What do you think?
Rate this book
James Madison: America's First Politician
An intellectual biography of James Madison, arguing that he invented American politics as we know it
How do you solve a problem like James Madison? The fourth president is one of the most confounding figures in early American history; his political trajectory seems almost intentionally inconsistent. He was both for and against a strong federal government. He wrote about the dangers of political parties in the Federalist Papers and then helped to found the Republican Party just a few years later. This so-called Madison problem has occupied scholars for ages.
As Jay Cost shows in this incisive new biography, the underlying logic of Madison’s seemingly mixed record comes into focus only when we understand him primarily as a working politician. Whereas other founders split their time between politics and other vocations, Madison dedicated himself singularly to the work of politics and ultimately developed it into a distinctly American idiom. He was, in short, the first American politician.
How do you solve a problem like James Madison? The fourth president is one of the most confounding figures in early American history; his political trajectory seems almost intentionally inconsistent. He was both for and against a strong federal government. He wrote about the dangers of political parties in the Federalist Papers and then helped to found the Republican Party just a few years later. This so-called Madison problem has occupied scholars for ages.
As Jay Cost shows in this incisive new biography, the underlying logic of Madison’s seemingly mixed record comes into focus only when we understand him primarily as a working politician. Whereas other founders split their time between politics and other vocations, Madison dedicated himself singularly to the work of politics and ultimately developed it into a distinctly American idiom. He was, in short, the first American politician.
464 pages, Hardcover
First published November 2, 2021
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 72 reviews
January 5, 2022
This very good book may not be the best of the many that have been written about James Madison in recent years. Nonetheless, it may still be the best option for many readers. More thoughtful and intellectual than Lynne Cheney's James Madison: A Life Reconsidered, and more readable and accessible than Noah Feldman's The Three Lives of James Madison: Genius, Partisan, President, this book occupies something of a satisfactory middle ground that makes it a good choice for anyone interested in a well-written, well-reasoned discussion of Madison's life and impact.
Cost’s aim is to smooth out Madison’s rough edges, clarifying his contradictions and complications by positioning him as “America’s first politician.” Other biographers, he writes, "have long struggled to reconcile the seemingly two-faced nature of Madison's politics," as he once advocated for a strong central government but later pivoted toward trying to rein in federal authority. As a result, others tell his story by "periodizing Madison, breaking his life up into discrete, manageable chunks" instead of following his evolution along a single through-line.
By considering Madison as a politician rather than as the original Constitutional originalist, Cost explains his evolution from one who adhered to strict Constitutional orthodoxy, to one who considered the Constitution open to greater interpretation, as a form of political pragmatism rather than treating it as contradictory or hypocritical. In doing so, he argues for the consistency of Madison's beliefs, with a change only in his strategies to defend them, as he sometimes allowed his political goals to dictate his interpretation of what the Constitution allowed.
And Madison’s split with Alexander Hamilton over the appropriate role of the federal government was not a change in his beliefs so much as it was a clarification and refinement of them - believing in a strong central government that derived its power in a bottom-up manner from the people, as Madison did, was not the same as believing in a strong central government that wielded its power from the top down, as Hamilton did (and Cost is decidedly on Team Madison/Jefferson as opposed to Team Hamilton, whom he describes as "half-brilliant, half-mad.”)
It’s not an entirely unique thesis, as one can reach the same conclusion about Madison even by “breaking his life up into discrete, manageable chunks.” But Cost explains it all in a very accessible, non-lawyerly way, breaking down complex topics without getting bogged down in political philosophy and governing theory. He does so with an often casual vernacular that cuts to the chase, such as when he attributes early U.S. support for revolutionary France to a desire for “the French to stick it to those high-handed Brits."
Sometimes the simplification goes a little too far, as when dramatic conflicts are not necessarily described dramatically. The debates over the framing of the Constitution, for example, are related without much tension or suspense. We’re later told that the process of ratification was contentious, but as described, it just kind of happens, as though Cost figures you know how it turned out anyway, so he’s just sort of matter-of-fact about it. And the Compromise of 1790, in which Madison, Jefferson and Hamilton negotiated federal assumption of state debts in exchange for the national capital being located in the South, is described particularly perfunctorily, as Cost waves away the details by writing “regardless of the specifics, a compromise of some sort was hashed out" and then moving on.
It’s when the narrative gets to Madison’s service as Secretary of State and president, though, that Cost seems to start wavering and vacillating in his heretofore straightforward conclusions, as he begins going back and forth between criticizing Madison’s actions and defending them; from refuting others’ critiques to reiterating them. He first bluntly concludes that "Madison was not a very good Secretary of State," largely due to his support for the failed trade embargo against Britain. Becoming president in the midst of this deepening crisis, "he really had nobody to blame but himself," Cost concludes.
But then, in describing how President Madison's first-term agenda is "often criticized for being wobbly and incoherent" and that "the conventional narrative sees Madison as an uncertain leader," he counters that Madison actually had "a clear-eyed view" and his agenda was "firm and precise." Yet he faults Madison for deferring too much to Congress during ensuing negotiations with Britain, but then credits him for ultimately standing up to Britain by declaring war, even though he criticizes Madison for "petition(ing) Congress for a war that the country was not ready to fight." It was “particularly Madison's fault" that the country found itself heading toward war with Britain, "but given the circumstances, the president made the best of a bad diplomatic situation," even though "the ultimate responsibility for these problems rested squarely on the shoulders of James Madison."
It’s a dizzying back-and-forth - just when you think you know where Cost stands on defining Madison or his actions, he’ll go on to argue the opposite. It is possible, indeed responsible, to see both sides of an issue and acknowledge that both can be true to some extent. But here, it seems to come across as mere waffling - trying to have it both ways in order to placate fans and critics alike by giving them both something to agree with.
The ensuing War of 1812 is half-treated as an unnecessary blunder we would have been better off without, and half-treated as an important learning experience for Madison and the country that made us better off in the end. The war exposed many weaknesses in the country’s preparedness, but then Madison was able to focus the rest of his term on addressing those weaknesses by improving the country militarily, financially and infrastructurally.
One last contradiction comes near the end of the book, where Cost attempts to grapple with Madison’s actions - or inactions - regarding slavery. In arguing against the idea of nullification late in life, "Madison employed his reputation as the father of the Constitution to great effect, helping save the Union," Cost writes. Hooray for Madison, then! But that Constitution and the very Union were inherently flawed and conflict was inevitable, Cost argues later, because the Founders allowed the institution of slavery to fester until it took a civil war to end it. "Madison, like all Americans up to the time of that great and terrible war, must take responsibility for this sin. Indeed, he more than most." So, boo for Madison, then?
