In response to Constitutional Proposals (Presidential Election), Stephen Palmer writes:
Rob, this is a critically important issue to bring to light, and I appreciate your comments.
Almost without exception, the Founders understood, with Aristotle, that next to tyranny, democracy is the worst form of government. This understanding is displayed all throughout the Federalist Papers.What people fail to realize is the difference between a democratic culture, and a Democracy in terms of governmental forms.
The Founders wanted a Constitutional Republic that supported a democratic society, or a society where people truly believed and lived the ideal that all men and women are created equal in the sight of God. A democratic society is a mobile society; people are free to move up and down social classes as they see fit. However, a democratic form of government is something entirely different.
I also write alot about this issue on my blog and I think you and I could have some interesting discussions. I look forward to hearing from you!
Rob Scot replies:
I acknowledge that a good government must in some repects be, strictly speaking, undemocratic. However, there is a fine line to tread when we speak of a government designed to uphold democracy in society while itself remaining less than fully democratic. Again, I do not take issue with the fact that this must be the case to an extent; but it is inevitable that the populace will at times come to view certain government actions as hypocritical in this regard. Therefore, if it is feasible to make the government more democratic while still upholding the rule of law, due process, and sound reason, I believe such measures are desirable. Specifically, I believe the process by which our nation elects its president is such an area.
I don't pretend that such a measure would be undertaken without some risk and controversy, but democray has always been risky business. Your comment that "next to tyranny, democracy is the worst form of government" brought to my mind another quote:
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." -- Sir Winston Churchill
By the way, where can I find your blog? I would very much like to visit it.
30 January 2008
22 January 2008
Forum Posting
In response to Constitutional Proposals (Presidential Election), hercules mulligan writes:
This whole issue of democracy and the Constitution is a very intriguing one indeed. As a result of my study of the Founding Fathers' writings, I have come of the opinion, as Alexander Hamilton did, that "democracy is our real disease." The Federalist Papers (not just the issues written by Hamilton) also carry this theme.
Now, the Founders were not saying that we should not have a popular government in some sense, but that the excesses of popular rule should be controlled. In order to understand American government, and the US Constitution, we must understand that LAW is above the will of the rulers and the ruled. All too many contemporary historians have made the mistake of thinking that we need to make the Constitution more "democratic," when a glance at the Notes and Debates of the Constitutional Convention (available free online through my blog The Founders' Bookshelf) clearly shows that the Framers avoided making the federal government directly responsive to the populous of America.
I wrote a post entitled "The Purpose of the Constitution" some time ago, to try to make this clear. I think that the Electoral College should remain a part of the Constitution for two reasons:1): the Framers deliberately instituted it to check what they called the "democratic excesses" of a country, and also to provide the way to give the state governments a say in the choosing of the next President as well.*2): to start tinkering with our Constitution, because people believe that "modern times" have changed our nation so much that we need to change our Constitution is dangerous, and I would almost say, treasonous. Because when the people of the land think that they can change the law of the land any time they please, they have already destroyed the foundation of a government of law, which is what America is supposed to be.
*I think that changing the Constitution to make it more "democratic" and to give the state governments less of a say in the federal government is dangerous, and is a result of our misunderstanding of what the federal govt. is for. The state governments govern the people, and the federal government governs the states to a limited degree, and oversees the affairs of the nation with foreign nations. The only reason that the people have any say in the federal government is so that the state governments do not go unchecked, or use the federal govt. to abuse the people.
I wrote a post here on democracy and the Constitution, and discussed the 17th Amendment, which changed the way in which federal Senators were elected, and showing how such a change of the Constitution is illegal, and detrimental.This is a long comment (*sorry*), but it is my thoughts on this important subject.
This whole issue of democracy and the Constitution is a very intriguing one indeed. As a result of my study of the Founding Fathers' writings, I have come of the opinion, as Alexander Hamilton did, that "democracy is our real disease." The Federalist Papers (not just the issues written by Hamilton) also carry this theme.
