Where's James Madison's Eternal Flame? (On Madison's Legacy)

National Review Online ^ | 10/23/2003 | Roger Clegg

[Pyro7480]

In the Washington Post Monday, there was an article about the new restoration plans for Montpelier, the historic Virginia home of James Madison. The Post interviewed the president of the Montpelier Foundation, Michael C. Quinn, and reported, "With no monument on the Mall or currency bearing Madison's image, the man Quinn calls 'chief architect of the American Republic' and author of the Bill of Rights is suffering from a lack of celebrity equal to his contribution to the nation."

That sentence brings back to me a poignant memory.

One day, my family and I drove down to see Thomas Jefferson's home at Monticello. Now Jefferson is of course on the nickel (and the two-dollar bill), and has a big monument in Washington, D.C., near all the famous cherry blossoms. And Monticello is quite a popular tourist attraction. We had to wait for a while to be given the tour through his house, and after that we walked around the grounds and saw, among other things, Jefferson's famous headstone in his family cemetery, which now has a ten-foot-high iron fence around it to discourage souvenir seekers.

We had lunch and decided, on the way home, to go see Montpelier, too. Madison's home is much farther off the beaten path, and so we drove along a little Virginia back road. We were getting close to the home itself and could see it, but just before we got there I saw one of those little brown-and-white National Park Service signs, and it said, "Madison's Grave." So I quickly slowed down, turned at the sign, and before you knew it I was on a gravel road. We started to go across a bridge, but had to stop quickly and back up, because it was too narrow for two cars and a pickup had already started across it. On the other side of the bridge, we drove for a while along the winding gravel road.

Eventually, we came to the Madison graveyard. There was no one there except for two guys in another pickup. They were just leaving. So there we were: My wife, my son, and I, at James Madison's grave. No ranger from the National Park Service. No doyenne from the Montpelier Foundation. No tourists, clicking away with their cameras. Nobody. We were out in the middle of nowhere. There was a three-foot-high fence around the graveyard, which was the size of a medium-sized room. Heck, if we'd had a pickup, we could have taken James Madison's headstone and driven off with it. Taken Dolley's, too.

I thought: How strange. The father of the Constitution, the author of the Bill of Rights, the coauthor — with Hamilton and Jay — of The Federalist Papers: and this is his monument. Three of the great documents of Western political thought, three of the great texts of liberty, but Madison has no mausoleum like Lenin, no eternal flame like Kennedy, not even a well-visited cemetery like Jefferson. How strange.

As I said, it is a very poignant memory for me, but it is neither entirely sad nor entirely uplifting. On the one hand, one can conclude from this incident that we forget our great men and what we owe them, and that is sad. But, on the other hand, perhaps it is a measure of Madison's success that he helped create a republic in which most people don't have to worry much about politics, and can take freedom for granted, and don't worship the authorities. It certainly gives pause, to those of us who write and think about politics, to visit the final resting place of one of our greatest political writers and thinkers — and to be there all alone.

— Roger Clegg is general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity in Sterling, Virginia.

[Pyro7480]

James Madison's enduring legacy is the Constitution, which is being undermined by power-hungry leftists. For the sake of his memory, we need to stand up for the Constitution.

[stainlessbanner]

ping

[southriver4]

Oh wow, this guy did way better than me... i took that gravel road over the bridge one day in search of the gravesite and gave up about 1/2 mile down the road. I figured "this has GOT to be wrong" - it's a dinky little rural area.

[Constitution Day]

Great post. BTTT.

[jmcclain19]

Madison's quirk, while being one of the most brilliant minds of our founding fathers, is he'll always be remembered as a bad President.
Which is a crock - his great contributions to our nation came long before he was President.

[HenryLeeII]

James Madison's ego was in indirect proportion to his accomplishments, just like Thomas Jefferson's. Hence, almost nothing for Madison, and much more for ol' TJ. (He was a member of a committee that wrote the Declaration of Independence, not its sole author; never served in the militia; was a failure as a businessman; was an admitted failure as a governor; was arguably a failure as a president; and he didn't participate in the writing of the Constitution. He had a curious mind, and was probably more important for his scientific and exploration activities than his other accomplishments. Jefferson outlived his political opponents, which was his biggest accomplishment.)

