James Madison: A Biography by Ralph Ketcham

James Madison: A Biography by Ralph Ketcham is a massively large and comprehensive work. My ruminations on its level of detail and why I chose to read it can be found here. Kethcham’s biography is not just filled with facts, but in my opinion it strikes exactly the right balance of analysis and commentary concerning Madison and the era in which he lived.

This is huge book. Its pages are large and the print is small. As I estimated in my previous post, had this book been conventionally formatted, I think that it would run over 1000 pages. I could not help but smile when in the introduction Ketcham apologizes to his readers for his lack of detail and refers those who want more to Irving Brant’s six-volume biography of the America’s fourth President.

First published in 1971, Ketcham’s book has become the seminal Madison biography for those interested in a detailed portrait of the man. Based upon a little Internet surfing on the work, it seems to garner great respect from both academics and lay readers and seems to eclipse more recent shorter biographies of Madison written by popular authors.

Born in 1751 to a prosperous Virginia family, Madison grew up exposed to the best education that the New World offered at the time. For his higher education, Madison attended The College of New Jersey, later Princeton University. This institution was a breeding ground for New Light Presbyterianism and Revolutionary thought in America. Ketcham devotes plenty of pages to explaining how Madison’s intellectual foundations can be traced to his time spent there.  

Beginning before the Revolution, throughout the war, and later in an independent America, Madison served in various State and Pre-Constitution Federal Legislatures. During this time, he gained a reputation as an extremely competent and even brilliant political theoretician and legislator. Ketcham dedicates pages and pages to Madison’s political theorizing, which borrowed and built upon classical and enlightenment thinking.

Madison was indeed a great political thinker. He really came into his own during the 1787 Constitutional Convention, which led to the creation of the American Constitution.  Many, including Ketcham, describe him as the Father of the United States’ Constitution. Though I have read other authors, particularly James Lincoln Collier and Christopher Collier, who consider this a bit of an overstatement, he likely had a greater effect upon the final document than anyone else. Many of the most important features of his basic outline for the American Government made it into the Constitution. Madison pushed for a strong Federal Government as well as popular representation over what, at times, was vigorous opposition.  Madison’s blueprint for the American government has had a profound impact down through the present day.

In the fight to get the Constitution ratified, Madison co-authored the Federalist Papers. These works were landmarks in political theory that helped create and shape ideas that still represent some of the cornerstones of modern republics, balanced governments and political theory.

Later Madison continued to serve in various capacities in the Federal Government, from Congressman to Secretary of State. During this time, he married Dolly Payne or Dolly Madison, a vivacious and dynamic woman whose distinctive personality contrasted with Madison’s somewhat socially awkward character. Dolly eventually became one of America’s most popular and famous First Ladies.

In 1809, Madison was elected President of the United States. Serving two terms, this Founder’s time in office was often contentious and was marked by the War of 1812, in which the United States once again came into conflict with Great Britain. Madison’s presidency was also characterized by innovations in finance and infrastructure development that impacted America for decades to come.  Ketcham does not pull any punches, and his picture of the Madison Administration is portrayed as a time of great mistakes that were balanced by some equally great achievements.

After his term as President, Madison enjoyed a long retirement spent at his home in Montpelier, Virginia. Here, like many of America’s Founders, he engaged in a constant correspondence with other thinkers of the time. He also influenced, and sometimes participated in, both Virginia and National politics and the debates that characterized this time.

Madison’s shortcomings are not glossed over. For instance, though he opposed slavery, he could never bring himself to actually free his slaves. He also, while popular with his family and friends, was a socially awkward man.

As I am known to do, I will focus upon just one of many important aspects of Madison’s life. Madison was a vitally important figure, both in terms of his actions and political philosophy. Even if we confine ourselves to just examining Madison’s political philosophy and theorizing, there are too many fascinating and important angles to examine in a single post. Instead, I will spend a few words on just one thread of his political thinking. That is, Madison’s belief in, and championing of, an abundance and diversity of ideas, opinions and interests, especially when those ideas, opinions and interests contradicted each other.

An integral part of Madison’s social and political belief system revolved around the concept that many diverse belief systems could come together to form strong and meritorious ideological governmental and social systems. Madison argued that these conflicting systems would at times counterbalance and at other times complement one another, leading to a strong society and a strong republic. Ketcham writes about this and analyzes this belief somewhat extensively. At one point he describes and comments upon Madison’s viewpoint on this stew of various interests and ideas,

“this would preserve freedom rather then threaten it, because no one interest would control government; each interest – economic, religious, sectional, or whatever – would be a natural check on the domineering tendencies of others. Madison made a virtue of human diversity and neutralized the selfishness of mankind.””