Now, the Founders were not saying that we should not have a popular government in some sense, but that the excesses of popular rule should be controlled. In order to understand American government, and the US Constitution, we must understand that LAW is above the will of the rulers and the ruled. All too many contemporary historians have made the mistake of thinking that we need to make the Constitution more "democratic," when a glance at the Notes and Debates of the Constitutional Convention (available free online through my blog The Founders' Bookshelf) clearly shows that the Framers avoided making the federal government directly responsive to the populous of America.
I wrote a post entitled "The Purpose of the Constitution" some time ago, to try to make this clear. I think that the Electoral College should remain a part of the Constitution for two reasons:1): the Framers deliberately instituted it to check what they called the "democratic excesses" of a country, and also to provide the way to give the state governments a say in the choosing of the next President as well.*2): to start tinkering with our Constitution, because people believe that "modern times" have changed our nation so much that we need to change our Constitution is dangerous, and I would almost say, treasonous. Because when the people of the land think that they can change the law of the land any time they please, they have already destroyed the foundation of a government of law, which is what America is supposed to be.
*I think that changing the Constitution to make it more "democratic" and to give the state governments less of a say in the federal government is dangerous, and is a result of our misunderstanding of what the federal govt. is for. The state governments govern the people, and the federal government governs the states to a limited degree, and oversees the affairs of the nation with foreign nations. The only reason that the people have any say in the federal government is so that the state governments do not go unchecked, or use the federal govt. to abuse the people.
I wrote a post here on democracy and the Constitution, and discussed the 17th Amendment, which changed the way in which federal Senators were elected, and showing how such a change of the Constitution is illegal, and detrimental.This is a long comment (*sorry*), but it is my thoughts on this important subject.
18 January 2008
Constitutional Proposals (or reflections upon reading Dahl)
In his book, How Democratic is the American Constitution?, Robert Dahl points out several aspects of our constitution which he views as being “less than democratic”. Although a number of these aspects of the original document have since been changed through amendments, several defects remain. Briefly stated, the major elements, as Dahl notes them, concern the election of the president (the electoral college), unequal representation in the Senate, judicial power, and lack of either strong majoritarianism or proportional representation in the government. In a series of upcoming posts, I will outline what a U.S. Constitution which has been rectified to overcome these undemocratic elements could conceivably look like.
My purpose in this is not to dishonor our noble Constitution, but, rather, to foster educated discussion of a democratic nature, as is fitting for citizens of a republic. Accordingly, all comments will be welcomed and, in most cases, published on the forum. I will begin with the issue of the Electoral College.
Presidential Election. The electoral college is an institution which, I believe, has outlived its relevance. It appears to me that the college functioned as the founders intended it to for the election of Washington and possibly Adams. From 1800 on, developments have “turned the elaborate machinery of the electoral college into little more than a way of counting votes” (Dahl, 79). In addition, the several occasions in which a candidate has won the presidency without a majority (or even lost with one), seem to imply that the electoral college is not only undemocratic, but in a sense, illogical. For these reasons, I feel that the college should be abolished.
Technology has advanced such that votes across the nation can now be counted (in most cases) with speed and accuracy. The president should therefore be democratically elected by popular vote. It is true that this will increase the possibility of voter fraud and corruption, but ensuring free and fair elections is a burden which every democratic society must carry.
It may be pointed out that a popular nation-wide election would probably encourage more candidates to run for the presidential office, and thereby increase the risk of having no candidate receive a majority of the vote. In order to counter this possibility, the ballots could be organized by “preferential voting,” as Dahl makes mention. Under such a system of election, voters would cast their votes for several candidates listed on the ballot in order of their preference. In the case of an election in which no candidate receives a majority, the candidate with the fewest primary votes would be dropped, and the secondary votes from those ballots would be allotted to the respective candidate. This process would continue until a candidate has received a majority.
