Talk:James Madison

comments

The leading paragraph erroneously states that he helped create the Republican Party. In fact, he created the Democratic-Republican Party. The Republican Party (today's GOP) was not formed until 1854. Correcting that and adding a link to the wiki page on the Democratic-Republican Party would be super. Thanks. danisaacs

"Republican Party" is correct. That's what Madison and Jefferson always called it (and most historians too). The GOP of 1864 deliberately chose the same name. Rjensen 03:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

At 5'4" and 100 pounds, Madison was frequently ill and highly religious.

I never knew that stature was so closely associated with health and religious fervor!  ;-) ;-)

Perhaps the author of this article could, well, rewrite this sentence so that it makes some sense? I'm not sure what to say.

--LMS

I don't think it is even accurate to say he was "highly religious." He did study scripture when his health was poor, and he did issue several presidential proclaimations for national days of prayer; but the majority of his public and private writing refered to religion in the context of seperating it from civil authority. see his Memorial and Remonstrance for one example. I'm not saying he was irreligious, but highly religious is an overstatement. I would like to see some reference to the fact that he picked up his strong views on what he called the rights of conscience while studying under John Witherspoon at Princeton. In fact, there's quite a bit I'd like to see added to this entry. I'll collect my notes and post them here sometime next week for comment. -Craig Pennington

---

What I want to know is, what happened to his Vice President after 1814. He was President until 1817, and so had no Vice President for more than two years.

TS

Eldridge Gerry did in office in 1814. Presumably no procedure was in place to replace him until the next election. --rmhermen

Is tha date of birth March 15 or 16?

---

Did Madison have a middle name of Jonas? A google search indicates that James Jonas Madison was a naval commander born in 1888. I've removed it for now. --Minesweeper 10:53, Nov 24, 2003 (UTC)

No, he didn't. Brutannica 23:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Madison's Honor Rank

Go to the bottom of the Talk:George Washington page. Is Madison's rank in the honored Americans anywhere from 5 to 10??

66.245.115.51 00:11, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• Yes, Madison appears to be #5. 66.245.15.101 18:47, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Comments on my edits

I have edited this page: here are my edits:

Some of this material may deserve to be in the article. People have a bad habit of making the founding fathers out to be either devils or saints. Just hightlighting his flaws does nothing to help people understand his motivations, or the value of his contributions to US society. On the other hand, ignoring them prevents people from understanding deficiencies in US society. I interspersed the anonymous editor's interjections with some thoughtful notes. Tafinucane 20:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

>>>>>>>>>>.

Madison was not in favor of a democracy for America, saying that "Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property."

Madison supported the republic, but not anarchy. Tafinucane 20:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Madison wanted a system of checks and balances built into the Constitution so as to prevent the majority of the citizenry from "discovering their own strength" and from acting "in union with each other."

It's called "tyranny of the majority", and Americans should be thankful for checks and balances. For example the persecution of Baptists by the majority Anglicans in VA before the 1800's. Tafinucane 20:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Madison wanted to protect the property of wealthy Americans from governmental action fueled by the desires of the majority of poorer Americans: "Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority."

Property rights were among the cardinal rights bestowed upon man, according to 18th century philosophers. Absolutely he put a premium on property--even to the point of holding property rights above the right to liberty for all human beings. He wasn't ignorant of his hypocrisy, however. Tafinucane 20:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

James Madison, who at times in his life owned over 100 slaves, once told a visitor shortly that he could make $257 on every slave in a year, and spend only $12 or $13 on his keep

I doubt he ever bragged about the profitability of slavedriving. Like other Virginia planters of the time, slavery was a bain for Madison. Except in very lucky years (when the market was high and the weather perfect), Madison's plantation suffered. He would have been better off renting to freeholders, but his ingrained racism could not stomach freeing his slaves. He was a strong supporter of an early, hopeless, "back to Africa" scheme, whereby the national and state gvmts and charities would buy slaves and ship them off to Liberia. Not until the cotton gin would slaveowning become profitable. Tafinucane 20:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

>>>>>>>>>>>

All of these edits are backed up by scholarship, and in fact are well known among historians. You can google each of them and find substantiation.....