Overall, the narrative is strong and well-written, and the book will give you a good overview of Madison despite its tendency to make both-sides arguments. Cheney might help you get to know Madison a little more personally, and Feldman will help you get to know him more intellectually, but Cost steers right down the middle. He doesn’t approach his subject with a strong point of view, allowing you to decide for yourself what you think of Madison - and then decide for yourself whether you’re up for further study about a man whose entire life and legacy can’t be adequately summed up in a single book anyway.
Cost’s aim is to smooth out Madison’s rough edges, clarifying his contradictions and complications by positioning him as “America’s first politician.” Other biographers, he writes, "have long struggled to reconcile the seemingly two-faced nature of Madison's politics," as he once advocated for a strong central government but later pivoted toward trying to rein in federal authority. As a result, others tell his story by "periodizing Madison, breaking his life up into discrete, manageable chunks" instead of following his evolution along a single through-line.
By considering Madison as a politician rather than as the original Constitutional originalist, Cost explains his evolution from one who adhered to strict Constitutional orthodoxy, to one who considered the Constitution open to greater interpretation, as a form of political pragmatism rather than treating it as contradictory or hypocritical. In doing so, he argues for the consistency of Madison's beliefs, with a change only in his strategies to defend them, as he sometimes allowed his political goals to dictate his interpretation of what the Constitution allowed.
And Madison’s split with Alexander Hamilton over the appropriate role of the federal government was not a change in his beliefs so much as it was a clarification and refinement of them - believing in a strong central government that derived its power in a bottom-up manner from the people, as Madison did, was not the same as believing in a strong central government that wielded its power from the top down, as Hamilton did (and Cost is decidedly on Team Madison/Jefferson as opposed to Team Hamilton, whom he describes as "half-brilliant, half-mad.”)
It’s not an entirely unique thesis, as one can reach the same conclusion about Madison even by “breaking his life up into discrete, manageable chunks.” But Cost explains it all in a very accessible, non-lawyerly way, breaking down complex topics without getting bogged down in political philosophy and governing theory. He does so with an often casual vernacular that cuts to the chase, such as when he attributes early U.S. support for revolutionary France to a desire for “the French to stick it to those high-handed Brits."
Sometimes the simplification goes a little too far, as when dramatic conflicts are not necessarily described dramatically. The debates over the framing of the Constitution, for example, are related without much tension or suspense. We’re later told that the process of ratification was contentious, but as described, it just kind of happens, as though Cost figures you know how it turned out anyway, so he’s just sort of matter-of-fact about it. And the Compromise of 1790, in which Madison, Jefferson and Hamilton negotiated federal assumption of state debts in exchange for the national capital being located in the South, is described particularly perfunctorily, as Cost waves away the details by writing “regardless of the specifics, a compromise of some sort was hashed out" and then moving on.
It’s when the narrative gets to Madison’s service as Secretary of State and president, though, that Cost seems to start wavering and vacillating in his heretofore straightforward conclusions, as he begins going back and forth between criticizing Madison’s actions and defending them; from refuting others’ critiques to reiterating them. He first bluntly concludes that "Madison was not a very good Secretary of State," largely due to his support for the failed trade embargo against Britain. Becoming president in the midst of this deepening crisis, "he really had nobody to blame but himself," Cost concludes.
But then, in describing how President Madison's first-term agenda is "often criticized for being wobbly and incoherent" and that "the conventional narrative sees Madison as an uncertain leader," he counters that Madison actually had "a clear-eyed view" and his agenda was "firm and precise." Yet he faults Madison for deferring too much to Congress during ensuing negotiations with Britain, but then credits him for ultimately standing up to Britain by declaring war, even though he criticizes Madison for "petition(ing) Congress for a war that the country was not ready to fight." It was “particularly Madison's fault" that the country found itself heading toward war with Britain, "but given the circumstances, the president made the best of a bad diplomatic situation," even though "the ultimate responsibility for these problems rested squarely on the shoulders of James Madison."
It’s a dizzying back-and-forth - just when you think you know where Cost stands on defining Madison or his actions, he’ll go on to argue the opposite. It is possible, indeed responsible, to see both sides of an issue and acknowledge that both can be true to some extent. But here, it seems to come across as mere waffling - trying to have it both ways in order to placate fans and critics alike by giving them both something to agree with.
The ensuing War of 1812 is half-treated as an unnecessary blunder we would have been better off without, and half-treated as an important learning experience for Madison and the country that made us better off in the end. The war exposed many weaknesses in the country’s preparedness, but then Madison was able to focus the rest of his term on addressing those weaknesses by improving the country militarily, financially and infrastructurally.
One last contradiction comes near the end of the book, where Cost attempts to grapple with Madison’s actions - or inactions - regarding slavery. In arguing against the idea of nullification late in life, "Madison employed his reputation as the father of the Constitution to great effect, helping save the Union," Cost writes. Hooray for Madison, then! But that Constitution and the very Union were inherently flawed and conflict was inevitable, Cost argues later, because the Founders allowed the institution of slavery to fester until it took a civil war to end it. "Madison, like all Americans up to the time of that great and terrible war, must take responsibility for this sin. Indeed, he more than most." So, boo for Madison, then?
Overall, the narrative is strong and well-written, and the book will give you a good overview of Madison despite its tendency to make both-sides arguments. Cheney might help you get to know Madison a little more personally, and Feldman will help you get to know him more intellectually, but Cost steers right down the middle. He doesn’t approach his subject with a strong point of view, allowing you to decide for yourself what you think of Madison - and then decide for yourself whether you’re up for further study about a man whose entire life and legacy can’t be adequately summed up in a single book anyway.
October 19, 2022
This was my first full-length James Madison biography to read, so I need to let my thoughts sort out a bit before writing a full review. I found this very informative and well constructed. Very readable and enjoyable as well.
December 17, 2022
I thought this was great. It was very informative and delivered the information. From a readability standpoint it was clear, linear, and persuasive. I say this because upon finishing I felt James Madison a very important Founding Father who contributed a lot to this country.
