Talk:James Madison

==comme 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

yes, shouting "liberals" or "left-wingers" (and in the same sentence??, thats just deep ignorancy), is not necesarely much of an acusation. You might want to elaborate into why you believe the article is somehow biased, or why would liberalism be a bad thing, or if you are refering to that we should censor this article into giving a 3th grade account on president Madison.

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)

For good reason Madison is known as the "Father of the Constitution," but by no means should that suggest he actually wrote it. Gouverneur Morris was the stylist of the language, especially of the Preamble (see Richard Brookhiser's book, Gentleman Revolutionary: Gouverneur Morris, the Rake Who Wrote the Constitution, and Richard Adams' book, Gouverneur Morris: An Independent Life). But it was Madison whose work in Virginia to resolve the Virginia/Maryland dispute over the Chesapeake, coupled with Hamilton's work to resolve the New York/New Jersey dispute over the Hudson River and New York harbor, that led most directly to the convention. Both men were at the time proteges of George Washington, who badly wanted a national government that would do more to bind together the states who had joined to win the revolution (see Stuart Leibiger's Founding Friendship: George Washington, James Madison, and the founding of the American Republic). Especially at the convention, Hamilton's role was reduced, partly as a result of politics in New York and partly as a result of personal business, and Madison was the directing force. It was Madison who took care of the details, Madison who acted on Washington's direct requests, Madison who conspired with Franklin to make sure Washington himself showed up, Madison who made sure Jefferson's foundation work got into the discussion, Madison who pushed the work to be done, etc., etc. But, no, he didn't "write" it. Incidentally, Madison's role in the Federalist Papers could and should be expanded in this article. Originally Jay and Hamilton were working to get the New York ratification, but Jay was badly injured in a riot (over the Constitution, as I recall), and Madison stepped in to help out. Madison ended up writing the majority of the papers, and some of the generally most important. Also, it may be worth noting the role Madison's close personal friendship with Washington played, especially since the Washingtons in Philadelphia appear to have played a major role in getting Madison to marry Dolley, and because the split with Washington (over the handling of the Whiskey Rebellion) was so bitter and may have contributed greatly to the philosophy and personal feelings that led the Jefferson-Madison wing of the federalist movement to end up in opposition to the Hamiltonian federalists by 1794 or so. Again, see Leibiger's book. Fearwig: Check out the Ketcham biography. Note that Madison was the chief sponsor of the amendments that became the Bill of Rights. I think that a suggestion he opposed them, or came to them reluctantly, overstates the case immensely. In correspondence with Jefferson in late 1787, after Jefferson chastised the document for a lack of a bill of rights, Madison explained that he would have put one in, but it was September already, many of the delegates had already left the convention, and the two weeks it would have taken to draft and approve a bill of rights would have led to the loss of a sufficient number of delegates to push it to Congress and ratification. Madison also argued that, technically, a BoR was unnecessary, since the limited powers nature of the Constitution left those rights in the hands of the people; but he also agreed with Jefferson it would have been a nice addition. After the bruising fight in Virginia, in which Madison eventually had to join as a partisan after having wished to remain out of the fray, Madison pledged to work for a BoR. Madison was the favorite to get one of Virginia's senate seats, but Patrick Henry, who opposed the drafting and ratification of the Constitution, was governor (again), and managed to scuttle Madison's appointment. Madison, having pledged to get a BoR, and wanting to be in the national legislature, then had to run for the House. Madison's advocacy of a BoR was not so much a political ploy to win election as it was a pledge to fulfill a promise. Henry pulled out all the stops to frustrate Madison's election, to the point of talking the most popular man in the district to oppose Madison -- James Monroe. In what should be a famous winter buggy ride, the two shared a rented buggy to a winter debate several miles out of town, and struck up what would become a lifelong friendship; Madison converted Monroe to the Madison cause, and Madison squeaked out a victory to be elected to the House. He also got a frostbitten nose . . . Edarrell 09:00, 10 October 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)

Someone please let me know if I've posted this in the wrong place!