I worked for Mike Quinn at Mount Vernon, and in fact called him Monday when the story in the Post appeared. He took ten minutes out of his busy day to talk to me, even though I haven't seen him in four years or so. Remembered me right off the bat, asked how my wife is doing. He is a man of integrity and intellect, so I trust that the restoration at Montpelier will be conducted likewise.

[goldbux]

Madison's portrait graces the $5,000 bill, so we can honor his memory by returning it to circulation.

[Between the Lines]

The Madison Building serves both as the Library of Congress' third major structure and as this nation's official memorial to James Madison, the "father" of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the fourth president of the United States.

That a major Library of Congress building should also become a memorial to James Madison is fitting, for the institution's debt to him is considerable. In 1783, as a member of the Continental Congress, Madison became the first sponsor of the idea of a library for Congress by proposing a list of books that would be useful to legislators, an effort that preceded by seventeen years the establishment of the Library of Congress.

[Pyro7480]

Wow, thanks for pointing this out to me!

[RJS1950]

Madison was pushed by the democratic republicans (present day dems) to go to war against the brits in 1812. Upon declaring war, he went to congress to appropriate funds to build up the then miniscule army and navy and was promptly told they would allocate no funds for the war they themselves had made an imperative. They then derided him for not adequately defending Washington DC when the brits sacked the city and at one point wanted him to sue for peace and allow the brits to take whatever territory they had already occupied. The rat party has not changed much over their long history.

[frodolives]

Perhaps Mr. Marbury had something to do with it.

[Huck]

Great post. Madison is a hero for mankind.

[presidio9]

Thanks for posting this.

[WinOne4TheGipper]

Who are these people Ha Ha.

[southriver4]

i know a docent at Montpelier - he also waxed on about the legacy of Madison and how underrated Madison's been through history... and this was a five star retired admiral from the Navy! No kidding - this stellar man commanded subs. The Orange County Fair is also held here on the grounds and they have a beautifully restored train station on the main road. Just my two cents from the peanut gallery in Central VA who lives a stone's throw.

[mrsmith]

A good night bump for the only sitting president to strap on some pistols and go out to the enemy (unfortunately it was his own fault they were there).

[yankhater]

“James Madison's ego was in indirect proportion to his accomplishments, just like Thomas Jefferson's. Hence, almost nothing for Madison, and much more for ol' TJ. (He was a member of a committee that wrote the Declaration of Independence, not its sole author; never served in the militia; was a failure as a businessman; was an admitted failure as a governor; was arguably a failure as a president; and he didn't participate in the writing of the Constitution. He had a curious mind, and was probably more important for his scientific and exploration activities than his other accomplishments. Jefferson outlived his political opponents, which was his biggest accomplishment.”

Support of Madison should not come at the Expense of Jefferson

The subject of this discussion is centered on Mr. Madison and as much as I wish to keep it that way, I want to respond to this particular post.

With all due respect, I appreciate the comments in regards to James Madison. Without a doubt he deserves many more honors than has been allotted to him by the American people. Nevertheless this post seems to be putting the blame (subtly) for the overshadowing of Madison onto Thomas Jefferson.

With a screen name like Henry Lee II, I get the impression that the gentleman has found inspiration from the pen of “Lighthorse Harry” of Prince William County. If that is the case sir, the criticism of Mr. Jefferson being a bad businessman would seem a bit curious considering that Mr. Lee ruined the name and fortune of the Leesylvania Lees because of his own bad business practices. You sir and I are both Virginians. We know from our Commonwealth’s history that in the 18th century many of the leading planting families were heavily in debt to British creditors. The tobacco crops often failed, and Virginians were denied (rightly or wrongly I’ll let the economists debate that) by the British ministers the use of paper currency. This was one of the leading factors in Virginia’s push for independence during the 1760’s and early 1770’s. Land speculation and building projects also ruined many a good name. Virginia’s economy was based on planting and slave labor and was never profitable (again I’ll let the economists debate that). In many cases, the leading Virginia families remind one of the people today who max out the credit cards buying too many Mercedes’ to “keep up with the Joneses”.