Ketcham details how Madison’s view on this matter grew over time. Madison initially made this argument in relation to religion only, when he advocated and helped to achieve religious freedom in Virginia. Madison believed a variety of groups, including various Christian denominations, Jews and non-religious thinkers should be free to exercise their beliefs without either interference or official support from government. He believed that such a separation of church and state, which was almost unheard of in Europe at the time, would actually strengthen society and religion.

Later, Madison extended these theories to encapsulate a multiplicity of views and interests in society as a whole. Such a variety of ideas would help to create and foster good ones. Even the worst tendencies of human nature would cancel each other out when pitted against one another. Hence, the “neutralization” of “selfishness” that Ketcham refers to in the above quote.

In analyzing modern democracy, we often hear political theorists and commentators observing the virtues of the “marketplace of ideas,” that is, the tendency for free societies to generate lots of ideas, both good and bad. Presumably, the good ideas will compete with the bad ones and win out. Though in my opinion this is not perfect and does not always work in the short and middle term, as some terrible ideas are very popular for what seems like long periods of time, this system does generally work in the very long run. It is indeed one of the engines that powers modern society. In his anticipation of this “marketplace of ideas” (this term actually precedes Madison’s time but in my opinion really achieved its full modern meaning in the twentieth century), as well as his role as an architect of a society that helped to foster such diversity, Madison displayed pure genius.

There is so much to Madison’s life that is included to this very big book. This is not a read for the faint of heart as the detail can be overwhelming, and those who are not as interested as I am may find it a little tedious. Folks who have a great interest in the period, the history of government or of Madison himself will, however, find this an essential and very informative, yet fun, read.

Decision in Philadelphia: The Constitutional Convention of 1787 by James Lincoln Collier and Christopher Collier

In 1787, a group of the American elites got together in Philadelphia and fashioned what became the American Constitution. The impact that this document has had upon history cannot be overstated. The details relating to the creation of the blueprint of American government are both historically important and intellectually intriguing.

Decision in Philadelphia: The Constitutional Convention of 1787 by the brothers James Lincoln Collier and Christopher Collier has become, since its publication in 1986, something of a classic history book concerning the momentous but contentious event. This work effectively and coherently weaves together an enormously complex story. Multiple issues were debated and resolved by a bevy of great political minds, both famous and not so famous, including George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Luther Martin, Charles Pinckney, James Wilson and many others.

The issues and disagreements that drove the Convention were rooted in the great controversies of the time. They included proportional representation versus the rights of each state to be equally represented, state versus federal power, the balance of power between the executive, legislature and the judiciary, national security versus personal liberty and an entire additional subset of issues relating to slavery. It is striking how many of these points are still being debated by Americans in the twenty-first century. 

Different groups sometimes had strong positions staked out on these various controversies, but were not always reflective of individual states. On the varying cultures and attitudes exhibited by the citizens of each state, the authors write,

“Their country had been formed piecemeal. The colonies had been created at different times under different philosophies of life, ranging from the hard bitten Calvinism of New England to the worldly hedonism of the Deep South.”

Adding to the complexity was the fact that various issues and the discussions upon them overlapped and intertwined. The Colliers observe, 

“The making of the constitution was a kaleidoscopic process in which shifts in one place often produced changes in seemingly unrelated places.”

The authors handle these convoluted circumstances very lucidly. Instead of telling a completely linear story of the Convention from beginning to end, they take each thread of contention, follow it from beginning to end, and then they move on to the next thread, which they follow from beginning to end. 

This is not just a legalistic and political history, as the personalities of the various participants are explored and analyzed in some depth. Some new angles on various famous people, such as Washington and Hamilton, are studied. Lesser-known personages, such as Charles Pinckney and James Wilson, both of whom played vital roles at the Convention, are cast into the light. How the particular traits of the individuals involved affected the final product is also explored.

As I often do I would like to discuss just one of many themes highlighted in this book. One thing that impressed me about this work was that while the authors acknowledge the remarkable accomplishment that the fashioning of this document was, they are not hesitant to criticize aspects of the final outcome. These days, many people, understandably, express an awe concerning the American Constitution.  Here the authors manage to exhibit some of this awe while at the same time displaying an analytical and critical hard headedness. This document, for all its virtues, was like anything as complex - a flawed document. 

