Founding Rivals: Madison vs. Monroe, The Bill of Rights, and The Election that Saved a Nation

by Chris DeRose

The Amazing True Story of the Election That Saved the Constitution

In 1789, James Madison and James Monroe ran against each other for Congress—the only time that two future presidents have contested a congressional seat.

But what was at stake, as author Chris DeRose reveals in Founding Rivals: Madison vs. Monroe, the Bill of Rights, and the Election That Saved a Nation, was more than personal ambition. This was a race that determined the future of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the very definition of the United States of America.

Friends and political allies for most of their lives, Madison was the Constitution’s principal author, Monroe one of its leading opponents. Monroe thought the Constitution gave the federal government too much power and failed to guarantee fundamental rights. Madison believed that without the Constitution, the United States would not survive.

It was the most important congressional race in American history, more important than all but a few presidential elections, and yet it is one that historians have virtually ignored. In Founding Rivals, DeRose, himself a political strategist who has fought campaigns in Madison and Monroe’s district, relives the campaign, retraces the candidates’ footsteps, and offers the first insightful, comprehensive history of this high-stakes political battle.

DeRose reveals:

How Madison’s election ensured the passage of a Bill of Rights—and how
Monroe’s election would have ensured its failure


How Madison came from behind to win a narrow victory (by a margin of only 336 votes) in a district gerrymandered against him


How the Bill of Rights emerged as a campaign promise to Virginia’s evangelical Christians


Why Madison’s defeat might have led to a new Constitutional Convention—and the breakup of the United States

Founding Rivals tells the extraordinary, neglected story of two of America’s most important Founding Fathers. Brought to life by unparalleled research, it is one of the most provocative books of American political history you will read this year.

Genres: History, American History, Biography, Nonfiction, Presidents, Politics, American Revolution

336 pages, Hardcover

First published November 14, 2011

Reviews

[Matt · Rating 3 out of 5]

The future of the young United States hangs in the balance as two friends and rising statesmen travel the roads of eight Virginia counties to become a member of the first Congress under the newly adopted Constitution, depending on who is elected the new Constitution will succeed or fail. Founding Rivals: Madison vs. Monroe—The Bill of Rights and The Election That Saved A Nation by Chris DeRose follows the lives of future Presidents James Madison and James Monroe lead up to the election the two men faced off in Virginia’s 5th Congressional district and why the result was important for the future of the nation.

The lives of the young Virginians James Madison and James Monroe were both different; one was sickly and served in legislatures during the Revolution while the other was healthy and a soldier during the war. But there were similarities as well as both were wholeheartedly behind the success of the new nation and deeply troubled about the ineffectiveness of the Articles of Confederation, wanting those similar of mind to come together to bring changes. After the failed Annapolis Convention, Madison coaxed George Washington out of retirement to the Philadelphia Convention and the result was a new Constitution that was sent to the states for ratification. Monroe, though wanting a better government than the Articles, found the new Constitution too much and joined other Anti-Federalists in Virginia hoping to reject the new document in the face of Madison and the Federalists. The heated Virginia Ratification Convention went back and forth before Virginia passed the new Constitution, but the Anti-Federalists stuck back in next session of the House of Delegates putting Madison in a seemingly Anti-Federalist district and convinced Monroe to stand for election against him. If Monroe were to win, the Federalists who would be the majority would be without a leader and not support any amendments (i.e. the Bill of Rights) that Monroe and the Anti-Federalists wanted thus possibly leading to a second Constitutional convention that would undo the new government. However, Madison’s victory came about because of his support for a Bill of Rights especially his long support of religious freedom for dissenters in Virginia.

Coming in around 275 pages, Chris DeRose’s first book was a nice read with good research and nice structure to show the parallel lives of his subjects before their history defining election. Yet the fact that the vast majority of my synopsis focused on the last half of the book shows that while DeRose had a nice structure he didn’t use his space well. Several times throughout the book DeRose would insert his opinion on what he believed Madison or Monroe were thinking at some moment in time which came off looking amateurish that fact that wasn’t helped when DeRose would also insert asides alluding to current (as of 2011) political event several times as well.

Overall Founding Rivals is a nice look into the early lives of James Madison and James Monroe along with a crucial election they stood for with the new Constitution in the balanced. While Chris DeRose did admirable work, it is still his first book and in several places it is never evident. Yet with this caution it is still a good read for history buffs especially interested in this critical period in American history.

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

While by no means an expert on the Founding Fathers or the creation of the United States Constitution, I chose to tackle this book to further flesh out the story surrounding the founding of America and the entrenched rules by which it would run. DeRose examines the lives of the two Virginia Jameses, Madison and Monroe, as well as the influential roles they played in the early stages of American independence. This book examines their clashes, teamwork, and the efforts both put into creating what would be the US Constitution during the late 18th century. While they were able to work together to shape the latter years of colonial North America, where Monroe could play a key role in the Continental Congress, it was the formal election of 1789 that shaped America, with Monroe and Madison running against one another. Madison was the firm constitutionalist and was, like Alexander Hamilton, well-versed in the nuances of the legal language surrounding the rules of the state. DeRose argues that the aforementioned election was a major turning point in the state and American history, since Madison won and went on to Congress to present amendments to the constitutional document, eventually called the Bill of Rights. Without these changes, America would have easily been sunk into a quagmire and civil unrest would surely have led to a war within the states, with the ink still wet on the new U.S. Constitution. DeRose effectively shows how it was Madison's openness to freedoms and the hands-off approach when it came to religion that kept the thirteen colonies sated and permitted the eventually expansion of the Union. Had Monroe claimed victory, none of that would have come to pass, leaving Washington that the likely sole president of the offshoot Union, which might have collapsed in on itself. A powerful set of arguments surrounding these key moments in early American history, the only time two men who would be future presidents squared off in a congressional election, leaves the reader to learn much from DeRose's research.

