. >> and similar also in that it was an inherited crisis for for martin van buren. >> well, martin van and then his vice president van buren took office on the same day in london and new orleans the panic began, so, yes, it was an inherited crisis, but it was a crisis inherited within an administration. martin van buren was andrew jackson's right-hand man, so he wasn't exactly ignorant of the situation that was going on. >> what would the economy have been like in 1947? what was the driving engine of the u.s. economy? >> well, the period between the 1827 and mid-1830s was one of enormous growth. it was an unbelievable period of american development and the backbone of it was really cotton. the slave pan operations, panded west at a remarkable rate on to land confiscated from native americans and that engine connected to the markets of liverpool and the text time factories in england really drove the economy. england actually supported the american economies in the 1820s and 1830s as sort of the financial backers so internal improvements, building of canals and railroads in the north an

. >> so it was an inherited crisis for martin van buren. >> andrew jackson was president, and martin van buren took office in 1837 which was the same day that in london and -- an inherited crisis, but it was a crisis inherited within an administration. he wasn't exactly ignorant of the situation that was going on. >> with what would the economy have been like in 1839, what was the driving engine of the u.s. economy? >> between the mid 1820s and the mid 1830s, it was an enormous period of growth. the backbone was cotton, the slave plantations of the south expanded west at a remarkable rate from land that had been confiscated from native americans and that market extended to the textiles in england. evening land actually supported the american economy in the 1820s and 1830s as financial backers. certainly improvements, building of canals and railroads of the south and the cotton markets of the south drove the american economy. >> when students try to draw parallels between the crisis of 1837 and the 2008 crisis, where do you see the best merging of the past? where are the two similar? >

the crisis is suddenly barack obama's crisis and martin van buren's crisis. that's a political process. >> of course in 1933 under fdr, right some. >> absolutely. many moments of crisis and panic in particular. economic crisis that begins with moments of financial panic or financialized panic. they have banks at the core. they have different aspects of the whole banking system and the system of global finance at the core. one of the themes that draws all that and the origins of the crisis. that happened yesterday. the slave trade in the textile trade in england. >> the credit that enabled ca l canals to be built and lands to be purchase and slaves and all of that. it came from england. it came from banks like the roth childs and the big banks in england and the bank of england controlled the credit markets for all of that. banks are an interesting part of the panic of 1837. for a long time, historians focused on the bank runs at the end of the period as the start. that was the end of when people were panicked. the causation was just as politic political, the

but then martin van buren was involved in the race too. and so they split the vote, and they split the democratic vote especially this new york where van buren was strong, and taylor won new york, and he won the election. but it was a matter of the democrats who had formed this coalition to behind james k. polk fragmenting again in 1848 and not really clearly deciding on a candidate. in fact, the democrats dime polk and said -- and asked him to run again in 1848, but he said he had given his pledge, and he really wanted to leave office. he'd had enough. yes, sir. >> was it during this time or early or later that the french had designs on mexico? >> that was later on. that was about 20 years later during the -- actually, that was during the civil war. emperor max mill yang went to mexico, yeah. that happened in the 1860s. the french, or part of the french, banked on the south winning the war or at least splitting the country, and then they were going to be able to deal with confederate states of america, this french entity down in mexico. b

states, and maybe madison is first, and maybe it's not, but if medicine is first, the second is martin van burennd buren created the modern political party. and he created the modern political party for two reasons. one, he didn't like the way the constitution worked, and two, it was too hard to amend the constitution itself. and so because he thought there was an overwhelming tendency for power to be centralize in washington, and for the elites who are in charge of the government, in particular the executive and the courts to get out of control of people, he designed an entirely new and an entirely extraconstitutional means of controlling the government. he committed the democratic party. which was supposed to be a way of keeping the bad things that he thought had begun to happen under the constitution from happening. it has had a lot of some anticipated consequences, some uninterested consequences but it is an overwhelmingly powerful consequences for the country. and one of them, once again, one of the problems without a constitution that is so hard to amend is extraconstitutional means or par