Mr. Jefferson, to his credit, after the War of Independence refused to support the push in the state legislature to repudiate the pre war debts to private British creditors. He was heavily saddled with his own, and his father in law’s debts. He believed in paying them in principle even though it ruined him financially. Obviously his well-known spending habits did not help the matter.

As for the attack on Jefferson’s governorship, he was obviously a poor war- time governor. Without a doubt he cut a terrible martial figure. However, the charges of cowardice raised in Mr. Lee’s memoirs were the result of an extreme hatred of Mr. Jefferson by the Federalists, particular the Federalist minority in Virginia. And to be fair, I’m sure Jefferson’s newspapermen in Virginia were quite guilty of denigrating Mr. Lee as well. The charge of him not serving in the militia is suspiciously Federalist as well. I would counter that the Federalists, particularly the members of the Society of the Cincinnati, never could quite understand the importance of the subordination of the military to the civilian government. While most Federalists were not truly “monarchists”, their love of military glory was frighteningly similar to the Brit Tories in parliament, with hereditary titles, paid commissions and seats in Parliament. Believe what you may, but the criticism of being a poor solider would apply to Madison as well (if not more so).

Mr. Jefferson was not the sole author of the Declaration of Independence, but he was the primary author of it. (You can easily find a copy of his original draft). At least 90% of the finished work is Jefferson’s words, and certainly showcases his Whig principles and talent for phrasing. My goodness, so Ben Franklin changed a couple of words and John Adams didn’t like the word “unalienable”. That is the reason to knock Jefferson? That is just silly. If you don’t agree with the Declaration of Independence like most anglophile Federalists then just say so. Sounds like the people who say Shakespeare didn’t really write any of his plays.

Presidency – I’ll be brief, 1st term great, or at least good, 2nd term poor. He democratized the office of president and made the office more open to the people. He at least refused a 3rd term, which would surely have been his. Obviously his embargoes were bad ideas. Madison inherited his foreign relations problems and did no better if not worse. Problem there again is remember who Jefferson’s Secretary of State was – James Madison.

Jefferson didn’t participate in writing of the Constitution because he was serving our country as minister to France. Who do you think Madison wrote to for advice? Who do you think sent him many of those books (only available in Europe) to Madison on historic constitutions? Who do you think gently criticized his friend Madison (who was a complete nationalist at this time) to include a Bill of Rights?

Jefferson’s greatest accomplishments are listed on his tombstone. They are there for a reason: Freedom for his Country (Dec. of Ind), Freedom of the soul and mind (the underrated Va. Bill of Religious Freedom), and unlike Jimmy Carter actually accomplished something real in retirement, the founding of the University of Virginia.

Madison was a shy man, even shyer than Jefferson. He was a brilliant man who subordinated himself to another brilliant man. Jefferson like him or not had charisma and was the unquestioned head of his party. Without Jefferson in the wings, Madison could never have been elected president. After Jefferson’s death the party inevitably split into the true Democrats (under Jackson) and the Whigs (a coalition of conservative Jeffersonians and remaining Federalists). Madison was a wonderful person, but he and James Monroe only held control of the original Democratic-Republicans (actually they were really called Republicans) because of Jefferson’s prestige.

Jefferson and Madison were not only close political allies; they were the best of friends. For examples of both consult the 3 volume (Republic of Letters). Look closely at Jefferson’s last letter to Madison; if you have never read it before, it will hopefully move you. Madison was asked by his dying friend to “take care of me when I am gone”. Madison did just that. In his remaining ten years of life he fought to defend the name and reputation of his dead friend. If you want to see the legacy of James Madison, and perhaps what he would want you to remember him for, it might very well be in all the monuments to his friend.

James Madison was a great American. That he is rarely remembered is a travesty. But to blame that on Jefferson is not right. Jefferson was a great American hero. All of the great men whether Federalist or Republican who framed this country should be honored. We conservatives of today come from both of those factions the federal conservatives and classical liberals respectively. Today’s LEFT is a weed sprung from foreign socialism. They hate Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, Washington and anyone they snidely call a “dead white male”.

Sorry for the length FRiends,

Submitted respectfully,

YH

[sultan88]

Good post!

