The History Book Club discussion
This topic is about
The Three Lives of James Madison
PRESIDENTIAL SERIES
>
WE ARE OPEN - 08/10/20 - PRESIDENTIAL SERIES - DISCUSSION - The Three Lives of James Madison: Genius, Partisan, President
Mod
Chapter 5/Compromise. "Federalist No 10: A Republican Remedy"
Jumping ahead a bit, but I think it ties in with the high proportion of one-term presidents.
Madison had hoped/supposed that with the diversity of factions that the better, more virtuous men would rise to the top. But after having worked with Hamilton (more given to passions than stark reason alone), "He [Madison] even imagined the public following leaders 'whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions'--what today would be called celebrities' (p.181).{Huey Long, perhaps? I use him as an example because he's far enough in the past so as not to engage passionate pro or negative responses today. ;-)}
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm" (p. 182)
Yes... It does seem to me that we're not always electing the best men to govern. Presidential candidates began actively campaigning for the office. As the speed of media access has increased, so too personality/celebrity factors have played an increased role in elections.
To a large degree we're not electing a president on anything like the reasoned arguments in The Federalist Papers. We have sound-bites. Perhaps we're sometimes electing whomever is the best at campaigning.
LOL. I've a friend who tells me we should be asking candidates more fundamental questions:
Have you memorized Robert's Rules?
Tell us your favorite quote from "The Spirit of the Laws."
Tell us why Socrates favored Kingdoms instead of Democracies.
Are you well-familiar with the Constitution?
But then I think back to what Franklin had said regarding the Constitution... that maybe, the electoral system, too, even with it's faults, it's the best system we could devise.
Jumping ahead a bit, but I think it ties in with the high proportion of one-term presidents.
Madison had hoped/supposed that with the diversity of factions that the better, more virtuous men would rise to the top. But after having worked with Hamilton (more given to passions than stark reason alone), "He [Madison] even imagined the public following leaders 'whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions'--what today would be called celebrities' (p.181).{Huey Long, perhaps? I use him as an example because he's far enough in the past so as not to engage passionate pro or negative responses today. ;-)}
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm" (p. 182)
Yes... It does seem to me that we're not always electing the best men to govern. Presidential candidates began actively campaigning for the office. As the speed of media access has increased, so too personality/celebrity factors have played an increased role in elections.
To a large degree we're not electing a president on anything like the reasoned arguments in The Federalist Papers. We have sound-bites. Perhaps we're sometimes electing whomever is the best at campaigning.
LOL. I've a friend who tells me we should be asking candidates more fundamental questions:
Have you memorized Robert's Rules?
Tell us your favorite quote from "The Spirit of the Laws."
Tell us why Socrates favored Kingdoms instead of Democracies.
Are you well-familiar with the Constitution?
But then I think back to what Franklin had said regarding the Constitution... that maybe, the electoral system, too, even with it's faults, it's the best system we could devise.
Bentley wrote: "Yes, I like your quotes.
The people pleasers seem to age more."
LOL, Maybe they care more about what people think of them than about forging determinedly on in what they think their duty is.
Polling, eh?
The people pleasers seem to age more."
LOL, Maybe they care more about what people think of them than about forging determinedly on in what they think their duty is.
Polling, eh?
Chapter 5/Compromise. "Federalist No 10: A Republican Remedy"
Madison couldn't foresee social media.
"Extend the sphere and you take in a greater majority of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens...it will be more difficult ... to act in unison with each other" (p.182).
And what's that phrase? Confirmation bias.
Madison couldn't foresee social media.
"Extend the sphere and you take in a greater majority of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens...it will be more difficult ... to act in unison with each other" (p.182).
And what's that phrase? Confirmation bias.
Mod
Jumping ahead a bit, but I think it ties in with the high proportion of one-term presidents.
Madison had hoped/supposed that with the..."
I disagree in part - because both Hamilton and Madison were on the same page when they wrote The Federalist Papers. And they both were very much concerned about the type of individual that would hold the executive office and were certainly against any "would be kings or demagogues".
It was only later that Madison became influenced by Jefferson and appeared to change his stripes - that caused a falling out between the two men and George Washington sided with Hamilton. Jefferson was subsequently not well regarded by Washington or his family because he could be underhanded and they felt self serving.(see the Mount Vernon site) Madison seemed to be under Jefferson's sway. And of course with all men, there are strengths and weaknesses. Jefferson needed Madison and possibly vice versa.