Over the last number of months I have immersed myself in biographies and academic pieces on the founding of America and the constitutional infancy of the country. While it has been a pleasurable experience, I did learn a thing or two along the way, which DeRose presents well throughout; none of this was easy or quick to occur. The development of a new state, especially as it tosses off the shackles of its colonial oppressor, comes with great difficulty and requires the strength of men dedicated to forging fundamental paths to ensure a positive end-result. DeRose uses a wonderful cross-section of research and presents it in such a way that the layperson is not lost in the argument or the narrative. While there are sure to be sections of the larger story that can get dense, DeRose does his best to keep things move effectively. While a piece of non-fiction would rarely get comments on the characters involved, I would be remiss if I did not mention how lively Madison and Monroe appear throughout, which goes to the author's ability to pull biographical pieces together that will both entertain and educate the curious reader. The narrative and chapter breaks allow the story to flow as seamlessly as possible, building things up at a decent pace while not over-indulging in minutiae. A wonderful effort to tell the most important of constitutional stories to Americans, in such a way that any reader could understand the significance of events and these two actors in the larger historical stage.

Kudos, Mr. DeRose for this great piece. You highlighted the best and worst parts of these two men, giving the reader just enough to form their own conclusions.

Like/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/

[Rik Helton · Rating 5 out of 5]

I urge anyone with an interest in the Constitution to read this book. We are still arguing over some of the same issues today. Only we do so with much less class and dignity than these remarkable individuals.

[Andrew Burin · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is an entertaining and informative book, and my three-star rating is not meant to take away from the author's work or effort. However, it's somewhat anticlimactic, and at times reads more like an overview of early American history rather than a novel look at the relationship between the two Jameses. With the understanding that working from letters and records of the constitutional conventions makes it harder to bring a period to life, I nevertheless would have liked more insights on the men as individuals, friends, and rivals, and less rote recital of the early history of our country.

[Anne · Rating 3 out of 5]

Having listened to the last third of the book twice, I might have titled the book slightly differently. There is much less time spent on the Bill of Rights than on the background of these two men, the Constitutional Convention, and a specific election. I expected to hear more of Madison's original drafts for the Bill of Rights, in particular regarding the 2nd Amendment.

[Stephen · Rating 5 out of 5]

In these days of contentious politics, where adversaries rip into one another with all the grace of beasts, Chris DeRose's Founding Rivals is downright heartening. It is the story of a friendship born of revolution and the struggle to create a more perfect union, a friendship which helped define that union...and one which persevered even as the two friends found themselves running against one another for the same seat in the first Congress of the United States.

Madison and Monroe's names stand tall throughout American history. Public servants for most of their lives, and eventually the fourth and fifth presidents respectively, they began their careers in America's most exciting time. They agitated for independence and drilled for war: during the conflict, Madison became a statesman while Monroe served in the Continental army. While Madison and his colleagues attempted to bring together the selfishly quarreling colonies together in a common cause, and put together a functioning government amidst the chaos of war, Monroe was nearly killed in combat and served faithfully throughout the war, seeking a place in the battle even when he had the opportunity to remain safely behind the scenes. After York Town, Monroe joined Madison in public office and the two were introduced through a mutual friend, Thomas Jefferson.

Together they agonized about the limitations of the Articles of Confederation, and through their letters DeRose offers readers a look into the early years of the Republic, at a time when the legislature of Virginia held more power than the Congress of the confederacy. The states are united in name only: their collective government has little power and only marginal influence. In these troubled years, debt increases, rebellion sweeps through the backwoods, and the powers of Europe smile at the fledgling nation's impotency. Spain, especially, sees America's faltering as a promising sign that it will maintain control of the Mississippi.

The letters between Madison and Monroe are a delight to read. They possess an elegance lost today, and reflect a serious-minded approach to governance that our current candidates would do well to emulate. In preparing for a constitutional convention, Madison engaged himself in an exhaustive study of confederacies throughout history, adding that to an already impressive political education to guide him in finding an effective form of government for the new nation -- one which would be strong enough to defend against foreign foes and honor its debts, but not so strong as to crush the sovereignty of the people under one authority. After an initial failure at Annapolis, Madison, Monroe, and others are finally successful in organizing a convention in Philadelphia. The two are never in Congress at the same time: when one is seated in the national council, the other is present in Virginia's house of delegates, and they work together for the common cause. In Philadelphia, however, after Madison presents his ideas -- a framework we know today as the US Constitution -- their collaboration ends.

The nation falls into two parties, Federalist and Antifederalist. Federalists like Madison advocate for the immediate adoption of the Constitution, while the Antifederalists oppose it. Some, like Patrick Henry, appear to vigorously oppose the Constitution just to delight in the sound of their own voice. Others are concerned about the lack of a Bill of Rights protecting the people against the government overstepping its authority. Monroe in particular is concerned about the amount of power the Constitution gives the central government, seeing its ability to directly tax the people as problematic at best and inviting tyranny at worst. DeRose covers the raucous debate in Virginia's House of Delegates, where the Constitution is just narrowly ratified. Virginia was arguably the most influential state in the union at this point, a fact lost to modern readers who are accustomed to the leadership of states like New York and California today.

Even though the Constitution is ratified, the Antifederalists are not content to accept defeat. Instead, they see the first congressional elections for the new state as an opportunity to put their men into office to maintain the status quo while they organize efforts to call for another constitutional convention -- a prospect that Washington, Jefferson, and Madison are united in seeing as patently dangerous. To oppose Madison, the author of the Constitution and its most eloquent defenders, the Antifederalists choose Monroe...and in the book's penultimate chapter, the 'election that saved a nation' takes precedence.