It may also be countered that, given the political climate of the nation at present, in which several elections have been extremely close, contested elections will be a problem, prompting endless nation-wide recounts. In order to avoid this, a time-table could be set, limiting recounts to a maximum of a few days immediately following an election. If a clear victor still fails to emerge, the election would go, as it does now, to the House of Representatives, but with one critical difference. Rather than each state being allotted a vote, each representative would cast a single vote. In this way, the national population would be more fairly represented (especially given the make-up of the House, which will be detailed later), and the President elected by a qualified deliberative body.
My purpose in this is not to dishonor our noble Constitution, but, rather, to foster educated discussion of a democratic nature, as is fitting for citizens of a republic. Accordingly, all comments will be welcomed and, in most cases, published on the forum. I will begin with the issue of the Electoral College.
Presidential Election. The electoral college is an institution which, I believe, has outlived its relevance. It appears to me that the college functioned as the founders intended it to for the election of Washington and possibly Adams. From 1800 on, developments have “turned the elaborate machinery of the electoral college into little more than a way of counting votes” (Dahl, 79). In addition, the several occasions in which a candidate has won the presidency without a majority (or even lost with one), seem to imply that the electoral college is not only undemocratic, but in a sense, illogical. For these reasons, I feel that the college should be abolished.
Technology has advanced such that votes across the nation can now be counted (in most cases) with speed and accuracy. The president should therefore be democratically elected by popular vote. It is true that this will increase the possibility of voter fraud and corruption, but ensuring free and fair elections is a burden which every democratic society must carry.
It may be pointed out that a popular nation-wide election would probably encourage more candidates to run for the presidential office, and thereby increase the risk of having no candidate receive a majority of the vote. In order to counter this possibility, the ballots could be organized by “preferential voting,” as Dahl makes mention. Under such a system of election, voters would cast their votes for several candidates listed on the ballot in order of their preference. In the case of an election in which no candidate receives a majority, the candidate with the fewest primary votes would be dropped, and the secondary votes from those ballots would be allotted to the respective candidate. This process would continue until a candidate has received a majority.
It may also be countered that, given the political climate of the nation at present, in which several elections have been extremely close, contested elections will be a problem, prompting endless nation-wide recounts. In order to avoid this, a time-table could be set, limiting recounts to a maximum of a few days immediately following an election. If a clear victor still fails to emerge, the election would go, as it does now, to the House of Representatives, but with one critical difference. Rather than each state being allotted a vote, each representative would cast a single vote. In this way, the national population would be more fairly represented (especially given the make-up of the House, which will be detailed later), and the President elected by a qualified deliberative body.
13 November 2007
Forum Posting
In response to our current poll, hercules mulligan writes:
Hmmm. Interesting poll. I think that Hamiltonian Federalism has contributed toward our Constitutional ideals more than Jeffersonian Republicanism, however, our nation has drifted away from the original intent of our Constitution by ideals presented by Jeffersonian Republicanism (i.e., that our Revolution and the French Revolution were commenced for the same reasons, that America is a democracy, and not necessarily a govt of law; and that the state govts have the right to disobey the federal govt any time they see fit).
Hamiltonian Federalism was not opposed to the people having a say in their govt., nor was it opposed to the states being sovereign in their own affairs. America, in its present state, commemorates Jefferson rightly, because it was he that convinced us that we are a democracy. Maybe he never envisioned the end result, but Hamilton did, and knew that it is tyranny, and we are heading toward that road today.
If we had heeded the warnings given to us by Hamilton and Washington (i.e., don't get involved in foreign politics, defend yourselves against the onslaughts of atheism, beware of the philosophy of human perfectibility (outside of Christ), try to avoid civil war and secession from the Union, preserve the sanctity of the Constitution even when it is unpopular, etc.) than perhaps the Constitution might have seen a more prolonged genuine rule.
Hmmm. Interesting poll. I think that Hamiltonian Federalism has contributed toward our Constitutional ideals more than Jeffersonian Republicanism, however, our nation has drifted away from the original intent of our Constitution by ideals presented by Jeffersonian Republicanism (i.e., that our Revolution and the French Revolution were commenced for the same reasons, that America is a democracy, and not necessarily a govt of law; and that the state govts have the right to disobey the federal govt any time they see fit).