Remember the general populace was not considered that well informed or that well educated to elect a president at the beginning - probably a well founded conclusion.
The purpose of the electoral college (in terms of its original intent) has really been negated over time. However, it is still relevant.
Here is a presentation from Khan Academy:
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanitie...
Here is a link to the group's discussion of Federalist 10:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Federalist No. 68 (excerpt)
The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.
Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.
It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue. And this will be thought no inconsiderable recommendation of the Constitution, by those who are able to estimate the share which the executive in every government must necessarily have in its good or ill administration.
Though we cannot acquiesce in the political heresy of the poet who says: "For forms of government let fools contest That which is best administered is best," yet we may safely pronounce, that the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration.
Mod
The people pleasers seem to age more."
LOL, Maybe they care more about what people think of them than about forging determinedly on in what they think the..."
I am not sure that I would paint all of the presidents with the same brush.
Mod
Madison couldn't foresee social media.
"Extend the sphere and you take in a greater majority of parties and interests; you make it le..."
I don't think any of the presidents could foresee social media or facebook and they would hate twitter. Primarily because all of them and especially twitter - sow discord and divisiveness with sound bytes and not sound judgement and study (short attention spans).
Men who wrote the Federalist Papers were not writing for men who had short attention spans or did not spend time debating and discussing with their communities the issues at hand.
Bentley wrote: "
I am not sure that I would paint all of the presidents with the same brush."
Right you are. I do think the presidency is an exceedingly tough job.
Sometimes I go along reading and posting and generally having a good time and sometimes I tend a little too much towards glib.
Thanks for the check :-)
I am not sure that I would paint all of the presidents with the same brush."
Right you are. I do think the presidency is an exceedingly tough job.
Sometimes I go along reading and posting and generally having a good time and sometimes I tend a little too much towards glib.
Thanks for the check :-)
Re Attention Spans.
Yes. People actually read The Federalist essays in the newspapers. Quite impressive.
Even as late as the Lincoln Douglas Debates.
"They Were More Like Speeches Instead of Debates Although those watching the Lincoln-Douglas “debates” were allowed to ask questions after the initial statements made by the politicians, these meetings were far from what people would consider a debate. The two men agreed that one would speak for an hour, the second man would have 1.5 hours to rebut the statement, and then another half hour would be used by the first man to answer the rebuttal. No moderator asked questions, and no fast responses were expected as they are in political debates in modern times."
https://triviatoday.com/blog/article....
Yes. People actually read The Federalist essays in the newspapers. Quite impressive.
Even as late as the Lincoln Douglas Debates.
"They Were More Like Speeches Instead of Debates Although those watching the Lincoln-Douglas “debates” were allowed to ask questions after the initial statements made by the politicians, these meetings were far from what people would consider a debate. The two men agreed that one would speak for an hour, the second man would have 1.5 hours to rebut the statement, and then another half hour would be used by the first man to answer the rebuttal. No moderator asked questions, and no fast responses were expected as they are in political debates in modern times."
https://triviatoday.com/blog/article....
Mod
I am not sure that I would paint all of the presidents with the same brush."
Right you are. I do think the presidency is an exceedingly tough job.
Sometimes I go along reading a..."
No worries - everyone's opinion is "all good" - I just want you to know that I read every word everyone posts so that you know I am paying attention. (smile)
At the time of the Federalist Papers which would also be an interesting read for you - local communities and town halls and get togethers (professional groups) were critically important to each community and they met and civically discussed what was going on and debated the issues - and entire towns were vested in these discussions. That is why the Federalist Papers were so important for the ratification process for the Constitution. At the time they wanted to get New York to ratify the constitution.
There was a close affinity within the town and with civic duty and state affiliation - much more than exists now. Agrarian or industrial interests were closely aligned by state. And New York had both (upper part of the state different than the lower part of the state)
Mod
Yes. People actually read The Federalist essays in the newspapers. Quite impressive.
Even as late as the Lincoln Douglas Debates.
"They Were More Like Speeches Instead of ..."
You had to have a lot of patience and you were forced to listen to the whole thing not a 30 second or a two minute sound byte.
Mod
Week Six: September 14th - September 20th (pages 224 - 271)
Chapter Six - Ratification (page 224)
Note: This is the Kindle pagination which may vary from the hardcopy or paperback edition
Bentley wrote: the Federalist Papers which would also be an interesting read for you -.."
