Thinking about the American Revolution: James Madison
Thinking about the American Revolution: James Madison
“To cherish peace and friendly intercourse with all nations having correspondent dispositions; to maintain sincere neutrality toward belligerent nations; to prefer in all cases amicable discussion and reasonable accommodation of differences to a decision of them by an appeal to arms; to exclude foreign intrigues and foreign partialities, so degrading to all countries and so baneful to free ones; to foster a spirit of independence too just to invade the rights of others, too proud to surrender our own, too liberal to indulge unworthy prejudices ourselves and too elevated not to look down upon them in other; … to avoid the slightest interference with the right of conscience or the functions of religion, so wisely exempted from civil jurisdiction; … to keep within the requisite limits a standing military force, always remembering that an armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics — that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe; … ”
— James Madison (1809) in his 1st Inaugural Address
Today we continue the examination of our founding fathers by considering the contributions of James Madison. This American politician and political philosopher worked untiringly to launch our republic via a sound Constitution and democratic republic dedicated to the freedom of our people. He became our 4th President after serving in the Continental Congress and the 1st House of Representatives.
During the Constitutional Convention in 1787, he became the primary author of the United States Constitution; he is often given the title of “The Father of the Constitution,” a title that he hesitantly accepted. In support for the ratification of that Constitution, Madison joined Alexander Hamilton and John Jay in writing the Federalist Papers which defended this new form of government. Madison actively supported the ratification of this Constitution in the Virginia legislature. As a member of the 1st Congress after the ratification by the thirteen states, he fought for the inclusion of a statement of rights to be included in the Constitution; these became the first ten Amendments to the Constitution, the ‘Bill of Rights.’ As a result of his efforts, he was also acclaimed as “The Father of the Bill of Rights.”
“Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Governments, the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from the acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the constituents.”
James Madison in a letter to Thomas Jefferson (1788)
He was an active legislator throughout the first four Congresses. He opposed most of Alexander Hamilton’s legislative agenda as well as John Jay’s Treaty with the British; Madison along with Jefferson supported the French rather than the English. He was Jefferson’s protégé and a vocal defender of a strict interpretation of the Constitution and states’ rights. During Jefferson’s Presidency, he was Secretary of State and negotiated the ‘Louisiana Purchase’ which doubled the size of our nation. In 1809, Madison became the successor as President. He guided our nation through the ‘War of 1812’ which established our economic independence from the British and our equal standing in the international community.
“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind of self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”
— James Madison
He was a tireless crusader for American freedom, a guide in the establishment of a strong nation, and a defender of the rights of our people. Let’s examine some of his ideas in more detail…
PLEASE READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE:
http://glb-thoughts.blogspot.com/2009/07/thinking-about-amer...
Response to Simple Sam
http://books.google.com/books?id=Vp9y24KfbA0C&dq=%22Robert+Y...
Here is a report by three delegates to the convention, "Secret Proceedings and Debates of the Convention Assembled at Philadelphia"
John C Calhoun, having read the notes of New York delegate Robert Yates, said the convention was a battle between the Nationalists and Federalists which the latter won. Hamilton, Madison, and Jay(not a delegate) were Nationalists even though they wrote the commentary on the Constitution named the "Federalist Papers". How clever of them! The losers decided what the Constitution meant.
There were other points of view about the Constitution by men ignored and forgotten. The "Founders" were not monolithic.
The Constitutional
The Constitutional Convention was very complex, trying to divide each delegate into two groups is worthless.
There were various groups and alliances at work, among them:
large states vs small states
south vs north
more democracy vs less democracy
stronger union vs weaker union
any one delegate could be all over the place on these issues.
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for James Madison.
The fundamental question decided at the CC
was whether the United States would remain a federation with a federal government or whether it would become "one nation indivisible" (Rufus King argued that states should be abolished).. This was the debate at the ratification conventions. Compared to this all other questions were by comparison minutiae.
Rufus King was also proposed
Rufus King also proposed abolishing the slave trade and supported abolishing slavery altogether. He only supported abolishing the states because they enslaved, in some of them, over 60% of the population.
Rufus King did NOT support a consolidated national government that allowed slavery. He also supported a voluntarily created consolidated government, not one by force, like Lincoln.
