Talk:James Madison/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This 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.

Contents

Summary

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

comment

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)


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 ````

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)
You've been shown the support ad nauseum; choose to ignore it to your own deficit, but don't attempt to impose said deficit on the rest of us. Skyemoor 22:13, 18 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..  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)
But his comment was not directed at his father, rather at the men, like Parsons, who became the High Federalists. Septentrionalis 12:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Simplistic and anachronistic

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)

In particular, "Republican Party", so capped, is flatly unacceptable. It has one meaning in American English, and this is not it; nor is it defensible as Madison's usage. Septentrionalis 17:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
A leading specialist warns that Jefferson usually avoided capital letters. People did not have dictionaries at hand in those days, or even spelling books. (Noah Webster created those), and capitalization was haphazard by most writers, especially in handwritten letters. Therefore as Malone says, we cannot deduce meaning from the erratic capitalization. (Malone Jefferson and the ordeal of Libery 3:265) Rjensen 19:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
And since Madison definitively used "Republican party" and he was a cofounder of the party, I cannot understand why Pmanderson|Septentrionalis objects to Madison's employment of the term. He cannot change history, so it would be highly improper to attempt to show an altered form of it here. Odd that he is perfectly ok with the use of Democratic-Republican Party and Federalist Party. Time to accept what Madison wrote and move on. Skyemoor 20:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that employing Madison's usage (which from what I can tell is not necessarily 100% consistent) today is anachronistic because the same term now means something completely different. I've no problem with using either "Republican Party" or "republican party" or other combinations -- so long as the meaning is explicitly and prominently glossed in the text to differentiate the term from the modern GOP. older ≠ wiser 22:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
We tried to use Republican Party (1792 United States) but Pmanderson|Septentrionalis threw a fit. There's no reason to use an incorrect name (DR) just because some people are intellectually lazy. We should be reporting the facts, not someone's preference of an incorrect label. Skyemoor 23:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
The royal we, I presume?
No, there were at least 3 of us who supported that name. It's sad you are resorting to untruths to further your distortions.
Name them, or be confessed a liar. There are three today who object; the two others who write in this section, and the recent anon. Septentrionalis 18:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I objected, and I still object, to using a misleading label combined with a sentence fragment asserting two dates, both debateable. As for correctness; Madison was elected, as was Monroe, by the Democratic-Republican Party.
Produce your 'proof' that the name was DR nationally by Madison's election. Local party names do not count. Even Jefferson was still using republican party as late as 1813. Skyemoor 00:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
To assert that this was not the party he founded is splitting hairs. Septentrionalis 23:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Splitting hairs? The truth is splitting hairs? Show me quotes by Madison or Jefferson before 1800 where they refer to the party as Democratic-Republican. The only quotes you will find is republican or Republican. Madison used "Republican party" and I've provided the reference. So produce your evidence or quit your POV edit war campaign. Skyemoor 00:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
That has never been claimed or implied. A Cause that can only been defenced by a Straw man argument must be really weak. Septentrionalis 17:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
While it is not unimportant what terms they used to describe themselves, it is rather pointless pedantry if the terms are used in such a way as to confuse contemporary readers. While Skyemoor may snub such readers as "intellectually lazy", I'd hope that we can do better than that for a generalist encyclopedia. I'd venture that more people are familiar with the group as the Democratic-Republican party than as simply the Republican party. I could be wrong, but that is certainly what I recall from every schoolbook I came across. Of course, that was a while ago, but I'm rather doubtful that school texts have actually improved all that much in the interim. In any case, I'd argue for D-R to be the linked term, with an inline gloss explaining that they oftn referred to themselves as simply Republicans, and use that usage throughout the rest of the article. older ≠ wiser 01:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid that's not a very convincing point of evidence. Skyemoor 13:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
On the contary, it is policy. WP:NAME identifies its central tenet as: Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists.
Then again, a history textbook search (and we are trying to communicate what happened historically) on the Democratic-Republican Party talk page showed that the overwhelming majority of contemporary textbooks use Republican instead of Democratic-Republican. Skyemoor 13:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
As I thought, you are simply embracing what you originally learned in school, instead of we know actually happened now. I was taught in school that Hamilton did not fire during his duel, nor even moved his pistol from the ready position. I have now learned that was false, though it certainly takes some readjustment after having been a part of my memory for so long. So your 'familiarity' is not a valid argument for withholding correct information. Skyemoor 11:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Fine by me. When can even strengthen this somewhat for the 1790's. Septentrionalis 05:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
You have provided no evidence that James Madison started a "Democratic-Republican Party". Indeed, you have not even provided one shred of evidence that he used that name before 1800, or even his first use of it to denote the national party. So to say that he helped establish a DR party is clearly and unrefutably unsupportable POV, regardless of what you wish it to be, or what you learned at your particular high school. Skyemoor 11:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
"James Madison created the Republican Party", unqualified,
"Together with Thomas Jefferson, he created a Republican party". What's wrong with this? Even one of your own references below states as much. Skyemoor 19:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
has one meaning in common American English, and it is false.
Bald pronouncement
Does even Skyemoor disagree with it? Septentrionalis 19:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, if you cared to read the article about the Republican => Democratic-Republican party, it describes multiple "Republican Party" entities over a span of decades. Note that if you are worried about confusing someone that comes to this article without that knowledge, the phrase "(not the present Republican Party)," eliminates that confusion. If you don't understand this, I can explain it in other terms. Skyemoor 20:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The fashion among some recent historians does not change this; nor does the fact that any learned person will see that it is impossible, by the eighteen years from 1836 to 1854. Such people do not depend for their information on the first paragraphs of WP articles; they will consult this article, if at all, to refresh their memories of some particular fact. Septentrionalis 17:55, 25 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.