I've thought that more than a time or two while reading this book.
I've thought that more than a time or two while reading this book.
Chapter Six: Ratification. First section.
"As a result of these practical, real-world differences, Madison explained, the convention had 'been compelled to sacrifice theoretical propriety to the force of extraneous consideration"(p.200).
This continues to strike me as Madison's pattern. To advocate as strongly as possible for his preferred position. But when he's outvoted, he quickly adapts, recognizing that the result is the best deal that could have been made, and endeavoring to re-imagine and re-cast the final product as a positive good so that the process and move forward towards his ultimate goal--- the acceptance of the new constitution.
In a reflection, Madison wrote regarding the clash of interests over ratification, "What is the proper conclusion from all this? That unanimity is not to be expected in any great political question" (James Madison, p 237)
by Ralph Louis Ketcham (no photo)
Bentley, others, Is this OK? I happen to like the little details added from the Ketcham book, but perhaps they seem a distraction to others?
"As a result of these practical, real-world differences, Madison explained, the convention had 'been compelled to sacrifice theoretical propriety to the force of extraneous consideration"(p.200).
This continues to strike me as Madison's pattern. To advocate as strongly as possible for his preferred position. But when he's outvoted, he quickly adapts, recognizing that the result is the best deal that could have been made, and endeavoring to re-imagine and re-cast the final product as a positive good so that the process and move forward towards his ultimate goal--- the acceptance of the new constitution.
In a reflection, Madison wrote regarding the clash of interests over ratification, "What is the proper conclusion from all this? That unanimity is not to be expected in any great political question" (James Madison, p 237)
by Ralph Louis Ketcham (no photo)Bentley, others, Is this OK? I happen to like the little details added from the Ketcham book, but perhaps they seem a distraction to others?
Chapter Six: Ratification. Patrick Henry
I grew up so loving the ringing words attributed to Patrick Henry: "Give me liberty, or give me death!"
I'm coming to think that Henry leaned more towards his own state of Virginia than towards the union as a whole.... Understandable, I would suppose. He thought, perhaps, that Virginia would do better under the Articles than under the proposed new constitution.
From Ketcham's book (yes, reading it on the side), "...Madison learned that in the Virginia Assembly, 'Mr. Henry has upon all occasions however foreign to his subject attempted to give the Constitution a side blow" (James Madison, p. 235).
Not as categorical as Cato with his "Carthage must be destroyed," but still, that's what I was reminded of.
by Ralph Louis Ketcham (no photo)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthago_delend...
I grew up so loving the ringing words attributed to Patrick Henry: "Give me liberty, or give me death!"
I'm coming to think that Henry leaned more towards his own state of Virginia than towards the union as a whole.... Understandable, I would suppose. He thought, perhaps, that Virginia would do better under the Articles than under the proposed new constitution.
From Ketcham's book (yes, reading it on the side), "...Madison learned that in the Virginia Assembly, 'Mr. Henry has upon all occasions however foreign to his subject attempted to give the Constitution a side blow" (James Madison, p. 235).
Not as categorical as Cato with his "Carthage must be destroyed," but still, that's what I was reminded of.
by Ralph Louis Ketcham (no photo)en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthago_delend...
Chapter Six. Ratification. First section.
"He [Madison] had told Jefferson that given the constraints, the consensus that had produced the constitution was nothing short of a miracle" (p. 200).
"Indeed, Madison concluded, 'it is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it finger of that Almighty Hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution.'
Madison did not insist that his reader see the divine providence at work. He did not even invoke God's whole hand as the shaper of the convention" (p. 200).
Um...I have no idea why the author wrote those sentences. ??? My conclusion is that he is trying to downplay Madison as a man of religious belief. But then why include those Madison quotes at all?
Sure, "nothing short of a miracle" could be taken as a mere figure of speech. It's a phrase that can be used in a literal or a figurative sense. We don't know how Madison intended it.
But that next sentence ("it is impossible for a man of pious reflection not to perceive...")? I do not read that as a casual figure of speech. Madison says it's "impossible (not to see the Almighty at work)".... He pretty much IS insisting that men of pious reflection see divine providence. As for atheists, they can of course believe as they believe. Madison, after all, fought for religious freedom and freedom to not follow a religion.
And that whole "He did not even invoke God's whole hand as the shaper of the convention" (p. 200). ??? What is the point of that? . Madison was purposefully invoking the finger... "the Finger of God" Biblically was of great power... and therefore it is the finger that Madison refers to as accomplishing miracles during the convention and during the revolution.