The party Madison and Jefferson started was known as "Republican" early on, but is usually designated "Democratic-Republican" in summaries and charts. It is considered the origin of today's Democractic Party (hence the Jefferson-Jackson Day celebrations by Democrats). Hamilton's party, known generally as Federalists, was the early opposition. By the time J. Q. Adams and Jackson were duking it out, both of them were called Democrats, and the Federalist Party died out. The Whigs assumed the opposition role, but they died out sometime after 1850, replaced by a coalition of Free-soil Democrats, former Whigs, and others generally opposed to slavery, called the Republican Party. The Republicans offered their first presidential candidate in 1856 (John C. Fremont, if I recall correctly), and Abraham Lincoln was their second candidate.

It's important to remember that Washington urged Americans to refrain from party politics, seeing what a hash had become of politics in England. For various reasons, however, coalitions formed in even the first Washington administration, and the drift into parties was probably inevitable. But because of this well-known bias, parties were reluctant to label themselves as parties, nor did they necessarily resemble parties as we know them today. There were no conventions, for example, nor did they generally get together to plan as parties today. Again my recollection (see Ketcham's book for more detail), but while Madison "managed" the campaign for Jefferson for the presidency in 1796, I believe the two abstained from any communication with each other for the duration of the campaign, such "plotting" being seen as unseemly.

In any case, the present-day Republican Party traces its origins to Lincoln and the movement that hit the national scene in 1856 (Lincoln's candidacy for the Senate in 1858 was as a Republican, while he had been a Whig in Congress). So for the sake of avoiding confusion, whatever the appellation given to the party Madison worked in, it shouldn't be named in a way to confuse it with the mid-19th century Republicans, nor today's. Edarrell 08:20, 10 October 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)

Madison's religious beliefs

James Madison – Deist; Church of England; Episcopalian (VA)

• In 1779 the Virginia General Assembly deprived Church of England ministers of tax support, but in 1784 Patrick Henry sponsored a bill to again collect taxes to support churches in general. Madison's 1785 Memorial and Remonstrance was written in opposition to another bill to levy a general assessment for the support of religions. The assessment bill was tabled, and instead the legislature in 1786 passed Jefferson's Bill for Religious Freedom, first submitted in 1779. Virginia thereby became the first state to disestablish religion — Rhode Island, Delaware, and Pennsylvania never having had an established religion.
• In 1813, President Madison signed a bill which cancelled the duty on some printing plates imported by the Philadelphia Bible Society to print copies of the Bible[4]. In 1816 he signed a similar bill exempting the Baltimore Bible Society from paying import duty[5]. During the War of 1812, Bible societies had begun donating Bibles to the troops[6]. Congress later discontinued passing such exemptions[7].
• Madison vetoed two bills passed by Congress on the grounds that they violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution [8]
• During his terms in office, Congress passed resolutions that President Madison issue religious proclamations of thanksgiving, to which he assented. After retiring from public life, Madison composed his "detached memorandum" in which he denounced Congress's appointment of and payment of chaplains, both civilian and military, as inconsistent "with the pure principles of religious freedom." In the same memorandum, he also assailed "religious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings & fasts."[9][10].

The Memorial and Remonstrance was in direct response to Henry's bill; Madison, as member of the legislature (with Henry in 1785, though Henry was elected governor by the time the religious freedom statute passed), asked for a delay in order to put the issue to the people. Madison was also the chief agitator to get Jefferson's religious freedom bill passed (Jefferson had written it in 1779, as part of a package of about 150 laws that he proposed to change to make good, wise and more democratic government in Virginia). This was not the law that disestablished religion in Virginia, however. The Continental Congress in late 1775 told the 13 colonies to get their charters in order to function without resort to king or Parliament during a conflict, and Virginia's disestablishment was started, at least, with the Virginia Bill of Rights in 1776; Hudsons Religion in America in various editions notes that all colonies had disestablished by 1778, with only four colonies holding on to any vestiges; the vestiges included a voluntary state collection of tithes, in places like Connecticut and Massachusetts (Connecticut eliminated even that in 1819; Massachusetts in 1833). Madison's advocacy for religious freedom started as soon as he left college and the tutelage of John Witherspoon, who had urged Madison to pursue the "higher calling" of politics instead of being a minister; at the age of 23 he had gone to a neighboring county and was shocked to discover people jailed for their religious views, farmers who claimed to be Baptist and Presbyterian. Madison was consistent on this issue throughout his life, I think -- see the Ketcham biography. We should check the claims of his "assent" to thanksgiving proclamations. Washington would "assent" to such proclamations, but would excise any references to specific faiths in the proclamations he issued, often contrary to Congress' resolutions. Madison opposed the appointment of Congressional chaplains as a Member of Congress, too. Edarrell 09:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Jim Wae/ bible society