Hamiltonian Federalism was not opposed to the people having a say in their govt., nor was it opposed to the states being sovereign in their own affairs. America, in its present state, commemorates Jefferson rightly, because it was he that convinced us that we are a democracy. Maybe he never envisioned the end result, but Hamilton did, and knew that it is tyranny, and we are heading toward that road today.
If we had heeded the warnings given to us by Hamilton and Washington (i.e., don't get involved in foreign politics, defend yourselves against the onslaughts of atheism, beware of the philosophy of human perfectibility (outside of Christ), try to avoid civil war and secession from the Union, preserve the sanctity of the Constitution even when it is unpopular, etc.) than perhaps the Constitution might have seen a more prolonged genuine rule.
02 September 2007
Forum Posting
In response to Poll Results, hercules mulligan writes:
I enjoyed participating in your poll (I voted for George). I think that you are right in estimating that it was Washington who was the most responsible of the Founders for the successful start of our American Republic. I believe that Hamilton was probably the second-most valuable Founder (or at least that he left the second-most valuable political heritage for us Americans to inherit). But even with all his genius, America would not have placed confidence in any other than a man of universally known and acknowledged character and judgment. Washington never went to college, never earned a Ph.D., but because of his character, America has the legacy that it has.
Sigh, how such short memories we have (what idiots would call Bill Clinton a good desk clerk, much less, the fourth-best President?!?!?). Here is Washington himself upon this general subject:
"If the blessings of Heaven showered thick around us should be spilled on the ground or converted to curses, through the fault of those for whom they were intended, it would not be the first instance of folly or perverseness in short-sighted mortals. The blessed Religion revealed in the word of God will remain an eternal and awful monument to prove that the best Institutions may be abused by human depravity; and that they may even, in some instances be made subservient to the vilest of purposes. Should, hereafter, those who are intrusted [sic] with the management of this government, incited by the lust of power and prompted by the Supineness or venality of their Constituents, overleap the known barriers of this Constitution and violate the unalienable rights of humanity: it will only serve to shew, that no compact among men (however provident in its construction and sacred in its ratification) can be pronounced everlasting and inviolable, and if I may so express myself, that no Wall of words, that no mound of parchmt. can be so formed as to stand against the sweeping torrent of boundless ambition on the one side, aided by the sapping current of corrupted morals on the other." intended First Inaugural Address
Snake Hunters adds:
If only the history of our first five presidents were mandatory study for high school graduates, we would have an improved, aware culture, ready to meet the challenges of the 21st century.Lacking that basic, our two-page summary of the past eighty years by Raymond Kraft, attempts to partially fill the tragic empty void between the ears of the baby-boomers, and their kids! reb
See 'History' Post, July 4, 2006 http://www.lazyonebenn.blogspot.com/
Our Founding Truth:
Thanks for the poll, I voted for Hamilton, everyone is voting for Washington on my poll, but I think Hamilton was more active in the development of the nation, not militarily, but economically and otherwise. It was his ideas which is the basis of our financial empire, not Washington's.
Hamilton had more adversity to overcome than Washington, if he would have been a better politician, the Federalists would not have lost the Presidency. If he could have united the Federalists, rather than split them up, Adams would have beaten Jefferson in 1800, even with Hamilton's death, the Federalists would still have been the most powerful party. But Hamilton had enemies, and helped divide the party. With the financial achievements of the Federalists, maybe Jay, or King could have won the Presidency.
I enjoyed participating in your poll (I voted for George). I think that you are right in estimating that it was Washington who was the most responsible of the Founders for the successful start of our American Republic. I believe that Hamilton was probably the second-most valuable Founder (or at least that he left the second-most valuable political heritage for us Americans to inherit). But even with all his genius, America would not have placed confidence in any other than a man of universally known and acknowledged character and judgment. Washington never went to college, never earned a Ph.D., but because of his character, America has the legacy that it has.