[Mudboy Slim]

Thank you so much fer yer insight, yh...very interesting. I graduated from Mr. Jefferson's University, but I was inexcusably apathetic in digging into the history of his greatness. I've read some on the subject since then, but I appreciate the knowledge you add to the discussion. In any event, it never ceases to amaze me at how many extraordinary individuals were represented within our Founding Fathers.

Got a little nit to pick with ya, though...

"Who do you think gently criticized his friend Madison (who was a complete nationalist at this time) to include a Bill of Rights?"

Where do you get documentation for this claim...I'd always credited Madison for initiating the Bill of Rights and always believed it was his baby all the way. Was Jefferson really that instrumental in bringing them into fruition?! Did he send recommendations as to what the first 10 amendments would consist of?! I had no idea...

FReegards...MUD

BTW...hey Blue Scourge, check out the insight on James Madison!!

[Reagan79]

Great post Yankhater. In doing some reading about Virginia history it is truly amazing how many of the most prestigious families and statesmen were immersed in debt.

[Blue Scourge]

Hey, thanks for the Ping mud. Next fall I hope to be attending either Mr. Madison's or Jefferson's fine Universities. It is a good read, I am currently working my way through the "Federalist Papers". More good reading there.

[Blue Scourge]

Ha, sounds like you are right....for the Dems somethings never change.

[E Rocc]

In doing some reading about Virginia history it is truly amazing how many of the most prestigious families and statesmen were immersed in debt.

One of the main reasons for convening the Constitutional Convention, and perhaps Madison's primary reason for supporting a new form of government, was the irresponsible practice of many state legislatures of issuing hyperinflated paper money and forcing creditors to accept it at face value. Madison felt that these "stay and tender laws" were grossly unfair to creditors and could potentially do great damage to the economy of the fledgling nation.

-Eric

[Blue Scourge]

Yet another little tid-bit of info I didn't know. This thread is turning out to be quite educational.

[Mudboy Slim]

"I am currently working my way through the "Federalist Papers".

A worthy endeavor indeed...MUD

[FBD]

Very interesting post, Yank. You sure know your stuff.
Thanks for the ping. Btw, I once saw a guy do a one hour speech, impersonating Jefferson, clothes and all. His name is Clay Jenkins. He is a Jefferson aficionado like yourself. Have you heard of him?

[yankhater]

Clarification on a bit of YH hyperbole….

Mr. Jefferson was not the primary mover for a bill of rights but he advised Madison on the matter and strongly supported the inclusion of one, my apologies for the overstatement. What I mean is, there were many in the 13 states that were wary of supporting a new federal constitution without one. George Mason, for example, who wrote Virginia’s Declaration of Rights in 1776 for the state’s constitution refused to sign the federal constitution because it did not include a Bill of Rights.

Madison was not an extreme nationalist, but he was a more ardent nationalist at this point in his career than any other. His original opinion along with others such as Gouveneur Morris (read the new Brookhiser book on him if you haven’t yet) was in so many words that if you state the things that the government can’t do in a Bill of Rights, then the government would just do all of the things that you forgot to mention. I’ll say that the point is a valid one given our recent history. Nevertheless in practice a lack of a Bill of Rights was a break from tradition, from Anglo-American liberties. England for example had a Bill of Rights in the 17th century that was quite influential on American thinking. And many of the states (I already mentioned Va) included a bill of rights when they formed new state governments after declaring independence in 1776. You have to remember how dangerous the idea of this new federal constitution convention was to many of the delegates and leading political figures. The new pill, this necessary pill of a constitution, could only be swallowed with the guarantee of a bill of rights. The promise of one pushed the states of Virginia and Massachusetts to ratify the Constitution.

Back to Jefferson…

If you please forgive me I am spending the weekend moving my things from one house to another, so my books are not with me. This is off the top of my head. Jefferson wrote a letter back to Madison in 1787 from Paris congratulating his friend on the progress of the Constitution. Jefferson and Adams (who was in England) wrote many letters of advise to the Convention delegates. So both Jefferson and Adams were corresponding with the members as frequently as 18th century mail could travel. Anyway, Jefferson praises Madison’s good work, but politely criticizes him for not including a bill of rights, and also felt that the office of president was too much like a “Polish king”, in Poland at the time monarchs were elected for life. You can find the copy of this in the Writings of Thomas Jefferson from the Library of America. This is a good non-profit company that puts out American literature and political writings (we are talking complete works here) for around $40 a vol, in acid free paper nicely bound. They also have Madison, Franklin, Hamilton, Washington, and Debates on the Constitution as of now.