Jay Cost presented this book from the political view; there was some personal biographical content but not a lot. Cost told Madison's political story in tandem with early American history from his time: colonial Virginia, colonial and post-colonial politics, the Articles of Confederation, and framing and ratification of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Cost also explained the dense subjects of his tenure as Secretary of State, Marbury v. Madison in 1803 and judicial review, the presidential election, the War of 1812, his post-political life during the James Monroe and John Quincy Adams presidencies, his place within the Nullification Crisis, and Madisonian politics throughout his lifetime.
Overall this was great. Of course there was George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, FDR; but I think James Madison is often overlooked as a president and for his contributions to the nation. I would highly recommend this to anyone interested in early American politics. Thanks!
Jay Cost presented this book from the political view; there was some personal biographical content but not a lot. Cost told Madison's political story in tandem with early American history from his time: colonial Virginia, colonial and post-colonial politics, the Articles of Confederation, and framing and ratification of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Cost also explained the dense subjects of his tenure as Secretary of State, Marbury v. Madison in 1803 and judicial review, the presidential election, the War of 1812, his post-political life during the James Monroe and John Quincy Adams presidencies, his place within the Nullification Crisis, and Madisonian politics throughout his lifetime.
Overall this was great. Of course there was George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, FDR; but I think James Madison is often overlooked as a president and for his contributions to the nation. I would highly recommend this to anyone interested in early American politics. Thanks!
November 16, 2021
https://bestpresidentialbios.com/2021...
Jay Cost's hot-off-the-press biography of James Madison is a skillful 399-page examination of Madison’s public life and a compelling exploration of the apparent philosophical inconsistencies exhibited during his lengthy political career.
Readers expecting a thorough introduction to Madison will discover this is less a comprehensive review of his public and private lives than it is a thoughtful exploration of his four decades of public service. Madison is notorious for being “all work and no play” and Cost’s narrative focuses almost exclusively on Madison’s political career. As a result, though, readers hoping for insight into his family life and closest friendships may come away disappointed.
This book’s field-of-view is a bit unusual compared to most presidential biographies. While some excel at placing a biographical subject firmly within the context of “the big picture” and others concentrate on the day-to-day grind of a subject’s life, this biography focuses intensely on neither. Instead, it is superb at capturing everything in between – it shies away from tedious detail, assumes moderate historical fluency by its readers and focuses almost exclusively on events within Madison’s own orbit.
Readers will quickly notice that Cost’s writing style is delightfully straightforward and easy to digest. The book’s fifteen chapters read more like the transcript of an engaging lecture series than a sagacious but irredeemably dry sermon on Madison’s life. And although the narrative never exhibits the eloquent flair of a Ron Chernow biography or the vibrancy of a Candice Millard book, it is extraordinarily comprehensible and revealing.
Among many notable highlights are Cost’s overview of the Constitutional Convention, a chapter describing Madison’s role drafting The Federalist Papers, an excellent comparison of the competing visions of government proposed by Madison and Hamilton and a riveting exploration of Madison’s opposition to Hamilton’s national bank. But the book’s most refreshing strength is the clarity with which it analyzes and explains complicated topics.
The book’s relative brevity and remarkable lucidity come at a price, however, and some readers will desire more insight into Madison’s daily life and personal affairs…and possibly a more explicit connection between his activities and meaningful national and global events (such as the major moments of the Revolutionary War).
Readers hoping to see the world through Madison’s eyes will also be disappointed. This is an interesting intellectual review of Madison’s life as considered from a distance, not a narrative which will leave readers feeling like a fly on the wall in Independence Hall – or in Dolley Madison’s dining room. Finally, Cost’s failure to include more context (and detail) leaves the text feeling over-simplified at times.
Overall, however, Jay Cost’s biography is a valuable addition to the relatively small group of biographies dedicated to James Madison. While providing far more insight into Madison the thinker than the person, it offers an uncommonly enlightening analysis of his political philosophy and public career. And if it isn’t quite the perfect comprehensive introduction to James Madison, it undoubtedly makes a compelling companion biography.
Overall Rating: 4 stars
Jay Cost's hot-off-the-press biography of James Madison is a skillful 399-page examination of Madison’s public life and a compelling exploration of the apparent philosophical inconsistencies exhibited during his lengthy political career.
Readers expecting a thorough introduction to Madison will discover this is less a comprehensive review of his public and private lives than it is a thoughtful exploration of his four decades of public service. Madison is notorious for being “all work and no play” and Cost’s narrative focuses almost exclusively on Madison’s political career. As a result, though, readers hoping for insight into his family life and closest friendships may come away disappointed.
This book’s field-of-view is a bit unusual compared to most presidential biographies. While some excel at placing a biographical subject firmly within the context of “the big picture” and others concentrate on the day-to-day grind of a subject’s life, this biography focuses intensely on neither. Instead, it is superb at capturing everything in between – it shies away from tedious detail, assumes moderate historical fluency by its readers and focuses almost exclusively on events within Madison’s own orbit.
Readers will quickly notice that Cost’s writing style is delightfully straightforward and easy to digest. The book’s fifteen chapters read more like the transcript of an engaging lecture series than a sagacious but irredeemably dry sermon on Madison’s life. And although the narrative never exhibits the eloquent flair of a Ron Chernow biography or the vibrancy of a Candice Millard book, it is extraordinarily comprehensible and revealing.
Among many notable highlights are Cost’s overview of the Constitutional Convention, a chapter describing Madison’s role drafting The Federalist Papers, an excellent comparison of the competing visions of government proposed by Madison and Hamilton and a riveting exploration of Madison’s opposition to Hamilton’s national bank. But the book’s most refreshing strength is the clarity with which it analyzes and explains complicated topics.
The book’s relative brevity and remarkable lucidity come at a price, however, and some readers will desire more insight into Madison’s daily life and personal affairs…and possibly a more explicit connection between his activities and meaningful national and global events (such as the major moments of the Revolutionary War).
Readers hoping to see the world through Madison’s eyes will also be disappointed. This is an interesting intellectual review of Madison’s life as considered from a distance, not a narrative which will leave readers feeling like a fly on the wall in Independence Hall – or in Dolley Madison’s dining room. Finally, Cost’s failure to include more context (and detail) leaves the text feeling over-simplified at times.
Overall, however, Jay Cost’s biography is a valuable addition to the relatively small group of biographies dedicated to James Madison. While providing far more insight into Madison the thinker than the person, it offers an uncommonly enlightening analysis of his political philosophy and public career. And if it isn’t quite the perfect comprehensive introduction to James Madison, it undoubtedly makes a compelling companion biography.