I dont know why you keep removing the info as I feel that it is definitely something to note. What you posted above doesn't change anything. The first half just restates the removed trivia, and the second half is completely irrelevant. I read Madison's reasons on why he was against chaplains speaking to congress and them having any federal government salary. He wrote at length about this saying that he was opposed to having chaplains because they represented certain denominations, and by having the government pay them they would be forced to favor a certain denomination which was totally against the principles of church and state. While having congress recite a prayer that only refers to God or having them fund a bible society that doesn't represent a denomination is completely different because congress has been traditionally Christian as has the President, and refering to God doesnt mention any denomination and in a Christian society that is fine. They didn't think taking the presidential oath on the bible was unconstitutional. You didn't provide any reason on why the trivia should be removed. The triva is not against separation of church and state but merely provides an interesting fact for people to think about.

71.131.183.10 07:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The 'trivia' you refer to would mislead people about Madison's views, which is contrary to the goal of an encyclopedia. Continue to direct your friends and family to advocacy sites that attempt to distort history if you like, just don't expect to do it here. Skyemoor 12:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

No, Madison wrote at length about religion and the separation of church and state and none of it appears on this website. If you want to add it feel free. Anyone who knows his viewpoints knows he supports separation of church and state as it is the foundation of the constitution. I just found it trivial that he supported the bible society with federal dollars and definitely noteable because that is not something you will read or hear in the mainstream media.

71.131.230.175 20:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: user 71/131.xxx is the banned user:Jerry Jones, who is not permitted to edit this project. His edits should be reverted without further cause. -Will Beback 00:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Parentheses

Skyemoor insists on editing to the following sentence:

Working closely with Thomas Jefferson, he created the Republican Party (United States 1792) and built a movement of grass roots political activism that was victorious in the "Revolution of 1800."

This is unacceptable. Not only is the name "Republican Party", as a proper name with caps, a dubious usage; but, more importantly, the use of parentheses is barbarous; if we did call the party's article this, we would mask it to prevent this ungainly fragment from showing up in the text. Septentrionalis 18:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Septentrionalis (who is really Pmanderson) is aware that Jefferson and his allies referred to themselves as Republicans. Indeed, this has become so obvious to scholars that out of 8 current college US history textbooks that have online tables of contents:

I am aware of nothing of the kind; they referred to themselves as "republicans", a subtle but significant distinction; they referred to their opponents as "monocrats". They did not refer to themselves as a party; it was their successors and subordinates who began to call themselves the Democratic Republicans or Democratic-Republican Party. Septentrionalis 22:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

   1 uses Democratic-Republican (see #3) 
   6 use Republican 
   1 uses Jeffersonians (#6)

   * 1 Tindall-Shi (W W Norton) “Republican Party” http://www.wwnorton.com/college/titles/history/usa6/TOC.pdf

Longman: http://www.ablongman.com/catalog/academic/discipline/0,,72158,00.html

   * 2 Mark C. Carnes, and John A. Garraty,

ch 5 has section Federalists and Republicans: The Rise of Political Parties.

   * 3 Jones: Created Equal

ch 9. Revolutionary Legacies, 1789—1803. Competing Political Visions in the New Nation. Federalism and Democratic-Republicanism in Action.