So if you are going to dump on Rufus King, you will have to confront issues of liberty vs slavery.
In Wisconsin, where I live, there is a very large High School in Milwaukee, with mostly minority and black students, named Rufus King High School, named in his honor.
Rufus King also supported the Constitution, which has sovereign states and a sovereign federal government, dual sovereignty.
Very few of the Framers supported a consolidated government, maybe Hamilton was the only other one. First of all, they knew it would not get ratified so the idea was a waste of time. (and Hamilton supported the final Constitution as well)
The biggest issue at the Convention was the Great compromise, the argument over representation in the Senate between the large and small states.
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for James Madison.
Dump on Rufus King you say! Really?
Rufus King did NOT support a consolidated national government that allowed slavery. He also supported a voluntarily created consolidated government, not one by force, like Lincoln. QUOTE
In Madison's CC notes Rufus proposes abolishing the states. Repeating his proposal is dumping on him? You can't be serious.
Hey I think it's great there is a Rufus King High School in Milwaukee. I even think it's great there's a Milwaukee and a Wisconsin too. Still, how relevant is that to the discussion?
Without states and therefore without states governments he was supporting a consolidated national government, and that's all I said and all I intended to say.
The most important issue at the convention was the relationship between the states, the central government, and the people.
You're concentrating on details.
The Federalists and Anti-Federalist diasgreed about the form of the central government at the ratification conventions. History has shown the central government from the beginning had the seeds of a nationalist consolidated government.
"History has shown the
"History has shown the central government from the beginning had the seeds of a nationalist consolidated government."
It also had the seeds of individual sovereign states who declared their independence in 1861.
You are spinning.
Rufus King was one of the Founding Fathers most vocal against slavery by his words and deeds. Given that the Founding Fathers are under attack by the liberal media regarding slavery, I argue that dumping on Rufus King for Convention minutia is a big waste of time.
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for James Madison.
Arguments of the Anti-Federalists is not spinning.
The seeds as Patrick Henry and other Anti-Federalists pointed out are among others, the Preamble itself, the "necessary and proper clause", "general welfare clause", and the "supremacy clause"
I really don't care what the liberal media thinks, and again I'm not dumping on Rufus. Poor Rufus was a nationalist, just a fact. His views about slavery are irrelevant. They don't make him a non-nationalist.
By 1861 the nationalists were denying the sovereignty of the states. That's what the war was about.
People who want to seize
People who want to seize power will not be stopped by words on a piece of paper, they never have, no matter how clear they are.
Regarding the nationalists in 1861, they were making claims that were quite crazy and not believable; that the Union preceded the States. This claim was never made by Rufus King, it was made by Daniel Webster. Do you remember the letter Madison wrote to Webster in 1833? He corrected Webster on this point.
Also, Madison's notes of the Convention were secret until 1840. When they came out, it was obvious that those who supported consolidated government were very few, and were outnumbered by the vast consensus of the Founding Fathers.
You can't blame King for stupid arguments made in 1861.
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for James Madison.
They were brave...
And they knew the truth, and that will never be forgotten.
As for Hamilton....Pfsha, all a facade. Hamilton was nothing but another banker, and a communist, he didn't share the vision of Jefferson or Madison to any degree.
Still don't know why they claim James Madison was such a nationalist. He was interested in individual liberty in the commons, some "nationalist" detail that was. Or was it because he wanted a real union, a confederation.
He was nothing like the others so that's not much.
Madison flip-flopped many times
during his political career. Very inconsistent. The Federalists were actually nationalists who favored a strong central government. The anti-Federalists were the true Federalists.
JC
*****The Federal Reserve is neither.*****
*****The Federal Reserve is neither.*****
RocketMan, everything you say here is true.
The bad manners on this forum doesn't change one iota.
Total BS, troll. None of
Total BS, troll. None of the founding fathers, except maybe Hamilton, favored a strong central government.
They all ended up supporting a weak central governemnt, the US Constitution.
The strong central governments of the time were found in England, France, and Spain.
Nor did Madison "flip-flop". Madison, after reflective thought and persuassion from Jefferson, changed his mind about a Bill-of-Rights.
He not only changed his mind, he got it done.
Give the dude a break, he was only 36 years old.
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for James Madison.
