Ralph Ketcham (1927–2017)

This book was tough to get through. I enjoy biographies but this is not the most entertaining biography. However, this is the most complete biography of Madison I could find.

Madison's most defining moments in history are: "father of the constitution" a title which he was given years later, his collaboration with Jefferson and possibly being a very strong influence in purchasing land instead of seizing it, and of course, the War of 1812.

During his Presidency, Madison refused to back down show more from the United States having rights to the sea and did not cower to the large empires in the east. Though much "luck" was involved, Madison reaffirmed the United States as a world scene player that deserved and would not be afraid to defend, a seat at the table, through patience and allowing events to unfold before choosing the best path.

Madison changed his stance on a larger central government when circumstances called for it, though still rejected the size of central government that Hamilton called for.

Madison seemed to come out on the winning side of almost every major political issue of his day. I enjoyed learning about him. show less

An impressive feat of scholarship to write a biography of someone like James Madison whose life and career stretched from the American Revolution to the 1830s. He was the "architect" of the Constitution, congressman, secretary of state, fourth president of the United States, and elder statesman. According to Ketcham, the glue that holds Madison together is his Republican ideology. That is why he could be for a stronger federal government in the 1780s but against it in 1790s and why he was show more not a good war leader. Kethcam argues that Madison was not the dupe of Thomas Jefferson. There are parts I struggle with. For example, Ketcham describes Madison's Virginia Resolves of 1798 out to be more moderate than Jefferson's Kentucky Resolves, but I don't see it. Also, on political points Madison appears very much the Wilsonian practitioner of expediency. If so, that would undercut his Republican ideology. And he did things for purely political reasons, which is what you would expect from a professional politician, but where does that line end? Ketcham catches Madison changing some of his comments about Lafayette later in life, but doesn't delve any deeper into that theme. After having read Mary Sarah Bilder's Madison's Hand (2015) it makes me wonder how much Madison edited his papers. Finally, much scholarship has been produced since this biography was published around the Constitution, the 1790s, and the War of 1812. show less

I finished James Madison: A Biography by Ralph Ketcham. It took me months to get through it. The author really liked his subject, and seemed to constantly be making excuses for him. Although he did try to examine him critically from time to time throughout the book. I found it interesting that later in life Madison changed some of his original letters to, in one case, make someone look better (LaFayette), and make someone look worse (John Adams). I found it surprising that Madison was so show more adamantly supportive of the separation of church and state (bravo!). His belief, based on his readings, was that state-supported religion only leads to corruption of religion. He definitely supported measures that favored Virginia, but he always kept the national priorities in mind. I also found it kind of funny that he pushed so hard for a strong national government - until he had to make the "obnoxious" Great Compromise - the peak was reached when he thought representation in both houses would be by population. He then became much more cautious about the power granted to the general government. This bio also showed me that there has been horrible, nasty bipartisanship since Washington's second administration, so I guess I shouldn't be so depressed about the current state of national politics.

As long as the bio was, some things were mentioned in passing with no explanation, such as Shay's Rebellion. I also found it interesting that the author would say out of the blue that Jefferson and Madison weren't scheming together in Dec 1879 - why say this if there hasn't been any other comment about it previously. Sometimes I felt like there was an unnamed prerequisite that I was supposed to read before reading this tome. Then, there were quotes he included that I just found no use for, and that were not explained in any way and no realy connection to what the author was relating. Here's my favorite..."I, pilgarlic, sat entranced." show less

The encroachment on civil and political rights, in the post Obama inauguration period, suggests that the Anti-Federalist writers provide reasonable alternatives to the imposition of government power. These writers provide a sound counterbalance to the notion that the government, especially big government, provides American answers to classic issues of governmental organization.

One writing nugget is typical:

"It is natural for men, who wish to hasten the adoption of a measure, to tell us, show more now is the crisis--now is the critical moment which must be seized, or all will be lost; and to shut the door against free inquiry, whenever conscious the thing presented has defects in it, which time and investigation will probably discover. This has been the custom of tyrants and their dependents in all ages. If it is true, what so often been said, that the people of this country cannot change their condition for the worse, I presume it still behooves them to endeavor deliberately to change it for the better. The fickle and ardent, in any community, are the proper tools for establishing despotic government. But it is deliberate and thinking men, who must establish and secure governments on free principles. Before they decide on the plan proposed, they will inquire whether it probably be a blessing or a curse to the people (pp. 259-260)."

Letters From the Federal Farmer, 8 October 1787

These thoughts are just as relevant as they were at their writing as Americans have considered the issues brought on by the financial crisis, bailouts, cap and tax, and health care rationing. The spark for radical transformation of America is claimed to be justified by the proclamation of a crisis, real or imagined. This has always been the realm of the tyrant in opposing a free Republic of people. show less