Anyway Madison was largely responsible for drafting the bill of rights, and in truth he later wholeheartedly supported them. But from 1787-1790, the push for the amendments came from the more liberal (as in classical liberal or libertarian) members of the various states. Madison was its draftsman. Madison became more anti-federalist after 1790 when he became enemies with Hamilton and closer friends with Jefferson.

So Jefferson was an advisor to Madison on a Bill of Rights….

Madison is the Father of the Constitution more for his efforts in:

1) Near perfect attendance in the 1787 convention
2) Herculean efforts in getting the federal plan through the convention
3) His “homework” on all the previous republics in the world that paid off in 1787
4) His note taking on the 1787 convention which is our best source for the historical facts of the assemblage
5) Defying the odds by defeating Patrick Henry’s side in the Va. Ratifying convention in 1788.
6) Work with Hamilton and Jay in the Federalist. Madison’s #10 is a masterpiece.

Thanks for kind words and the question Mud…

YH

[yankhater]

Mud and others…found this online

YH

Thomas Jefferson to James Madison
December 20, 1787
Paris
(excerpts)

“…I will now add what I do not like. First the omission of a bill of rights providing clearly & without the aid of sophisms for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction against monopolies, the eternal & unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land & not by the law of nations. To say, as Mr. Wilson does that a bill of rights was not necessary because all is reserved in the case of the general government which is not given, while in the particular ones all is given which is not reserved, might do for the audience to whom it was addressed, but is surely a gratis dictum, opposed by strong inferences from the body of the instrument, as well as from the omission of the clause of our present confederation which had declared that in express terms. It was a hard conclusion to say because there has been no uniformity among the states as to the cases triable by jury, because some have been so incautious as to abandon this mode of trial, therefore the more prudent states shall be reduced to the same level of calamity. It would have been much more just & wise to have concluded the other way that as most of the states had judiciously preserved this palladium, those who had wandered should be brought back to it, and to have established general right instead of general wrong…

… Let me add that a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, & what no just government should refuse, or rest on inferences…

… The second feature I dislike, and greatly dislike, is the abandonment in every instance of the necessity of rotation in office, and most particularly in the case of the President. Experience concurs with reason in concluding that the first magistrate will always be re-elected if the Constitution permits it. He is then an officer for life. This once observed, it becomes of so much consequence to certain nations to have a friend or a foe at the head of our affairs that they will interfere with money & with arms...

…The election of a President of America some years hence will be much more interesting to certain nations of Europe than ever the election of a king of Poland was. Reflect on all the instances in history antient & modern, of elective monarchies, and say if they do not give foundation for my fears…

…The power of removing him every fourth year by the vote of the people is a power which will not be exercised. The king of Poland is removeable every day by the Diet, yet he is never removed…

…At all events I hope you will not be discouraged from other trials, if the present one should fail of its full effect. I have thus told you freely what I like & dislike: merely as a matter of curiosity, for I know your own judgment has been formed on all these points after having heard everything which could be urged on them...

… I have tired you by this time with my disquisitions & will therefore only add assurances of the sincerity of those sentiments of esteem & attachment with which I am Dear Sir your affectionate friend & servant – TJ”

[Blue Scourge]

More excellant finds, I'm learning more about Jefferson than I have in 22 years of PubliK edukation and the College I've had to this point.

[Held_to_Ransom]

Here's another.

Madison disaproved of the Bill of Rights because he believed it would only make it easier for those who wanted to undermine the rights of the citizens by clearly defining what they must do to subvert them. When he saw he couldn't win that argument, he took a hand in writing them so as to try and slow down the process.

Madison is the guy that build the goal posts for SCOTUS. He put them as far away as he could, but that has never stopped SCOTUS from trying to get there.

[sultan88]

Excellent Constitution discussion bump and bookmark!

[Blue Scourge]

Huh...I had heard people say before that Madison opposed the Bill of rights, but I had always thought they meant he thought it was a bad Idea. After reading your post it gives me another view of a great man.