DeRose may be over-stressing a point here -- the claim is certainly dramatic -- but the election is certainly worth considering. Having accomplished the great task of getting the Constitution ratified, Madison can now advocate for amending it with a bill of rights, to win over the two states which have not yet joined the union, and gain the support of those who accepted it only grudgingly, like New York and Virginia. DeRose sees the presence of Monroe as prompting this decision on Madison's part, the younger forcing Madison to temper his defense of the Constitution. It is quite possible, considering that earlier -- in Virginia -- Madison staunchly maintained that no bill of rights was necessary to tell the government what it could not do, because nothing in the Constitution gave the government the right to interfere with civil rights in the first place.

Even though I'm not necessarily convinced that the election of Madison to a particular seat in the house of Representatives saved the nation, Founding Rivals is excellent history. These two extraordinary gentlemen lived lives of distinction, lives worth noting. Madison's views on the hypocrisy of slavery are particularly impressive considering the time in which he lived. DeRose's account follows the lives of these two admirable men through some of the most critical periods of American history, giving readers an education on what the government was like between Revolution and the Constitution. Moreover, the relationship between these two men is a standing reproach to the narrowminded, vicious, petty, and pathetically partisan politics of two. Witness here a friendship that survived political combat, and be reminded of the principles of good government -- not just the rights we value through political philosophy, but our approach to people. Though disagreeing on the Constitution, these two were united in their civil-mindedness, their tolerance of one another's opinions, and their sincere commitment to the common good.

[Lee · Rating 4 out of 5]

An unusual, not all politics, story of both of these gentlemen. If your interested in the story of our country, I recommend.

[Brett Milam · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you followed my book reviews last year, I’ve been keyed into the founding period of the United States, as I find the perilous nature of the country’s formation to be highly interesting, and informative. I’m not sure people quite appreciate just how fraught and tenuous the situation was at the founding of the country from the moment of the Declaration of Independence in 1776 to when the United States Constitution was ratified in 1788 (and even thereafter). Or how radical a departure of societal and governmental organization the United States was from what preceded it. While there are all kinds of holes to poke in the fabric established at the founding, mainly the existence of slaves, and women being denied rights, I still think that radical departure from the norm of human societies up to that point should be recognized for how extraordinary it was.

And in my latest book read (well, listen since it was an audiobook) on the founding period was Chris DeRose’s 2011 book, Founding Rivals: Madison vs. Monroe, the Bill of Rights and the Election That Saved a Nation. The main thesis of DeRose’s book is that Virginia’s 5th Congressional House Race in 1789 between James Madison and James Monroe, between a federalist and an anti-federalist, was a pivotal turning point for the United States, and shored up its future as a free one, and the one we recognize today.

It should also be noted, as it was by DeRose, that there has not since been any House race that can match these two candidates in terms of credentials, nor in the fact that both went on to be presidents. I mean, Madison is essentially the father of the Constitution, and was so well-versed in the history of republics, governments, laws, and rights, that he would often be speaking to himself in letters ostensibly between President George Washington and the Congress. And Monroe was no slouch, either. He fought at such a young age in the American Revolutionary War, escaping certain death on the battlefield, and rose up the ranks of the military, and later public service.

The two friends turned political rivals were divided on a rather important question: To ratify the United States Constitution or not, and also, whether to add a Bill of Rights to the Constitution, and if so, how to do it.

Monroe, Patrick Henry, and the other anti-federalists, believed that the Articles of Confederation were sufficient, and that the new scheme devised by Madison and others at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention gave far too much power to the federal government. As DeRose noted, it is extraordinary to consider that Monroe would later become president, and be the only president to date (one could argue about Trump on this one) who opposed the United States Constitution, but had to swear to uphold it while in office. The anti-federalists also worried, for good reason, that the existence of the presidency would pave the way to the presidency sliding into a monarchy.

Madison, and the federalists, however, saw that the country was not functioning at capacity under the Articles of Confederation. They were weak and exposed to foreign threats, both from the British, and from Spain playing off of land issues related to the Mississippi River. The federal government under the Articles had no way to compel the states to do anything. The Constitution would ensure a stronger federal government, a stronger revenue system, and still safeguard certain rights against government encroachment.

DeRose expertly sketched how pathetically weak the federal government was under the Articles of Confederation by pointing out, for example, that tiny little Rhode Island was bucking the government, and I learned, sea captains literally raised the flag of Rhode Island in defiance. In another example, a Sheriff in Chester, Pennsylvania was able to thwart the federal government’s edict regarding the British.

Interestingly, when it came time to campaign, Madison, who originally didn’t think it was worth risking more conventions to include a Bill of Rights, promised to do so through the new Congress, if elected to the House.

Just like today, the founders, contrary to popular myth-making and idolatry, were not in agreement, clearly, about the future direction of the country, or its organizing principles. There were stark lines between the federalists and the anti-federalists, which itself was a microcosm of divisions that still rear their head today: Between the North and the South (although, now it’s more like “rural” vs. “urban” or “coastal elites” vs. “flyover country”), and between the federal government and the states.

Before we got to the campaign for the election and its outcome, DeRose traced the history of both men, their rise to prominence, and the “peril at every turn” of the new country.

I particularly like pausing to think about three things when thinking about the founding: 1.) how young these people were that we’re talking about, anywhere between 17-years-old (fighting in the Revolutionary War) and 33-years-old (Jefferson’s age when writing the Declaration of Independence); 2.) how seemingly out of nowhere Monroe and Madison found their footing in the new country; as DeRose noted, both seemed destined for “unremarkable lives,” but through ingenuity, a duty to service and patriotism, happenstance, and certainly, the foundation laid by their ancestors, they rose to prominence; and 3.) how truly radical and extraordinary, despite his faults, George Washington was in the history of the world, not just the country. He not only relinquished power once (as a general), but twice (as president, establishing the norm of two terms).

To the Washington point, it really can’t be emphasized enough how important he was — as much as we want to avoid the great man theory of history — to the success of the new country. Aside from the aforementioned, how important the fact of him coming to the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention was to its success. By having Washington at the Convention, it signaled to the delegates of the other states that the Convention was credible. They needed his buy-in.

