Talk:James Madison

Religion?

Inasmuch as you people absolutely love to list religious affiliations when there is one (and sometimes even when there isn't one) perhaps you should list one for this person too - namely that he had none and was in fact categorically against religion in all forms. It's only fair - his point of view is a valid one too (even in a warped country like the US).

Unfortunate quote of Hamilton

From a novice POV, and we are many, this quote by using the word "administration" would seem to imply that Hamilton was a president presiding over an administration. "As early as May 26, 1792, Hamilton complained, "Mr. Madison cooperating with Mr. Jefferson is at the head of a faction decidedly hostile to me and my administration."[39]"

Would some change for clarity's sake be warranted?

Then the question of Madison's view of the purpose of the Constitution, in a quote from Noam Chomsky article on Mainstream Media:

"Just like you don’t read what James Madison said during the constitutional convention about how the main goal of the new system has to be "to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority," and has to be designed so that it achieves that end.

Is Chomsky correct? If so, then it casts quite another light on the Father of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; or does it not? http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199710--.htm Idealist707 (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

a) Hamilton was in full control of the English language and we should not try to rewrite his statement; b) Madison said quite a few interesting things (here he was talking about the Senate) read his actual statement Rjensen (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Link GA

Could somebody add this template {{Link GA|fi}} to this article? The article of James Madison is a good article in Finnish Wikipedia, but I can't add that because I haven't an account here. 82.116.243.192 (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Author of the Bill of Rights

The section uses facts selectively, contrary to WP:NPOV (also true of most of the recent edits). For example, George Mason is nowhere mentioned. TEDickey (talk) 09:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Introduction

I was looking for basic info on James Madison, and of course searched for him on Wikipedia. Upon arriving, I found that the beginning of the article was, in my humble opinion, pretty poor. The fact that he was President is only mentioned for the first time in the third paragraph, and the Constitution mentioned immediately is not specified to be the US Constitution. Shouldn't an encyclopedia article start off with that sort of basic and highly relevant info? What's at the beginning now is relevant information, but it's of less importance than immediately informing the uninformed that James Madison was the President of the United States and is regarded as the Father of the US Constitution. DaleWatt (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting. In response to your remarks, I made changes to the intro section which I hope have largely remedied the flaws you quite observantly pointed out.--JayJasper (talk) 04:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

"Opposition to Hamilton" section

This section seems mostly pretty inappropriate. It is written from a POV perspective, and judges the purported biases of sources rather than explaining what they say. It seems a pretty clear instance of OR, in that it seems to be drawing on various sources to create a new synthesis. One comes to Wikipedia to get a sense of what reliable sources say about a subject, not to read the musings of random wikipedia editors. I see that the current version of this section was mostly written about a month ago, after a pretty stable version that had been around for at least a couple of years was decried as a thinly veiled hit job. I find the previous version much preferable. The current section reads like an apologetic, not an even-handed assessment, and consists far too much of musings rather than straightforward information. I'd suggest going back to the older, shorter version. john k (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with John K's criticisms of the section, but just about the only virtue of the older version is that it's shorter. WCCasey (talk) 04:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The older version wasn't very good, but at least it wasn't a wandering musing about how Madison was actually totally consistent about everything. john k (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think a section titled 'Opposition to Hamilton' has any place in the article; in any form. Important interactions between Madison and Hamilton should, where relevant, be included in the chronological narrative of Madison's career. WCCasey (talk) 05:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

My understanding was that the section was more or less supposed to be a chronological discussion of Madison's career between 1791 and 1801, but got taken over by the more thematic stuff. john k (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

"Madison as a Philosopher"

James Madison is cited as an influential thinker in other philosophical articles about liberalism and enlightenment philosophy. I think his status as a philosopher should be listed under his portrait as well as his basic political/biographical information as is done with other articles about philosophers. This includes things like his major influences, who he influenced, school of thought etc. Quizmoquanto (talk) 05:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

He's a political theorist, not a philosopher. (Q: How often is he read in philosophy classes? A: Never) john k (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A) I recall spending over a month on the Federalist Papers when I took political philosophy. I don't know how you differentiate theory and philosophy, but Wikipedia doesn't; typing in political theory redirects to political philosophy. James Madison is listed as a political philosopher on that page. So what's the objection? Quizmoquanto (talk) 02:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I was basically just being a dick, for which I apologize. My sense, though, is that, in American universities at least, the Federalist Papers would be read in classes offered in history and political science departments rather than in classes offered in philosophy departments; that Madison's political philosophy would be written about largely by professors in history and political science departments, rather than by professors in philosophy departments, and so on. Political philosophy, as a whole, tends not to be dealt with as proper "philosophy." But you're right that this is just silly nitpicking on my part. john k (talk) 06:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Introduction

The War of 1812 was against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, not just England. The UK was a great power, not only England. Furthermore the introduction makes it sound as though the Americans won the war, whereas all historians agree it ended in stalemate for both sides. (92.7.5.239 (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC))