He's unteachable...
Just forget it & spread the message to others.
Lies.
They ALL FAVORED TAXATION!
Taxation without
Taxation without representation.
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for James Madison.
Interestingly enough...
Hamilton wasn't his real last name, it was Levine...a Jew. Surprise, surprise. No, I'm not being racist or anti-semite, but there are factions within the Jewish ranks that historically have manipulated and continue to manipulate the currencies of nations around the world through central banking. Just ask the Rothschilds--Gates and Buffett are paupers next to this dynasty.
Found a quick link on bodybuilding.com of all places--
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?referrerid=1120...
He was a globalist Zionist bastard....
And a Zionist Jew who attempted to "defend" liberty while doing the opposite.
And I truly do despise all powerful Zionist Jews, they are horrible, as horrible as their underling Zionist christians....
I just never say it out too loudly.....
"You were a viper of thieves, and I will root you out!"
Hamilton was Globalist scum of the age
beauty
bump a strong bump for freedom*))
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
-- Patrick Henry
Website:
http://www.libertypoet.com/
Twitter:
http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
"How can we justify to the unemployed and underemployed in the United States the incredible cost of maintaining a global empire?" - Dr. Ron Paul
I will root you out....
"For you a den of vipers, thieves! Parasites. ... "
http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/mcfadden.html
In 1930 Congressman McFadden brought criminal charges against the Bankers who toiled away & tore up the currency...
It would be unconstitutional
It would be unconstitutional for a legislator to usurp executive powers. I think you mean impeach.
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for James Madison.
And he almost did, impeach the whole board....
1934.....McFadden was prepared to impeach the board with his fellow senators at his side.
For balance here is a less worshipful view
http://www.la-articles.org.uk/FL-5-4-3.pdf
of Madison and others in Hummel's "Constitution as Counter-Revolution".
If he's the "Father of the Constitution", it wasn't the child he wanted.
Thanks
Your article sucks, it is
Your article sucks, it is filled with hogwash, here are a few examples:
"At the other end of the Revolutionary
coalition wore the American nationalists -
men such as Benjamin Franklin, George
Washington, Robert Morris, Alexander
Hamilton and James Madison. Representing
a powerful array of mercantile,
creditor and landed interests, the nationalists
went along with independence but
opposed the Revolution's libertarian thrust.
They sought a strong and effective American
central government, which would reproduce
the hierarchical features of the eighteenthcentury
British State, only without the
British."
James Madison most certainly did not want the federal government to be like the British. The Virginia Plan's most revolutionary idea was its concept of representation. All through history, all government's have had imperfect or non-existant representation schemes.
Madison wanted representation to be proportional to free population. In the English Parliment, the representation was a total mess, with many areas not represented at all, and other areas with only a few people getting representatives.
"Consequently, Alexander Hamilton and
James Madison, assuming leadership of the
nationalists, made an end run around the
Articles."
In other words, they used good, honest strategy.
"On the other end of the political spectrum,
many ardent Federalists were perfectly
prepared to renege on their solemn promises
to amend the Constitution, now that their
new national government was safely in
operation. Only the politically astute
Madison seemed to realize that the popular
demand for a bill of rights had to be fulfilled.
While privately complaining about "the
nauseous project of amendments", Madison
carefully culled through the more than two
hundred state proposals, eliminating any that
in his words might "endanger the beauty of
the Government"."
This is true.
"Most of the Bill of Rights restricted the
national government's authority over its
subjects. Only one part dealt with the
relationship between the state and central
governments: the Tenth Amendment. A
similar clause had been part of The Articles
of Confederation, and every state ratifying
convention that proposed amendments to the
Constitution had requested just such a
change. But Madison worded the amendment
skilfully, to calm opponents of the
Constitution, without detracting one iota
from the power of the national government.
Whereas the Articles had granted each state
its "sovereignty, freedom and independence",
the Tenth Amendment only "reserved" to the
states or people all powers not "delegated to
the United States by the Constitution".
Obviously. how much the amendment
furthered states' rights depended upon how
much power the Constitution granted to the
national government in the first place."
This is a lie.