Overall Rating: 4 stars
July 21, 2022
Biography of James Madison, focused on his contributions to the US Constitution, the Federalist Papers, Bill of Rights, and overall political acumen. It follows his career progression through state office in Virginia, member of Congress, Secretary of State, and two terms as President. The interplay among personalities of Madison, Hamilton, and Jefferson are explored in depth. It covers at a high level the War of 1812 and some of the mistakes made by Madison in that conflict. The author takes a fact-based analytical approach, which leaves Madison’s personality in the background. It is not quite as much fun to read as some of my favorite non-fiction wordsmiths, but still insightful and worthwhile.
March 12, 2022
This was one of my most anticipated reads of the year. I was genuinely excited when I picked it up and it was perhaps those high hopes that left me stinging so bad in disappointment. I did not enjoy this at all—and worse, I do not think it does justice to James Madison.
I'm reluctant to post negative reviews. Writing a book is hard. It's a massive accomplishment no matter the outcome. I also never want to discourage someone from reading a book they may really connect with. But since the majority of reviews here are positive, I figure I can safely present a dissenting opinion. Please take it as that and only that—one opinion.
There's a joke about Kansas being so flat that you can watch your dog run away for three days. Reading this book is a road trip through Kansas. It moves in a straight line from one familiar event to the next, passing each marker on the highway for mindnumbing mile after mile. There are no twists, no turns, no surprises, no detours.
A secondary issue in organizing the book this way is that it ends up feeling like a book of American history rather than a true biography. Simply name-dropping Madison in each chapter doesn't make it an actual biography of the man.
When Cost does give Madison the spotlight, the picture falls completely flat. There's no color or dimension, and this gets at the source of my ire—all the makings of a spectacular drama are here yet none of it is brought to life. Madison's friendship with Jefferson was one of the great friendships in history. They left a trove of letters to each other. Pull out the stories and anecdotes that show us who Madison really was. It instead feels detached, cold, distant, metallic.
His feuds with Hamilton were explosive. We don't get any of the fireworks.
And then there's his marriage to Dolley. His courtship of her is given only two pages—two pages! The remainder of her airtime is limited to a few passing comments about what a good socialite she was. That sells her woefully short. She was perhaps one of the most consequential First Ladies ever, largely shaping the role as its understood today. And further, there may be no better way to get to know Madison than by seeing him through Dolley's eyes. Please, please, give us something that makes us feel as though we are reading about human beings.
I think Cost is generally Madison's advocate and wanted to defend him against detractors, but nearly every time Cost pays Madison a compliment, he quickly follows with a put-down. It’s odd. He spends the whole book bouncing between these perspectives, defending him on one hand and cutting him down on the other. It becomes something of a perpetual symphony of the sad trombone. I don't have exact quotes here, but Cost will write things like, It wasn't Madison's best essay. Womp womp womp. It wasn't the best speech he ever gave. Womp womp womp. He wasn't the best Secretary of State. Womp womp womp. His term as President wasn't without mistakes. Womp womp womp. This wet blanket ends up smothering the atmosphere of the book.
I think it can be explained as Cost's attempt to be "balanced" (that dreadfully overused and misunderstood term). I'm not suggesting it need be all sunshine and puppies. There is a way to examine your subject, presenting both their shining features and tarnishing flaws, such that the person is elevated in the mind of the reader due to the authenticity of the portrayal. That note isn't struck effectively here despite the attempt.
I'm reluctant to post negative reviews. Writing a book is hard. It's a massive accomplishment no matter the outcome. I also never want to discourage someone from reading a book they may really connect with. But since the majority of reviews here are positive, I figure I can safely present a dissenting opinion. Please take it as that and only that—one opinion.
There's a joke about Kansas being so flat that you can watch your dog run away for three days. Reading this book is a road trip through Kansas. It moves in a straight line from one familiar event to the next, passing each marker on the highway for mindnumbing mile after mile. There are no twists, no turns, no surprises, no detours.
A secondary issue in organizing the book this way is that it ends up feeling like a book of American history rather than a true biography. Simply name-dropping Madison in each chapter doesn't make it an actual biography of the man.
When Cost does give Madison the spotlight, the picture falls completely flat. There's no color or dimension, and this gets at the source of my ire—all the makings of a spectacular drama are here yet none of it is brought to life. Madison's friendship with Jefferson was one of the great friendships in history. They left a trove of letters to each other. Pull out the stories and anecdotes that show us who Madison really was. It instead feels detached, cold, distant, metallic.
His feuds with Hamilton were explosive. We don't get any of the fireworks.
And then there's his marriage to Dolley. His courtship of her is given only two pages—two pages! The remainder of her airtime is limited to a few passing comments about what a good socialite she was. That sells her woefully short. She was perhaps one of the most consequential First Ladies ever, largely shaping the role as its understood today. And further, there may be no better way to get to know Madison than by seeing him through Dolley's eyes. Please, please, give us something that makes us feel as though we are reading about human beings.
I think Cost is generally Madison's advocate and wanted to defend him against detractors, but nearly every time Cost pays Madison a compliment, he quickly follows with a put-down. It’s odd. He spends the whole book bouncing between these perspectives, defending him on one hand and cutting him down on the other. It becomes something of a perpetual symphony of the sad trombone. I don't have exact quotes here, but Cost will write things like, It wasn't Madison's best essay. Womp womp womp. It wasn't the best speech he ever gave. Womp womp womp. He wasn't the best Secretary of State. Womp womp womp. His term as President wasn't without mistakes. Womp womp womp. This wet blanket ends up smothering the atmosphere of the book.
I think it can be explained as Cost's attempt to be "balanced" (that dreadfully overused and misunderstood term). I'm not suggesting it need be all sunshine and puppies. There is a way to examine your subject, presenting both their shining features and tarnishing flaws, such that the person is elevated in the mind of the reader due to the authenticity of the portrayal. That note isn't struck effectively here despite the attempt.
