Reviews for Founding America: Documents from the Revolution to the Bill of Rights (Barnes & Noble Classics Series)

The average rating for Founding America: Documents from the Revolution to the Bill of Rights (Barnes & Noble Classics Series) based on 2 reviews is 3 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2012-09-26 00:00:00 Mark Brown Going into this read my knowledge of Madison was limited to his contribution in moving the nation away from the Articles of Confederation toward the Constitution, his relationship wtih Jefferson, his contentious relationship with Hamilton, and the War of 1812. To me Madison is akin to a pendulum. He swings one direction until something happens that forces his thought process to shift to the opposite direction. We see this in issues like states rights and the validity of a national bank. Rakove explains this by saying Madison was ideological but relied on experience for application. As a young man, Madison lacked ambition and could not formulate a plan for his future. It is issues surrounding religious tolerance that catapults Madison into political life. "The issue that moved Madison was religious liberty...Madison's change won approval; and its adoption laid the intellectual basis for disestablishment. This was Madison's one significant achievement at the Convention." (pg 15) According to Rakove, it is this issue that laid the foundation for the relationship with Jefferson that we read so much of today. One thing I think Rakove does well is taking us through the evolution of views on separation of church and state. Arriving to the Constitutional Convention, Madison fervetnly believed the ills of the nation can be attributed to the "vicious character of the state government." (pg 49) This completely surprises me since his relationship with Jefferson and the belligerent nature of their relationship with Hamilton is well known. At first glance it appears Madison is initially opposed to strong states' rights, but it really looks as though he is against a strong legislature if there are not adequate checks and balances in place. Even with this caveat, Madison did feel that "a national government could protect individual liberty more readily than an individual state." (pg 56) All the same it is easy to see why Hamilton was completely taken aback by Madison's opposition to Hamiltonian precepts. I always felt the bicameral structure was more about the compromise between the small and large states. For Madison, it was part of those checks and balances that he felt was a necessity. He believed "an upper house composed of a small number of members serving long terms of office on fixed salareies-conditions that would leave them independent of both their electors and their colleagues in the lower house. Such a body, in Madison's scheme, was not meant to represent anything, but simply to check the lower house by preventing the adoption of poorly framed laws." (pg.51). Madison's belief basically holds true today. Tension continues to mount between the North and South both over slavery and financial issues. The financial issues appears to be at the heart of the split with Hamilton. Madison vehemently opposed the creation of a national bank and was looked askance at Hamilton's Report on Manufactures resulting in the notion that Hamiltonian economics would greatly favor the North. Further he was "disgusted" by the speculation occuring in public securities. It was fascinating to read the debate over constitutional language regarding the bank and to see how those arguments continue today. It also appears that this is what moved Madison's thinking towards high states' rights views. However, I have not been able to conclude if it is truly a return to his core fear of a too powerful legislature or a need to defend the South (ie Virginia). Madison does argue that interpretation of the Constitution should be done so in light of intent upon adoption This is the third book I've read discussing Madison and Jefferson's ploy to hire John Fenno as a government employee as a means of support to give him the freedom to publish Gazette of the United States a newspaper promoting "republican interest" (and attack Hamilton). Can you imagine the outcry if this was done today? Until this read I always viewed Madison as Jefferson's underling. Jefferson establishing the agenda and Madison scurrying off to do his bidding. I learned that, while stongly tied together, Madison and Jefferson's views often diverged. Madison often appears more practical while Jefferson appears to be the staunch ideologue. Of many examples Rakove offers their differing views over Shay's Rebellion. Another very good example deals with the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. Jefferson felt the states could "legally prevent the execution of unconstitutional laws" while Madison felt "states should act politically to rouse broad opposition to acts of federal usurption." (pg 151-152). Adams' Alien and Sedition Acts definitely challenged Madison's fear that danger lay in majorities rather than acts of the federal government. It is at this time we see another shift in his views. Rakove notes, "the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and Alexander Hamilton had been killed by former VP Aaron Burr in their famous duel. All this freed the Republicans to air their differences with each other." (pg 169). Factions within the party emerged and Madison did not enjoy complete support from his party. The division created great difficulty for Madison in putting his cabinet together. Relying