Of course, it was all pretense anyway. Madison and the other federalists were ostensibly meeting to “revise” the existing Articles of Confederation, but they really sought to create a new constitution entirely.

DeRose spent considerable, and interesting time, going into the nitty-gritty of the debates the delegates had, particularly Madison and Henry, and again, I find it always worthwhile to remember how much they disagreed! Henry even disagreed with the preamble to the Constitution because he didn’t like that these delegates were appropriating the “people” for their bidding.

Moreover, DeRose highlighted the irony of the United States Constitution: Its success was largely thanks to Virginians Monroe (the father of the Constitution) and Washington (for his credibility), and the state itself ratifying it; and that the Southern states were particularly interested in having a strong national government at the time. Fast forward a mere 73 years later, and Virginia was one of the Confederate states that seceded from the Union in the American Civil War (and became the site of the capital, no less), and the South’s frustration was with a strong national government telling them what to do!

Another aspect of the Madison and Monroe campaign for the House was that it was a campaign at all! Before that, candidates didn’t really campaign for seats it seems. Instead, voters would vote based on the reputation and character of the person. But in this race, the two campaigned around the state, where Madison even got frostbite on his nose, and they campaigned on issues (the Constitution, and direct taxation). They also debated! For hours! Can you imagine that in the modern day? The other aspect of the time then that I couldn’t imagine today (although there’s a form of it in the Iowa caucus) is going to a polling place and announcing to everyone who I am voting for, and even offering a rational.

The best part? Even after Madison won the race comfortably, they remained friends for another four and a half decades. Which maybe is less common today, but it used to be the case that politicians could be “political rivals” while still being cordial with each other as human beings, and even be friends.

As DeRose argued in the book, Madison’s win then meant the passage of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution, and the country we know today. Because in DeRose’s argument, he can’t imagine anyone else who would be able to convince and compromise with so many varying factions on the Bill of Rights, and that it took a federalist to do it. So, it certainly wouldn’t have happened if an anti-federalist like Monroe was in office, and DeRose also doesn’t think any other federalist could have gotten the Bill of Rights (or the Constitution itself, for that matter) through the Congress and the states.

In fact, interestingly, while DeRose said Henry was often acknowledged as the greatest orator of his time, he quoted another figure who said that Madison was the greatest orator he’d ever heard, if you base oratory on the ability to persuade. On that score, nobody could touch Madison.

An aside here, but I also just find it really interesting how weird history is when you look closer: Madison and Monroe were both friends with Thomas Jefferson; Jefferson became president and served for two terms between 1801 and 1809; then, Madison served between 1809 and 1817; and finally, Monroe served from 1817 until 1825. Pretty wild, huh? And John Adams, the second president who preceded Jefferson, him and Jefferson both died on July 4th, 50 years to the date of Jefferson writing the Declaration of Independence. I love the historical poetry of that.

Anyhow, one of my key takeaways from learning about Madison is how vital religious liberty was to him. Like with the founding period itself, I think we forget, or are ignorant of, the history of humanity before the United States Constitution, or even the recent history before the Revolutionary War: That in the colonies under British rule, Baptists were literally beaten, punished, and jailed for praying differently, or as they charged them, “for disturbing the peace and order of things.”

Gotta love that First Amendment! And if I remember correctly from the book, Baptists were actually important to Madison’s victory in the House race.

If you’re as interested in learning more about the founding period of the United States, I highly recommend this rather unique lens DeRose provides, and the importance he placed on a single House Race as a being a bellwether for the United States. In general, DeRose said (and other historians have echoed this sentiment) less focus is placed on House races just by the nature of the beast: the Senate is seen as the more important house of Congress (a reversal from the founding period!), and of course, the presidency predominates.

But DeRose made a compelling and convincing case that, if nothing else, we should at least care about Virginia’s 5th Congressional House District race in 1789.

And as always with an audiobook, shout-out to Adam Verner for doing a commendable job reading the book.

[Calvyn]

James Madison and James Monroe, allies and opponents. althought the following excerpts do not capture their relationship or views in any understandable form, I found considered thought wisdom in their words.

(at 77)
And service to Congress gave Monroe something else, too--the opportunity to see his country's political problems from the federal perspective. Jefferson (undoubtedly in reference to Monroe among others) wrote, "I see the best effects produced by sending our young statesmen here. They see the affairs of the confederacy from a high ground; they learn the importance of the union and befriend federal measures when they return. Those who never come here, see our affairs insulated, pursue a system of healousy and self interest, and distract the union as much as they can."

(at 100-1)
...[Patrick] Henry and other supporters of the religious establsihment believed that morality in the commonwealth had declined since the Revolution; they saw state-funded religion as a tool for reversing the moral decline. Henry argued that the public would benefit from the revitalization of the church, and thus of public morality, and that therefore the public should also bear the financial burden of supporting the church.
Madison saw this debate as fundamental to Virginia's future, and he brought his usual level of focused, meticulous preparation to it. He was always a well-prepared participant in any debate, researching the history of each issue and exploring all of the possible arguments that might be offered for and against a measure.
The words of the debate were not recorded, but Madison's notes provide insight. If virginia could tzx citizens in order to support the church, Madions argued, then religious matters could become subject to the courts' jurisdiction. Should Virginia courts really be deciding diputes among believers? What edition of the Bible should be used...
These were matters of individual conscience, Madison believed, not for courts or lawmakers to decide. Man has a propensity for religion, Madison argued, and state sanction is not necessary for its promotion. Besides, state-established religion was highly susceptible to corruption.
As Madison fought his own battle on religious freedom in Virginia, he cheered Madison for defeating a measure that would have allowed state-sanctoned religious denominations in the Western territory.....
[Madison argued]"Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, to the excluson of all other sects?"