Thanks.

[HenryLeeII]

Firstly, I was not blaming Jefferson for Madison not getting his due. That was simply a quirk of history, and a lack of self-promotion on Madison's part. Jefferson outlived many of his contemporaries, which gave him an advantage in the PR department.

Secondly, my screen name does not refer to Light-Horse Harry Lee, but rather his father, Henry Lee II of Leesylvania in Prince William County. Henry cut Harry out of his will because of his irresponsibility, and the second son, Charles, received most of the estate. Harry ruined his own reputation, but the other sons of Leesylvania established themselves as respectable citizens. Charles was Washington's personal attorney, and served as the U.S.'s second attorney-general; Richard Bland Lee was the first congressman from No. Va., and cast the tie-breaking vote to locate the capital city on the banks of the Potomac during the Assumption Crisis; Edmund Jennings Lee served as mayor of Alexandria. And of course, Harry's son, Robert Edward, was able to establish himself as one of the most respected military officers of his day.

Henry Lee II was not one of those who maxed out his credit, as you rightfully state other planters did. He was very wealthy, being a direct descendant of Richard Lee II, and having been bequeathed several large tracts of profitable lands. He had a lucrative commercial fishery on the Potomac, in addition to his planting endeavors, and left a large estate to his children. His money helped to finance Lee's Legion during the Revolution, having paid for uniforms, cannon, training, etc. If Harry seemed bitter after the war, it was typical of many planters who saw their money going to support the war effort, while Virginia had much less debt than the northern states, and then, during the era of the Articles of Confederation and the early Federal era, saw the country's monetary system turn to favor those dealing in abstract credit. Harry had many faults and never lived up to the respect engendered by his father, but he was not entirely wrong on everything.

My estimation of Jefferson is based on his own words, and my knowledge of his accomplishments. Monticello was not a profitable plantation (perhaps being built on top of a mountain with limited water had something to do with it). His lavish spending for fine wines, etc. when he was already in debt is not the sign of a smart business man, but rather someone not in control of his finances, and perhaps his ego.

He himself criticized his inactivity as governor. He fled Monticello as the British advanced and never called out the militia despite three advances upon Virginia territory by the Brits.

What did he accomplish as President? His failure to act during the empressment crisis brought about the first calls for secession, during the Hartford Convention. Many like to point to the Louisiana Purchase, but name one president who would not double the size of the country for a very cheap price, and get the French off of our borders, when Napolean came practically begging for us to buy it.

As far as the Declaration, he was a member of a committee that came up with the ideas. He wrote the words, but the ideas were not solely his. So listing himself as the author of the document on his tombstone is an exaggeration that most others of his time and place would never have indulged in. And, if I remember correctly, his Virginia Bill of Religious Freedom was actually based on one of George Mason IV's writings (I'll have to go back and re-read some stuff to find the document).

Jefferson was not the inventor that many think he was. Many of the contraptions at Monticello were ones he saw in Europe and brought back to the U.S. The only endeavor in which he could be considered an equal of Washington's would be as inventors, since they each held the patent on one plow.

Yes, Americans wrote to Jefferson, just as they did to Franklin and others in Paris, for sounding out ideas, etc. I've never said he wasn't involved, I said he is overrated when looking at his actual accomplishments. That he has somehow eclipsed Washington, Madison, Hamilton, Adams, and Mason, in many popular accounts of the Revolutionary and Constitutional eras, is the proof.

BTW, I am not an Anglophile, nor a "Federalist," nor do I repeat the suspect tracts of Light-Harry Harry Lee. I respect him for his accomplishments, fault him for his failings, and really want to further the memory of his father.

[HenryLeeII]

Where do you get documentation for this claim...I'd always credited Madison for initiating the Bill of Rights and always believed it was his baby all the way. Was Jefferson really that instrumental in bringing them into fruition?! Did he send recommendations as to what the first 10 amendments would consist of?! I had no idea...

From what I've read, Madison, as Speaker of the House (or at least the equivalent of that position, entered the bills that led to the Bill of Rights, simply in response to the anti-Federalists, and was happy to do so since he was not a nationalist. Reading his writings in the Federalist Papers will shows how thoughtful and determined he was to prevent a nationalist government from replacing the federalist model he had proposed. You have to be careful with Jefferson and his followers to separate the fact from the nice fluffy fiction.