   * 4 Gary Nash American People

ch 8 student guide Controversy between Federalist supporters of the national government and the emerging Jeffersonian Republican opposition first erupted over domestic policies designed to stabilize the nation's finances and promote its economic development. Those policies revealed deep-seated conflicts between economic interests and raised urgent questions of how the new constitution should be interpreted

   * 5 Divine, Am Past & Present

ch 8 = Republican Ascendancy: The Jeffersonian Vision.

   * 6 Martin, Concise History.. "Jeffersonians"

from Bedford St Martin http://www.bedfordstmartins.com/history/bcs/index.html

   * 7 Henretta America’ History (Bedford) ch 7/

Jefferson's Agrarian Vision Hamilton's financial programs divided the Federalists into two irreconcilable political parties and led to the emergence of the Republicans, a group headed by Madison and Jefferson.

   * 8 Roark American Promise (Bedford)

Republicans in Power 1800-1824 http://bcs.bedfordstmartins.com/roark/pages/bcs-main.asp?v=&s=09000&n=00010&i=09010.00&o= so the textbooks vote is;

  7-1 against D-R 
  6-2 in favor of Republicans 

The party name eventually morphed into Democratic-Republican later over 2 decades, but to say that Jefferson and Madison established the Democratic-Republican party simply isn't true, so should certainly not be stated as such in an encyclopedia.

As to the use of parentheses in the title, this use is well established, such as the disambiguation with the term Progressive Party, example Progressive Party (United States, 1912). So the complaint is completely unfounded. Skyemoor 20:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Parentheses in the title of that article are one thing; the parenthesis in the text of this article would be ungrammatical barbarism. I further see that Skyemoor cites his references selectively; the same section he found these includes four texts which use DR : The American Pageant (Houghton Mifflin, 2002), America: Pathways to the Present (Prentice-Hall, 2002), The American Journey (McGraw-Hill, 1998), Creating America: A History of the United States (McDougal Littell, 2000). Elsewhere on the same talk-page he found that list, he would have found a list of 25 books mostly using Democratic-Republican and a list of seven poli-sci textbooks all using DR. I trust links will be enough, without trying your patience by cutting and pasting the lists. Septentrionalis 22:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Others commenting on this subject wrote: How many of the "list of 25 books" deal with the Early National period? only 3: (Gillespie, Lipset, Purcell) And then the dates are wrong: Lipset for example was reprinted in 2003 but originally published in 1963. Several titles are children's books, not by scholars (Doak, Landau, Payan); others deal with late 19th or even 20th century. Others are not by historians at all (Fortier, Walter) Suggest instead look at the books written and reviewed by scholars of the 1790-1839 period. A JSTOR search limited to usage of the term "Republican Party" (and excluding articles which use "Democratic-Republican") in two journals focusing on earlier American history - the Journal of the Early Republic and the William and Mary Quarterly - turns up 73 results. While perhaps half of these actually refer to the modern Republican party in the 19th century, we should remember that this is a much more limited search - it doesn't include references to "Republicans," it doesn't include references to the Republican Party in articles which might mention "Democratic-Republican" in other contexts (as several of the Democratic-Republican articles do), and it only refers to 2 journals, rather than the 38 history journals JSTOR has in total. Which is to say, there are about 54 references in all of JSTOR's history journals to the "Democratic-Republicans" since 1990. In the same time period, there are nearly as many uses of the restrictive phrase "Republican Party" in just two journals. Although it'd be hard to say conclusively, because of the extent to which we're going to be swamped with references to the modern Republicans, it seems to me that this is fairly clearly indicative that Republican is more common in specialist publications than Democratic-Republican. Skyemoor 23:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Precisely; Republican Party is a reasonable usage for specialized texts, dealing with this period, and not the present, for a readership which may be assumed to know the subject. (Even there it has problems, which are why Jeffersonian Republican is also used; but no name is perfect.) It is not desirable for works of general reference, addressed to an audience which cannot be assumed already to know the basics. (This is also why it is not used much in political science texts, which may compare the politics of 1792 to the politics of (say) 1980 at any moment.)