Do others read this differently?
What am I missing?
"He [Madison] had told Jefferson that given the constraints, the consensus that had produced the constitution was nothing short of a miracle" (p. 200).
"Indeed, Madison concluded, 'it is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it finger of that Almighty Hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution.'
Madison did not insist that his reader see the divine providence at work. He did not even invoke God's whole hand as the shaper of the convention" (p. 200).
Um...I have no idea why the author wrote those sentences. ??? My conclusion is that he is trying to downplay Madison as a man of religious belief. But then why include those Madison quotes at all?
Sure, "nothing short of a miracle" could be taken as a mere figure of speech. It's a phrase that can be used in a literal or a figurative sense. We don't know how Madison intended it.
But that next sentence ("it is impossible for a man of pious reflection not to perceive...")? I do not read that as a casual figure of speech. Madison says it's "impossible (not to see the Almighty at work)".... He pretty much IS insisting that men of pious reflection see divine providence. As for atheists, they can of course believe as they believe. Madison, after all, fought for religious freedom and freedom to not follow a religion.
And that whole "He did not even invoke God's whole hand as the shaper of the convention" (p. 200). ??? What is the point of that? . Madison was purposefully invoking the finger... "the Finger of God" Biblically was of great power... and therefore it is the finger that Madison refers to as accomplishing miracles during the convention and during the revolution.
Do others read this differently?
What am I missing?
Chapter Six. Ratification. 'Forms Ought to Give Way to Substance'
Slavery is discussed. "Slaves, he {Madison} wrote, 'may emerge into human character" (p. 205).
I find myself thinking back to Billey. And I find myself thinking about how Madison repeatedly adapts to the reality of what he can and can not accomplish.
Madison could have sold Billey outright as a slave. But he didn't.
I'm thinking today that perhaps Madison saw selling Billey into a limited-term servitude was the best that he could practically accomplish. Billey would eventually become a free man. Madison would not have to have a confrontation with his father---or other Virginians--- over slavery...which would have been politically and economically and possibly emotionally ruinous for Madison. Madison would obtain a financial compensation which he needed.
Slavery is discussed. "Slaves, he {Madison} wrote, 'may emerge into human character" (p. 205).
I find myself thinking back to Billey. And I find myself thinking about how Madison repeatedly adapts to the reality of what he can and can not accomplish.
Madison could have sold Billey outright as a slave. But he didn't.
I'm thinking today that perhaps Madison saw selling Billey into a limited-term servitude was the best that he could practically accomplish. Billey would eventually become a free man. Madison would not have to have a confrontation with his father---or other Virginians--- over slavery...which would have been politically and economically and possibly emotionally ruinous for Madison. Madison would obtain a financial compensation which he needed.
Mod
"As a result of these practical, real-world differences, Madison explained, the convention had 'been compelled to sacrifice theoretical propriety to the f..."
It is OK but I am putting up the Ketchum threads but wanted to get further along with this book so we did not lose anyone. I think it might be better to not quote the Ketchum book here since we will be doing it on its own threads. But as a source now and again - no worries. I think the Ketchum book will prove to be more chronological, a more standard timeline. And if you do cite Ketchum you have to add his author citation and if a quote from the book - the full book citation.
Ralph Ketchum (no photo)
OK. Sounds ok. [I do think that I have been carefully citing the Ketchem book whenever I have quoted from it. Book photo by Author Name (no photo). I'll be vigilant. ]
Also, I hadn't realized the Ketchem book would be going up separately. As I had bought it and have been reading it in conjunction with Feldman book I was trying to incorporate and share some of the info I found interesting.
Ralph Ketcham(no photo)
Also, I hadn't realized the Ketchem book would be going up separately. As I had bought it and have been reading it in conjunction with Feldman book I was trying to incorporate and share some of the info I found interesting.
Ralph Ketcham(no photo)
Chapter Six: Ratification. "Suspicion Is a Virtue"
Henry: “Our rights and privileges are endangered” There is no Bill of Rights!!! Henry points out that in the states, the power of the government was restrained by state bills of rights.
Henry: Forget about trade and business advantages; Citizens should be asking, “How your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your government" (p. 224).
I'm glad Henry was there pushing for a Bill of Rights. And Virginia had influence because it's approval was so needed for ratification.
