You want to look at the Secretary of State series.
Remember, most historical attention has been placed on the Constitution, Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, John Adams, and on idividual presidencies. Not much on Madison as Secretary of State.
Madison always said; “the president has so decided” in his official papers at that time, when in reality Madison made the decision.
Madison was always the leader going back to 1779 when they first became best friends.
Madison and Jefferson first met in 1776, but did not get well aquainted until 1779. At that time Jefferson was governor and was 36, Madison was on the council of State and was 28. madison quickly became Jefferson’s chief advisor.
In 1780, Madison went to congress. They were in contact by mail, but did not really work together again until after the Constitution was ratified. At that time, Madison was Washington’s main ghost writer and advisor.
But as Washington gradually drifted towrds Hamilton, Madison lead the counter attack, with Jefferson as his helper and often as a figurehead.
Here is an example which shows who was in charge (the letter is about Hamilton):
Thomas Jefferson to James Madison*
Dear Sir
July 7. 1793
This excerpt is not particularly intelligible out of context, but it looks like Jefferson is asking Madison to write to Washington in opposition of Hamilton. How does that show Madison was in charge? Shouldn’t Madison have done it on his own if he told Jefferson what to do? You’re also contradicting yourself: you said earlier that Washington was mostly Madison’s puppet. If so, why was he doing something Madison opposed, and why was he unaware of Madison’s opinion?
No, Jefferson wants Madison to write a paper (under a pen name) against Hamilton who is speaking for Washington regarding foreign policy, specifically about neutrality. The issue is whether the president can declare neutrality when a treaty exists opposing that (the treaty with France of 1779).
[the argument for ignoring the treaty is that France had a revolution and a change of government]
Jefferson is the Secretary of State and Madison is just a House member, why can’t Jefferson write the paper? Because Jefferson is not competant to write it, that’s why. Madison is the brains behind the operation. Madison did write the papers, a series of essays called the Helvidius Papers.
And Jefferson does not just ask him, he is begging him with extreme language and freaking out because Madison has not answered him promptly. Madison is busy at this time with stuff going on in the House you know.
By this time, Washington was no longer Madison’s puppet, he was Hamilton’s puppet.
That archive isn’t foreign at all. I’d say a report to the United States Congress from the National Archives and Records Administration is about as American as you can get.
And they don’t mention anything about new discoveries outside the US. They don’t even mention new discoveries inside the US. They’re just putting it all together. The author, Allen Weinstein (Archivist of the United States), says exactly what the report is about in the introduction.
And will you please explain how Ron Paul came to be possessed by the deceased Madison so I will know why any of this has a point? I’m running out of guesses. My current theory is that Madison as the head of the Illuminati discovered the secret of immortality and is now using Ron Paul as his puppet just like he did presidents Washington through Jackson. I just can’t figure out why he’s working through an often loony congressman instead of re-asserting his control over the Oval Office. But I’m sure it’s all part of the master plan.
Things James Madison and Ron Paul have in common: both guys who served in the House.
Things they don’t have in common: authorship of the Constitution. And some of the Federalist Papers. And Secretaryship of State. And service in the Revolutionary War.
Things Ron Paul has in common with Sonny Bono: both guys who served in the House.
Because Jefferson is part of Washington’s administration and Madison isn’t?
Oh. Well, that’s a much more reasonable explanation given Jefferson’s lack of accomplishments in life.
Madison also engineered Jefferson’s actual election in 1800 as well. Madison was elected to the state legislature and pushed through the winner-take-all rule for electoral votes in Virginia that was critical for Jefferson’s victory.
Madison also wrote the legendary ‘Report of 1800’, one of the most brilliant political essays of all time. The report cleaned up the confusion after Jefferson & Madison wrote the Kentucky & Virginia Resolutions.
For some reason, Madison had to do this, not Jefferson
I’ve got plenty of other examples. One is in 1825, when Jefferson wrote up a big paper opposing the agenda of new president JQ Adams. Jefferson was ready to circulate and publish it, but Madison told him not to. Jefferson did as he was told.
That’s sophistry, and it’s not even good sophistry. It’s the same kind of non-logic you’re using in saying that Andrew Jackson opposed the National Endowment for the Arts. He was not aware of them, so he did not oppose them. He didn’t support them either. You could make a case it’s inconsistent with his philosophy, not that you’ve done that either. In any event, you didn’t mention the names of many historians, or even one that I as a layman have ever heard of. You quoted one historian who asserted that’s what most historians say.
And now that I read the quote again, I see you distorted it when you first used it. You initially used it in support of your contention that Jefferson was Madison’s puppet but it’s clear the author does not agree with you. At it applies only to foreign affairs, which is not surprising since Madison was secretary of state,
That’s odd. I mean, he’s certainly a famous traitor (though not so famous as the Founding Fathers). But I find it very hard to believe that no person besides Benedict Arnold betrayed the U.S…
If it’s possible, would you outline for me the reasons why George III and Benedict Arnold were traitors, but the Founding Fathers were not? It seems to me that if all the FF did was react to the perfidious nature of the King, they were still traitors to Crown and empire. I mean, we did rather have a government at the time, and I seem to recall rather a lot of bloodshed on both sides. I find it very interesting the idea that one may lead an armed rebellion against the soldiers of one’s nation yet not be a traitor.
I can’t say I do. None of this has anything to do with Ron Paul, and the fact that Jefferson changed his mind about publishing a paper after talking to Madison does not make Madison a puppetmaster. The fact that you had to edit that quote about Madison to make it say essentially the opposite of what the author meant tells me everything I need to know.
In those days, foreign policy dominated the national government. Domestic policy was done almost totally by the states. It is not just most historians who agree with me, it is the French foreign minister at the time, one person who knew firsthand that Madison was running the show.