 As is generally known, the Constitution implied the legality of slavery. Under the Constitution, the importation of slaves was permitted for twenty years, slavery was allowed to expand into the American West and slave owners were allowed to pursue escaped slaves into the North.  Historical commentators from every quarter often castigate these terrible facts. The Colliers dig a little deeper than most, however. While explaining that the Convention would surely have failed if the numerous opponents of this evil had insisted on total abolition, a plausible case is laid out explaining how the antislavery forces could have prevented the above provisions from being incorporated into the final document. Basically, the states that fought hardest for these pro-slavery provisions, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, threatened to not join the Union and become independent nations if the institution of slavery was not protected. The authors contend that this should have been considered an empty threat by the antislavery delegates, as at the time, these pro-slavery states were weak, under populated and beset by both internal and external threats. Thus, these states could never have gone it alone without the remainder of the country. Furthermore, the Colliers argue that had the pro-slavery provisions not been included, the institution of slavery would have been so weakened that it may have died out on its own and the American Civil War avoided. 

The authors do not shy away from highlighting other flaws. For instance, to this day the American presidential election system is much more complicated than it seems or it needs to be. On numerous occasions, the candidate with less popular votes has become President. The authors comment,

“the American Electoral Collage system of choosing a president is a Rube -Goldberg machine. It was jerry rigged of odds and ends of parliamentary junk, pressed together by contending interests. And the question that inevitably comes up is whether it ought to be abandoned.”

Finally, the authors take a look at America and its history. They starkly examine not only American successes, but also what they see as its flaws, including race relations, over-reliance on military solutions, etc., and they attribute a great many of both to the Constitution. Their ultimate conclusion is that despite its shortcomings, the American Constitution has been, in the past and up to the present, a triumph in both pragmatic accomplishment as well as democracy.

Of course, this book covers an event of unprecedented importance. It does so in an understandable and extremely satisfying way. The writing is also very good. There are so many important points covered in this work. As often is the case, I have barely scratched the surface in relation to these topics. This is highly recommended for anyone with an interest the history of government, this period or American history in general.

Revolutionary Characters by Gordon Wood

Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different by Gordon Wood is a book for fairly serious American Revolutionary era history buffs. If one is indeed such an aficionado, this is a thought provoking and fun read.

Wood’s book consists of a series of essays, each concerning a different major American Founder. George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Paine, and Aaron Burr are all covered. For the most part, the pieces are not biographical sketches; instead they are analyses of the public personas of each of the men. Therefore, I would not recommend this book to readers who have only a cursory interest in the men or the era. Some of the essays, particularly the one that covers John Adams and his political theories, dig into fairly intricate concepts and issues of the time.

In several linking essays, Wood explains that the public image of these men was of the utmost importance both to the men themselves as well as the public at large. All of these men considered themselves enlightened gentleman of their times. The author argues that in this era, society did not look to or esteem private personalities. Thus, a “constructed” public personality, as long as it was kept consistent in public, was not considered disingenuous or undesirable; in fact, to some degree, private or inner character was disregarded as unimportant.

These men all spent their early years striving to become part of the enlightened elite. They rejected what at the time were traditional conceptions of hereditary elitism of the old aristocracy. Instead, the conception of a “gentleman” involved reaching, through one’s own devices, a level of education, morality and manors that placed a man above the masses of society.

Wood writes,

“To be a gentleman was to think and act like a gentleman, nothing more, an immensely radical belief with implications that few foresaw. It meant being reasonable, tolerant, honest, virtuous, and “candid,” an important eighteenth-century characteristic that connoted being unbiased and just as well as frank and sincere. Being a gentleman was the prerequisite to becoming a political leader. It signified being cosmopolitan, standing on elevated ground in order to have a large view of human affairs, and being free of the prejudices, parochialism, and religious enthusiasm of the vulgar and barbaric. It meant, in short, having all those characteristics that we today sum up in the idea of a liberal arts education.”

In addition to striving to attain the status of a gentleman, Wood explains that the Founders highly valued the concept of “disinterestedness”.  A virtuous leader needed to be wealthy enough that they did not need to work or even concern themselves with making money. In theory, only a person who was rich enough not to have interest in the profit motive could be trusted with the reigns of government. Not all of the Founders disliked mercantilism (some, like Thomas Jefferson, despised it) but most believed that it was inappropriate for a businessperson to be a politician.

Wood describes this concept,

“We today have lost most of this earlier meaning. Even educated people now use disinterested as a synonym for uninterested, meaning “indifferent or unconcerned.” It is almost as if we cannot quite imagine someone who is capable of rising above a pecuniary interest and being unselfish or impartial where an interest might be present.