I believe you have it backwards: it's not up to others to research your edits to see if you are correct; it's incumbent upon you to cite your sources. Furthermore, your edits consist mostly of quotes without sufficient context, and are thus potentially misleading. For these reasons your contributions should be reverted without prejudice. --Kevin Myers 20:04, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

outrageous!

this wikipedia is nothing but a hive of disingenuous Leftwingers. Perhaps 'Liberalpedia' would be a more accurate description for this web site.

Uh, that doesn't appear to be an accurate accusation. One step is required to complete the above edit, which is citing sources. I actually found the contribution interesting and if Madison believed that landowners were superior to common citizens, (ie, the poor), bragged about his slave labor and profits, etc, then it gives a very insightful look into the motiviations and psyche of this political figure. D. Goldstein

The Virginia Resolution

I don't know about you, but I think that the Virginia Resolution was kind of a big deal... Maybe you could at least mention it in the "Congressional Years" section?

"The Liberalism Series" box

I am finding it difficult to figure out why the Liberalism Series box is in the Madison article. After first arguing for the retification of the Constitution, he was an ardent supporter of states rights. What rationale is there to include this box in this article?

Thoughts, comments? --JRed 23:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Since there's no link to this article in the template, it shouldn't be here. --JW1805 23:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I never knew James Madison was a Ninja

Please help me with this one. I opened the article page and the picture looks like some kid with a ninja mask. Why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.102.245.31 (talk • contribs) 22:12, December 1, 2005.

Random vandalism. That sort of thing gets fixed pretty quickly around here. Rklawton 16:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Treaty of Ghent

I thought that the Treaty of Ghent reset land back to the state it was before the war, not sweertd;s[];d]

SLAKFO'ksad'okAOSDL.KRDJFGJFDXFDHJNFCOFCl;kjAX

OIhfd ;Q'913'-RHJX

More info!

One of the most exasperating things about James Madison is that I've never really read anything about his personal role during his administration. The "Policies" section makes it clear that he started the War of 1812 and had some issues with internal improvements but otherwise has information that could probably be better found on the War of 1812 article. In fact, I'll delete some of it if there are no objections. The point is, though, we need some more info on his actual input in his presidency. The war was only three years long, what else did he do? Brutannica 23:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

please don't delete info on war of 1812. Madison was in charge and his role must be explained Rjensen 02:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Were any laws made under the presidenticy(sorry for my infamously poor spelling) of James Madison ruled unconstitutional?

Madison - The Shortest President? Wasn't it John Adams?

Under Trivia:

"At 5 feet, 4 inches in height (163 cm) and 100 pounds (45 kg) in weight, Madison was the nation's shortest president".

I thought it was John Adams, according to another book I read?

See: List of heights of United States presidential candidates Rklawton 17:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Constitutional Convention

hey i was wondering if anybody noticed that nothing was mentioned about how James Madison acted in the Constitutional Congress? If there's anybody out there that could, well, comment back about what they know about James Madison's arguements, concedes, and attitude during the CC, i would appreciate that. =)

Yeah, this is more full of fifth-grade bio facts and flowery praise than actual information. The Philadelphia Convention doesn't even get a full paragraph. I'm going to put some work into it, but it looks like it's been drawn up by pop history buffs--the sort more concerned with creating an American mythology than representing American history. Fearwig 14:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That's how most articles start. They gain polish over time. Rklawton 16:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Madison as primary author

It is misleading to refer to Madison as the "primary author" of the Constitution. He was no such thing. Although he played an important role at the Philadelphia Convention -- arguably a preeminent role -- the draft was still the result of debate and negotiation amongst all of the delegates. When one refers to him as the "author", the impression readers get is that much of the text of the Constitution was solely a result of his work.

As he himself protested when people later referred to him as the "Father of the Constitution", the document was not "the off-spring of a single brain", but "the work of many heads and many hands." [1]

The problem with giving people the impression that he was the "primary author" is that it causes them to give undue weight to his interpretation of the Constitution, as opposed to the interpretations of other delegates, and, more importantly, of the ratifying state legislatures. To say the he was only "one of many delegates" is probably understating his role, but it is far less misleading than to say that he was the primary author. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Callisthenes (talk • contribs) 08:05, June 11, 2006.

