James Madison
4. James Madison (Mar 16, 1751 - Jun 28, 1836; President 1809-1817)
JAMES MADISON (1751-1836) was the fourth president, from 1809-1817.
He was born in Virginia, eldest son of James Madison and Eleanor Rose Conway. He graduated from Princeton in 1771. President Witherspoon said he never heard Madison do or say an improper thing. His studies here led him to distrust pure majority rule. He studied theology. However, he shows little interest in theological matters as he focused on the need to the time, liberation from Britain. He learned to respect, if not fully embrace, the Christianity taught here. He especially liked John Lock. He early argued for liberty of belief or unbelief and separation of church and state. His argument was that each had their sphere of influence to fulfill for the improvement of human life. He did not want either to corrupt the other. Throughout his life, he abhorred slavery. As owners of slaves, he referred to them as “of the family.” By 1782, he had 182 slaves. He formed close relationships with the slaves with whom he played as a child. In his early adult life, he sought economic independence from Montpelier, due to his desire to extract himself from dependence on slavery. He had come to believe slavery was immoral, uneconomic, and destined to disappear. Yet, throughout his life, he found it difficult to dislodge it in Virginia.
He took seriously his role as a nation builder. His friendship with Thomas Jefferson would last throughout his life. He assumed the energy of the 13 colonies on the coast would spread west. In fact, he became convinced that liberty as a hope among the peoples of western civilization would spread. He sat in the Virginia Constitutional Convention in 1776. He was a member of the Continental Congress. He was chief recorder at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Scholars rightfully view him as the Father of the Constitution. He supported the ratification in the Federalist Papers, written with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay. His opponents were anti-federalists like Samuel Adams and John Hancock. He came to believe the powers of the federal government should be supreme, that its powers be enumerated, and that it needed a Bill of Rights.
Among his concerns was that after the revolution, the Articles of Confederation created a national government far too weak to continue the union of the states he thought so important.
Walter Williams thinks that there would have been an entirely different America without Madison's enormous input and foresight at the contentious 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. There were 55 delegates to the convention. Alexander Hamilton was a key figure at the convention. He called for a president for life with total veto power over the legislature. Most other delegates, led by Madison along with John Adams, wanted a republic; none wanted a democracy. Madison argued that in a pure democracy, "there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual." Delegate Edmund Randolph agreed, saying, "In tracing these evils to their origin, every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy." Adams added: "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Eleven years earlier, Madison had helped to develop the Virginia Constitution, and it was his Virginia Plan that served as the basis for debate in the development of the U.S. Constitution. Madison, along with Hamilton, argued for a strong but limited central government that could unify the country. During the Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made that would have allowed the federal government to suppress a seceding state. Madison rejected it by saying, as summarized by the transcript:
"A union of the states containing such an ingredient (would seem) to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."
This vision of a state's independence and right to secede was expressed at Virginia's ratification convention, which held, "The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression." Rhode Island's and New York's ratification documents made similar statements. By the way, Rhode Island anti-federalist resistance against the Constitution was so strong that civil war almost broke out July 4, 1788.[1]
We see his political genius in the contribution he made to The Federalist. In Federalist Number 10, he refers to the potential for union to limit the violence of the dangerous vice of faction. The friend of government by consent of the governed must have a concern for this. He thinks American constitutions have made admirable advances over ancient and modern models of government by popular consent. He hears complaints that such government is too unstable. Rival parties are by their nature disregarding of the public good. Most importantly, decision will be by superior force of an interested and overbearing majority, rather than according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minority party. To some degree, these charges are true. He defines a faction as a number of citizens whose animating principles, interests, and passions, are adverse to the rights of other citizens or to the interests of the community as a whole. To remove the liberty that gives to faction would be to introduce a cure worse than the disease. He uses air and fire as an analogy. Fire needs air to survive. Yet, if you remove the air, you also remove a necessary element of animal life. Further, people will not all think alike, for the reason that humanity is fallible. Liberty will mean the formation of groups of like mind. The zeal with which people attach to religion, governing, and speculation, inflames mutual animosity, rendering them disposed to vex and oppress each other rather than cooperate for their common good. In fact, frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle unfriendly passions and violent conflict. Yet, the most common source of faction is the unequal distribution of property. Those who gain their wealth through differing means also create faction. No one is allowed to judge his her own cause because the personal investment would bias judgment and corrupt integrity. In a government by popular consent, the result will be that the largest faction will prevail, without regard for the common good. The notion of enlightened political leaders resolving the issue is no answer, for they will not always be at the helm. His point is that one cannot remove the causes of faction, but one can control its effects. Pure democracy is no cure, for a majority passion will prevail at some point that is against personal liberty. A republic that has a scheme of representation has the greatest possibility of a cure that will work. The union of a large republic has the advantage of not enflaming passions across the states. Thus, one might enflame passions within a particular state, but it will not likely spread to all. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for equal division of property, or any other wicked project, is less apt to persuade the whole.