April 1, 2022
Madison’s political career is full of contradictions (or flip flops in today’s parlance). He advocated for strong central government at the Constitutional Convention and coauthored the Federalist Papers alongside Hamilton to defend the proposed Constitution. But later became a bitter opponent of Hamilton and his agenda to bring that vision to fruition. He practiced politics in such a way to foster a spirit of compromise and search for common ground. Yet he also co-founded his own faction in the Republican Party (referred to today as the Democratic-Republican Party). If the book had a key theme, it is the author’s attempt to explain Madison’s apparent political shifts and tie them into a consistent, overarching political vision of an extended republic that balanced out the narrow-minded views of various factions. In this light, his shift to the Republican opposition was not an attempt to form a faction, but a manifestation of his desire to prevent the establishment of a financial elite/aristocracy that he believed threatened the very Republic. In this attempt to explain Madison’s political views and add some consistency to them over time, I think he largely succeeds.
Where the book fails is in its inability to help you know Madison the person. The book makes such a concerted effort to explain his political philosophy that much of the rest of Madison’s story is sacrificed along the way. The book felt like a first rate history book, with occasional emphasis on Madison, than it did a full biography of the man and his life. His personal affairs are barely discussed (including only the briefest mention of arguably the most influential First lady in American history). For any poor sap who reads my book notes, you will notice the shortest section covers his presidency (where political philosophy takes a back seat to prosecuting a war) and Madison almost seems a secondary character in his own administration.
Overall, I did learn a lot about the Madison and his politics and I think the book worth reading. But I definitely think additional reading is required to gain a fuller appreciation of Madison’s life. 3 stars.
What follows are my notes on the book.
Madison’s family aspired to be part of the Virginia “aristocracy.” His grandfather moved to the Piedmont region of VA and obtained land and dozens of slaves.
Young James was a voracious reader, devouring his grandmother’s periodicals after exhausting his father’s religious and medicinal texts. He was sent to boarding school at age 11, and then to the College of NJ (later Princeton). This was a departure from typical sons of plantation owners who preferred the Anglican William & Mary. This exposed him to perspectives from different regional and religious groups. He was studious, serious, and abstained from alcohol and college hijinks. He had slaves attend to him from birth to death, and unlike many other founding fathers, never questioned its morality.
He was uninterested in a legal career and searching for a profession when the Revolutionary War started. In 1776, he attended the VA constitutional convention at age 25. He had no reputation yet, but was of the right pedigree. He was overshadowed by other VA titans (Patrick Henry, George Mason, etc) but put in a lot of work, including fighting for greater freedom of religion for Baptist and Presbyterian minorities.
He became a workhorse on the new Governor’s Privy Council and turned down an opportunity to run for the House of Delegates. Madison loved digging into the weeds on political issues. With no plantation to run, he threw himself into politics, essentially becoming one of the nation’s first career politicians. The war being the central issue in his early political career.
He served under Patrick Henry, then Jefferson on the Privy Council. Jefferson and Madison developed a strong work rapport and personal friendship. Madison supported reforms proposed by Jefferson.
Madison was appointed as one of VA’s representatives to the Continental Congress where he attempted to strengthen the powers of Congress to more effectively prosecute the war, but saw little success. However, the experience did give him first-hand exposure to the challenges facing a national government and would help shape his ideas for a new Constitution.
Madison was a nationalist above all else. He was a Virginian who recognized the grievances of neighboring states. He was an Anglican, but defended the Quakers and the Baptists. His entire political philosophy revolved around the belief that government should function as a neutral arbiter and not grant preferential treatment to any one group.
For 7 years during the war, he labored at the Privy Council and Continental Congress. The key issue overshadowing all others was the country’s finances. Congress could print money but could not tax it, leading to rampant inflation. Unable to tax, the country couldn’t properly fund the war. Madison worked on a plan for the states to cede Western land to the Federal government that could then raise revenue from their sale. As with everything else in the dysfunctional Articles of Confederation era, the plan was constantly frustrated by the objection of one state or another.
Madison’s efforts to strengthen the Federal government met failure from an unexpected front. Washington’s victory at Yorktown brought an end to the war and eliminated the only threat strong enough to get the states to compromise. After his stint on the Continental Congress, Madison served on and off as a member of the VA House of Delegates. This, coupled with modest income from his father’s plantation spurred his search for a career and income. He considered the law, but his heart wasn’t in it. He was absorbed with politics.
Madison combatted Patrick Henry’s proposal for the state to fund preachers of all denominations. While Madison was a passionate advocate of religious toleration, he feared state funding would lead to complacency and moral decay in the churches. The requirement for the governor to coordinate with his Pricy Council proved unwieldy and he pushed to reform this structure.
Madison became a junior partner with Washington on the nationalist project. His first small success was an agreement between VA and MD to jointly develop and share the Potomac River. Madison opposed the Jay-Gardoqui Treaty (which would grant Spain exclusive rights to the MS River for 25 years), in part because it triggered North-South rivalry, right as he was trying to assemble a national convention to reform the Articles of Confederation. Shay’s rebellion served as a galvanizing moment and catalyst for action in a deeply divided nation. Madison used the fear over the crisis to convince Washington to attend the Constitutional Convention as a delegate.
Madison had always been the junior partner to Washington or Jefferson, but at the Convention he would prove the indispensable man in shaping the future of the Constitution and the country. He dominated there because he came prepared to steer the Convention with his Virginia Plan, a bold new vision of American Republicanism that would not reform but replace the Articles of Confederation. Madison’s Virginia Plan called for the government to be divided into three branches, including a bicameral legislature. Under this plan, the people would directly vote for the House of Representatives. The House would then select members of the Senate from candidates nominated by state legislatures. The Executive (President) would also be selected by the legislature for a single term. Finally, the legislature would have the power to veto any law enacted by state legislatures.
Madison was incredibly disheartened as delegates began proposing changes to his plan. Madison believed that in a large republic, the various factions would balance out and develop compromises. But if specific constituencies were given special carve outs, it would wreck the whole system. So he fought against attempts to make state representation equal in the Senate that would give them a disproportionate amount of power and throw off his vision of fair republicanism. “Mysteriously,” he was silent as slave states carved out their own special provision that counted slaves as 3/5ths of a person to increase their own power in the system. He was distraught that a Congressional veto of state laws was stricken from the plan. When the Convention ended, Madison viewed the new Constitution as inadequate and disappointing.
Yet he became one of its staunchest defenders (viewing a half loaf better than no loaf). Along with Hamilton and Jay, Madison co-authored the Federalist Papers. Madison authored 29 of the 85 essays. Having attended every session and had taken notes. These papers offered an in-depth analysis of the Convention and the thinking behind each provision in the proposed Constitution. Often, the arguments were not his own but an honest account of the consensus at the Convention. Madison even used his own grievances (like his ideas that were removed from his VA Plan) to successfully defend the Constitution against fears that it gave the Federal government too much power.