Sigh, how such short memories we have (what idiots would call Bill Clinton a good desk clerk, much less, the fourth-best President?!?!?). Here is Washington himself upon this general subject:
"If the blessings of Heaven showered thick around us should be spilled on the ground or converted to curses, through the fault of those for whom they were intended, it would not be the first instance of folly or perverseness in short-sighted mortals. The blessed Religion revealed in the word of God will remain an eternal and awful monument to prove that the best Institutions may be abused by human depravity; and that they may even, in some instances be made subservient to the vilest of purposes. Should, hereafter, those who are intrusted [sic] with the management of this government, incited by the lust of power and prompted by the Supineness or venality of their Constituents, overleap the known barriers of this Constitution and violate the unalienable rights of humanity: it will only serve to shew, that no compact among men (however provident in its construction and sacred in its ratification) can be pronounced everlasting and inviolable, and if I may so express myself, that no Wall of words, that no mound of parchmt. can be so formed as to stand against the sweeping torrent of boundless ambition on the one side, aided by the sapping current of corrupted morals on the other." intended First Inaugural Address
Snake Hunters adds:
If only the history of our first five presidents were mandatory study for high school graduates, we would have an improved, aware culture, ready to meet the challenges of the 21st century.Lacking that basic, our two-page summary of the past eighty years by Raymond Kraft, attempts to partially fill the tragic empty void between the ears of the baby-boomers, and their kids! reb
See 'History' Post, July 4, 2006 http://www.lazyonebenn.blogspot.com/
Our Founding Truth:
Thanks for the poll, I voted for Hamilton, everyone is voting for Washington on my poll, but I think Hamilton was more active in the development of the nation, not militarily, but economically and otherwise. It was his ideas which is the basis of our financial empire, not Washington's.
Hamilton had more adversity to overcome than Washington, if he would have been a better politician, the Federalists would not have lost the Presidency. If he could have united the Federalists, rather than split them up, Adams would have beaten Jefferson in 1800, even with Hamilton's death, the Federalists would still have been the most powerful party. But Hamilton had enemies, and helped divide the party. With the financial achievements of the Federalists, maybe Jay, or King could have won the Presidency.
30 August 2007
Poll Results
The forum's recent poll has now closed. Though participation was not as high as hoped for, the results were as follows: in response to the question, "Which founder was most vital to the success of the early American republic?," 66% voted for George Washington, while the remaining 33% went to Alexander Hamilton. I must agree that Washington is among individuals most to be credited for his contributions to the nation. He was a true patriot, a stalwart soldier, and a man with a sense of civic conscience which, even in his own day, was a shining example, and which today can scarce be found. It is even doubtful that the newly formed U.S. government under the Constitution would have weathered its first few years of implementation had it not been captained by an individual who possessed so fully the confidence of the nation.
Amazingly, in a nation-wide poll conducted this past spring, Washington did not make it into a list of the top five greatest presidents as ranked by popular opinion (though Bill Clinton came in fourth place). What pitifully short memories we have. From the author of this post, here's to George Washington, the greatest president our great nation has yet been privileged to produce.
Amazingly, in a nation-wide poll conducted this past spring, Washington did not make it into a list of the top five greatest presidents as ranked by popular opinion (though Bill Clinton came in fourth place). What pitifully short memories we have. From the author of this post, here's to George Washington, the greatest president our great nation has yet been privileged to produce.
21 August 2007
Forum Posting
In response to The Necessary Spring, Our Founding Truth wrote:
I got railed the first time I used this quote by Madison. Barton says it's unconfirmed, secular progressives like to attack whoever uses it.
James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," went further. Madison declared,"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each of us to govern ourselves ... according to the Ten Commandments of God."
His Memorial and Remonstrance is enough ammo to quell the theistic rationalist label Jon Rowe and other secularists wish to impose upon him. In it, Madison says Christianity is true, the other religions are false, and more importantly, confirms the Lord's use of miracles in the early church.