Since you have no argument, you choose to denigrate your debate opponent. Sorry, this still doesn't count for providing evidence to support your position.
As Dr. Johnson said, "I have suppiied you with an argument, Sir." The rest is up to you. Septentrionalis 19:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Show me your argument that "Madison created the Democratic-Republican Party" with his own words; is that so hard? Why do you avoid answering this question; is it because you realize you cannot cite any evidence? Skyemoor 20:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

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.

And then you denigrate contemporary scholarship.
? Septentrionalis 19:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no discovery of fact here,

Though several primary references have been supplied several times.
And those primary references were as well known when Bkonrad went to school as they are now; Madison's papers were published in 1900. Septentrionalis 19:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The term "Republican" meant something different in 1900 than it does today. You haven't challenged the contemporary history scholars who now overwhelmingly use "Republican Party" for the early Jeffersonian Republican Party years. Perhaps you have credentials that override theirs? Skyemoor 20:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

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:

Are you still assuming the readership is still at the junior high school level, as you mentioned previously? Seeing many of your other contributions, it appears you are supplying post-grad material in other sections of WP. So don't speak out of both sides of your mouth. Skyemoor 19:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Either do not mislead the reader, or explain accurately and in full. The intro to James Madison is not the place to do the latter. The history of the Democratic-Republican Party is an article on its own. Septentrionalis 19:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
You have attempted to mislead the readership by claiming "Madison created the Democratic-Republican Party", which is a falsehood you refused to provide support for several times. Skyemoor 20:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I trust three quotations will suffice:

  1. James Madison co-founded the Democratic-Republican Party David R, Mayhew: America's Congress: Actions in the Public Sphere, James Madison Through Newt Gingrich. p.143
  2. "Thus Jefferson, Madison, and other like-minded opponents of the Federalists created the Republican Party, which soon came to be called the Democratic-Republican Party and its successor, in 1828, the Democratic Party"; Robert A. Dahl "James Madison: Republican or Democrat? ", Perspectives on Politics, Volume 3, Issue 03, Sep 2005, pp 439-448
    • The only real problem with borrowing this exact language is that we would have to use quotes.
  3. "By the early 1790s, he [Madison] was busy organizing the Democratic-Republican movement" Drew R. McCoy: The last of the fathers : James Madison and the Republican legacy. p.xii (does not appear to be accessible online).

Septentrionalis 17:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You have still not provided any Madison quotes, though oddly enough your second reference supports my position completely, even down to Republican Party. "Indeed, you have not even provided one shred of evidence that he used that name before 1800, or even his first use of it to denote the national party." Still waiting, though I have little doubt that you will find any in the early timeframe. Skyemoor 19:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
This is either a straw man, or evidence that Skyemoor has never understood the position against which he is attempting to argue. AFAICS no editor of this article has ever contended or implied that "Democratic-Republican Party" was used by anyone "before 1800"; certainly I do not. Septentrionalis 19:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Yet you have on many occasions attempted to write that "Madison created the Democratic-Republican party" before 1800 without ever providing a shred of evidence that he even used such a term in the first decade of the national party's existence, much less in the second. Clearly, either you do not understand what it was that he created, or you are flagrantly flaunting Wikipedia:Cite_your_sources. I have provided my sources, which you choose to ignore, while providing none yourself. Please stop your incessant POV campaign and resume thoughtful WP article improvement. Skyemoor 19:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Another straw man; no edit has ever said that he named it DRP; and I believe the present text goes out of its way to avoid the implication. Septentrionalis 20:10, 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:

Yet you have on many occasions attempted to write that "Madison created the Democratic-Republican party" without ever providing a shred of evidence that he used such a term even in the first decade of the party's existence. Clearly, either you do not understand what it was that he created, or you are flagrantly flaunting Wikipedia:Cite_your_sources. I have provided my sources, which you choose to ignore, while providing none yourself. Please stop your incessant POV campaign and resume thoughtful WP article improvement. Skyemoor 19:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Altering it is disingenuous.

Physician, heal thyself.

Skyemoor is willing to impose on the reader the grievously mileading statment that "James Madison created the Republican Party" without qualification or explanation.

This is an outright falsehood. First, the explanation "(not the present Republican Party)," follow the use of Republican party. Secondly, the link takes the reader directly to the page Democratic-Republican Party where Pmanderson|Septentrionalis has mounted a campaign to keep the use of Republican party by Jefferson and Madison as buried as possible. Thirdly, I used Madison's name in conjunction with Jefferson's. Skyemoor 21:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
He is therefore ignoring both common sense
A weak attempt to claim oneself as the bearer of 'common sense'
and policy: that names should be used as commonly understood.
Current history textbooks use Republican Party; what of this do you not understand? Skyemoor 21:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
Simply use the terms Madison, Jefferson, and their associates used. You've been shown many times that he used "Republican party" directly. Skyemoor 21:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Then why the insistence on "Republican Party", which he did not use? Why ignore the several other terms he did use, and which did not include "party" in any form? Septentrionalis 21:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
You are aware that I had been using "Republican party" and you even mentioned that the small 'p' was appropriate. See the many edit lines that mention this. I've stated before that the use of multiple terms is fine, such as "republicans or Republican party", though you do your best to remove or somehow disturb the latter. 66.225.251.176 22:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


Democratic?

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)

No. Please check the reference cited. If the letter were on line, I would have linked to it; and I do not remember Madison's correspondent (Wirt?). Septentrionalis 23:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
It's customary to provide a couple of sentences, so that you can give the rest of us context about what was said. Right now, according to the Library of Congress, there are no other letters written that day by Madison, so help us to verify your reference. Skyemoor 01:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Quotation marks and voting blocs

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)

Yes, they were both voting blocs in origin; that's why "Federalists" is preferable to "Federalist Party".
So Federalist Party should be renamed to Federalists? Same with Democratic-Republicans?
"Democratic Republicans" with no hyphen, for the substantive; but yes, they both should. Septentrionalis 18:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Then the Democratic-Republican Party page needs renaming, then. Skyemoor 01:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
As for the quotes: these are, except for "Jeffersonian Republican", terms quotable from Madison's contemporaries. As for the contention that "party" and "voting bloc" are synonymous: I'm sure that the sugar interest and the Congressional Black Caucus will be pleased to find they have become parties of their own. Septentrionalis 04:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, the context here is 1790s-1820. Skyemoor 10:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
So? Septentrionalis 18:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Go read a contemporary history book covering that era if you are still confused. They use the same terms I do, and you've been shown that dozens of times. Skyemoor 01:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I fear it is Skyemoor who is confused. His recent insistence on Jeffersonian Republican, which is (unlike either of its components), a genuine anachronism, brought into usage by the Jacksonians in contrasting Jefferson to the National Republicans, and made a historical term by Bryce is deplorable inaccuracy; since his consensus appears to consist of himself alone, with some distant support from a most deplorable specialist in misleading citations and personal attacks, it can hardly warrant the introduction of inaccuracy. Septentrionalis 15:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

dispute

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)

If others want to contribute to this discussion here and see the results of more extensive examination of sources, then the more the merrier; 'drive by' mention of discussions by editors in other articles is meaningless. I also followed the link and found yet another personal attack by you. Skyemoor 21:22, 2 December 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)