(at 103)
The dissenters in Culpepper [County] flexed their muscles to unseat a delegate who supported the establishment. Culpepper would later be the largest county in Virginia's 5th district where Madison and Munroe ran for a place in the First Congress under the Constitutution. Madison's success in winning support from the dissenters in 1789 would ultimately secure his victory over Monroe. And it was Madison's backing of religious freedom in 1785 that made those dissenters his supporters. For the time being, however, Madison was pleased to report to Monroe that many new members of the legislature had won elections by campaigning against the general assessment and establishment of religion, while a number of incumbents had lost their seats for supporting these measures.

(at 123)
One characteristic of the failed governments Madison studied, from the Achaean League of the Belgic Confederacy, was paralysis. They were unable to get things done. The Achaeans required the agreement of ten of twelve members, and the Belgic Confederacy required uananimous consent. The Belgic Confederacy consisted of fifty-two independent cities and seven provinces. Thus foreign powers and enemies needed co-opt only one city or province out of fifty-nine to get their way. It was exactly what both madison and Monroe had continually experienced in Congress. A minority of states, or even one single state, putting regional concerns above the common good, could prevent the government from acting.

(at 126)
.... [George Washington] hoped the national government "may be considered with that calm and deliberate attention which the magnitude of it so loudly calls for at this critical moment: let prejudices, unreasonable jealousies, and local interest yield to reason and liberality. Let us look to our national character, and to things beyond the present period. No morn ever dawned more favorably than ours did--and no day was ever more clouded than the present."

(at 136)
Finally on May 25, 1787, the Convention at Philadelphia reached a quorum.

Madison was impressed by the caliber of those in attendance and took their prestige as a sign that both they and those who had sent them were taking the Convention seriously. "It contains in several instances the most respectable characters in the US and in general may be said to be the best contribution of talents the states could make for the occasion," Madison thought. "But the labor is great indeed; whether we consider the real or imaginary difficulties, within doors or without doors."

On May 27, Washington was the unanimous choice to chair the Convention....

Washington's prestige was absolutely necessary to success at Philadelphia. but Madison provided the historical research, the broad knowledge of political philosophy, and above all thorough preparation and planning that made the ultimate results of the Constitutional convention possible.

(at 140)
Madison's VIrginia Plan was ambitious--and unlike anything that had been tried before anywhere in the world. It was an attempt to form a new government in light of the best and worst of mankind's previous endeavors, from the recent experiments in the states to the ancient experiences of governments gone by. It was a delicate balance of competing interests poised against one another in order to protect the rights of all.
For example, while Madison favored a House of Representatives that reflected the will of the people, he wanted a Senate that had some autonomy and could act as a check on the House. The division of power that he proposed was developed in light of the fact that power corrupts; those in power are always tempted to act in self-interest. ..

(at 161)
Madison believed that the 1787 convention had succeeded because of the temperament of the participants. Statesmen who put the national interest ahead of regional concerns and selfish personal ambition had come together in Philadelphia with the honest intention of repairing the flaws in the general government of the United States. If a second convention should meet, even if it were wiser than the first, "the game would be easy as it would be obvious," Madison thought. Opponents to the union were sure to be elected. They would propose ideas unacceptable to other regions of the country with the express purpose of causing the convention to fall apart.

(at 164)
Monroe concluded his "Observations" with an appeal: "To the people of America, to you it belongs to correct the opposite extremes. To form a government that shall shield you from dangers from abroad, promote your general and local interests, protect in safety the life, liberty, and property, of the peaceful, the virtuous, and the weak." Monroe knew that his position would place him at odds with some of his oldest and dearest and [sic] friends and political allies. "To differ in any respect from these men is no pleasant thing to me; but being called upon an awful stage upon which I must now bear a part, I have thought it my duty to explain to you the principles on which my opinions were founded."

(at 205-6)
Patrick Henry stood astride the House of Representatives like a collossus. He was surrounded by a loyal pack of followers, and those who could not be led by other means were bullied, threatened, and intimidated. Members who still stood in his way were trampled underfoot. Defeat was as unfamiliar to Henry as it was unwelcome, and the victory of the Federalist party at the ratification convention had been a severe blow....

(at 228-9)
...[Madison] freely admitted that hed did not see the same dangers in the new Constitution as some others did. Madiosn also admitted to having opposed amendments before the ratification process was complete. He had believed a second convention or conditional ratification to be dangerous.

But Virginia had ratified the Constitution, and "[c]ircumstances are now changed," Madison wrote. Amendments, he said, "if [they are] pursued with a proper moderation and in a proper mode, will be not only safe, but may serve the double purpose of satisfying the minds of well meaning opponents, and of providing additonal guards in favor of liberty." Now, he explained, "it is my sincere opinion that the Constitution ought to be revised, and that the first Congress meeting under it ought to prepare and recommend to the states for ratification, the most satisfactory provisions for all essential rights, particularly the rights of conscience in the fullest latitude, the freedom of the press, trials by jury, security against general warrants, etc."


(at 244 / election of 1789)
Although law prevented the elction from lasting more than one day, some sheriff's kept the polls open for as many as three. The weather had been miserable, with freezing winds and low temperatures. Traveling to vote was difficult, and the extended deadline for voters allowed many people to participate in the election who otherwise would not have been able to cast their votes.

The secret ballot seems so fundamental today that few can imagine voting in any other matter. If surveyed, most Americans would probably say that such a right is guaranteed by the constitution. The secret ballot makes voter intimidations more difficult by allowing people the right to exercise their vote without the knowledge of their friends, family, employers, or their labor unions. It was not until Grover cleveland's comeback in 1892, however, that all states guaranteed a secret ballot to general election voters. to this day the constitution of West virginia allows voters the right, if they choose, to vote orally and openly. And that famous quadrennial exercise in democracy known as the Iowa Caucus still requires people to advocate publicly for their candidate of choice. so it was in this election

[More to come. Later.]