I am stunned at this line of reasoning; we should not express history as it happened, but revise it to dumbed down general public who can't understand how political party names change over time? I clearly support providing information on how historical events transpired, rather than promoting misleading reductionism. Skyemoor 10:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Which of these classes does Wikipedia belong to? We are a work of general reference, and we cannot assume any but the most basic competence in our readers; plainly, much of our readership is in junior high school.

Then 50% of Wikipedia is over the heads of the "basic competence in our readers". Do we delete that 50%, or do we continue to provide top-notch historical information? I clearly side with the latter. Skyemoor 10:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

No, your edit consisted of an ungrammatical snippet of misinformation.

You should take care to support such statements. I have provided reams of support for mine, All you can do is hang your hat on a snippet from an incomplete fragment from an online subscription encyclopedia. Skyemoor 01:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Madison did not found any Republican Party (as a proper name), he belonged to a republican party, faction, or voting block, which later evolved into something closer but not identical with a modern party. Whether it was founded in 1792, whatever it was, is severely debatable; there's a case for 1790, and the article text below says 1795, also defensibly. Septentrionalis 16:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It is clear that Jefferson, Madison, et al had put together what was then a party by the standards of the day. Both detested the devolution of American politics as such, but you are striving to call it the Democratic-Republican Party when the term they were using was Republican. Don't let your prejudices about how the name is used today sway you from being able to report truthfully about the name they used in the 1790's and beyond. Skyemoor 01:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

This is why Britannica, Encarta, and the World Book Enyclopedia use Democratic-Republican; they are works of general reference too.

Britannica has "originally (1792–98) Republican Party first opposition political party in the United States. Organized in 1792 as the Republican Party, its members held power nationally between 1801 and 1825. It was the direct antecedent of the present Democratic Party." Precisely as I suggest showing it.

World Book Enyclopedia states, "Democratic-Republican Party was a political party established during the 1790's under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. It was generally called the Republican Party, but it had no relation to today's Republican Party, founded in 1854." Again, it supports the Republican Party label.

(Encarta's article is subscription-only, but a search on DR will turn it up if necessary.) Septentrionalis 03:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Encarta's search only brings up a small fragment, which is not evidentiary in nature. Since the two encyclopedias that do provide access support the Republican party label, along with the dozens of other references above, we clearly need to express the party label as Jefferson, Madison et al did. The reader can follow the link for details of party name changes over time, though I can see to putting a small note in here as well. Skyemoor 10:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

But they call the article and the party Democratic Republican. So should we; for the same reasons. Wikipedia should not be used to proclaim the Truth that "Madison founded the Republican Party" (which is, like most Proclaimed Truths, a statement that is both misleading and inexact, as above). Septentrionalis 16:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You are relying on a snippet from Encarta, but ignoring the full text of Brittanica and World Book encyclopedias above which completely support my position. Your claim of "misleading and inexact" is therefore exactly that itself. Skyemoor 20:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why we should rely on encyclopedias written by staffers who don't know much about the subject. Rjensen 21:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating. Both Skyemoor and Rjensen ignore the editing decision of all three encyclopedias to call their article Democratic-Republican Party (and the divided opinion of scholars: "In the 21st century most history textbooks now call the party Republican or Jeffersonian Republican, while most political science textbooks prefer Democratic Republican", to quote the article); but they do so for incompatible reasons:

• Skyemoor appeals to the authority of the encyclopedia articles
• Rjensen makes an unsourced personal attack on their authors; then again, he's made such attacks before.

The two partisans should get back to us when they get their story straight. Septentrionalis 18:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