I agree with this approach; we are not writing for historians and political scientists. They have better sources, not vandalized. There are three obvious options:
  • Use Republican and explain fully. I have no problem with this, where it fits. There's an article on the party, where I helped to do this. It won't fit in the info box.
  • Use Democratic Republican; better than Democratic-Republican Party, as it doesn't suggest a fusion.
  • Avoid any name where possible and link to the party's article. Again, it won't work for the info-box, unless we omit party entirely. For so loose an organization, this may be more defensible than it would seem. Septentrionalis 22:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Of the obvious alternatives:
  • Democratic Party may be marginally better than "Republican Party", but I do not advocate it. It is somewhat less misleading than "Republican Party"; the present Democratic Party is one of the fragments of Madison's party after the breakup of the 1820's. On the other hand, between 1794 and 1800 it was used by the Federalists, not by the party itself; they wanted to include all who wanted a republic, not just a democratic republic.
  • Jeffersonian Republican is the worst of the available choices. It is almost as misleading as Republican Party; our hypothetical student will read it like Reagan Republican: those Republicans who follow Jefferson (and she will be right on AE usage). On the other hand, it does not have Republican Party 's merit of contemporary usage. DAE has the first citation from Bryce in 1888; OED first cites "Jeffersonian republicanism" from this page of the Democratic Review in 1838; and that means an ideology, not a party. Septentrionalis 19:03, 1 December 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;

  • Republican or republican: Used by Jefferson, Madison, and many other in that timeframe. Used by more historians on JSTOR, and in more historical textbooks. An excellent choice that can be disambiguated with only a few words. The use of a lowercase 'r' (or the interesting use of an asterisk) sets it apart from the current Republican party, and the link takes one to the appropriate article. Google Scholar hits for Madison "Republican party" Federalist -"Democratic Republican": 2220
  • Democratic Republican: No historical basis for this, and falling out of favor with historians. Worst choice. Madison Federalist "Democratic Republican Party": 162
  • Democratic Party: No historical basis for this, beyond extended lineage. Not a real candidate.
  • Jeffersonian Republican: Not used by them, but in frequent use by historians to disambiguate the term "Republican". I seen no confusion vis a viz Reagan Republican usage by 99.9% of the readership. Madison Federalist "Jeffersonian Republican"; 173

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)

Ah, yes, the Single Purpose Account. What has Skyemoor done for Wikipedia but pursue this partisan mare's nest? Here are his last 100 edits: a few on global warming and the rest on this crusade.
Pmanderson|Septentrionalis knows he cannot make his point based on the historical evidence, which is overwhelmingly at odds with his position, so he attacks the messenger instead. Skyemoor 04:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
And yet he knows that Democrats is historically based, just like Republicans:
"The people are now able every where to compare the principles and policy of those who have borne the name of Republicans or Democrats with the career of the adverse party. and to see and feel that the former are as much in harmony with the Spirit of the Nation as the latter was at variance with both."James Madison to William Eustis, May 22, 1823.
he provided this quotation himself. (It is, of course, one of many.) Is there an explanation for this, short of deliberate falsehood? Septentrionalis 23:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
?? This letter from Madison is from 1823 (I have used the same quote on more than one occasion), long after he was in office, at a time when the party was breaking up (Federalists didn't exist anymore and divisions became chasms). And note that Madison is unmercilessly berating the Democrats; not the sort of reference one would bring out to support naming the party "Democratic". Pmanderson|Septentrionalis seems to be finding even the straws difficult to clutch at.... Skyemoor 04:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Skyemoor will find, in the article on the party, sourced references for uses of Democrats from 1793 and 1800; also references from Madison's correspondence from 1812. I choose this one precisely because Skyemoor himself edited it, and his claim that Democrat has no historical basis is therefore a deliberate lie. Septentrionalis 20:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Madison calls the "Republicans or Democrats" "in harmony with the "Spirit of the Nation"; and the "adverse party" the contrary. This is a very peculiar attack indeed. Septentrionalis 21:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
These incessant personal attacks are unacceptable and against WP policy. Above I was referring the label "Democratic Party", not Democrats. And the one reference you did provide with content referred primarily to opposition rhetoric, and even this was in one county, not on a national level. Again, provide some evidence for using the term "Democratic Party" to label Jefferson or Madison about their terms in office or admit that your position has no support. Skyemoor 03:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Inquirers will also find that his claims about Democratic Republican are also false; it was used in Madison's first term, as DAE shows. Septentrionalis 20:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Pmanderson|Septentrionalis needs to understand that the DAE is a tertiary source, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which is less desirable than a secondary source. I've given many previously, but will give 3 more now;
None of these are addressed to Rklawton's schoolchild; Wikipedia is. "First, do no harm". I have never objected to republican party, with a full explanation, which some of these include and all of these imply. There is no room for one in the infobox. Septentrionalis 19:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Again, you are attempting to sidestep Wikipedia:Reliable sources because you have no substantive evidence to present (if you do, then by all means present it!). The infobox has room for several different approaches, each of which is explicitly disambiguated from the current Republican Party. 198.151.13.8 20:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
When he ceases to edit in this manner, no one will be happier than myself to treat him as he will then deserve. Septentrionalis 20:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Empty rhetoric. Either support your claim or admit that it has insufficient support. Skyemoor 03:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
For a crank, no evidence is sufficient;Septentrionalis 19:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
So you are saying you find my evidence insufficient? Or are you continuing your personal attacks? 198.151.13.8 20:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Neither; I am affirming a general truth. If the shoe does not fit, Skyemoor does not have to wear it. Please do not interrupt sentences again. Septentrionalis 21:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
this has included primary, secondary and tertiary sources. If Skyemoor is not a crank, let him not behave like one. Septentrionalis 19:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I've seen nothing primary from Pmanderson that showed Madison called himself or his national party Democratic Republican while he was in office. For each secondary source Pmanderson produces, I'm certain I can produce two of solid scholarship to support my position. Tertiary are too far down on the WP food chain. If Pmanderson can support his position, let him not rely solely on rhetoric and namecalling. 198.151.13.8 20:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I draw several conclusions from this:
  • This anon is Skyemoor; since I have written nothing about 198.151.13.8
  • As usual, he is demanding substantiation of claims that no-one has ever made; although this one may well be true.
  • He has no reply to Rklawson's decisive argument above, that Republican is simply misleading.
I am open to correction, as always. Septentrionalis 20:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Correct, I had been logged out by the timer and didn't notice it.
  • You are demanding we recognize that Madison was a Democratic Republican party member while President (why else put the label on as such?)
  • He is putting words in another editor's mouth, though adding an asterisk provide the necessary distinguishment anyway.
  • Likewise, as always. Skyemoor 00:33, 5 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)