[Keith Kirby · Rating 5 out of 5]

The nature of people has not changed much since the late 18th century when politicians with diverse opinions and desires schemed to see their views accomplished. Some disagreements were between those who genuinely seemed to have laudable intentions. Others were selfishly motivated.
This book is a great look at the art of compromise that had a distinct impact on our country.

[David Haws · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting monograph; scholarly, accessible, and only occasionally pedantic.

[Ed Callahan · Rating 2 out of 5]

The best way to approach this book is to see it as an example of a big porch attached to a little house. Big porches should not only attract visitors, they should draw them in to explore what should be a big house filled with many things. A big porch attached to a small house is always a disappointment.

The vast majority of it is interesting, especially in terms of the friendship which developed between Madison and Monroe. But the author's argument that the election of 1789 and the pivotal role which Madison played in drafting the Bill of Rights ultimately prove peripheral to the overall book. This is sad. The Bill of Rights receives little coverage, little analysis of the individual component parts is present. This is a serious omission because it deprives us of insight into the concerns of the individual states.

DeRose enthusiastically argues that Madison's election to the first Congress under the new Constitution was critical to the success not only of the document but also to the new Federal government it created. He hints here and there that things would have fallen apart had the election in Virginia sent Monroe to Congress. But he is very unclear as to why he believes this. Was it simply a matter of Monroe's Anti-Federalist sympathies? Did Anti-Federalists truly present a potential majority in the new Congress sufficient enough to scuttle the whole project?

Not all is lost. DeRose devotes considerable time and space to illustrating the faults and failings of the Articles of Confederation. United States historians have long recognized Madison's role in the drafting of the Constitution. DeRose helpfully gives us insight into Monroe's role in Virginia's debates over ratification. But as for the Constitution itself, DeRose maddeningly glides over significant issues. For example, the 3/5 Compromise is summed up in a single sentence with no real examination of the representation and taxation issues at stake for both Northern and Southern states. The particulars of the Virginia Plan receive far more consideration than the New Jersey Plan, again depriving the reader, or amateur historian, of insight into the concerns at stake. In fact, the entire New Jersey Plan is dismissed with the comment that it "closely followed the Articles of Confederation." The reader is left clueless as to what DeRose means by this.

All of this exhibits a particular rhetorical strategy adopted by DeRose: unless Madison or Monroe left their fingerprints on the matter, the matter is dismissed as less relevant. At what point, then does this cross over from history into hagiagraphy? DeRose seems at times to sense he is moving dangerously close, and observes multiple times that Madison did not consider the Constitution to be divinely ordained or without flaws. This is a helpful corrective against those who feel that the Constitution was sent down from heaven. The reality is quite different: it is the result of compromises, attempts to reconcile deep differences over the nature of the body politic and the social contract, and, in the case of slavery, punting.

Were I looking for a book which would outline the relationship between Madison and Monroe, perhaps even one which would help students understand the Articles of Confederation, this book would be a recommendation. But it is not a source I would turn to for deeper insight into the Constitution or even the Bill of Rights. Despite promise of the title and introduction, the big porch designed to draw the reader in, once the reader gets through the front door, there's not much of a house here to explore.

[Bill · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book reveals the long forgotten but significant election that would send James Madison to Congress from Virginia's 5th Congressional district. While I consider myself an amateur student of history this story was unknown by me. It was the first election after the ratification of the Constitution. The author persuasively contends had Madison not won we would not have had the Bill of Rights. His opponent was his good friend, James Monroe. Then a Federalist, Madison had let the effort to secure Virginia's ratification of the Constituion. The Anti-Federalists, led by Patrick Henry, hoped to force significant revsions by sending their people to the First Congress. The significant contributions that both Madison and Monroe made to the nation's founding are detailed.

[Mel Foster · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a great concept for a book, and well written!

[Chaston Kome · Rating 3 out of 5]

While DeRose writes in an unpretentious style, this is very much a second-rate history. Much of this feels like it could have been gleaned from a thorough reading of Wikipedia, which makes for some interesting asides whenever DeRose decides he wants to talk about something he found cool. But his book also contains lengthy bits on how he figures people must have felt, which suggests to me the research is not quite deep enough to justify the passages.

[lifelongreader · Rating 4 out of 5]

With this compelling prose, I was transported back to the times of this once young, budding nation. To re-live those frantic times filled me with a rush, zipping through the pages in order to stumble across the final results of a pivotal time. An unforgettable book about a seemingly forgotten time.

(4.5/5)

[Jim Blessing · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a great book mainly about James Madison. It discussed a little known election between Madison and Monroe for Congressman. Madison was THE major player in the creation of our government. Great reading!

[Riq Hoelle · Rating 4 out of 5]

Going in I don't buy for a minute the premise of this book, that had Monroe defeated Madison in their election for the First Congress we would never have had the Bill of Rights. There were plenty of others capable of writing amendments. Plus, the amendments hardly entered the constitiution in the form or extent that they came from Madison. Not to mention that there are all kinds of other what-ifs. What if King Charles I hadn't lost the English Civil War? Then Monroe's ancestor would never have come to America so that his descendant could run against Madison. What if Queen Elizabeth I had not died childless? Then the Stuarts would never have come to the throne and King Charles would never have caused a civil war for him to lose. You can go back endlessly with this. BUT... if this is what it takes to get a book that delves into the Congressional contest between Madison and Monroe, I AM ALL IN! (even if I have to skip a few chapters)

Early on it seems like I should probably skip a few chapters. I like the discussion of the ancestries of Madison and Monroe and their early lives, but could do without the recounting of well-known events like the Battles of Lexington and Concord, for example. I very much doubt that this will be the first book about the founders and the Revolution that anyone will read, so it's a bit tedious to revisit all that ground here.

I did go ahead and skip almost all the chapters to go directly the election. Having read biographies of both men, I don't feel I missed anything. The election chapter was detailed and good. I would have even liked more detailed, like a day to day account of what they did. It was most fascinating that the two candidates rode to most campaign stops together, spending hours and hours in one another's company! How many people would do that these days I wonder. And how many have had to contend for an election in January for a February 2 election?