England was considered a perfectly acceptable synecdoche for the United Kingdom until the 1950s or so. Perhaps we should be more careful, but I get sick of people acting as though it is "wrong" to use "England" for the whole British state after 1707 when this was overwhelmingly the most common usage for several centuries. I agree, though, that the discussion of the war in the introduction is embarrassingly jingoistic. john k (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: winning the war - if you agree that the object of the war was American independence, then you have to conclude that the Americans won. WCCasey (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The object of the War of 1812 was not American independence. It's not completely clear what the object was, but the US went to war for a variety of reasons that can only be tangentially related to "American Independence," and the British never made any serious (or even not so serious, really) effort to deprive the Americans of independence. john k (talk) 06:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

One of the main objects of the war was to invade Canada, but this was completely defeated. Had Britain not been fighting a major war in Europe against Napoleon then there would have been a complete invasion of the US, rather than just a series of amphibious assaults. (92.10.139.105 (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC))

Remarks about the constitution

In the introductory paragraph, much emphasis is give to how the US Constitution is the oldest constitution in the world. It even has many sources attached. There's just one problem-- it's not true. The constitution of San Marino is older, having been enacted in 1600. We could more appropriately say the US Constitution is the world's oldest non-European constitution still in effect.

The second part is an opinionated sentence that calls it the most important document in the history of freedom and that the constitutions of many other nations are remarkably like America's constitution. This sounds very unprofessional and unencyclopedic. Many might dispute the essence of "freedom." What does it mean to be free? Was the Magna Carta an example of freedom? What is free? And what is America? Is it a country or a group of continents? A more appropriate statement could be, Many professionals and experts believe the US Constitution is the most significant legal document in the development of western democracy and as served as a model for the constitutions of several nations.Yongbyong38 (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

the San Marino story is a myth--or more exactly a publicity stunt by the tourist bureau. SM did not have a constitution until he 20th century. The terminoly is fine . Wikipedia style is to say "XYZ happened" rather than "Some historians say XYZ happened" Rjensen (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Jensen- Is it really the most important document in the history of "freedom?" That's a pretty big statement that would require near unanimous international agreement. It would also require a clear contextual definition of "freedom." Are we talking about national freedom? I doubt a Finnish veteran of the Winter War would credit our constitution with preserving Finnish freedom from Soviet domination. Are we talking about political freedom? The ideas of representative government and citizens' rights can be found in many earlier republics from Athens to Rome and even Iceland. I doubt the Icelanders would credit our constitution with creating the Althing, the longest surviving parliament in the world. Are we talking about personal freedom? Habeas Corpus was already codified in Great Britain and the idea of a three tiered government with separation of powers and checks and balances can be found in the writings of John Locke. What is this "freedom" we're speaking of Dr. Jensen? And why is a cartel of judges, politicians, professors, and authors who gave these sources allowed to define what is the most important document in the history of freedom? Do they speak for the entire world?Yongbyong38 (talk) 05:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Racist introduction

The introduction is wrong, and racist. It should be rewritten. (92.7.16.72 (talk) 18:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC))

Please elaborate. What particular sentences and/or passages are "wrong" and "racist", and what is your rationale for these claims?. The more specific you can be, the more helpful it is for fellow editors to address your address your concerns. Thanks.--JayJasper (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It's claiming the Americans won the War of 1812. It also refers to the enemy as England. In reality the enemy was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. There were tens of thousands of Scottish, Welsh and Irish troops and seamen fighting the Americans in that war, not only English. (92.7.31.244 (talk) 12:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC))

I don't think the line about owning slaves needs to be in the introduction, it really is not a major historical part of the Madison biography.Basil rock (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The current lead does mention that Madison owned slaves. There is no mention on who won the War of 1812. I am not sure there was a "victor", more of a stand off, although the U.S. gained control of the American Interior. I believe that mentioning Madison owned slaves is appropriate since he grew up in a slave owning society and he did in fact own slaves. His lifestyle depended on slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Slavery

What were his views on slavery? Did he own slaves? Richard75 (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe that needs to be expanded, in terms of his views on slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Not sure what the proper forum is, but this seems like the best place to me. I just wanted to thank the folks who worked on this article. A really great read! This little gem in particular made me LOL, Historian Douglas Adair called Madison’s [constitution research] work “probably the most fruitful piece of scholarly research ever carried out by an American.”[16] Kudos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.206.149.114 (talk) 04:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Date on which Madison's parents married

The proposed sources are suspect, since there's a lot of poor-quality data for the genealogists webpages, some of those copy from each other without checking data, and most sources agree on 1743. TEDickey (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

That would mean she was married at 12. I would hope to believe she would be married at 18. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meis2steph11 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

In those days girls did get married at age 12, legally. See Age of consent. Richard75 (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually I'm finding sources with different dates for birth, marriage and death. this says she died in 1802, and this says she died in 1829. TEDickey (talk) 23:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that one genealogy site is incorrect. I'm going to put the citation from the The National Society of Madison Family Descendants into the article, which says the parents were married in 1749. --Funandtrvl (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Siblings