I'm perturbed why Madison turned on Hamilton, and befriended a man universally known to denounce the Deity of Jesus Christ. I tend to believe Madison was greatly influenced by Jefferson, but did he deny the essentials of the faith, I doubt it.
Rob Scot:
There is no doubt that Madison was influenced by Jefferson. It is interesting to note the extent to which Madison admired Jefferson, to the end that he eventually found himself squaring off politically with his former Federalist co-author. In fact, it was the Madison/Jefferson tandem that, for all intents and purposes, founded the Republican movement in the 1790s. Madison's political transformation during the first decade of the Republic is a topic of which I am aware, though I have not studied it in depth; I would be interested in any suggested book or research on this issue.
In any event, I agree that Madison's religious faith was probably not deeply affected by Jefferson, if at all. This demonstrates a key aspect of the democratic system: one need not be in agreement with the personal beliefs of a colleague in order work productively with them, indeed to accomplish incredible things. This is not hypocrisy, but democracy. It is, however, rather a fine line.
hercules mulligan:
I am not as thoroughly acquainted with the subject of the Madison/Jefferson relationship as I am with other subjects relating to the Founders, however, I do know this:
It is true (as it is interesting) that Madison was greatly influenced by Jefferson, especially when Jefferson returned to America in order to fill his new position as Sec. of State under Pres. Washington. Hamilton commented on this subject in a famous letter to an Edward Carrington of Virginia. As you will see, Hamilton comes from the point of view that Jefferson was Hamilton's antagonist from the very beginning, and caused Hamilton and Madison to become political opponents in order to damage Hamilton's reputation (Hamilton wrote this letter as he was still fuming off from the disappointment of loosing a friend and ally in Madison).
While it is obvious that Jefferson was a political mentor to Madison from the 1790s on, Madison was largely responsible, from what I have seen, for Jefferson's moderation on religious topics. If Madison had not been such a good friend of Jefferson, Jefferson would most probably have espoused the same deism that Paine did (Jefferson was the only Founder that I know of who still welcomed Paine with open arms after the publication of The Age of Reason; Jefferson, as an act of President, ordered Paine to be escorted back to America in a federal man-of-war, much to the outrage of the Federalists and general American public).
Madison also seems to have abandoned several of the principles he once advocated in the Federalist Papers as a result of Jefferson's influence. Historians point out that almost none of the Federalist Papers that are supposed to have been Madison's are found originally in his handwriting. Several numbers are in dispute because Hamilton claimed more numbers than modern historians think he actually wrote. These contested numbers remain contested because there are little or no drafts in Madison's handwriting to settle the issue.
Rob Scot:
Thanks for the contribution; good info. I did a little research myself. Historian Joseph Ellis is of the opinion that the single most important issue which turned Madison against Hamilton and many of the views he had formerly advanced was Hamilton's Report on the Public Credit, and specifically, the federal assumption of state debts. It was not simply that Madison's Virginia (and most of the other Southern colonies) had already repaid most of their wartime debt; Madison's greater concern was that the federal government was consolidating capital at the expense of certain states to the extent that the states would ultimately be compelled to compromise their sovereignty. In the book Founding Brothers, Ellis writes,
" The term (consolidation) conveyed the political fear, so potent among the Antifederalist critics of the constitutional settlement of 1788, that the states would be absorbed by the new federal government . . . If Madison ever managed to convince himself that these historically sanctioned fears had been banished with the creation of the new national government, the debate over assumption demonstrated that they were still very much alive."
Such a line of reasoning for Madison's political transformation makes good sense - if Madison were an uncommitted Federalist. But how does one come to the conclusion that the man arguably most influential in both the drafting and ratification of the Constitution (i.e. the creation of the federal government) was, at heart, not convinced of its right to assume states' debts, thus establishing the national credit while providing a force for domestic unity? I suspect this is where Jefferson, just recently returned from five years in France, comes into the equation.