The activities in the First Congress also make for interesting reading.

I think I would have framed this book differently. Since so many know their biographies, I would have omitted that part and instead delved in further detail into the lesser known story of their rivalry for the presidency and days of working together in the adminisration.

Puzzled by the book's statement that in the First Congress the Senate was larger than the House. The Senate had, after North Carolina and Rhode Island joined, 26 members. The House had 65 members. Is it talking about a buildig or room? But who would care about that?

After finishing from that point, started reading backwards, chapter by chapter, from the Congressional election chapter.

Interesting discussion of Monroe's evolution in his view of the Constitution, many of which proved prophetic, although he had some errors as well. Good point about his being the only president to oppose the Constitution.

On p. 21 and in the index, misspells "John Dickinson".

The skimpiness of treatments of topics such as the Battle of Monmouth and the Constitutional Convention cause misleading statements. Books on Monmouth do not blame General Charles Lee the way this book does. Madison's Hand, the book on the Constitutional Convention, reveals a different reality than the one presented here. Why are these excursions being provided at all if they are not going to be presented in sufficient detail to make them accurate?

Congressman David Howell is painted in a very negative light, but later on
President Madison would appoint him to a judgeship. So the enmity between them
must not have been *that* strong.

[Jeff · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed this read about Madison's and Monroe's relationship, rivalry, and the impact of such on the development and ratification of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. The second half of the book read much faster than the first, and I especially appreciated the chapter regarding the election between Madison and Monroe that would determine representation at the Constitutional convention, and ultimately the narrow vote for ratification in which Madison was wholly instrumental. I also appreciated learning much more about the life and character of Monroe.

A few of my favorite finds in the book's pages that remain relevant for our day:

"And service in Congress gave Monroe something else, too - the opportunity to see his country's political problems from the federal perspective. Jefferson wrote, 'I see the best effects produced by sending our young statesmen here. They see the affairs of the Confederacy from a high ground; they learn the importance of the union and befriend federal measures when they return. Those who never come here, see our affairs insulated, pursue a system of jealousy and self interest, and distract the union as much as they can'."

"Madison also checked in on Monroe's in-laws. They were well, he reported, 'but full of complaints against your epistolary failures. I became your apologist as far as I could, but have agreed to give you up if you do not give future proofs of repentance and amendment'." English as once spoken, and wish it were still.

"Considering the impasse the delegates had reached, Franklin wanted to know why they had not appealed to God. He asked why the delegates had not 'once though of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings?' He continued: In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection. Our prayers, sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a SUPERINTENDING Providence in our favor. To that kind Providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance? I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth - that God governs in the affairs of men."

Benjamin Franklin: "I confess that there are several parts of the Constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them. For, having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that, the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others." Such contrast with contemporary politics and easy charges of "flip flopping," and egotistical emphasis on "I alone" being able to lead, solve problems, etc.

"Madison argued that true religious freedom came from a multiplicity of sects, where no denomination could form a majority to 'oppress and persecute the rest.' He believed that the diverse patchwork of religious denominations across the American states was a better guarantee of religious freedom than any explicit constitutional language would be."

"Virginia had not been the state whose ratification brought the new government into existence. But the Virginia delegates were certainly, more than those of any other state, the ones that ensured the Constitution - and perhaps even the Union - would live into the future."

"This little known epoch, when the Constitution itself hung in the balance, has faded from memory, obscured by the great events that preceded and followed it. Filling the void is the myth that America's Founders were all-knowing, and therefore always agreeing - a band of demigods who always recognized and always chose the right."

[Thom · Rating 3 out of 5]

A great story... reasonably told.

In his first published book, Mr. DeRose has found a really interesting story about one of those key moments in time, when if things had gone differently, so much would likely have changed. Fortunately he avoids the temptation of trying to describe what those differences might have been, simply allowing the reader to imagine - what IF James Madison had not been elected to the first House of Representatives?

At first glance it seems like a small thing, but so many critical decisions were made in that first Congress, and the chance for Madison's election was actually not very certain. Anti-federalists in Virginia had successfully gerrymandered his district to make it very difficult for him, and they had persuaded a young rising star in the world, none other than James Monroe, to run against him. The campaign resembled a modern campaign in many ways, with active campaign speeches and even debates, a highly engaged press, and public appearances by both candidates. This was quite unusual in a time when most candidates "stood" for election (almost literally) rather than "ran."

The first part of the book is devoted to telling the story in parallel of the rise of these two politicians. The two ultimately strike up a correspondence and a friendship of sorts develops. Perhaps it would better be described as a mentoring relationship (Madison was older). It is an interesting and important part of the story, but not terribly exciting. It shows how friendships can survive political rivalries, setting a modern reminder for us as we consider our current representatives.

The pace of the story (and the storytelling) picks up with the ratification debate and the first Congressional election. I did not realize how close a matter it was when Virginia debated the ratification, and I was surprised to learn of Monroe's anti-Federalist position. Patrick Henry, who had always been somewhat of a caricature to me, emerges as a bombastic demagogue of sorts, and a powerful one in his circle of Virginia.

Another critical element in the story is Madison's commitment to religious liberty, an ideal he shared with Thomas Jefferson. The struggle in Virginia between the Anglicans, who favored an established church, and the Baptists, who opposed it, played a role in the election. Baptists, who had even been subject to some persecution in parts of Virginia, appreciated Madison's efforts to prevent the establishment of a religion in Virginia and came out to support him in the critical election.

DeRose does engage at times in a sort of hagiographic style of writing which rankled a bit. There is a fine line between due praise and hagiography which I have not been able to define, only discern. Mr. DeRose crosses the line on a few occasions, particularly in his conclusion. That and the publisher's clever decision to create a title and cover that mimics that of Joseph Ellis' popular books about the early history of the United States ("Founding Brothers" and "The Quartet") niggled my conscience.