Edit added: But then, Henry, the others, of course DID have an eye on how the constitution would economically affect their states. {taxes, slaves, trade, etc.}
It reminds me somewhat of pool or Carom... often one can't shoot directly... sometimes a successful shot must be done from an angle... or indirectly by shooting towards another point.
Henry: “Our rights and privileges are endangered” There is no Bill of Rights!!! Henry points out that in the states, the power of the government was restrained by state bills of rights.
Henry: Forget about trade and business advantages; Citizens should be asking, “How your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your government" (p. 224).
I'm glad Henry was there pushing for a Bill of Rights. And Virginia had influence because it's approval was so needed for ratification.
Edit added: But then, Henry, the others, of course DID have an eye on how the constitution would economically affect their states. {taxes, slaves, trade, etc.}
It reminds me somewhat of pool or Carom... often one can't shoot directly... sometimes a successful shot must be done from an angle... or indirectly by shooting towards another point.
Chapter Six: Ratification. "A Calm and Rational investigation"
This caught my attention: "Others had made 'comparisons ... between friends of this constitution, and those who oppose it.' Madison said he 'disapprove[d] of such comparisons'" (p.225).
Madison means, it seems to me, that one shouldn't make such comparisons in public speech. Because, remember back in the "Friends and Enemies" section, Madison was referring to 'friends of the constitution' and its 'enemies' (p. 219). "Distilled for public consumption" (p. 226).
The Ratification chapter seems to me to be highlighting the partisan aspect of Madison. Very interesting. A behind the scenes look at some of what happens in securing passage of desired legislation.
This caught my attention: "Others had made 'comparisons ... between friends of this constitution, and those who oppose it.' Madison said he 'disapprove[d] of such comparisons'" (p.225).
Madison means, it seems to me, that one shouldn't make such comparisons in public speech. Because, remember back in the "Friends and Enemies" section, Madison was referring to 'friends of the constitution' and its 'enemies' (p. 219). "Distilled for public consumption" (p. 226).
The Ratification chapter seems to me to be highlighting the partisan aspect of Madison. Very interesting. A behind the scenes look at some of what happens in securing passage of desired legislation.
Chapter Six: Ratification. "The Philosopher's Stone" (p. 227)
It has been a long time since I read Harry Potter and The Philosopher's Stone. I had to google it.
"The philosopher's stone, more properly philosophers' stone or stone of the philosophers (Latin: lapis philosophorum) is a legendary alchemical substance capable of turning base metals such as mercury into gold (chrysopoeia, from the Greek χρυσός khrusos, "gold", and ποιεῖν poiēin, "to make") or silver." (Wikipedia)
I found I really appreciated the sub-section title, not simply for this specific sub-section, but because it seems to capture much of what Madison did--- taking, not exactly "base" positions, but certainly taking positions that hadn't been his first choices, and re-imagining them, recasting them... transforming, if you will, the interpretation of those positions into positives for the new constitution. Example: Representation in the Senate.
by
J.K. Rowling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philoso...
It has been a long time since I read Harry Potter and The Philosopher's Stone. I had to google it.
"The philosopher's stone, more properly philosophers' stone or stone of the philosophers (Latin: lapis philosophorum) is a legendary alchemical substance capable of turning base metals such as mercury into gold (chrysopoeia, from the Greek χρυσός khrusos, "gold", and ποιεῖν poiēin, "to make") or silver." (Wikipedia)
I found I really appreciated the sub-section title, not simply for this specific sub-section, but because it seems to capture much of what Madison did--- taking, not exactly "base" positions, but certainly taking positions that hadn't been his first choices, and re-imagining them, recasting them... transforming, if you will, the interpretation of those positions into positives for the new constitution. Example: Representation in the Senate.
by
J.K. Rowlinghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philoso...
Hi folks. I'm crashing this party from Seattle. I just made it through Chapter 6 so I should be all caught up. I haven't really read much about the founding fathers so this has been a lot to absorb. Looking forward to the conversations.
from Adelle:This continues to strike me as Madison's pattern. To advocate as strongly as possible for his preferred position. But when he's outvoted, he quickly adapts, recognizing that the result is the best deal that could have been made, and endeavoring to re-imagine and re-cast the final product as a positive good so that the process and move forward towards his ultimate goal--- the acceptance of the new constitution.
Nice summary! Also reminds me of how he was super principled and stubborn about not paying for booze at elections, but when it was clear that he couldn't win without it, he adapted and moved on.
