2 Photos
Raise your hand if you know who Nathan Sanford was. I confess. I’d never heard of him either. As far as I can tell, he is a virtual unknown today.
That ignorance has been dispelled with the appearance of a new biography by Ann Sandford, “Reluctant Reformer: Nathan Sanford in the Era of the Early Republic” (Excelsior Editions, State University of New York Press, 204pp, $29.95). Ms. Sandford, who lives in Sagaponack and has a Ph.D. from New York University, is also the author of “Grandfather Lived Here: The Transformation of Bridgehampton, New York, 1870-1970.” She is a distant cousin of Nathan Sanford.
Sanford was born in Bridgehampton and attended school at the Clinton Academy in East Hampton. He studied law in Connecticut, first at the Litchfield School of Law before completing his education with a degree from Yale. He practiced law in New York City.
But he was captivated by politics and was elected to the State Assembly then the State Senate. He was later elected to the U.S. Senate, ran for vice president on Henry Clay’s ticket in 1824 despite an illness, and was elected to the Senate again in 1826.
Ms. Sandford identifies to some extent the reasons for his relative anonymity in that “he left no record of political thought captured in pamphlets, and no diaries with insightful observations. Nor did he leave extensive correspondences with prominent men of his day. His written legacy survives in the main, through recorded legal arguments and court judgments, in legislative records, and in the few pieces of political correspondence, that remain.”
He was diligent and was no time-waster. We get a glimpse of his personality when we learn that he eliminated the central “d” in his last name so he could sign his name more quickly. His views were enlightened for his time, but he was no firebrand. He sought to expand the franchise to African-American and Native American men, with little effect.
Ms. Sandford describes Sanford’s practice as a politician as being “less a visionary than a conscientious legislator, Sanford defined the role of the central government as one of monitoring and regulating, rather than initiating broad new programs. With that mindset, he left a mixed record in the Senate.”
He was a man of principle but he was not above compromising those principles.
He seldom engaged in debate due to a disease of the lungs that made his speech nearly inaudible. It was this disease that ultimately killed him. In the last days of his retirement he went to Cuba thinking that the tropical weather would be good for his health. Six months after his return, in 1838, he died at his estate in Flushing. Brilliant lawyer that he was, he nevertheless died intestate. Ms. Sandford comments, “That Sanford left no will is evidence of his unrealistic assessment of the health problems he had once ably managed. Building on his success, he acquired an arrogance that permitted him, as he approached age 60 to believe his death lay in the distant future. He may also have feared uncovering and facing the extent of his financial liabilities.”
“Reluctant Reformer” is a significant work of scholarship. Nearly 60 pages of notes testify to the thoroughness of Ms. Sandford’s research into the life of a man whom the history books have largely ignored. We are in her debt.
Ann Sandford will appear at Hampton Library in Bridgehampton on Saturday, January 27, at 11 a.m. to discuss “Reluctant Reformer” and Nathan Sanford. For more information, visit hamptonlibrary.org.
on Jan 17, 2018