The article says he was the oldest of twelve, of whom nine survived. Then it says he had three brothers and three siblings. Well which is it? Richard75 (talk) 10:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Will update with info from The National Society of Madison Family Descendants, which has a 164-page list of ancestors and descendants. That seems to be the best source. --Funandtrvl (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

polemics - inappropriate term

The usual sense of the word "A strong verbal or written attack on someone or something." is probably not what's meant. TEDickey (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Location of link to "War of 1812"

Why does "Main article: War of 1812" come under heading James Madison#Presidency 1809–1817 rather than subheading "War of 1812" below, which I would have thought was the obvious place? AWhiteC (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. AWhiteC (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Land and slaves

The sentence "He inherited tobacco land and owned slaves although he spent his entire adult life as a career politician." was removed, but I restored it. I actually agree with the reasons for deleting it, but in its absence, there is no reference in the article anywhere to slave ownership by Madison. It is manifestly important that this fact be known. I would therefore suggest that some words be inserted elsewhere in the article covering this point, preferably by someone who knows the subject better than I. AWhiteC (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Expanded Presidency section

I believe the Presidency section needs to be expanded since he was a two term President. I believe the Presidency section needs to be divided into Domestic and Foreign policy. Also a section on American Indian policy would be good. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree---his two terms were heavily dominated by foreign policy (including the Indian wars) Rjensen (talk) 03:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Since the War of 1812 covers much of Madison's presidency there is difficulty in dividing his Presidency into the standard Domestic and Foreign policy segments. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I have expanded Madison's Presidency by adding segments; information regarding build up to the war; and the Wilkinson affair. I am not sure how the narration is, possibly, could be improved. Madison is difficult to pinpoint in terms of times and dates. Rutland seems to emphasize the War of 1812 and he jumps around in terms of time periods. At times Rutland is hard to follow, but I made the best of information presented. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Legacy Section expanded

I was impressed to read in today's papers direct quotations of Madison's writings in one of the most heated rights arguments of the day...gay marriage. I elected to not state in the article that it was this particular debate that caused his name to be cited in print. However, this is plenty powerful stuff as there are laws now in roughly 40 states which were voted upon by the majority and against the minority. I added this to the talk page as even though I made no mention..the concepts of Madison are controversial enough today that I anticipate what I wrote to be sabotaged.

Madison's writings still receive attention and shape the debate over human rights among different classes of citizens in the 21st century. Madison appears to have anticipated a strong majority that would demand to impose it's will upon a weaker minority by popular vote. Madison in The Federalist Papers, No. 51, wrote:

It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part… In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger.

Pbmaise (talk) 09:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Madison grew up in a slave society and had over 100 slaves at Montpelier plantation in 1820. He never freed any of his slaves in his will. Madison was not an abolitionist. Madison was refering to the "human rights" of white citizens who could vote. Only whites could be citizens of the U.S. up until 1868. There is no record of Madison adopting or advocating gay marriage at the Constitutional Convention. One could argue the Madison was more humane master concerning his own slaves. I believe he may have personally viewed his own slaves as humans rather then property and he advocated that masters free one of their slaves during the American Revolutionary War to keep in step with the values of liberty and justice. To jump from Madison advocating other slave owners to free a slave to mean that Madison was a proponent of gay marriage is a bit drastic in my opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed....this is why I specifically didn't state the specific cause celeb that has drawn his name into modern debate, nor is this page a forum to debate that topic. I did some checking and found on Google over 7.2 million pages now contain the two exact terms "James Madison" "civil rights". It is a far greater legacy to continue to have your words quoted in modern debate then to simply have a river named after you. Therefore, I believe the man's own words that have inspired so many to use his name and quote his words deserves to be in his legacy section. Pbmaise (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC) I have also found some of the references on the internet are quoting Madison in this fashion.James Madison, a founding father of the Constitution, said in his Federalist Paper No. 10 that “measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. Perhaps this is a better statement. Comments?Pbmaise (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I agree. The way the article currently reads is appropriate. The modication is appropriate for the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Madison was a political philosopher who wrote his ideas for all time, and it worked--we still operate a government under Madisonian principles. For example, his (& Hamilton's) Federalist Papers remain the #1 source of citations to Supreme Court decisions. Rjensen (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, however, the Presidencial power has increased due to the advances in military technology, including nuclear weapons and an airforce. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Early life

I believe mentioning that his father owned and ran a slave plantation would be appropriate. There is no mention of slavery in the section. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Bill of Rights

In the current section on Madison's involvement with the Bill of Rights, he is first described as being opposed to the inclusion of a Bill of Rights, and then recounted as proposing a Bill of Rights. This is inconsistent, and someone should correct it. Did he just change his mind? Whoistheroach (talk) 04:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

he never wanted one but the supporters of the new Constitution promised in 1788 to put one in to mollify the antis. Rjensen (talk) 05:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)