In the eighteenth-century Anglo-American world gentlemen believed that only independent individuals, free of interested ties and paid by no masters, could practice such virtue. It was thought that those who had occupations and had to work strenuously for a living lacked the leisure for virtuous public leadership.”

Within this framework of a disinterested gentleman, all of the Founders, either through their own machinations or through external impositions, had constructed public personas. These characters, how they came to be, what they represented, how they affected history, etc. are generally the subjects of Wood’s essays. Each piece digs fairly deep into the analysis of Wood’s subject. Having read fairly extensively on these men and the era previously, I feel that Wood’s essays provided depth as well as both familiar and unique perspectives, though I do not agree with all of Wood’s conclusions.

One of many interesting points here was that there were always exceptions to the rules. Wood argues that Paine’s public persona did not fit that of a gentleman and Burr’s persona did not appear to be “disinterested.”

As one final irony pointed out by Wood, the nation and society that these men helped to create, that of powerful mercantile interests, an economy propelled by the acquisition of material goods and common people (though only white males) participating in political and social discussion and debate, had little interest in electing disinterested gentleman as political leaders. Thus, Wood convincingly argues that all subsequent generations of American political leaders were of a very different breed from that of the Founders.

Though not an introduction to the American Founders, this work provides important and, at least for me, intriguing information on the personalities, philosophies, perceptions and accomplishments of these very important people. There are a lot of detailed and interesting musings within the essays that I cannot come close to delving into within a single blog post. Highly recommended for those interested in the period as well as in the history of government.

The Following Posts cover related subjects:

Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow

American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson by Joseph Ellis

Benjamin Franklin: An American Life by Walter Isaacson

Burr Verses Hamilton: Two Views

Fallen Founder: The Life of Aaron Burr by Nancy Isenberg

Thomas Jefferson:The Art of Power by John Meacham

Radicalism and the American Revolution by Gordon Wood

Reading Gordon Wood

American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson by Joseph Ellis

American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson by Joseph J. Ellis is an exploration of Thomas Jefferson’s life, career and ideas that, while it strives for balance, is highly critical of the American icon. One of the main points of this work is that this founding father was man of both enormous complexity as well as contradictions.

Born in 1743, Jefferson was member of Virginia’s elite planter class. He was a wealthy man whose livelihood was deeply connected to the ownership of slaves. An early critic of British control over the colonies, Jefferson distinguished himself as a brilliant writer and rhetorician. 

While serving in the Second Continental Congress, Jefferson penned his most famous prose as the primary author of the Declaration of Independence. Later, he served as governor of Virginia, Minister to France and America’s First Secretary of State, as well its second Vice President.

Chosen as America’s third President in 1800, Jefferson endeavored to shrink the size of the American government during his terms in office, waged war upon the Barbary States, and attempted to keep the United States neutral in the conflict between Britain and France. His most notable achievement was in securing the Louisiana Purchase, which doubled the size of the United States. 

After retirement from the Presidency, Jefferson began an amazing political-philosophical correspondence with John Adams. The two were lifelong friends who had been estranged for several years due to political battles. Their association rekindled as the pair aged. The two carried on the exchange of letters until their respective deaths. The documentation created by this line of communication has been studied by historians and students of government ever since. Ironically, the two died on the same day, July 4^th, 1826, the fiftieth anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

It is difficult for me to comment upon this book in a vacuum. America’s Revolutionary generation has been a lifetime interest of mine. I have read somewhat extensively on Jefferson and his peers. Thus, I come into this work with a fair amount of knowledge as well as a lot of opinions.

Ellis effectively weaves the events of Jefferson’s life with an insightful analysis of the man’s character, psychology and philosophy. In terms of his virtues and sins, as well as his actions and ideas, Jefferson was a man of paradoxes and riddles, hence the “Sphinx” of the title. For instance, while Jefferson’s rhetoric about individual freedom often soared, he had one of the worst records in regards to slave ownership when compared to the other founders.

Based upon this book as well as many additional sources and readings that I have encountered over the years, I am struck by how monumental Jefferson’s achievements and thoughts were in contrast to his extraordinary flaws and just plain bad ideas that he espoused. An important point concerning these character weaknesses is that they are not only highlighted by contemporary critics looking back and judging Jefferson by modern standards, rather, they were initially recognized by his peers. 