So, three stars in the end for these offsetting facets.

[Paul Lunger · Rating 3 out of 5]

Chris DeRose's "Founding Rivals: Madison vs Monroe, The Bill of Rights and The Election that Saved a Nation" is a book which means well, but honestly in some cases could've been summarized in a lot less than 300 pages. The book's title references the 1789 Congressional election for Virginia's 5th district which pits what would be 2 future US Presidents against each other. DeRose takes us down the road w/ both James Madison & James Monroe's lives from the Revolutionary War through the creation of the US Constitution along w/ it's ratification. The book itself at times is interesting as we the reader see the process getting to this point; however, the focus on that Congressional election decided by 336 votes gets kind of glossed over toward the end of the book. Granted had James Monroe won that election the Bill of Rights as we know it may never have come into existence, but at times even that election & it's outcome seem an afterthought to this book which probably could've been much shorter than what it was.

[J. David Knecht · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very interesting book and good source work by the author to give lots of detail to this account. I don’t think the author proves his thesis well, to do so he would have had to do more work with counterfactuals. That being said, I learned much about Monroe from the book especially about his earlier life and the accounts of how he cheated death were especially gripping. It’s almost s as if Monroe overshadowed Madison in the book, which may not be a reflection of the actual truth of the effect of their careers on the development of our nation. I felt as if the book never really put all the pieces together. This sounds harsher than I want it to, because it’s a very readable and informative work.

[Peter · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Writer Chris DeRose’s book, Founding Rivals: Madison vs Monroe, The Bill of Rights, and the Election That Saved A Nation is focused on the congressional election of 1789 in Virginia. The congressional election was in a mainly anti-Federalist region of Virginia known as the Fifth District of Virginia (De Rose 219). Anti-Federalists were people who were skeptical in the late 18th Century of the United States Constitution. James Madison was a huge supporter of the American Constitution. Madison is labeled “the Father of the Constitution” after all (DeRose 141). I read the book on my Kindle. Madison’s friend, James Monroe was skeptical of the Constitution. Monroe believed that the American Constitution needed amendments to protect the rights of Americans from the federal government. By the time of the election of 1789, Madison came to agree with Monroe (DeRose 232). There were still “significant political differences” between Madison and Monroe in the congressional election of 1789 (DeRose 232). Monroe was running as the anti-Federalist candidate who was skeptical of the Constitution. DeRose feels that the election of 1789 was important because only a Federalist with the political stature of James Madison could convince his fellow Federalists that adding a bill of rights to the Constitution was necessary (De Rose 258-259). Chris DeRose’s Founding Rivals is an interesting book about a significant congressional race that shaped American political history.

[Hank Pharis · Rating 2 out of 5]

(NOTE: I'm stingy with stars. For me 2 stars means a good book or a B. 3 stars means a very good book or a B+. 4 stars means an outstanding book or an A {only about 5% of the books I read merit 4 stars}. 5 stars means an all time favorite or an A+ {Only one of 400 or 500 books rates this!).

Madison and Monroe began as rivals but eventually ended up something like an older and younger brother. They were both mentored by Thomas Jefferson but Madison also mentored Monroe. They both amounted to more because of their relationship. And they both made significant contributions to the founding of our country. I hope to do a real review of this book someday.

[Tracy A. Cerise · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting look at the founding of a nation unlike any other in the history of the world. As all history, it can be dry at times, but it is interesting to see the interplay from all the different men who through their blood, courage and determination forged a new nation. It was interesting to learn how each man knew the other, their strengths and weaknesses, and how, in the end it really is almost divine providence that prevailed to ensure the freest nation on earth would have a guiding document that passes the test of time.

Now if only the people who use the protections of this constitution most egregiously don't render it impotent and throw away all the freedoms that it set out to ensure for everyone.

[Amy · Rating 3 out of 5]

With Hamilton rather stealing the spotlight in recent years, it was fun to go back to 2011 when no one really cared about him and focus on a different rivalry. I think I was expecting more time spent on Madison and Monroe as presidents, since for some reason that's what I associate them with. But it was fascinating reading about them as young men during the Revolutionary War and then statesmen with the fight for the Bill of Rights.

Solid history if you like reading about founding documents and early infighting. Not as engaging as an audiobook as I'd hoped.

[Lew Kaye-skinner · Rating 4 out of 5]

Much of this book covers matters that were part of my American History class close to 50 years ago. However, I'm absolutely certain that it's not just my aging memory that accounts for so much here that we never covered back then. Though we know the end of the story, that both Madison and Monroe became President, it's still fascinating to read about how the earlier rivalry (and friendship) so deeply affected the course of history. Even if your memory of high school American History is much clearer than mine, this book is well worth the read.

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent read that tells the early political lives of two of our Presidents - Madison and Monroe. The book covers their friendship and rivalry. The books passes through the American Revolution, the Continental Congress, the Congress under the Articles of Confederation, the Constitutional Convention and the first Congress. The highlight of the book is the first race for the 5th District of Virginia - when Madison and Monroe ran against one another. A nice deep dive into an early part of U.S. history.

[Frank Duke · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very readable dual biography of Presidents Madison and Monroe, centered on their opposition when it came to support for the Constitution; Madison (as the primary author of the document) supported it while Monroe opposed its ratification. The culmination of the story is their race against one another in the 1789 election for Congress from Virginia's Fifth Congressional District. All in all, a good book despite the author at times forgetting he is writing history and injecting his own (very conservative) political views into the text.

[Patrick Macke · Rating 3 out of 5]

The subject can be tedious ... this is really a book about the Constitution and the Constitutional Convention and on that subject, there are better works ... there is very little here that speaks of "rivalry," rather it is a story of friendship and respect ... the book is a reminder about two things: 1. the genius of James Madison and 2. how tenuous is the establishment of a free democratic society and how very, very close the American experiment came to never getting off the ground