Madison wasn’t in VA for the ratification debate, but his influence was felt. Henry and Mason fought ratification with every conceivable objection and stall tactic but the Federalists prevailed. However, Henry’s opposition was far from over. He ensured two anti-Federalists were appointed as Senators and gerrymandered districts to give the Anti-Federalist Monroe an advantage over Madison in his bid for a seat in the House. Surprisingly, Madison still triumphed, in part by co-opting the opposition’s primary issue of supporting Constitutional amendments.
When the House convened, Madison quickly filled the power vacuum and drove the agenda. He pushed taxes and economic warfare via protectionist tariffs on the UK (who had cut off US trade to the West Indies). While Madison prevailed in passing a federal impost, it was much more broad and didn’t directly target the UK (northern shippers and a predominantly agrarian country had little to gain from a protectionist trade war). In a sense, this broad compromise was a vindication of Madison’s idea of the extended republic.
The Federalist majority in Congress was slow to act on Constitutional Amendments, so once again Madison led the charge on a bill of rights. He continued to serve as Washington’s chief advisor (a strange duel-roll for him, given his writings on separation of powers). Madison’s three big accomplishments that first session: national impost (tax), Bill of Rights, and establishing firm executive control of Federal Departments (State, Treasury, War, etc).
For someone so committed to the Federal project, his subsequent shift to the Democratic-Republican Party and attacks on it seem confusing to many observers seeking to understand Madison. He developed a hostile rivalry with his former partner Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton’s ambitious economic agenda (Federal consolidation of state debts, national bank and currency, etc) were viewed by Madison as a threat to the Republic. Hamilton’s plan seemed to benefit the Northern financial elite that would usher in a European-style aristocracy. The author argues that this view was a continuation, not an about face, of Madison’s vision of an extended republic, where various factions must compromise. In other words, Hamilton’s plan would throw the whole system out of balance and give preferential treatment to one section of the country.
At Jefferson’s urging, he took up his pen to argue against Hamilton’s plans (the Pacificus - Helvidius Letters). With Jefferson, he co-founded a political party and its mouthpiece the National Gazette. A strange move for someone who desired above all to prevent factionalism (the author argues he didn’t view his party as a faction but the true representation of the country as opposed to Hamilton’s circle of elites). In the war between France and Britain, Madison (wrongly) believed the US could punish the UK with a trade war due to the UK’s reliance on American foodstuffs (completely ignoring the UK’s global trade empire). Washington dismissed this and accepted the Jay Treaty. This led to a permanent break between Madison and Washington.
Madison backed his friend Jefferson for president, but he lost to Adams. He became a prominent leader of the opposition to Adams. He authored the Virginia resolutions (as opposed to Jefferson’s Kentucky resolutions that advocated nullification) in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts.
He was named Secretary of State in the Jefferson administration. I didn’t really catch anything consequential from his time in this position from this book (he was only a bit player in the one consequential accomplishment - the Louisiana Purchase). He advocated the Embargo (of 1807) which proved disastrous. He supported Jefferson’s ambitious efforts to slash the debt, which included cuts to the Navy (which would come back to haunt him when he opted to go to war in 1812). His rejection of the Monroe-Pinkney Treaty with the UK expanded the rift with old friend Monroe.
The collapse of the Federalist Party all but ensured his election as Jefferson’s successor. His time in the presidency would be dominated by the War of 1812. Despite a repeal of the embargo, troubles with the UK and France continued. After failed attempts to play the UK and France off one another, talks collapsed and he was faced with submission or war. He chose war, despite not being prepared for it whatsoever. In addition to the cuts to the Navy, his veto against re-chartering the Bank of the US wrecked credit markets, hobbling his ability to finance the war.
Madison appointed John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, and Albert Gallatin to negotiate an end of the war.
The war started poorly with botched invasion of Canada that ended in surrender of US forces. His appointment of John Armstrong as Secretary of War proved disastrous as he failed to defend the capitol which the British burned. He eventually appointed Monroe, who rejuvenated the war effort. A series of victories (Lake Eire, Baltimore, W.H. Harrison’s defeat of Tecumsah, and Jackson’s success in New Orleans) led to a resurgence of patriotic spirit. A month after New Orleans, Madison learned of the peace treaty signed at Ghent.
The final two years of Madison’s presidency, he once again did an about face. After years of fighting Hamilton, he essentially adopted many of his policies to great effect (including reestablishing a national bank, a national tariff, increased spending on internal improvements). The author argues this was more than “warmed over Hamiltonianism” but was a unique blend of Hamiltonian economics and Madisonian politics that more broadly distributed the benefits across the country (instead of being confined to the New England merchant class).
After his two terms as president, Madison retired to his plantation Montpelier. He largely stayed out of the national debate, but did rebut attempts to use his name and writings as a defense of nullification. He died at age 85.
Where the book fails is in its inability to help you know Madison the person. The book makes such a concerted effort to explain his political philosophy that much of the rest of Madison’s story is sacrificed along the way. The book felt like a first rate history book, with occasional emphasis on Madison, than it did a full biography of the man and his life. His personal affairs are barely discussed (including only the briefest mention of arguably the most influential First lady in American history). For any poor sap who reads my book notes, you will notice the shortest section covers his presidency (where political philosophy takes a back seat to prosecuting a war) and Madison almost seems a secondary character in his own administration.
Overall, I did learn a lot about the Madison and his politics and I think the book worth reading. But I definitely think additional reading is required to gain a fuller appreciation of Madison’s life. 3 stars.
What follows are my notes on the book.
Madison’s family aspired to be part of the Virginia “aristocracy.” His grandfather moved to the Piedmont region of VA and obtained land and dozens of slaves.
Young James was a voracious reader, devouring his grandmother’s periodicals after exhausting his father’s religious and medicinal texts. He was sent to boarding school at age 11, and then to the College of NJ (later Princeton). This was a departure from typical sons of plantation owners who preferred the Anglican William & Mary. This exposed him to perspectives from different regional and religious groups. He was studious, serious, and abstained from alcohol and college hijinks. He had slaves attend to him from birth to death, and unlike many other founding fathers, never questioned its morality.