Our Founding Truth writes:
I tend to agree with hercules mulligan of his assessment in the Madison/Hamilton/Jefferson relationship, but let's not deemphasize the personal aspect of this relationship. Jefferson despised Hamilton, and no doubt relayed his sentiments to Madison. Madison worked with Hamilton, and should have known his character, rather than allowing Jefferson to corrupt his mind. Maybe Madison did reject the fundamentals of Christianity. In 1812, he believed God the Great Spirit, as the one God is the god of all religions, rejecting the First Commandment.
I can see it now, Jefferson convincing Madison that he's dangerous, arrogant, wants an aristocracy with a monarch, an enemy to Republican govt, etc., and Madison bought it. So maybe Hamilton was arrogant, most of them were, and Hamilton thought there was something better than Republican govt. I myself, cannot see that, since govt. ruled by the Law and the Gospel is the pinnacle. However, I am sympathetic of a stronger executive as Britain had, especially now, as our people for the most part, are corrupt.
Take for instance, Hamilton's belief a supreme court decision NEEDS to be executed by the Chief Executive to become law. That is only right and proper. Why didn't Ford or every other President not execute every perverted court decision that was made(roe v wade)? The court should only be able to rule on a case the Congress has authorized them to. This is truly consent of the governed.
In the end, it was personal between them, and Madison was mislead about Hamilton, wrongly accusing him of professional misconduct, and losing a friend.I believe Madison erred by changing his view on govt. supremacy. It seems from Acts 17:26-27, God has ordained nationhood, and that state sovereignty is inferior. The National Charter is based on Biblical Natural Law, which is the highest form of government possible. The states have their rights, but they cannot be superior to the National Charter. The Constitution was more less a covenant between the people, govt, and natural law. Joseph Story elaborates on this in his commentaries.
I got railed the first time I used this quote by Madison. Barton says it's unconfirmed, secular progressives like to attack whoever uses it.
James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," went further. Madison declared,"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each of us to govern ourselves ... according to the Ten Commandments of God."
His Memorial and Remonstrance is enough ammo to quell the theistic rationalist label Jon Rowe and other secularists wish to impose upon him. In it, Madison says Christianity is true, the other religions are false, and more importantly, confirms the Lord's use of miracles in the early church.
I'm perturbed why Madison turned on Hamilton, and befriended a man universally known to denounce the Deity of Jesus Christ. I tend to believe Madison was greatly influenced by Jefferson, but did he deny the essentials of the faith, I doubt it.
Rob Scot:
There is no doubt that Madison was influenced by Jefferson. It is interesting to note the extent to which Madison admired Jefferson, to the end that he eventually found himself squaring off politically with his former Federalist co-author. In fact, it was the Madison/Jefferson tandem that, for all intents and purposes, founded the Republican movement in the 1790s. Madison's political transformation during the first decade of the Republic is a topic of which I am aware, though I have not studied it in depth; I would be interested in any suggested book or research on this issue.
In any event, I agree that Madison's religious faith was probably not deeply affected by Jefferson, if at all. This demonstrates a key aspect of the democratic system: one need not be in agreement with the personal beliefs of a colleague in order work productively with them, indeed to accomplish incredible things. This is not hypocrisy, but democracy. It is, however, rather a fine line.
hercules mulligan:
I am not as thoroughly acquainted with the subject of the Madison/Jefferson relationship as I am with other subjects relating to the Founders, however, I do know this:
It is true (as it is interesting) that Madison was greatly influenced by Jefferson, especially when Jefferson returned to America in order to fill his new position as Sec. of State under Pres. Washington. Hamilton commented on this subject in a famous letter to an Edward Carrington of Virginia. As you will see, Hamilton comes from the point of view that Jefferson was Hamilton's antagonist from the very beginning, and caused Hamilton and Madison to become political opponents in order to damage Hamilton's reputation (Hamilton wrote this letter as he was still fuming off from the disappointment of loosing a friend and ally in Madison).