Tim-from-Seattle! Welcome-welcome! Like you, I hadn't known overmuch about James Madison. So I'm learning quite a bit...about the country in the late 1700s, about politics at the founding, about The Big Names...and sadly about some of the issues the founders couldn't resolve as successfully as might have been hoped for.
Thanks for the welcome Adelle!Kind of a random thing, as this was just an aside, but I thought this was an interesting passage from early on as it gave a little color towards what life was like then.
For many students, friendship was the most important focus of college life. Educated young men in late eighteenth-century America often spoke and wrote to each other of their great mutual affection. Declarations of passionate friendship, even love, were not considered unmanly.
I don't have anything to add to that, just thought it was an interesting tidbit.
Tim @127 remarked on: "
For many students, friendship was the most important focus of college life. Educated young men in late eighteenth-century America often spoke and wrote to each other of their great mutual affection."
I have wondered (conjecture) what some of the contributing factors might have been. That in college they met men of a similar educational level? So they could discuss ideas with them? (I very much enjoyed that aspect of my F2F book group). Maybe that by the time they reached college-age, they had a better chance of long-term survival...and so felt more able to make an emotional investment? (Many had lost young siblings or older adults growing up due to diseases, etc.) Also... close male friendships in France at this time. (Brotherly Love: Freemasonry and Male Friendship in Enlightenment France, online overview.) I don't know whether that movement would have had any effect on American culture... though many of the Founders were Masons.
Interesting to mull on as it seems very different from current cultural norms.
(Did you notice, too, the 2 or 3 times that parts of letters were "written in code"? So the two correspondents would have had to have had access to the code... And there must have been an awareness that one's letter MIGHT be read by someone other than the intended recipient.
https://reviews.history.ac.uk/review/... (review of Brotherly Love book)
by Kenneth Loiselle (no photo)
For many students, friendship was the most important focus of college life. Educated young men in late eighteenth-century America often spoke and wrote to each other of their great mutual affection."
I have wondered (conjecture) what some of the contributing factors might have been. That in college they met men of a similar educational level? So they could discuss ideas with them? (I very much enjoyed that aspect of my F2F book group). Maybe that by the time they reached college-age, they had a better chance of long-term survival...and so felt more able to make an emotional investment? (Many had lost young siblings or older adults growing up due to diseases, etc.) Also... close male friendships in France at this time. (Brotherly Love: Freemasonry and Male Friendship in Enlightenment France, online overview.) I don't know whether that movement would have had any effect on American culture... though many of the Founders were Masons.
Interesting to mull on as it seems very different from current cultural norms.
(Did you notice, too, the 2 or 3 times that parts of letters were "written in code"? So the two correspondents would have had to have had access to the code... And there must have been an awareness that one's letter MIGHT be read by someone other than the intended recipient.
https://reviews.history.ac.uk/review/... (review of Brotherly Love book)
by Kenneth Loiselle (no photo)
Chapter Six: Ratification. "Is There No Virtue Among Us?"
A good passage: "To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea. If there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men; so that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who choose them' (p.237).
What Virtues Were Important to the Ancient Greeks? (online article)
Wisdom. Courage. Moderation. Justice.
"... believed that society is ordered through justice, but this can be attained only when the human soul is well ordered. According to Plato, only just people can create a just society"
https://classroom.synonym.com/virtues...
A good passage: "To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea. If there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men; so that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who choose them' (p.237).
What Virtues Were Important to the Ancient Greeks? (online article)
Wisdom. Courage. Moderation. Justice.
"... believed that society is ordered through justice, but this can be attained only when the human soul is well ordered. According to Plato, only just people can create a just society"
https://classroom.synonym.com/virtues...
OMG the "speaking in code" references intrigued me. Feldman never explained what that meant exactly It probably just means they spoke indirectly, but I kind of hope there is some sort of complex spycraft decoder stuff involved!
I was wondering 1) If the need for writing in code began during the war. Knowing that correspondence might fall into ... the "wrong" hands. 2) Whether the political strategies and policies that might not be politically popular were written in code because, well, the writer wouldn't want that revealed until he was ready to reveal it. Or maybe one simply wouldn't want to give the other side an opportunity to put together better arguments against one's positions prior to debate.
But it does speak to the concern that others might read one's letters.
(I had some sort of book of secret code writing when I was in 4th grade.)