[mrsmith]

Madison's service in the first congress under the new Constitution was another great contribution by him.

In the House Madison was President Washington's, and many other's, main man on constitutional matters.
Washington relied greatly on him for guidance on the relationship of the presidency to the legislature.
Madison wrote Washington's first inaugural address, the House's reply to it, and also wrote Washington's response to the House's reply!
Much is made of his disagreement over Jay's Treaty and the natinal bank, but consider that there were innumerable points for disputation in the new Constitution.
Many possible disputes over the Constitution have never arisen because Madison was there in the beginning to set us on a course that followed the genius of the Constitution.

On his eventual support for the Bill of Rights (credit for which must go overwhelmingly to the Anti-federalists), Madison would not have been elected to the first congress in the district Patrick Henry had gerrymanded for him- after seeing that he was rejected by the Virginia legislature to serve as a Senator- if he had not supported a Bill of Rights as he'd been forced to promise at the Ratifying Convention.
James Madison to George Eve (during the election 'campaign')
2 Jan. 1789 Papers 11:404--5
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch14s48.html
"Being informed that reports prevail not only that I am opposed to any amendments whatever to the new federal Constitution... having been induced to offer my services to this district as its representative in the federal Legislature, considerations of a public nature make it proper that, with respect to both, my principles and views should be rightly understood..., it is my sincere opinion that the Constitution ought to be revised, and that the first Congress meeting under it, ought to prepare and recommend to the States for ratification, the most satisfactory provisions for all essential rights, particularly the rights of Conscience in the fullest latitude, the freedom of the press, trials by jury, security against general warrants &c. "

He was as good as his word; and not-so-incidentally kept the Antifederalists from calling a second convention that would have done who-knows-what to the Constitution.

IMO The difference in the past and present popularities of Madison and Jefferson can simply be laid to a basic difference in their attitudes towards the majority in a republic.
Jefferson, though by no means an unprincipled demagogue, held the will of the people as the touchstone for his somewhat esoteric political philosophy- a "popular" view.
Madison however was ever suspicious of the majority- an "unpopular" view.

[Mudboy Slim]

"You have to be careful with Jefferson and his followers to separate the fact from the nice fluffy fiction."

Well, yankhater was intellectually-honest enough to come back and correct the record in #28 & #29...thanks fer yer insight as well.

FReegards...MUD

[HenryLeeII]

Well, yankhater was intellectually-honest enough to come back and correct the record in #28 & #29...thanks fer yer insight as well.

You're right, Mud. I wasn't trying to cast any aspersions on yankhater (great screenname, in this Oriole's fan's opinion!). I was referring to those who write about Jefferson as though they have their kneepads firmly affixed. Jefferson was an idea man, but he was not always the best at practical action.

For example, when our sailors were being impressed, President Jefferson could be found wandering the markets of Washington, D.C., dutifully recording the prices of fresh fruits and vegetables. I'm sure he had his reasons for this, but how practical was it? It is for reasons such as this that I admire Washington above all other Founders - the man had a drive and a mind that would not quit. And above all else, he was practical. That was probably Jefferson' biggest fault (lack of practicality).

[bc2]

bookmarked and bumped to the top

[yankhater]

Mr. Lee,

First of all my apologies for misreading your screen name. I forgot that “Lighthorse Harry” was Henry Lee III. Even a native-born Virginian can get his Lees confused. “Here a Lee, there a Lee, everywhere a Lee a Lee”. And though I love to chuckle at the wonderful film production of 1776, I would agree with you that “1776” is probably where too many people get their view of Jefferson and the Declaration, complete with comely Blythe Danner dancing away with Franklin and Adams.

That being said, Jefferson’s drafting of the declaration was significant, but not at first. Probably others did not credit him for it because its preamble only started becoming meaningful in the 1820’s. For example John Adam’s assertion late in life that he pushed Jefferson to write it (the too oft-quoted you are ten times better a writer than I statement) was an Adam’s attempt to share in the glory, as Adams liked to do.