Pmanderson|Septentrionalis has already forgotten that "Jeffersonian Republican" is in widespread use amongst historians and history teachers. He seems to think that anything other than what he writes is a partisan reversion. I'm not sure who would call themselves a Jeffersonian Republican today, so the partisan comment is most curious, especially since I am an independent. He also takes great liberties with the input of Rklawton, who simply said "One way to view this is..." without specifying or requiring one usage over another. Again, I invite other editors to review the evidence for Madison's relationship to Jeffersonian Republicans at Madison Federalist "Jeffersonian Republican". In the mean time, the use of the dispute tag is frivolous. Skyemoor 00:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Republican is misleading to the point of factual error; Jeffersonian Republican is both misleading and in factual error. If neither of them is going to appear in the info box, we don't need to tag. Septentrionalis 02:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Pmanderson|Septentrionalis has seen mountains of evidence presented and still stay in denial, preferring to spout abuse phrases in personal attacks most recently as [[11]] and [[12]], introducing his own vandalism and trying to blame me for it. He makes claims above that have been repeatedly shown to be false (see references above) and prefers bald assertions in a forceful mannner, perhaps thinking that he can win converts by the force of his oratory alone. However, this is an encyclopedia, so information added needs to be supported by secondary sources, and in this case, backed up by primary sources. His case is extremely weak in both; if he has evidence, then let him bring it forth. Skyemoor 23:34, 6 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)

Another error of fact; it has been discussed. For the 1790's uses, see Cunningham's book, as cited on the article on the party; or the OED and DAE under Jeffersonian. Present usage could have been found by scholar.google.com, [13]. . Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
And I've provided above the results of searches that showed thousands on JSTOR that referred to the party as "Republican Party". Since you objected to that, I agreed that the compromises "republican", "Republican*", or "Jeffersonian Republican" would work. Simply putting "Jefferson" doesn't come close to a name that has backing from historians. Skyemoor 22:25, 15 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)

On the contrary, Democrat has not appeared before, and since Skyemoor has already laboriously explained how it seemed to him different than Democratic, I thought we might try it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Created Democratic Republicans?

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)

James Madison

Beside the Treaty of Ghent, is that all? would u consider that a foreign or domestic policy?