He was uninterested in a legal career and searching for a profession when the Revolutionary War started. In 1776, he attended the VA constitutional convention at age 25. He had no reputation yet, but was of the right pedigree. He was overshadowed by other VA titans (Patrick Henry, George Mason, etc) but put in a lot of work, including fighting for greater freedom of religion for Baptist and Presbyterian minorities.
He became a workhorse on the new Governor’s Privy Council and turned down an opportunity to run for the House of Delegates. Madison loved digging into the weeds on political issues. With no plantation to run, he threw himself into politics, essentially becoming one of the nation’s first career politicians. The war being the central issue in his early political career.
He served under Patrick Henry, then Jefferson on the Privy Council. Jefferson and Madison developed a strong work rapport and personal friendship. Madison supported reforms proposed by Jefferson.
Madison was appointed as one of VA’s representatives to the Continental Congress where he attempted to strengthen the powers of Congress to more effectively prosecute the war, but saw little success. However, the experience did give him first-hand exposure to the challenges facing a national government and would help shape his ideas for a new Constitution.
Madison was a nationalist above all else. He was a Virginian who recognized the grievances of neighboring states. He was an Anglican, but defended the Quakers and the Baptists. His entire political philosophy revolved around the belief that government should function as a neutral arbiter and not grant preferential treatment to any one group.
For 7 years during the war, he labored at the Privy Council and Continental Congress. The key issue overshadowing all others was the country’s finances. Congress could print money but could not tax it, leading to rampant inflation. Unable to tax, the country couldn’t properly fund the war. Madison worked on a plan for the states to cede Western land to the Federal government that could then raise revenue from their sale. As with everything else in the dysfunctional Articles of Confederation era, the plan was constantly frustrated by the objection of one state or another.
Madison’s efforts to strengthen the Federal government met failure from an unexpected front. Washington’s victory at Yorktown brought an end to the war and eliminated the only threat strong enough to get the states to compromise. After his stint on the Continental Congress, Madison served on and off as a member of the VA House of Delegates. This, coupled with modest income from his father’s plantation spurred his search for a career and income. He considered the law, but his heart wasn’t in it. He was absorbed with politics.
Madison combatted Patrick Henry’s proposal for the state to fund preachers of all denominations. While Madison was a passionate advocate of religious toleration, he feared state funding would lead to complacency and moral decay in the churches. The requirement for the governor to coordinate with his Pricy Council proved unwieldy and he pushed to reform this structure.
Madison became a junior partner with Washington on the nationalist project. His first small success was an agreement between VA and MD to jointly develop and share the Potomac River. Madison opposed the Jay-Gardoqui Treaty (which would grant Spain exclusive rights to the MS River for 25 years), in part because it triggered North-South rivalry, right as he was trying to assemble a national convention to reform the Articles of Confederation. Shay’s rebellion served as a galvanizing moment and catalyst for action in a deeply divided nation. Madison used the fear over the crisis to convince Washington to attend the Constitutional Convention as a delegate.
Madison had always been the junior partner to Washington or Jefferson, but at the Convention he would prove the indispensable man in shaping the future of the Constitution and the country. He dominated there because he came prepared to steer the Convention with his Virginia Plan, a bold new vision of American Republicanism that would not reform but replace the Articles of Confederation. Madison’s Virginia Plan called for the government to be divided into three branches, including a bicameral legislature. Under this plan, the people would directly vote for the House of Representatives. The House would then select members of the Senate from candidates nominated by state legislatures. The Executive (President) would also be selected by the legislature for a single term. Finally, the legislature would have the power to veto any law enacted by state legislatures.
Madison was incredibly disheartened as delegates began proposing changes to his plan. Madison believed that in a large republic, the various factions would balance out and develop compromises. But if specific constituencies were given special carve outs, it would wreck the whole system. So he fought against attempts to make state representation equal in the Senate that would give them a disproportionate amount of power and throw off his vision of fair republicanism. “Mysteriously,” he was silent as slave states carved out their own special provision that counted slaves as 3/5ths of a person to increase their own power in the system. He was distraught that a Congressional veto of state laws was stricken from the plan. When the Convention ended, Madison viewed the new Constitution as inadequate and disappointing.
Yet he became one of its staunchest defenders (viewing a half loaf better than no loaf). Along with Hamilton and Jay, Madison co-authored the Federalist Papers. Madison authored 29 of the 85 essays. Having attended every session and had taken notes. These papers offered an in-depth analysis of the Convention and the thinking behind each provision in the proposed Constitution. Often, the arguments were not his own but an honest account of the consensus at the Convention. Madison even used his own grievances (like his ideas that were removed from his VA Plan) to successfully defend the Constitution against fears that it gave the Federal government too much power.
Madison wasn’t in VA for the ratification debate, but his influence was felt. Henry and Mason fought ratification with every conceivable objection and stall tactic but the Federalists prevailed. However, Henry’s opposition was far from over. He ensured two anti-Federalists were appointed as Senators and gerrymandered districts to give the Anti-Federalist Monroe an advantage over Madison in his bid for a seat in the House. Surprisingly, Madison still triumphed, in part by co-opting the opposition’s primary issue of supporting Constitutional amendments.
When the House convened, Madison quickly filled the power vacuum and drove the agenda. He pushed taxes and economic warfare via protectionist tariffs on the UK (who had cut off US trade to the West Indies). While Madison prevailed in passing a federal impost, it was much more broad and didn’t directly target the UK (northern shippers and a predominantly agrarian country had little to gain from a protectionist trade war). In a sense, this broad compromise was a vindication of Madison’s idea of the extended republic.
The Federalist majority in Congress was slow to act on Constitutional Amendments, so once again Madison led the charge on a bill of rights. He continued to serve as Washington’s chief advisor (a strange duel-roll for him, given his writings on separation of powers). Madison’s three big accomplishments that first session: national impost (tax), Bill of Rights, and establishing firm executive control of Federal Departments (State, Treasury, War, etc).
For someone so committed to the Federal project, his subsequent shift to the Democratic-Republican Party and attacks on it seem confusing to many observers seeking to understand Madison. He developed a hostile rivalry with his former partner Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton’s ambitious economic agenda (Federal consolidation of state debts, national bank and currency, etc) were viewed by Madison as a threat to the Republic. Hamilton’s plan seemed to benefit the Northern financial elite that would usher in a European-style aristocracy. The author argues that this view was a continuation, not an about face, of Madison’s vision of an extended republic, where various factions must compromise. In other words, Hamilton’s plan would throw the whole system out of balance and give preferential treatment to one section of the country.