In Federalist 45, Madison considers whether the powers delegated in the constitution will endanger the powers of the states. He states that the union is essential to the security of Americans from foreign aggression. The union is also the best guard against states warring among themselves. The union of the states is the best guard for the blessings of liberty. The union of the states is essential to the happiness of the people of America. He refers to the Old World doctrine that the people exist for kings. We must not suggest that the people exist for the continuing powers of the states. The public good, the real welfare of the great body of people, is the supreme object we must pursue. That is the reason the rebellion recently spilled so much blood. He finds himself concerned with the tendency of taking away the authorities of the general government. Yet, in the proposed constitution, the states retain an extensive portion of active sovereignty. The ruin of early Greek democracies came from the inability to consolidate federal authority for the good of the whole. The same was true in the feudal systems of Europe. External danger has forced the formation of national states in Europe. Then, in a statement many of us might now look upon as naïve, he wrote that state government would have the advantage over the federal government. People are closer to the state than the federal. It has larger powers granted to them. They are, in a sense, essential parts of the federal government, while the federal government is not essential to the respective states. In the original scheme of election, the President does not win without the intervention of the state legislatures. The election by State legislatures will determine the makeup of the Senate. The branches of the federal government owe their existence to the favor the states. The number of persons employed by the states will be much larger than those who employed at the federal level. While the federal government has the power to tax throughout the states, it will not likely resort to that power. Then, in an interesting section, he stresses that powers of the federal government are few and defined. The powers that remain to the states are numerous and indefinite. The defined powers of the federal government focus on external objects, such as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce, which will be the primary purpose of taxation. The federal government will expand its importance in times of war and danger, and the states will expand during times of peace and security. Times of war being less, the states will have the advantage over the federal government. The new constitution simply invigorates the original powers of the federal government. The regulation of commerce is a new power, but few oppose it. He grants that the most important change is the power to tax.
Federalist 51discusses proper checks and balance between the differing departments. He begins by saying that the interior structure of the government is that its several parts may keep, by their mutual relations, each other in their proper paces. Each department should have a will of its own. Each department should have as little involvement as possible in the appointment of the members of the others. Each department should be dependent on the other as little as possible. As he sees it, ambition counteracts ambition. He thinks that human nature is such that one needs such protections to control the abuses of government. Government itself reflects human nature. If people were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern people, one would need no control of the abuses of government. Government is by people and for people. The government must control to some extent the governed, but it must also control itself. What the constitution does is divide the legislature into different branches and different modes of election and differing principles of action, with little connection to each other. The division of government is a means of protecting the rights of the people. In addition to guarding against the oppression of the people by its rules, we need to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. His concern is that the rights of the minority will be insecure against a tyranny of the majority. He thought the security of civil rights would derive from the multiplicity of interests. Justice is the end of government. Justice is the end of civil society. His concern is that stronger factions will oppress the weaker. He wants a government that will protect the weak and the strong.
In the Federalist Papers, Madison addressed the need for a Senate to accompany the more populist House of Representatives. An upper body, he wrote, “may be sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions.” For the times when a political leader would attempt to capitalize on those errors and delusions, the Founders prescribed the Senate, with its members elected to terms three times the length of those in the House, originally chosen not by the people but by the state legislatures. From Federalist 63:
“There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind?”
Walter E. Williams points out that the founders of our nation held a deep abhorrence for democracy and majority rule.[2] In Federalist Paper No. 10, James Madison wrote,
"Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority."
Jefferson and James Madison founded and led the Democratic-Republican Party. He worked with Madison and his campaign manager John J. Beckley to build a nationwide network of Republican allies to combat Federalists across the country.