But it does speak to the concern that others might read one's letters.
(I had some sort of book of secret code writing when I was in 4th grade.)
The discussion on the allowable procedures to terminate a cabinet member was interesting. What I found fascinating was that people were able to have this kind of discussion with a focus on the longer-term. That is, the discussion wasn’t focused on Washington in particular, how much trust we had in him, and what would be the impact of giving him more, or less, power. Madison, in particular, kept the discussion focused on what structure would be best for the long-term health of the nation, knowing that we might have a variety of different presidents of different abilities and temperaments.This is so hard to do now. I am reminded of a couple things. One is an idea I’ve heard several times about Supreme Court nominations. There is a proposition that SC nominations should be for a fixed 18-year period. If this were the rule, we would not have these issues now about Senate delaying tactics and whether they are violating established norms. You also wouldn’t have SC justices staying for longer than they want to, just to wait for a President of their liking. It seems like this is an idea that could garner broad support, but it’s hard to picture a path towards this, because the party that has the first nomination would be at a disadvantage, and it would be difficult to get people to value the longer term benefits of a better structure over the shorter term disadvantage to your political party.
Another example I think of is electoral college reform in how Presidents are elected. I agree with many of the critics of the electoral college that it is unfair, as it in effect gives some voters more power than other voters. I understand that it evolved this way for a reason and there might still be arguments for it, but I doubt that Madison foresaw this situation, where the effect would be that rural populations have more political power (per person) than urban populations. BUT – I also have to admit, Republicans might ask “OK so why do you care about this just now, when your favored party is hurt by it” and I agree that is a tough question to answer.
Anyways, my point isn’t to talk about these specific issues, but just how it is difficult to have productive conversations that might lead to positive improvements in our constitutional structure, because the conversation is too easy to get derailed by what the short-term impact is. I’m not sure if there is any good solution to this.
Bentley, Lorna... Since it's after Sep 20th, I assume we can jump into discussing Chapter 7: The Bill of Rights.
Is good?'
Is good?'
Tim @132 wrote: "The discussion on the allowable procedures to terminate a cabinet member was interesting. What I found fascinating was that people were able to have this kind of discussion with a focus on the long-term..."
You're right on that. What immense pressure they must have felt. Everything was precedent setting. 'Twas like playing 3-dimensionl chess--- they had to try to foresee all possible future moves... "If we do thusly, then this, this, or that might result." AND they had to try to imagine future moves,, as you wrote, "knowing that we might have a variety of different presidents of different abilities and temperaments."
You're right on that. What immense pressure they must have felt. Everything was precedent setting. 'Twas like playing 3-dimensionl chess--- they had to try to foresee all possible future moves... "If we do thusly, then this, this, or that might result." AND they had to try to imagine future moves,, as you wrote, "knowing that we might have a variety of different presidents of different abilities and temperaments."
Tim @132 wrote: "Another example I think of is electoral college reform in how Presidents are elected. I agree with many of the critics of the electoral college that it is unfair, as it in effect gives some voters more power than other voters.."
I've always lived in the less populous states, so I lean the opposite direction on that. The belief in the less populous states is that a popular vote only, would result in the votes in the less populous states in effect not counting.... because there would be no need for the candidates to pay any attention to small states... it being easier to get large number of votes in populous areas.
Bentley or someone else with a firmer understanding of the Electoral vote might weigh in...
But my understanding is that the reasoning is somewhat similar to that question of equal representation or proportional representation in the legislature.
I think, too, one must bear in mind is that the president, fundamentally, is not being elected by individuals. The president is being elected by states. The individuals in each state vote for the electors in their own state. Then, the electors of the states meet to vote for the president. Each STATE wants some influence over who becomes the President. And the only way for a STATE to have any influence is for the electoral votes from their specific state to be needed by the candidate. If it were only the votes of individual voters, a candidate doesn't NEED the votes from any particular states. A candidate would simply garner votes from whatever state is easiest to obtain votes in.
NOW I will go and look at the link Bentley provided earlier on the Electoral College!
From Bentley @106:
Here is a presentation from Khan Academy:
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanitie...
I've always lived in the less populous states, so I lean the opposite direction on that. The belief in the less populous states is that a popular vote only, would result in the votes in the less populous states in effect not counting.... because there would be no need for the candidates to pay any attention to small states... it being easier to get large number of votes in populous areas.
Bentley or someone else with a firmer understanding of the Electoral vote might weigh in...