He is pretty uniformly described as the "primary author." This doesn't mean he was the only author. I don't see a problem. Calling him "one of many delegates" is much more misleading than calling him the "primary author," although I'd be open to other descriptions that acknowledge his, as you describe it, "preeminent" role without using the words "primary author." john k 15:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

In general, this article needs to elaborate on Madison's role in drafting the Constitution. The current one or two sentences doesn't really give much detail. --JW1805 (Talk) 16:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

How about something to the effect of "He played a leading role in the negotiation and drafting of the United States Constitution..." Callisthenes 02:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

he played THE leading role--he wrote it, Nobody comes close in importance. Rjensen 02:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow! "He wrote it." I'm glad you're here to set us straight, Rjensen. Please cite your dog-eared pop history biography, so we can be reassured. To say that Madison "wrote" the constitution is to fall victim to the cherry-tree myth all over again. If you have ever read from the minutes of the convention you will realize that Madison, while a prominent figure for the Federalist perspective, was not the only one putting out ideas, not even close, and a lot of compromises were made. It doesn't really matter who put pen to paper (and I'm not sure he did)--this was a legislative (or pseudo-legislative) body, and Madison was one member of a large group. Have you ever really studied history? Do you know how to protect yourself from falling in love with every new presidential biography you read? I'm not out to pick on you, but this happens on every page you edit significantly--please filter yourself for silly POV so we don't have to. It's a hell of a lot of work fighting with you over stuff like this. Fearwig 14:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

There are many good references to Madison's role at the National Archives site. He certainly was the person behind the whole convention and was the leader of those seeking a strong central government. However, the original draft of the Constitution was written by "Nathaniel Gorham of Massachusetts, John Rutledge, Edmund Randolph, James Wilson, and Oliver Ellsworth" according to the article linked to. So, I'd go with primary architect, leading role, etc., but the facts do not support the assertion that he actually wrote it. Steve p 02:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It's probably inaccurate to characterize him as the leader of those seeking a strong central government (the "federalists", for the sake of simplicity, even if the term wasn't necessarily popularized by the time of ratification save in the paper of the same name). Madison was a moderate on the federalism/anti-federalism spectrum, especially compared to people like Hamilton, and while he held a lot of sway for his oratory he didn't have incredible sway in his faction. Think of him as a powerful rhetorical weapon, perhaps, but not a reliable one, from say Hamilton's perspective. :) Read up on the bill of rights inclusion debate for more, perhaps... he eventually came to support the modern BoR post-ratification, something most federalists wouldn't touch (as a BoR was considered a radically a-f addition--don't believe the classical "to ensure ratification" argument, either, as a lack of a BoR was the main obstacle to ratification in most states). Though some historians have put forth evidence that his post-ratification push for the BoR amendments had more to do with securing a congressional seat in VA than any authentic populist sentiments. I'll pull some sources together and see if I can't write up a full bill of rights debate section. Fearwig 14:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Later life - Convention notes

Is it just me or does the following part sound wrong?

"His detailed notes on the Constitutional Convention were published after his death. By his request, these notes were not to be published until the death of the last signer of the Constitution. The implication is that Madison did not want the thoughts and debates of the founders to shape the nation's interpretation of what the Constitution meant. He strongly believed that the text, and only the text, should be consulted."

I thought the refusal to publish until after his death was so no one who took part in the Constitutional Convention would be questioned for certain opinions expressed (Hamilton's views on the British constitution comes to mind). Any thoughts? --Sparkhurst 23:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

--after 50 years, when he was the last survivor he still kept the notes secret. That suggests he was not protecting anyone. Rjensen 23:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the section in the paragraph I've highlighted? Perhaps a quote? --Sparkhurst 23:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

