This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Does anyone thing that the Summary is a little lengthy? CP TTD 05:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)CP TTD 9:38 feburary 4th 2007
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
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
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.
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)
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)
James Madison drafted 16 amendments; 12 were ratified by Congress and 10 by the states. The 10 became the bill or rights.
Cite: Constitutional Law, Erwin Chemerinsky, 2nd edition, Aspen Publishers 2005. p. 446
11:32, 21 Feb 07 User: 10.5.29.88 ````
I have edited this page: here are my edits:
>>>>>>>>>>.
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 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."
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."
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
>>>>>>>>>>>
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.....
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
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?
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)
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.
I thought that the Treaty of Ghent reset land back to the state it was before the war, not sweertd;s[];d]
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)
Were any laws made under the presidenticy(sorry for my infamously poor spelling) of James Madison ruled unconstitutional?
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
Can the template be taken off? Welsh4ever76 01:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
James Madison – Deist; Church of England; Episcopalian (VA)
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)
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)
71.131.230.175 20:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Skyemoor insists on editing to the following sentence:
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
The two partisans should get back to us when they get their story straight. Septentrionalis 18:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
For the information of future editors, what non-neutrality is alleged in the present text of the intro? Apparently,
somehow contain it. They seem both innocuous and factual to me. Septentrionalis 04:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
I believe this characterization, elsewhere, of Skyemoor's persistent and unjustified edit war on the leader to be accurate. I see no reason for pedantic confusions should force WP to adopt whatever current historical fad may be, to the confusion of our readers. Septentrionalis 17:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can see, Skyemoor has done no reasearch at all, but quotes some of Rjensen's, inaccurately or out of context.
If he had done so, he might have realized that he is quarrelling about a purely verbal fashion, which many historians of the era have fallen into in the last decade or so.
There is no discovery of fact here,
there is a difference between discourse addressed to a particular scholarly audience, that addressed to a different scholarly audience, and that addressed to a general audience. WP is the last:
I trust three quotations will suffice:
Septentrionalis 17:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I see that Skymeoor cannot be bothered even to follow the common decencies of debate; the comment to which I replied was:
Altering it is disingenuous.
Skyemoor is willing to impose on the reader the grievously mileading statment that "James Madison created the Republican Party" without qualification or explanation.
He is therefore ignoring both common sense
and policy: that names should be used as commonly understood.
The only useful contribution I can foresee from him is to explain what POV he sees in the present text. If he can read it so badly, others can do so; and it should be avoided. Septentrionalis 20:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I've looked for your reference and have checked the following 11 August 1812 correspondence;
- James Madison to Joel Barlow, August 11, 1812 No mention of "Democratic Party" nor "Democratic"
What other correspondence that day where you referring to? 66.225.251.176 23:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Pmanderson|Septentrionalis wrote; "he created a "Republican" or "republican" party or voting bloc,". First, the use of quotation marks is inappropriate. Secondly, since none of these organizations had conventions, they could all be labelled 'voting blocs', including the 'Democratic Republican' voting bloc. So let's be consistent. Since a party is a voting bloc, this is redundant. If you want to put quotation marks around 'Democratic Republican' everywhere, then we can also put them as you have it here. Unless you say otherwise, I'll assume you will not agree with the former. Skyemoor 11:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Our anon makes it a dispute not upheld by Skyemoor alone. As for other comments on the subject, I refer to the discussion on the party's Talk page, which contains a large number of opinions, many of them opposing Jeffersonian Republican. Also, Plange's comments, and Homestarmy's (Just a side note, Jeffersion definitely was a member of the Democratic Republican party, I trust my history book more than I trust some random editor :D ). Septentrionalis 20:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
One way to view this matter is this: what language can we use that would best inform some high-school kid working on his/her homework? Assume the kid knows that Bush is a Republican and Kerry is a Democrat, but assume her or she knows very little else, and assume that as editors of an encyclopedia, we don't want to confuse the little darling. Rklawton 21:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
There are hundreds of references we could bring forth to help mediate this 'dispute'; I've used one rough order of magnitude approach used by Pmanderson|Septentrionalis in the past (focused searches in Google Scholar). The choices as I see it are;
I see Jeffersonian Republican as really being a subset of Republican, but both of those are clearly more in use than Democratic Republican; hence, either of those options would be the ones to pick from for party affiliation. Skyemoor 21:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I observe that Skyemoor changed Jeffersonian into Jeffersonian Republican here; while I don't think Jeffersonian is ideal, it satisfies Jklawson's requirement of not misleading the schoolchildren; it is also contemporary, indeed preceeds, Jefferson's presidency. But since it doesn't seem to satisfy Skyemoor, I see no reason to abstain from a better choice. I would have been content to remove the tag, since it is neither erroneous or misleading; I await with some curiosity, an explanation for this reversion other than partisanship. Septentrionalis 19:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I see that Pmanderson|Septentrionalis is using "Jeffersonian" in the infobox, though this hasn't been discussed before. What evidence can you provide to use that in lieu of the other discussed options? Skyemoor 15:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I see Pmanderson|Septentrionalis has reverted twice already today, and is now claiming James Madison was a member of the Democrat Party, in
this edit.
Skyemoor 22:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Pmanderson|Septentrionalis is insisting on "Madison and Thomas Jefferson created the Democratic Republicans". This is untrue; 1. You can't create people 2. Madison and Jefferson both used the words/phrases "Republicans", "republicans", "Republican party", "republican party" when referring to their caucus, which is generally accepted as starting around 1792. It wasn't until much later that Madison very infrequently (after 1809) used the term "Democratic Republican" when writing to some local political groups who had come to adopt that name.
A more correct sentence would refer to Madison's and Jefferson's creation of a coalition of congressmen and supporters known as Republicans (or republicans). Skyemoor 20:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Beside the Treaty of Ghent, is that all? would u consider that a foreign or domestic policy?
The early life portion was vandalised on Nov 9th 2006. I've reverted back to the 05 Nov version for that section. robbini
Will some one please remove " He did a bunch of cool stuff in america cause he was american. i like chinese food." from this page? I cant figure out how to do it. 68.32.73.22 14:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! (for removing " He did a bunch of cool stuff in america cause he was american. i like chinese food.") 68.32.73.22 14:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
About halfway down "Later Life," there the statement "...revising of the Virginia state constitution. For one last moment, James Madison was back in his element." which seems to be opinionated. This needs to be fixed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by El Carnemago ( talk • contribs) 21:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
Folks,
I changed
to
because, based mostly on readings of Wood and Matthews, it seems to me that there were plenty of republicans among the founders of the American government. Madison was not exceptional in that regard. What made Madison stand out was his great concern, his worry, his pessimism, for what would happen to America decades later, when the frontier (the great safety valve of the common people) was exhausted, and his belief that neither human goodness (Jefferson's hope) nor centralized power (Hamilton's hope) could save the country from the selfish and short-sighted machinations of the powerful (or the many), but only a system in which some "factions" (what we now call "special interests") were pitted against others.
TH 03:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Given the nature of this stuff, I think it's important for each item to be sourced. That's the least we can do for a dubious section. Rklawton 14:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
1. Follow the fundamental rule of Wikipedia -- verifiability -- do not change anything supported by citations unless you provide countervailing citations.
2. Hamilton and Jay are so important as co-authors of FP that they deserve to be mentioned at the top of the article.
3. If you look at a definition of Republicanism -- Wikipedia's, for example -- (and that word here has no connection whatsoever with the Republican versus the Democratic party) -- you'll see that Madison fits the definition only with some difficulty, and certainly fits it worse than most of his fellow founders of the republic. For example, he never expects civic virtue, and he sees liberty as being almost as dangerous as it is attractive. He gives more respect to property and authority than would most people who say they believe in Republicanism.
4. Example: he opposes slavery, but even more does he oppose the idea of freeing the slaves without compensating the "owners".
5. Read the new citations.
6. Read the new footnotes.
TH 06:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Since Stevewk believes his opening paragraph to be perfect, it may be worth listing a few objections. His text is
James Madison (March 16, 1751 – June 28, 1836) was an American politician and fourth President of the United States of America (1809–1817). He was one of the most influential Founders of the United States; because it was the core of his Virginia Plan that survived the hard scrutiny of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, he is known as the "Father of the Constitution." In 1788, Madison coauthored The Federalist Papers, still the most influential commentary on that document. He also coordinated the composition of the U.S. Bill of Rights. Undergirding his politics was a fervent belief in republicanism as the new nation's overarching social and political value system.
My objection to this sentence:
however, aside from the meaningless phrase "overarching political value system". is that "undergirding" is purple prose. This is an encyclopedia, not Fourth of July oratory. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I've looked at Banning; I see no such distinction. In fact, Banning indexes p.168, dealing with Madison's opposition to elective monarchy, under "Republicanism". Madison's ideas as to how republicanism is to be achieved and preserved are of course both more complex and vary from occasion to occasion; but that is an old story, and does not need Banning to demonstrate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Flagged article as reading like an essay and in need of cleaning up. Much of the article seems to me to be trying to paint a narrative picture of Madison as opposed to presenting facts... Nf utvol 15:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Flagged article as reading like an essay and in need of cleaning up. Much of the article seems to me to be trying to paint a narrative picture of Madison as opposed to presenting facts... Nf utvol 15:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Does anyone thing that the Summary is a little lengthy? CP TTD 05:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)CP TTD 9:38 feburary 4th 2007
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
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
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.
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)
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)
James Madison drafted 16 amendments; 12 were ratified by Congress and 10 by the states. The 10 became the bill or rights.
Cite: Constitutional Law, Erwin Chemerinsky, 2nd edition, Aspen Publishers 2005. p. 446
11:32, 21 Feb 07 User: 10.5.29.88 ````
I have edited this page: here are my edits:
>>>>>>>>>>.
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 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."
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."
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
>>>>>>>>>>>
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.....
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
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?
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)
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.
I thought that the Treaty of Ghent reset land back to the state it was before the war, not sweertd;s[];d]
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)
Were any laws made under the presidenticy(sorry for my infamously poor spelling) of James Madison ruled unconstitutional?
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
Can the template be taken off? Welsh4ever76 01:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
James Madison – Deist; Church of England; Episcopalian (VA)
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)
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)
71.131.230.175 20:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Skyemoor insists on editing to the following sentence:
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
The two partisans should get back to us when they get their story straight. Septentrionalis 18:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
For the information of future editors, what non-neutrality is alleged in the present text of the intro? Apparently,
somehow contain it. They seem both innocuous and factual to me. Septentrionalis 04:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
I believe this characterization, elsewhere, of Skyemoor's persistent and unjustified edit war on the leader to be accurate. I see no reason for pedantic confusions should force WP to adopt whatever current historical fad may be, to the confusion of our readers. Septentrionalis 17:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can see, Skyemoor has done no reasearch at all, but quotes some of Rjensen's, inaccurately or out of context.
If he had done so, he might have realized that he is quarrelling about a purely verbal fashion, which many historians of the era have fallen into in the last decade or so.
There is no discovery of fact here,
there is a difference between discourse addressed to a particular scholarly audience, that addressed to a different scholarly audience, and that addressed to a general audience. WP is the last:
I trust three quotations will suffice:
Septentrionalis 17:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I see that Skymeoor cannot be bothered even to follow the common decencies of debate; the comment to which I replied was:
Altering it is disingenuous.
Skyemoor is willing to impose on the reader the grievously mileading statment that "James Madison created the Republican Party" without qualification or explanation.
He is therefore ignoring both common sense
and policy: that names should be used as commonly understood.
The only useful contribution I can foresee from him is to explain what POV he sees in the present text. If he can read it so badly, others can do so; and it should be avoided. Septentrionalis 20:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I've looked for your reference and have checked the following 11 August 1812 correspondence;
- James Madison to Joel Barlow, August 11, 1812 No mention of "Democratic Party" nor "Democratic"
What other correspondence that day where you referring to? 66.225.251.176 23:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Pmanderson|Septentrionalis wrote; "he created a "Republican" or "republican" party or voting bloc,". First, the use of quotation marks is inappropriate. Secondly, since none of these organizations had conventions, they could all be labelled 'voting blocs', including the 'Democratic Republican' voting bloc. So let's be consistent. Since a party is a voting bloc, this is redundant. If you want to put quotation marks around 'Democratic Republican' everywhere, then we can also put them as you have it here. Unless you say otherwise, I'll assume you will not agree with the former. Skyemoor 11:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Our anon makes it a dispute not upheld by Skyemoor alone. As for other comments on the subject, I refer to the discussion on the party's Talk page, which contains a large number of opinions, many of them opposing Jeffersonian Republican. Also, Plange's comments, and Homestarmy's (Just a side note, Jeffersion definitely was a member of the Democratic Republican party, I trust my history book more than I trust some random editor :D ). Septentrionalis 20:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
One way to view this matter is this: what language can we use that would best inform some high-school kid working on his/her homework? Assume the kid knows that Bush is a Republican and Kerry is a Democrat, but assume her or she knows very little else, and assume that as editors of an encyclopedia, we don't want to confuse the little darling. Rklawton 21:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
There are hundreds of references we could bring forth to help mediate this 'dispute'; I've used one rough order of magnitude approach used by Pmanderson|Septentrionalis in the past (focused searches in Google Scholar). The choices as I see it are;
I see Jeffersonian Republican as really being a subset of Republican, but both of those are clearly more in use than Democratic Republican; hence, either of those options would be the ones to pick from for party affiliation. Skyemoor 21:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I observe that Skyemoor changed Jeffersonian into Jeffersonian Republican here; while I don't think Jeffersonian is ideal, it satisfies Jklawson's requirement of not misleading the schoolchildren; it is also contemporary, indeed preceeds, Jefferson's presidency. But since it doesn't seem to satisfy Skyemoor, I see no reason to abstain from a better choice. I would have been content to remove the tag, since it is neither erroneous or misleading; I await with some curiosity, an explanation for this reversion other than partisanship. Septentrionalis 19:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I see that Pmanderson|Septentrionalis is using "Jeffersonian" in the infobox, though this hasn't been discussed before. What evidence can you provide to use that in lieu of the other discussed options? Skyemoor 15:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I see Pmanderson|Septentrionalis has reverted twice already today, and is now claiming James Madison was a member of the Democrat Party, in
this edit.
Skyemoor 22:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Pmanderson|Septentrionalis is insisting on "Madison and Thomas Jefferson created the Democratic Republicans". This is untrue; 1. You can't create people 2. Madison and Jefferson both used the words/phrases "Republicans", "republicans", "Republican party", "republican party" when referring to their caucus, which is generally accepted as starting around 1792. It wasn't until much later that Madison very infrequently (after 1809) used the term "Democratic Republican" when writing to some local political groups who had come to adopt that name.
A more correct sentence would refer to Madison's and Jefferson's creation of a coalition of congressmen and supporters known as Republicans (or republicans). Skyemoor 20:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Beside the Treaty of Ghent, is that all? would u consider that a foreign or domestic policy?
The early life portion was vandalised on Nov 9th 2006. I've reverted back to the 05 Nov version for that section. robbini
Will some one please remove " He did a bunch of cool stuff in america cause he was american. i like chinese food." from this page? I cant figure out how to do it. 68.32.73.22 14:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! (for removing " He did a bunch of cool stuff in america cause he was american. i like chinese food.") 68.32.73.22 14:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
About halfway down "Later Life," there the statement "...revising of the Virginia state constitution. For one last moment, James Madison was back in his element." which seems to be opinionated. This needs to be fixed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by El Carnemago ( talk • contribs) 21:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
Folks,
I changed
to
because, based mostly on readings of Wood and Matthews, it seems to me that there were plenty of republicans among the founders of the American government. Madison was not exceptional in that regard. What made Madison stand out was his great concern, his worry, his pessimism, for what would happen to America decades later, when the frontier (the great safety valve of the common people) was exhausted, and his belief that neither human goodness (Jefferson's hope) nor centralized power (Hamilton's hope) could save the country from the selfish and short-sighted machinations of the powerful (or the many), but only a system in which some "factions" (what we now call "special interests") were pitted against others.
TH 03:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Given the nature of this stuff, I think it's important for each item to be sourced. That's the least we can do for a dubious section. Rklawton 14:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
1. Follow the fundamental rule of Wikipedia -- verifiability -- do not change anything supported by citations unless you provide countervailing citations.
2. Hamilton and Jay are so important as co-authors of FP that they deserve to be mentioned at the top of the article.
3. If you look at a definition of Republicanism -- Wikipedia's, for example -- (and that word here has no connection whatsoever with the Republican versus the Democratic party) -- you'll see that Madison fits the definition only with some difficulty, and certainly fits it worse than most of his fellow founders of the republic. For example, he never expects civic virtue, and he sees liberty as being almost as dangerous as it is attractive. He gives more respect to property and authority than would most people who say they believe in Republicanism.
4. Example: he opposes slavery, but even more does he oppose the idea of freeing the slaves without compensating the "owners".
5. Read the new citations.
6. Read the new footnotes.
TH 06:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Since Stevewk believes his opening paragraph to be perfect, it may be worth listing a few objections. His text is
James Madison (March 16, 1751 – June 28, 1836) was an American politician and fourth President of the United States of America (1809–1817). He was one of the most influential Founders of the United States; because it was the core of his Virginia Plan that survived the hard scrutiny of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, he is known as the "Father of the Constitution." In 1788, Madison coauthored The Federalist Papers, still the most influential commentary on that document. He also coordinated the composition of the U.S. Bill of Rights. Undergirding his politics was a fervent belief in republicanism as the new nation's overarching social and political value system.
My objection to this sentence:
however, aside from the meaningless phrase "overarching political value system". is that "undergirding" is purple prose. This is an encyclopedia, not Fourth of July oratory. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I've looked at Banning; I see no such distinction. In fact, Banning indexes p.168, dealing with Madison's opposition to elective monarchy, under "Republicanism". Madison's ideas as to how republicanism is to be achieved and preserved are of course both more complex and vary from occasion to occasion; but that is an old story, and does not need Banning to demonstrate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Flagged article as reading like an essay and in need of cleaning up. Much of the article seems to me to be trying to paint a narrative picture of Madison as opposed to presenting facts... Nf utvol 15:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Flagged article as reading like an essay and in need of cleaning up. Much of the article seems to me to be trying to paint a narrative picture of Madison as opposed to presenting facts... Nf utvol 15:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)