Are some people more complex than others? Ellis makes a convincing case that Jefferson’s acts and beliefs were so multifarious that this founder presents an historical enigma that transcends other famous personages. Thus, when it comes to this book, as well as Jefferson himself, there are too many aspects to Jefferson’s achievements, character and philosophy for me to adequately summarize within a single blog post. I would need to write a series of entries in order to do so.

I will therefore focus upon only one of many striking aspects of the Jeffersonian persona that are illustrated in this book. While America’s third President was a titanic political philosopher and thinker, he was also a radical, both by the standards of our time as well as those of his own. In my opinion this sets Jefferson apart from America’s other major founders, who I would describe as being moderate or even conservative in terms of the change that they were attempting to propel. In consequence, today’s extreme partisans on both America’s political right and left wings have embraced many of Jefferson’s ideals.

In what way was he so radical? Unlike George Washington, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, etc., Jefferson had no distrust of the mass of common people and had no use for a balanced government. Significantly, he was not even in the United States when the Constitution was drafted (he was Minister to France at the time) and played almost no role in its construction. On multiple occasions, Jefferson espoused his belief in a government comprised of a single one-house legislature elected directly by the people. He believed in a weak Presidency and no Federal Court system. He argued that such institutions could only thwart the people’s will. His belief in the infallibility of the common people (who Jefferson only counted as white men, but, notably for the time, all white men, not just landowners) led him to oppose any “checks or balances” in the power of the people’s legislature. 

Jefferson was not an unabashed advocate of the American Constitution and believed that it was an actual impediment to true republicanism. Ellis writes,

“Jefferson tended to view it as a merely convenient agreement about political institutions that ought not to bind future generations or prevent the seminal source of all political power—popular opinion—from dictating government policy. “

Furthermore, Jefferson was an advocate of a citizenry’s right to overturn or secede from an unpopular government through extralegal and, at times, violent means. In one of his most famous quotations Jefferson stated, 

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure.”

Lest anyone believe that Jefferson sounds like a modern day laissez-faire conservative, he also alleged that mercantilism, industrialism and banking were a mortal threat to the nation’s well being. Instead he championed a society dominated by agricultural interests.

Ellis describes his views,

“[Jefferson believed that] America should remain a predominantly agricultural economy and society. Domestic manufacturing was permissible, but large factories should be resisted. Most important, the English model of a thoroughly commercial and industrial society in which the economy was dominated by merchants, bankers and industrialists should be avoided at all costs. “We may exclude them from our territory,” he warned, “as we do persons afflicted with disease,” going so far as to recommend that if one region of the United States should ever become thoroughly commercialized, the remaining agrarian region should secede”.

As Ellis points out, Jefferson lived in a different era. However, in Jefferson’s time these views were not mainstream nor were they shared by Jefferson’s peers.  Hamilton and, to a lesser degree, Washington, Adams and others were frequently appalled and dismayed by Jefferson’s philosophy. 

Other aspects of Jefferson’s views, radical at the time, became the basis for much of what modern society considers individual freedom and rights. 

 Ellis writes,

“Alone among the influential political thinkers of the revolutionary generation, Jefferson began with the assumption of individual sovereignty, then attempted to develop prescriptions for government that at best protected individual rights and at worst minimized the impact of government “

Jefferson ultimately was a believer in a republican utopianism. He espoused an agricultural based society with very little government or large institutions. He argued that in such a free society people would take care of themselves. It goes without saying that neither the United States nor any other state evolved in the way that Jefferson would have preferred. It seems clear to me that the state and society that Jefferson espoused would lead to a nation fraught with chaos and instability. Human progress would have been impossible under such a system.

Interestingly, when Jefferson ascended to the Presidency, he took a much more pragmatic and, at times, hypocritical approach than his beliefs would lead one to expect. For instance, he exceeded his executive power when he purchased Louisiana; he also did not dismantle the American banking and finance system that he professed to despise. Unfortunately, in actions that can be characterized as oppressive, he initiated prosecutions against his political and ideological enemies.

Ellis’s book is about so much more than the above commentary concerning Jefferson’s political and social values. This founder’s virtues and accomplishments were indeed immense. Unfortunately, his hypocrisies were also legendary. His views on religion, history and science as well as his personal life also interwove together and had a profound effect on American culture and politics, as well as upon world civilization. Ellis effectively explores all of this and more.

There are many, many reasons to study Jefferson. He is a figure of immense historical importance and one of the most complex people who ever lived. In American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson Ellis has created a highly readable and coherent account of this thinker’s accomplishments, beliefs and failings.

A few years ago I read His Excellency: George Washington which is another of Ellis’s books. I highly recommend that work too.