While it is obvious that Jefferson was a political mentor to Madison from the 1790s on, Madison was largely responsible, from what I have seen, for Jefferson's moderation on religious topics. If Madison had not been such a good friend of Jefferson, Jefferson would most probably have espoused the same deism that Paine did (Jefferson was the only Founder that I know of who still welcomed Paine with open arms after the publication of The Age of Reason; Jefferson, as an act of President, ordered Paine to be escorted back to America in a federal man-of-war, much to the outrage of the Federalists and general American public).
Madison also seems to have abandoned several of the principles he once advocated in the Federalist Papers as a result of Jefferson's influence. Historians point out that almost none of the Federalist Papers that are supposed to have been Madison's are found originally in his handwriting. Several numbers are in dispute because Hamilton claimed more numbers than modern historians think he actually wrote. These contested numbers remain contested because there are little or no drafts in Madison's handwriting to settle the issue.
Rob Scot:
Thanks for the contribution; good info. I did a little research myself. Historian Joseph Ellis is of the opinion that the single most important issue which turned Madison against Hamilton and many of the views he had formerly advanced was Hamilton's Report on the Public Credit, and specifically, the federal assumption of state debts. It was not simply that Madison's Virginia (and most of the other Southern colonies) had already repaid most of their wartime debt; Madison's greater concern was that the federal government was consolidating capital at the expense of certain states to the extent that the states would ultimately be compelled to compromise their sovereignty. In the book Founding Brothers, Ellis writes,
" The term (consolidation) conveyed the political fear, so potent among the Antifederalist critics of the constitutional settlement of 1788, that the states would be absorbed by the new federal government . . . If Madison ever managed to convince himself that these historically sanctioned fears had been banished with the creation of the new national government, the debate over assumption demonstrated that they were still very much alive."
Such a line of reasoning for Madison's political transformation makes good sense - if Madison were an uncommitted Federalist. But how does one come to the conclusion that the man arguably most influential in both the drafting and ratification of the Constitution (i.e. the creation of the federal government) was, at heart, not convinced of its right to assume states' debts, thus establishing the national credit while providing a force for domestic unity? I suspect this is where Jefferson, just recently returned from five years in France, comes into the equation.
Our Founding Truth writes:
I tend to agree with hercules mulligan of his assessment in the Madison/Hamilton/Jefferson relationship, but let's not deemphasize the personal aspect of this relationship. Jefferson despised Hamilton, and no doubt relayed his sentiments to Madison. Madison worked with Hamilton, and should have known his character, rather than allowing Jefferson to corrupt his mind. Maybe Madison did reject the fundamentals of Christianity. In 1812, he believed God the Great Spirit, as the one God is the god of all religions, rejecting the First Commandment.
I can see it now, Jefferson convincing Madison that he's dangerous, arrogant, wants an aristocracy with a monarch, an enemy to Republican govt, etc., and Madison bought it. So maybe Hamilton was arrogant, most of them were, and Hamilton thought there was something better than Republican govt. I myself, cannot see that, since govt. ruled by the Law and the Gospel is the pinnacle. However, I am sympathetic of a stronger executive as Britain had, especially now, as our people for the most part, are corrupt.
Take for instance, Hamilton's belief a supreme court decision NEEDS to be executed by the Chief Executive to become law. That is only right and proper. Why didn't Ford or every other President not execute every perverted court decision that was made(roe v wade)? The court should only be able to rule on a case the Congress has authorized them to. This is truly consent of the governed.
In the end, it was personal between them, and Madison was mislead about Hamilton, wrongly accusing him of professional misconduct, and losing a friend.I believe Madison erred by changing his view on govt. supremacy. It seems from Acts 17:26-27, God has ordained nationhood, and that state sovereignty is inferior. The National Charter is based on Biblical Natural Law, which is the highest form of government possible. The states have their rights, but they cannot be superior to the National Charter. The Constitution was more less a covenant between the people, govt, and natural law. Joseph Story elaborates on this in his commentaries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