Vandalism

The early life portion was vandalised on Nov 9th 2006. I've reverted back to the 05 Nov version for that section. robbini

please remove Chinese food?

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!

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)

Opinions!

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).

why I changed

Folks,

I changed

Undergirding his politics was a fervent belief in republicanism as the new nation's overarching social and political value system.

to

Undergirding his politics was a fervent belief in the new republic's need for checks and balances between competing interests.

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)

There seems to be a mixing of points above. First, you refer to republicans in the context of republicanism, seeming to equate the two. Madison repeated dozens of times that he was a staunch supporter of republicanism, the republican interest, the republican party, and so forth. To strip that away would cloud the picture. If you are concerned that the word republicanism is a direct reference to the current U.S. Republican Party, note that the link states, "the two political philosophies have influenced but do not literally define their political party namesakes, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. The republican ideal of civic duty was succinctly expressed in 1961 by John F. Kennedy: "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Skyemoor 12:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
That's one definition of republicanism; to assert it was Madison's would require sources. Don't be anachronistic. Madison made perfectly clear that he was a "republican" as opposed to the "monarchy" of Hamilton and his friends. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

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)

Madison's most fundamental political beliefs; etc.

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)

Madison was a leader of republicanism according to historians, (Banning, Rakove, Kernell, Ketcham, McCoy, Dunn, Elkins & McKitrick, etc etc ) Banning says: "Madison was also as committed a republican as any member of the great [1787] convention". (thisd is not a new idea: see Neal Riemer, "The Republicanism of James Madison," Pol Sci Q, LXIX (1954), 45-64) Original research into the matter is not allowed here. The opening section is a summary and is not the place for long quotes, even in footnotes. Rjensen 09:06, 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.

  • The question as to what the "core of the Virginia plan" may be is disputable, and should not be disputed here. Madison would probably have considered a Senate proportional to population as part of that core.
  • "coauthored" is slang.
  • Rjensen's change to the last sentence is an immense improvement.
  • Republicanism "as the new nation's social value system" is at best jargon. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Purple prose

My objection to this sentence:

Undergirding his politics was a fervent belief in republicanism as the new nation's overarching political value system, and a commitment to creating mechanisms that would make republicanism work in practice.

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)

The lede has to make the points that 1) JM was strongly committed to republicanism and 2) that he worked to create mechanisms that would make republicanism work in practice. It is NOT acceptable to remove the key term "republicanism" and replace it with a very different term (republic). There are over 3000 articles in JSTOR on Madison & Republicanism, so it's hardly controversial. The original text had architectural allusions (forces, undergirding, mechanisms, overarching) that is not "purple" but reflects his reputation as political architect of the basic laws. Rjensen 23:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Undergirding with an overarch is a broken metaphor. Does anyone else like it? This is an encyclopedia, not a prose poem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Well I mixed the metaphors a bit--sorry. however serious attention to style style is a longterm goal of Wikipedia. We also strive to avoid errors like confusing "republic" and "republicanism" Rjensen 00:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Republicanism is support for a republic, and the behaviour suitable to one; "attachment or adherence to republican principles; republican government or institutions, etc." I would regret seeing any article say otherwise. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh no, republicanism is much more complex than that, Better read Banning for starters. Rjensen 01:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
That is an ideology, and does not appear to be Banning's ideology; however, this encyclopedia should be written in English, without private definitions. The above definition is from the OED, which will do for our purposes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:45, 9 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)

We don't use a general dictionary to handle concepts that are much better covered in depth by scholarly article. JSTOR has over 3000 citations to "Republicaniam AND Madison" -- an encyclkopeia has to work with these. Rjensen 18:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
And which of those uses "republicanism" in any other sense than the common English meaning cited above? That is the assertion which is unsupported. Serious editors don't use words with meanings they do not bear, and avoid using them in senses which will be misunderstood by the common reader. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:23, 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)

Reads Like An Essay

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)

The article meets all the Wiki rules. It is NOT a peersonal essay by anyone. Instead it reflects the consensus of many scholars, esperts and Wiki editors. It has weaknesses regarding ideas and presidential years and those will eventually be improved. Rjensen 19:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it's both abominably written and tendentious. I hsve done something towards cleaning up the section on the Yazoo land frauds, but it could use much more. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
But it's not so bad that removing it altogether is an improvement. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The Yazoo bit was somebody's personal essay and I removed it. Rjensen 13:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)