But my understanding is that the reasoning is somewhat similar to that question of equal representation or proportional representation in the legislature.
I think, too, one must bear in mind is that the president, fundamentally, is not being elected by individuals. The president is being elected by states. The individuals in each state vote for the electors in their own state. Then, the electors of the states meet to vote for the president. Each STATE wants some influence over who becomes the President. And the only way for a STATE to have any influence is for the electoral votes from their specific state to be needed by the candidate. If it were only the votes of individual voters, a candidate doesn't NEED the votes from any particular states. A candidate would simply garner votes from whatever state is easiest to obtain votes in.
NOW I will go and look at the link Bentley provided earlier on the Electoral College!
From Bentley @106:
Here is a presentation from Khan Academy:
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanitie...
Thanks for comments and appreciate the color you've added. I definitely agree there is another side to that issue, that you represented well. The link doesn't seem to work for me though?
Mmmm. OK, it doesn't work for me either. Seems we have to go to the Bentley-provided link at post #106. That original link seems to work. (I was trying to make it more convenient. )
Got it now. A nice refresher on the Electoral College that is only 11 minutes long.
Each state---(since we have a semi-Federalist system)---determines the rules for its own state...hence, some states---most states---are winner take all; some states are more proportional.
But in an interesting twist, some states (my state of Colorado, for example) are trying to change the rules in their states... so that their states' Electoral votes go to the popular vote winner. (I have signed the petition to repeal this. It seems to me---and to the thousands of others who signed the petition to repeal.---to totally invalidate the presidential vote of Coloradans.
We'll see what happens in 2020.) Just an added twist.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wash...
But in an interesting twist, some states (my state of Colorado, for example) are trying to change the rules in their states... so that their states' Electoral votes go to the popular vote winner. (I have signed the petition to repeal this. It seems to me---and to the thousands of others who signed the petition to repeal.---to totally invalidate the presidential vote of Coloradans.
We'll see what happens in 2020.) Just an added twist.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wash...
Mod
Jeez, Edmund Randolph is so tiresome. LOL. Always trying to play both sides.You can see how Madison is becoming an very deft politician. And not by just hedging his bets and getting each person to think he is on their side, like Randolph. But by keeping up relationships, even when disagreements happens, and respect for his opponents (at least until the Hamilton disagreements get out of hand). And by seeking out compromises that satisfy both parties. Regrettably though, some of the ability to compromise arises from his moral flexibility with slavery.
Interesting to see the deep divisions between the North and South. Even in the 1780's, it was a rather fragile alliance.
We can talk about Chapter 8 right? In any case I won't do any spoilers I just wanted to recommend "Cabinet Battle #1" from Hamilton: The Musical.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELS85...
Which talks about the arguments around the formation of the national bank.
I was going to excerpt a few lyrics, but it is all too good, just listen to the whole thing.
Here is the book that inspired Lin-Manuel Miranda. Has anyone read it? Looks like it might be a good companion piece to this book, to get more detail on Hamilton's side.
by Ron Chernow
I'm not sure which chapter is open for discussion??? I'm just reading at this point until something is posted letting us know which chapters can be discussed.
I've been working my way through all the musical numbers in Hamilton. I haven't seen the full play, but it seems like in the musical's telling, Hamilton's chief rival is Jefferson, and Madison is reduced to Jefferson's sidekick.
Yep! Just been working through them in order on YouTube, also reading Wikipedia for a basic summary of the plot line as I go.
Tim wrote: "Here is the book that inspired Lin-Manuel Miranda. Has anyone read it? Looks like it might be a good companion piece to this book, to get more detail on Hamilton's side."
I do find myself wondering, 'What did this situation look like from Madison's perspective."
I do find myself wondering, 'What did this situation look like from Madison's perspective."
Mod
Mod
Week Nine: October 5th - October 11th
Chapter Nine: Enemies
The History Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
History of a free people (other topics)History of a free people (other topics)
History of a free people (other topics)
History of a free people (other topics)
1984 (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Henry W. Bragdon (other topics)Henry W. Bragdon (other topics)
Henry W. Bragdon (other topics)
Henry W. Bragdon (other topics)
George Orwell (other topics)
More...
I was curious about the etymology of "infernal."
"As a name of Hell, or a word for things which resemble it, the Italian form inferno has been used in English since 1834, via Dante. Related: Infernally."
https://www.etymonline.com/word/infernal