Now the real reason Jefferson drafted the document was because no one else at the time found it to be important. Had Adams had an inkling how important it might become he’d have certainly went out of his way to write it. It is one of those unique twists of fate that made Jefferson today the most famous man of his generation. I love Garry Will’s analysis of it in “Inventing America”. However let’s compare it with Morris’ draft of the preamble of the Constitution. The Constitution is a practical document; it states our laws and our rules of government. The Declaration of Independence asserts our idealism. The first is a conservative work, the latter a liberal (classical liberal) one. Jefferson’s unique talent was in writing that preamble, the only thing we still quote of it. It asserts our natural rights and liberties. If it had simply been a list of grievances against the king it would be buried in a vault along with other documents that only scholars would look at.

Now obviously we see Lockean references, we see common beliefs of English liberties, (even the English never bothered refuting the preamble, they agreed with it); we see references from George Mason’s Dec. of Rights, and etc. etc. Jefferson was not the inventor of the concepts, but I strongly believe he was the best spokesman for them. American history and the history of American politics between the liberals and conservatives (until the 1960’s when the liberals began hating America) is whether or not the Declaration or the Constitution should be the guiding principle of the nation. And since Jefferson was the father of American liberalism and was the leader of one half of that argument, his position as the Declaration’s author is paramount to his place in American politics.

While the ideals were commonly held, no other member of the committee would have written them into the document in Jefferson’s manner. Thus the Declaration was an inspirational document and Washington himself had it read to the troops. I think Jefferson’s place in the early histories is a result of 1) people prior to 1815 not knowing he wrote it, and 2) histories negative to the Jeffersonian Republicans such as Mercy Warren, H. Lee, and John Marshall. Jefferson probably bragged up his own place in history not for personal reason as much as for his political party’s place in the founding of the government. And since Jefferson cannot be separated from his party, because he WAS the party, he is not necessarily being egotistical by speaking of his role in the government (i.e. the autobiography and the Anas.)

Two other Jefferson points…

1) I would argue the first term was important not for the Louisiana Purchase but for his changing of the office of president. There was no precedent for the presidency when Washington came to the office. Now this is not a criticism, but the only thing that he had to go by was the office of king or of military commander. Now Washington could pull this off, Adams could not and looked silly. The Jeffersonian president was more Spartan and had fewer trappings. Jefferson brought the office more in line with the republican ideal.

2) Also others like Mason certainly had a hand in the idea of religious freedom. However Jefferson spent an entire lifetime arguing for complete religious freedom in Virginia and elsewhere. I would say it was the thing he felt was most important in the world. Here he was certainly influence by Locke and David Hume. No other American leader came close to his efforts on this issue.

My whole argument with you on Madison is thus:

1) The differences between Madison and Jefferson only occur in a brief 6-year period when Jefferson was in France. This was the period when Madison was most in favor of a stronger government, the Constitution, and the Federalist, etc.

Now if you want to argue that this was Madison at his greatest and that Jefferson influenced him in a negative way, I might not agree in principle, but I would find your argument more consistent.

2) Madison’s career after 1790 showcases a change in his beliefs. While Madison orchestrated the deal with Hamilton to have the capital move to the Potomac (btw do you think Bland Lee would have voted for it had he seen the traffic on highway 28 near Sully? LOL) he later regretted it. Remember Madison is the author of the state’s rights Virginia Resolutions, along with Jefferson’s Kentucky resolutions. Madison conceals his notes on the Constitution until after his death because he was afraid of his prior nationalistic beliefs ruining his career.

3) Madison as an executive could easily be criticized for many of the things that Jefferson did as an executive.

4) Madison was overshadowed and continues to be today because he intended to be. His shyness and political instincts made it essential for him to be subordinated to Jefferson. In fact if he came back to Earth today he would probably not have a problem that Monticello gets millions more visitors than Montpelier.

5) A lot of delegates wrote to various men for advice. I was establishing that Madison looked to Jefferson above anyone else for political advice. During the whole period of the Constitution he was writing back and forth to Jefferson in code. One gets the impression that he is seeking approval from his mentor in these letters.

Jefferson’s influence on the American republic was more spiritual than practical. You obviously prefer the practical. That would make you a Federalist. But that is OK ;)

YH