old encyclopedias get locked into editorial decisions made decades ago. (Even Encarta has this problem--it was based on the old Funk and Wagnals encyclopedia on the 1950s) The newness and freshness of Wikipedia is a great asset. Perhaps Pmanderson would explain what a NPOV editing on this article would look like??? Rjensen 18:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The tag is on the section; a neutral version would not use the confusing term "Republican Party" as a proper name in the intro, where there is no room to discuss the difficulties: whether what Madison founded was a political party in the modern sense, and that it is only indirectly linked to the modern party of that name. I have made several edits, ranging from Democratic Republicans to one of the two major parties to republican party (and Federalist party). Any one of these would be acceptable; other recastings would be too. Septentrionalis 23:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen and I have provided copious references; septentrionalis has provided little else but his point of view. Even the Democratic-Republican Party (United States) article describes how the party was originally called Republican. Jefferson and Madison did not start a Democratic-Republican party, that name was not used as a predominant label until decades later. septentrionalis knows this but is somehow perturbed by it. Skyemoor 00:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Skyemoor's "copious" references have consisted of claiming 6 of the 44 books cited on Talk:Democratic-Republican Party consistute evidence of a consensus among scholars, when the other 38 disagree. Since I have edited that page, I may be expected to be aware of this prestidigitation. This has indeed tended to persuade me of something; but not that Skyemoor's revisionism is supported by the evidence. On the whole, Rjensen's special pleading that established usage and the practice of our rivals should be ignored make more sense.Septentrionalis 18:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I simply listed the history books cited on that article's talk page, and there were many others that support the usage of "Republican party"; Pmanderson|Septentrionalis choose to cite children's books and other of a non-scholarly origin. I fail to see how they should overturn the most contemporary scholarship. Skyemoor 22:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

No griot did not doa systematic analysis--he found a bunch of books that agreed with him and ignored those that did not. He found one serious history book that sort-of agreed (it used DR in text and R in the book title). Poor research design. By contrast look at JSTOR for all articles on the topic and that reveals what historians do. Rjensen 18:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

He probably did; Skyemoor certainly did. So? Septentrionalis 14:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

For the information of future editors, what non-neutrality is alleged in the present text of the intro? Apparently,

He was a leading theorist of republicanism as a political value system for the new nation. Working closely with Thomas Jefferson, he created a republican party, in opposition to the Federalist or "aristocratic party"; they built a movement of congressional and grass roots political activism that was victorious in the "Revolution of 1800."

somehow contain it. They seem both innocuous and factual to me. Septentrionalis 04:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

One could also say simply he was a man and that would be innocuous and factual. He clearly wrote to others about his role in the "Republican party", though that seems to bother Pmanderson/Septentrionalis. A simple stating of the evidence does not bother me, and it is contrary to the goals of WP to otherwise obscure and obfuscate as Pmanderson/Septentrionalis wishes to do. He has claimed that we should not attempt to confuse readers with the facts, because the facts should be presented at an 8th grade level. Skyemoor 22:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

No, what bothers me is Skyemoor's unsupported and anachronistic use of "Republican Party". Septentrionalis 23:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hume

The connexion between Hume and Madison appears to be discussed at some length in Arkin, Marc M. ""The Intractable Principle:" David Hume, James Madison, Religion, and the Tenth Federalist". The American Journal of Legal History, (Vol. 39, No. 2. (Apr., 1995)): 148-176. {{cite journal}}: |issue= has extra text (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) JSTOR.

Since Hume was probably known in his lifetime as a historian and political scientist, this is only to be expected. Septentrionalis 18:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

there is a considerable literature on Hume & Madison. Adair in 1943 argued for a close connection (echoed by Garry Wills), but Edmund Morgan says very little connection. See Spencer, Mark G., "Hume and Madison on Faction." The William and Mary Quarterly 59.4 (2002): 39 pars. 9 Oct. 2006 <http://www.historycooperative.org/cgi-bin/justtop.cgi?act=justtop&url=http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/wm/59.4/spencer.html>.

Aristocratic party

Even young John Quincy Adams used "aristocratic party" of the Federalist regulars of Massachusetts. As he wrote in his diary of Theophilus Parsons' support of the ratification of the Constitution, "If the Constitution be adopted, it will be a grand point in favor of the aristocratic party." Alexander Saxton, p. 34 and there are other sources with the quotation. This was one of the reasons why "democratic" or "republican" became terms for the opposition to Federalism. Septentrionalis 15:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

young Adams was talking not about the Fed party of the 1790s but about the supporters of the Constitution in 1787-98--which included Madison and his own father. Rjensen 03:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)