"Madison's Notes were not published until about 1840, perhaps to fulfill an early decision by the original convention forbidding disclosure of the proceedings, to which Madison may have felt himself bound while the other participants lived, and it was after all the rest of them had died that he did finally publish them." This website might reveal some more answers as it already has. --Sparkhurst 00:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sparkhurst has it right, the "shaping the nation's interpretation" stuff is nonsense, unless directly citable. Publishing something postmortem is what you do to escape possible shame or fault for yourself or another, it doesn't make sense to publish something postmortem if you don't want people to read it and draw conclusions--they'll do it anyway, after all, you'll just be dead. Though it does sound so much more romantic this way (*swoon*). Fearwig 14:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The conclusion in the former text seems like a bit of a jump. However, I have read an excerpt from one of Madison's letters in which he effectively says that he thinks it's wrong for people to consider what the intentions of the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention were; if anything, they should consider the debates of the state legislatures. I believe it was in Edward S. Corwin, The Commerce Power versus States Rights (Princeton University Press, 1936). I don't have a copy of the book at hand, but I'll check it at the library next chance I get. Callisthenes 06:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

for a thorough discussion of why he did not publish despite heavy pressure see [2] Madison rejected Jefferson's plea in 1799 to publish them, and never gave a good explanatyion of why he held out. [he did not, it seems, make a duplicate copy for safety in case his house burned] Rjensen 06:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Reading it, I can't say it's very thorough or very explicit about his reasons. As such it's not really responsible to state such explicit (and apparently presumptuous) reasons in the article. Fearwig 13:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Democratic-Republican

I think it's time we started a discussion on this matter rather than revert edits back and forth. Feel free to begin... Rklawton 16:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

contradict itself template

I placed this template on top of the page because James Madison's political activity, according to the article, contradicts itself. The article doesn't attempt to explain the actual political contradiction of Madison's party affiliations, (Federalist vs Democratic-Republican), but only further confuses the matter.

Here are some contradictory statements:

• Known as the "Father of the Constitution," he played a leading role in the creation of the United States Constitution in 1787 and, with Alexander Hamilton, was the chief expounder of its meaning in the Federalist Papers (1788).
• Working closely with Thomas Jefferson he created the Democratic-Republican Party in the mid-1790s and built a system of grass roots political activism that was victorious in the "Revolution of 1800."
• The chief characteristic of Madison's time in Congress was his desire to limit the power of the federal government.
• During this time, the debate between Hamilton and Jefferson led to the formation of the first political parties in U.S. history.
• Members of the Federalist Party followed Hamilton and believed in a strong central government. KingWen_€ŸØãç 18:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

thanks for pointing out the problems. I tried to clarify them--historians debate whether he reversed himself or was consistent. Wiki can't resolve that argument but we can point it out. Rjensen 18:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Rjenssen. It seems clear that he couldn't have been consistent, because two more opposing and contradictory factions, as the Federalists and the Jeffesonians, couldn't have ever happened. Some further delving into history may be in order. I'll attempt it if I can find the time. KingWen_€ŸØãç 02:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

there were two different groups called Federalists. 1) 1787-88 Federalist = supporter of Constitution. Included both Hamilton and Madison. 2) 1793-onward Federalist = supporter of Washington Govt & Hamilton programs. Madison was OPPOSED. Rjensen 02:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

$Insertformulahere$

That is correct. Being an author of the Federalist Papers and helping to create the Republicans is not a contradiction. I can see how it may be viewed as such. I am not certain of a way to clarify it in the article however. Perhaps just a good explanation of the Federalist papers themselves. Welsh4ever76 19:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Can the template be taken off? Welsh4ever76 01:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

I found this bit of trivia questionable: "Madison is currently the only sitting president to have taken fire from enemy combatants during war" questionable. I'm pretty sure Lincoln took fire when visiting a fort during the Civil War. If so, I'm thinking we should reword the entry. It's interesting as far as trivia goes, if not entirely accurate in its present form. Rklawton 14:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's the Lincoln link[3]

I don't know if Washington was actually shot at, but he lead troops while in office as president against an insurrection.

At any rate, this bit about Madison being the only sitting president shot at in combat would have to be super-qualified to read something like "foreign troops" or the like since Lincoln and Washington(perhaps) faced rebels. Rklawton 21:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)