on his bias towards England, Madison chose to gamble on Napoleon even as suspicion lingered in his mind. Those suspicions came to fruition. England responds with increasing obstinance. On one more gamble Madison hoped England would "back down once it saw Congress acting to prepare the nation for war." (pg 186) Once again, he was wrong. Madion's staunch opposition to having a standing army comes back to haunt him as the nation is completely unprepared for war. After Madison sent his war message to Congress, England backed down. This lost some popular support among citizens for the war effort. Madison held to constitutional principle in preparation for war. Rakove notes, "Madison hoped to demonstrate that a president could lead a republic into war without becoming a dictator. The administration, of course, would make its plans and wishes known to Congress, but ultimately the lawmakers had to decide how to raise and arm men and meet the costs of war." (pg 194) With party divisions this was difficult. Madison put all his hopes on a victory in Canada. It was an abysmal failure. Politics at its worst, we then read a detailed account of the most embarassing part of the War of 1812 when Secretary of War Armstong ignored directives to fortify Washington and the White House burned. Jackson's victory at New Orleans following wins at Ft McHenry and Lake Champlain at least allowed the US to keep the war out of the defeat column. Seeing the merits of the national bank, Madison unsuccessfully attempts to recharter the Bank of the United States. However, it is rechartered at the conclusion of the War 1812 Some of Rakove's insights that struck me: "Perhaps the difference between the nuances and the bold language of the Declaration helps to explain why his (Madison) legacy is more elusive than Jefferson's. Every American knows the key phrases of the Declaration and harbors his or her own interpretation of its promise of equality. Few could confidently quote or explicate Madison's most celebrated passages. In college and even in high school, American might read one or two of Madison's Federalist essays, the Tenth for sure, the Fifty-first if theya re lucky. There they puzzle over the careful distinctions and qualifications that typify his close-grained analysis of the complexities of republican government." (pg 220) "He recognized that people often act out of passion, interest, and uninformed opinion, yet also believed that government must be held accountable to popular control. He worried that individual states would have strong incentives to oppose national measures, yet understood that their autonomy had to be respected. He accepted teh basic premise of majority rule, yet recognized that popular majorities might wield their power to abuse minority and individual rights. He knew, too, taht the existence of chattel slavery in his own native region violated every republican principle he espoused, yet he could not imagine how that society could survivie if slavery were abolished." (pg 221) "Perhaps Madison's deepest legacy for the American constiutional tradition he helped to create lies in his understanding of these two distinct problems of majority power and minority rights...his grasp of what was at stake was both modern and forward-looking...Yet his approach to these problems also had conservative, even reactionary elements" (pg 224) "the commitment to freedom of conscience mattered because it identified one civil right that placed the greatest value on the capacity of ordinary men and women to exercise their sovereign judgment as individuals." (pg 227) Interesting Rakove uses terms typically reserved for economics to describe Madison's belief in the best system to protect religious institutions: "privatized and deregulated; competition among denomination" "And no scheme of taxation could ever be completely fair or neutral. Some interests would always benefit more, others less from whatever plan was adoped, and this disparity would support the suspicion that the rights of property were not being equally protected. In a republic dominated by the poorer classes of citizens, Madison might have worried, what would stop government from shifting the tax burden unfairly to the wealthy?...Here he was not convinced that the people's desires could be trusted. Instead, he thought the rights of the wealthy desereved protection against the jealousy of the multitude." (pg 228) I felt the book provided a good broad view of the Madison. I did, however, feel it was a bit redundant in places, and I was disappointed that more attention was not given to Dolley and to his presidency. I did think Rakove did an excellent job of sharing the foundation of Madison's core belief system and why his views changed at various times. I feel I have a better understanding of Madison's role in the Declaration of Independence and better insight into his relationship with Jefferson.

Review # 2 was written on 2010-09-06 00:00:00 Beau Eidt Tis is a great way to understand what the founding fathers of this country where all about. It is private letters, unrevised versions of declarations, documents from the revolution and the bill of rights... If you like history this is interesting. If you are like me and see that our country is heading for disaster and you feel like it must get back to basics, this book will give you a good idea of how and why it was founded. Its not a light read or "fun" but you get an honest understanding of politics from the men and women who stepped up and did their part to create what we know as freedom.