He did not marry Dolly until September 15, 1794.
In 1798, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison joined to write the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which declared that
“the powers of the federal government … (result) from the compact, to which the states are parties … in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.”
In simpler terms, the states, according to the framers, were duty-bound to resist action by the federal government superseding its allotted authority under the Constitution.
He became Jefferson's secretary of state in 1801. The constitutional basis for this purchase created an issue for both Madison and Jefferson because it was not part of the enumerated powers of the federal government. He also did not doubt that all of Florida would be part of the United States, for Spain was corrupt and not fit to govern this land. That was “manifest destiny” at work. Madison and Jefferson settled on a republican theory of foreign affairs. They had a common conception of national purpose that focused on spread of virtue and liberty. Therefore, the nation must shun military adventures. They wanted to seek reciprocal trade arrangements. They wanted to let the growth of its wealth make it impregnable to its enemies. He would disagree with John Quincy Adams on everything regarding foreign affairs, until the Louisiana Purchase.
Ralph Ketcham (biography of 1990) describes his personal qualities. Others could experience him as indecisive, irresolute, ineffective, and evasive. Yet, friend and foe regarded him as informed, keen minded, and brilliant. Over a long period, he could be tenacious, especially after study and reflection.
He became president in 1808, at the age of 58. Jefferson was glad of this election, as it would continue republican notions of governance. Dolly hosted political gatherings in the drawing room of the President’s house weekly. In contrast to Jefferson, they were a social triumph on the Washington scene. However, due to political expediency and sectional balance, he had the issue of having one of the weakest cabinets in American history. He was a strict constructionist, opposed to the free interpretation of the Constitution by the Federalists. In 1811, William Henry Harrison defeated the Indians under the Prophet at Tippecanoe. He was re-elected in 1812, by the votes of the agrarian South and recently admitted western states. Caught between British and French maritime restrictions, the US drifted into war, which was declared on June 18, 1812. This war arose as Napoleon moved across Europe, forcing the Unites States to attempt neutrality between Britain and France. It did not work. For Madison, Britain was the country most capable of harming America, especially through its navy. Even enemies praised his speech that prepared the nation for war. They received encouraging confidence of victory by General William Henry Harrison in his bloody victory over Tecumseh at Tippecanoe, in which Indians sided with Britain. The war also gave them the opportunity to expand the empire. The vote in the House was 79-49 for war, and 19-13 in the Senate. However, neither Britain nor France respected the US due to the shifting politics of Madison. Further, Madison had not prepared the nation for war. He had no effective armed service. He seemed irresolute. In fact, federalists called for their people to resist and obstruct the war. Northern states did not meet quotas as called for by the President. Madison made the point that the war will be victorious if the enemy thinks it must contend with all the people. He was physically sick during much of this time. Rep. Grosvener made the accusation that he had tricked the country into war. Britain tightened its grip through the navy. General Harrison defeated Britain and the Indians in the west. The burning of Washington was a disaster for Madison, largely because he did not take the needed steps to protect the city. In the summer of 1814, Andrew Jackson was victorious in the south. He also fought the Creek near Florida. He fought the British navy at New Orleans. At the end of the war, Britain accepted the US as an equal among the family of nations. The war ended in a stalemate. In the War of 1812, 1812-1815, the number of serving from the armed services was 286,730. There were 2260 total deaths and 4505 wounded. It cost $120,000.
He retired to his estate at Montpelier. There he edited his famous papers on the Constitutional Convention. He became rector of the University of Virginia in 1826.
In retirement, he would fight for the abolition of slavery. He thought freedom in an integrated America was impossible. His reason was the hatred he saw among his fellow white people in the south for the African-American. Demands of creditors undermined desire to free slaves. He ended up doing little to end what he thought was a moral evil and an economic catastrophe. The reality was that throughout his life, he depended on the labor of slaves. He resolved the tension between belief and life by giving humane treatment. His experience of the degraded black life in America prevented him from envisioning a new possibility in America. His other concern was white prejudice, which he viewed just as much as an evil difficult to eradicate.
Madison would argue against state nullification of federal laws. Yet, he also rejected the notion of the implied powers of the federal government in the general welfare clause and in the necessary and proper clause, for if accepted, it would give Congress unlimited power.
[2] (“Democracy and Majority Rule,” April 15, 2009)