Clinton responded swiftly: Van Buren was dismissed from office.
Overreach and Resurrection
Unable to defeat Clinton at the polls in 1820, Van Buren and the Bucktails waited. They dominated New York’s constitutional convention in 1821 and succeeded in forcing Clinton from political office in 1822. Although Clinton retained his post as head of the Erie Canal Commission, he was largely stripped of meaningful political influence.
Then came the Bucktails’ critical miscalculation.
On April 12, 1824, they introduced a resolution calling for Clinton’s removal as canal commissioner. Clinton had served on the commission for fourteen years—and had refused the salary attached to the position. His close identification with the canal had earned him immense goodwill among New Yorkers, many of whom were outraged by the attempt to cast him aside.
Public anger fueled Clinton’s political revival. With renewed momentum, he won election as governor once more, serving from 1825 to 1828—just as the canal he had championed opened to triumphant acclaim.
“Killing a Man Too Dead”
Van Buren himself had played no role in the attempt to remove Clinton from the canal commission and was furious that it had been undertaken without his approval. Rebuking the plot’s chief architect, he warned memorably that “there is such a thing in politics as killing a man too dead!”
Why It Matters
The story of the Erie Canal is not only about engineering triumph or economic growth—it is also a reminder that public works can reshape political power and political culture. The canal elevated DeWitt Clinton from embattled politician to enduring public symbol, while Martin Van Buren’s efforts to control its administration reveal how infrastructure could be wielded as a political tool long before the modern era.
Just as importantly, the rivalry between Clinton and Van Buren demonstrates how political conflict permeated daily life in the early republic. From legislative maneuvering to social exclusion, power operated on multiple levels—formal and informal, public and personal. The same antagonism that produced policy battles over the canal also shaped the social rituals explored in The Cut Direct, reminding us that politics in this era was as much about recognition and reputation as it was about officeholding.
Sources
James M. Bradley, Martin Van Buren: America’s First Politician (New York: Oxford University Press, 2024).
Evan Cornog, The Birth of Empire: DeWitt Clinton and the American Experience, 1769–1828 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998).
Image Citations
DeWitt Clinton, engraved portrait. Source: Wikimedia Commons. Public domain.
Martin Van Buren, engraved portrait. Source: Wikimedia Commons. Public domain.
Erie Canal scene, historic illustration depicting canal boats and mule towpath. Source: Wikimedia Commons. Public domain.
Composite image created for History in Two Voices using public-domain source material.
If you enjoyed this story, please stay connected. We share occasional stories from America’s past - no spam, just history. Complete the form below: