James Madison Father of the Constitution, History


		Data Bases
		• Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism?

		Links
		• Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com

		Free Essays
		• Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers

Search Lots of Essays

Back to Subjects - History Other

James Madison Father of the Constitution

James Madison Father of the Constitution In the years following the Revolutionary War, the economic and political condition in the newly declared nation was disastrous. The young states were in extreme debt after the expense of the war, and economic growth was hampered by the fact that each state had its own tariffs and currencies. The Continental Congress was helpless to repair the dilemma because of its inability to tax (Garraty, 1971). In the middle of all the confusion, however, a commercial dispute, the Oyster War, between Virginia and Maryland was successfully solved with assistance from General George Washington and James Madison. Surprised and delighted, the Maryland delegation suggested a larger meeting, including a few other states, to adopt a uniform commercial system. Madison, however, felt there was the potential for a meeting of all the states to follow in order to explore all commercial concerns and to amend the Articles of Confederation. The resulting Annapolis Convention in 1786 was a disappointment - only five states attended. Frustrated, the states represented sent out a call to all other states for a constitutional convention to meet in Philadelphia the following year (Kauffmann, 1997). This second convention might also have had little or no result had it not been for the Shays Rebellion. Washington's extreme propaganda on the tax-related minor rebellion emphasized the need for an agreed nation-wide system, rather than individual state procedures (Nat. Archives, 2000). States began to see the possibility that amendments to the Articles of Confederation could be beneficial, and even wise. As a result, eleven of the thirteen states sent representatives to Philadelphia (Kauffmann, 1997). At this Constitutional Convention and continuing on after, Madison would become the leader of the formation and ratification of a new plan of government, from organizing the convention to setting its scope and tone, from laying out the main form of the document to fighting every barrier that threatened its success. James Madison took every measure possible to ensure the success of the Constitutional Convention. He began by urging the seemingly unenthusiastic Washington to attend the Convention, realizing the importance of his appearance at this meeting. Washington was seen as the hero of the revolution, and his absence would be disastrous to the public approval of any document the Convention might agree on. Madison, understanding the eventual need for public approval as well as the delegates', carefully persuaded the General to attend (Overview, 2000). Having ensured that the meeting itself would meet with approval, Madison set to work to create a proposal that would do the same. He prepared extensively for the Constitutional Convention before it ever convened at Philadelphia, studying the strengths and weaknesses of every historical government he could find information on. His studies were extremely intense; Madison delved into well-known and obscure forms of government alike, from all continents and peoples, searching for the faults and virtues of each. He made extensive notes on all his readings, and compiled his own ideas of how to create a successful government (Kauffmann, 2000). Upon sharing - and defending - his views with his fellow delegates at the Virginia Convention, an extensive proposal was drawn up with his concepts as the main body of the document. The proposition stated first that the Articles of Confederation were insufficient to the needs of the nation, and should be replaced, rather than simply amended. Secondly, that the individual state governments needed a strong central authority to rule over them. Third, that the way to avoid the states abusing their personal power was an extended republic, that would protect the rights of the people within it. This proposal, with Madison as its principal author, was referred to as the Virginia Plan. Madison, fearing that his recent introduction to politics would cause members of the Convention to ridicule his ideas, asked that the entire Virginian committee present the proposal (Ketcham, 1971). The entire presentation was carefully calculated to ensure the greatest likelihood of approval. First, another proposal was introduced before the Virginia Plan, similar enough to be profitable should it not pass, which Madison had little doubt it would not. The Virginia Plan was then introduced, not by Madison himself, the cardinal author, but by the highly respected Governor Randolph, and was quickly passed into law. Of Governor Randolph's presentation of the Virginia Plan, Madison wrote, "an alternative proposition, which had been kept in reserve, being seasonably brought forward by a highly respected member, who, having long served in the State [Virginia] councils without participating in the Federal, had more the ear of the Legislature on that account, was adopted with little opposition" (Fendall, 1865). Madison knew that his own introduction of the document would likely be considered a Federal tactic, which at this point, he was not prepared to argue with any hope of success. The Virginia Plan would eventually become largely the basis for the Constitution, with Madison arguing tirelessly at every turn for its approval. Although he was not a practiced speaker, Madison spoke over 150 times at the Convention, and many of the other delegates found themselves grudgingly admiring him. William Pierce, a delegate from Georgia, spoke of Madison that: "He blends together the profound politician with the Scholar. In the management of every great question he evidently took the lead in the Convention, and tho' he cannot be called an Orator, he is a most agreeable, eloquent and convincing Speaker. From a spirit of industry and application which he possesses in a most eminent degree, he always comes forward the best informed Man of any point in debate" (Bent, 2000). Madison used every tactic at his disposal to ensure that the document would pass as fully intact as possible. He succeeded in great measure, for though he lost ground on some of the technicalities and specific details, the main points eventually became the foundation of the Constitution. The finished document was then proposed to the states, where Madison's work at its approval would continue. Perhaps one of the most critical steps Madison took to ensure the ratification of the Constitution by the state of Virginia would be his letter to Thomas Jefferson, then residing in Paris, on the points of the document. Jefferson was widely recognized in Virginia and was a major influence over the decisions of other members of the Virginia convention. Jefferson's support, or at least lack of opposition, was critical for the ratification of the Constitution in Virginia. If Jefferson had opposed it, Madison would have had to contend with Jefferson, George Mason, Patrick Henry, and James Monroe to secure Virginia's support. Madison and Jefferson had been friends for some time prior to Madison's letter; indeed, it was Jefferson who had supplied Madison with the books on the history of governments before the Constitutional Convention. Madison met Jefferson in 1776 in the Virginia Legislature, and later became close friends with him when they were in similar positions in Council. From then, Madison says, "Our acquaintance became more intimate, and a friendship was formed which was for life, and which was never interrupted in the slightest degree for a single moment" (Fendall, 1865). Even with the strong bond of friendship, however, Jefferson's support was not a given in any sense. Jefferson had not been upset with Shay's rebellion before the Constitutional Congress met, and he strongly felt that a Bill of Rights was necessary in the formation of the Constitution. It is very possible that Jefferson might have opposed its ratification, and that Madison would have failed in convincing the other members of the Virginian convention. Madison's letter was a strong step in gaining his support. "It may be said that the new Constitution is founded on different principles, and will have a different operation. I admit the difference to be material. It presents the aspect rather of a feudal system of republics, if such a phrase may be used, than of a Confederacy of independent States. And what has been the progress and event of feudal Constitutions" (Bent, intro., 2000)? Madison goes on throughout the letter to support the Constitutions strong points while dissecting it openly and honestly for the benefit of Jefferson. His frank discussion of what he viewed to be the finished document's flaws as well as positive traits helped Jefferson come to his final conclusion to support the ratification of the Constitution after securing the promise that a Bill of Rights would be added when Madison could arrange it. Jefferson's support ensured, Madison turned his attention to the loud opposition of George Mason and Patrick Henry, who attacked the document from every possible angle (Nat. Archives, 2000). Madison, however, never seemed to take impassioned declarations of his own opinion as a strategy; rather, as Jefferson stated, he "pursued it closely in language pure, classical, and copious, soothing always the feelings of his adversaries by civilities and softness of expression, he rose to the eminent station which he held in the great National convention of 1787 and in that of Virginia which followed, he sustained the new constitution in all its parts, bearing off the palm against the logic of George Mason and the fervid declamation of Mr. Henry" (Overview, 2000). Mason and Henry were the more prominent anti-federalists Madison had to contend with, but certainly not the only ones. There were large factions of anti-Federalists, especially in New York. The anti-Federalists opposed the Constitution almost wildly, focusing on wide-apart issues. The anti-Federalists attacked the lack of a bill of rights, just as Jefferson had at first been opposed to it. They believed that the southern states were being discriminated against in issues of navigation legislation; they opposed direct taxation and the loss of state sovereignty. One of the issues most in concern, in fact, was the idea that the size of the county would be too much for a republic to control, and the government would come crashing down (Overview, 2000). Alexander Hamilton in New York enlisted the services of Madison and John Jay to create a regular article in the New York Pact replying to the accusations of the anti-Federalists. Under the pen name 'Publius', Hamilton, Madison, and Jay wrote over 80 letters countering the volleys of the anti-Federalists. Madison, however, was the one who countered the issue of the size of the country being controlled by a republic, in his letter number 10. Madison turned the argument completely around, stating that "the smaller the society the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party and the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression" (Federalist, 1787). Madison claimed that a large republic would have the reverse effect. In a large country, the differing views and diversity of the people would inhibit small factions from growing. If five people, who all began the day with the same view on a subject, each encountered in the course of their day views which modified their view slightly, then those five would no longer likely form a faction which would be threatening to the government (Overview, 2000). Madison's logic and compelling use of language won him more and more votes in favor of the ratification of the Constitution. He even, in another letter, conceded to the need for a Bill of Rights, which met with still more approval. Hamilton and Jay's letters were also important documents, but it was Madison's arguments that won the belief that the proposed new government would be a success, focusing on its own problems and solving them, rather than denying their existence. This ready candor that had won Jefferson's approval also won that of the public and of more and more of the Virginia council. Madison's use of language and mode of argument showed that he not only fought for the Constitution to be ratified, but that he himself believed in the Constitution as a capable rule for a nation. He admitted the document's flaws and discussed them at length in the Federalist Papers in such letters as number 58, which discusses an objection to the number of representatives given for a population (Federalist, 1787). Madison admits that the argument is valid, and proceeds to show how he believes the possible problems will be extinguished. Madison can be distinguished from his colleagues in the Federalist Papers with his ready admittance that the Constitution did have flaws, but also that he believed those flaws could be overcome - and would be (Garraty, 1795). On June 25, 1788, Virginia ratified the Constitution, an act that can largely be traced back to Madison's arguments and writings on the document. New York almost immediately followed Virginia on July 26, 1788 (Nat. Archives, 2000). It is here that one can realize the true impact of Madison fighting for ratification in Virginia. Had Virginia not ratified the document, New York almost certainly would not have either, despite the Federalist agencies arguing for it (Bent, comp., 2000). New York, it seems, was almost waiting for Virginia's 'go-ahead' to ratify, for as Chancellor Kent stated, watching the Virginia convention, "When Hamilton read Madison's letter announcing Virginia's ratification to the New York convention, the mood of the convention swayed to ratification" (Overview, 2000). Without the presence of New York and Virginia, the new Union certainly would have failed. They were two dominant, prosperous states located directly in the middle of the colonies. Their refusal to participate in the Union would have meant that the states would have been split into two factions, and would have inevitably been unable to continue an established government. Without Madison's performance, Virginia would not have ratified, nor, in turn, would New York, and their absence would have made the entire idea of a Union impossible (Bent, comp., 2000). Madison, therefore, can be considered the force of the formation and ratification of the Constitution. It was his mind that conceived the main points of the paper, set the tone of the Constitutional Convention, and conquered every obstacle that inhibited the document's ratification. Throughout all his work to ensure the Constitution's approval, Madison retained a demeanor of frank candor and unusual eloquence that could not be equaled, and that inevitably won people to his point of view. Perhaps, indeed, Madison would not have been the turning point that he is had he represented any other state. But the fact remains that he was, and is, the man that ensured the support of Virginia, and that fact meant the success of Constitutional ratification overall. He deserved the title bestowed upon him in 1791: "Father of the Constitution". He conceived it, battled hard for its approval, and finally succeeded in the ratification and eventual success of a document that even today retains those main points he instilled in it. His actions to ensure the union of the United States were unequaled by any man. "The advice nearest to my heart and deepest in my convictions is, THAT THE UNION OF THE STATES BE CHERISHED AND PERPETUATED." Bibliography:

Word Count: 2500