"In the long run, however, the whiskey tax
and other excises were the Federalists'
undoing. On the basis of popular opposition
to these internal taxes, Jefferson was able to
organize a new political party promoting
radical republicanism. Joining Jefferson in
this endeavour was Madison, who
abandoned the Federalists for the
Republicans. (This switch has led some
historians to speculate that Madison may
have slightly doctored his journal of the
Philadelphia convention before its
posthumous publication to make the
Constitution appear more consistent with his
later, less nationalistic, political views.
Remember that the convention was held in
secret, all other accounts were very sketchy,
and by the time of Madison's death there was
no other delegate still alive to contradict
him.)"
This is BS innuendo, with no evidence. Madison's notes are accurate.
Madison changed his views gradually over time, just like everybody does. He was influenced by his best friend Thomas Jefferson, for example. He was only 36 years old at the time of the Convention. Another reason Madison became less nationalistic was because some important proposels from the Virginia plan were not adopted.
He had also studied history, and up to that time all confederations had disolved because they were too weak. He knew of no examples were a confederation was too strong. But after the Constitution was in operstion a couple of years, he agreed that iof anything, it was too strong.
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for James Madison.
Re Your Article Sucks
LOL, I haven't used that kind of language since I was twelve, wait a minute, it's possible using that word wasn't invented by that time.
Why do you have to call Mr. Hummel a liar? Why can't you just say he was wrong?
Most Important part of the Virginia Plan
6. Resolved that each branch ought to possess the right of originating Acts; that the National Legislature ought to be empowered to enjoy the Legislative Rights vested in Congress by the Confederation and moreover to legislate in all cases to which the separate States are incompetent, or in which the harmony of the United States may be interrupted by the exercise of individual Legislation; to negative all laws passed by the several States, contravening in the opinion of the National Legislature the articles of Union; and to call forth the force of the Union against any member of the Union failing to fulfill its duty under the articles thereof. [5]
QUOTE
The most important part of the Virginia Plan was the part that wasn't adopted. The above quote of Resolution Six of the Virginia Plan starting with the words "to negative" show that Madison wanted a national (consolidated) government that had the power to negate state laws and to use force against a state. The delegates at the CC rejected this part which would have immediately created a national government. Madison and Hamilton were nationalists who didn't get their way. The convention created a federal government.
Madison was a complex character who changed his views. It's a mistake to hero worship any of these people.
Mr. Hummel, I don't believe is a liberal, believe he's a libertarian.
You forget that the House
You forget that the House was far more powerful in Madison's Plan than the way things ended up, and the president was much weaker in Madison's Plan.
The House got to pick the Senate, and the House & Senate together picked the president.
Also, Madison had a better plan for judicial review, by allowing unconstitutional laws to be negated right away. Under our system now, it takes years for an unconstitional law to be negated, if ever.
Madison did not really change his views. Under his plan, the federal government would have been an inert "empire of liberty", so he favored a stronger central government at the inception of the Convention.
But when some of his checks against federal power were removed, he became less in favor of the central government.
Madison's plan is better than the Constitution. Most of the problems we are having now with big government would have been avoided had we stick with Madison's Plan.
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for James Madison.
Hamilton is who wanted central government....
Madison was opposed to this autocratic system as he simply did not agree with the British point of view. Madison wanted less government, with central control still a part of it, not more.
http://www.usconstitution.net
Hamilton was the opposite, he, Hamilton was a banker. He had experience that Madison had never known. Thus Hamilton was in favor of just purely centralized control using foreign banks, akin to the Bank of England. Alexander Hamilton was of course very wrong, but it would take Jefferson pointing such out, for the people to get it.
As I showed above Madison would
have reduced the states to mere provinces of a more powerful central government. The central government would have had the ability to negate state law at will.
Add to that Madison and Hamilton opposed a Bill of Rights as both stated in the "Federalist Papers". The Bill of Rights was a check on the power of the Feds.
No, if Madison had gotten his way the Constitution would have been much worse. The subjection of the states would have been immediate. Of course in time the nationalists got their way as we all know.
Looks like another liberal
Looks like another liberal scholar nit-picking the Founding Fathers. Just what the Ron Paul Revolution needs. Yikes!
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for James Madison.
Nit-picking?
Noting disagreements among the "Founding Fathers" is nit-picking? Noting differences between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, who had as much claim to the American Revolution as anyone, is nit-picking?