At Jefferson’s urging, he took up his pen to argue against Hamilton’s plans (the Pacificus - Helvidius Letters). With Jefferson, he co-founded a political party and its mouthpiece the National Gazette. A strange move for someone who desired above all to prevent factionalism (the author argues he didn’t view his party as a faction but the true representation of the country as opposed to Hamilton’s circle of elites). In the war between France and Britain, Madison (wrongly) believed the US could punish the UK with a trade war due to the UK’s reliance on American foodstuffs (completely ignoring the UK’s global trade empire). Washington dismissed this and accepted the Jay Treaty. This led to a permanent break between Madison and Washington.
Madison backed his friend Jefferson for president, but he lost to Adams. He became a prominent leader of the opposition to Adams. He authored the Virginia resolutions (as opposed to Jefferson’s Kentucky resolutions that advocated nullification) in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts.
He was named Secretary of State in the Jefferson administration. I didn’t really catch anything consequential from his time in this position from this book (he was only a bit player in the one consequential accomplishment - the Louisiana Purchase). He advocated the Embargo (of 1807) which proved disastrous. He supported Jefferson’s ambitious efforts to slash the debt, which included cuts to the Navy (which would come back to haunt him when he opted to go to war in 1812). His rejection of the Monroe-Pinkney Treaty with the UK expanded the rift with old friend Monroe.
The collapse of the Federalist Party all but ensured his election as Jefferson’s successor. His time in the presidency would be dominated by the War of 1812. Despite a repeal of the embargo, troubles with the UK and France continued. After failed attempts to play the UK and France off one another, talks collapsed and he was faced with submission or war. He chose war, despite not being prepared for it whatsoever. In addition to the cuts to the Navy, his veto against re-chartering the Bank of the US wrecked credit markets, hobbling his ability to finance the war.
Madison appointed John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, and Albert Gallatin to negotiate an end of the war.
The war started poorly with botched invasion of Canada that ended in surrender of US forces. His appointment of John Armstrong as Secretary of War proved disastrous as he failed to defend the capitol which the British burned. He eventually appointed Monroe, who rejuvenated the war effort. A series of victories (Lake Eire, Baltimore, W.H. Harrison’s defeat of Tecumsah, and Jackson’s success in New Orleans) led to a resurgence of patriotic spirit. A month after New Orleans, Madison learned of the peace treaty signed at Ghent.
The final two years of Madison’s presidency, he once again did an about face. After years of fighting Hamilton, he essentially adopted many of his policies to great effect (including reestablishing a national bank, a national tariff, increased spending on internal improvements). The author argues this was more than “warmed over Hamiltonianism” but was a unique blend of Hamiltonian economics and Madisonian politics that more broadly distributed the benefits across the country (instead of being confined to the New England merchant class).
After his two terms as president, Madison retired to his plantation Montpelier. He largely stayed out of the national debate, but did rebut attempts to use his name and writings as a defense of nullification. He died at age 85.
February 21, 2022
Jay Cost is building a good body of well written books on the founders. This is a followup to his "The Price of Greatness: Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and the Creation of American Oligarchy". He is a careful researcher and does a great job of putting together the complex details of one of our most brilliant political figures whose career lasted more than 40 years.
But as someone who has done a lot of reading on our fourth president, I feel some of his conclusions are a bit over-stated. During his discussion of the Federalist he suggests that Madison was somehow tentative on the new system - that he ultimately favored the Virginia plan and did not recede. He then makes the odd conclusion that somehow Madison betrayed his basic principles in the last year of his presidency by proposing a series of initiatives (including infrastructure and a national university and the reauthorization of the bank of the US) which were in conflict with the rest of his career.
Cost covers Madison's prodigious contributions to the Federalist and has a superb discussion of the interactions between the appropriate use of factions (10) and the needs to allow ambition to be confronted (51). Madison's base principle exposed in his Federalist essays and in his other writings was to overcome privilege in government and to spread the benefits. That does not mean Madison did not believe in uniting for common purpose - so long as government did not become a rent seeking machine. This is a subtle point but an important one.
One other point in opposition to Cost's main point - Madison lived in the interchange of politics for four decades - he understood how to get things done and it would be odd that his thinking on some issues would not have been modified by events.
Even with that major concern - this book is a great addition to the several books on the Father of the Constitution that have come out in the last several years.
But as someone who has done a lot of reading on our fourth president, I feel some of his conclusions are a bit over-stated. During his discussion of the Federalist he suggests that Madison was somehow tentative on the new system - that he ultimately favored the Virginia plan and did not recede. He then makes the odd conclusion that somehow Madison betrayed his basic principles in the last year of his presidency by proposing a series of initiatives (including infrastructure and a national university and the reauthorization of the bank of the US) which were in conflict with the rest of his career.
Cost covers Madison's prodigious contributions to the Federalist and has a superb discussion of the interactions between the appropriate use of factions (10) and the needs to allow ambition to be confronted (51). Madison's base principle exposed in his Federalist essays and in his other writings was to overcome privilege in government and to spread the benefits. That does not mean Madison did not believe in uniting for common purpose - so long as government did not become a rent seeking machine. This is a subtle point but an important one.
One other point in opposition to Cost's main point - Madison lived in the interchange of politics for four decades - he understood how to get things done and it would be odd that his thinking on some issues would not have been modified by events.
Even with that major concern - this book is a great addition to the several books on the Father of the Constitution that have come out in the last several years.
May 23, 2025
This chronicles much of what was happening around Madison during his time in politics, but seems to skimp on him, specifically. Maybe Madison just wasn't that interesting of a character.
The worst part about this book is that it inspired me to order a 1,000 page biography on Napoleon. Follow along for my review on that in 9–12 months
The worst part about this book is that it inspired me to order a 1,000 page biography on Napoleon. Follow along for my review on that in 9–12 months
April 7, 2026
I (somehow) heard good things about this bio of James Madison by Jay Cost. And, indeed, it carries back-cover praise from people I like: George Will, Yuval Levin, Keith Whittington, and Randy Barnett. As with most founding-father biographies, it serves double duty as a history of the early USA.
One of Cost's purposes here is to rescue Madison from the charge of inconsistency, perhaps borderline hypocrisy, over the course of his career. His main defense is expressed in the book's subtitle: unlike (say) Washington or Jefferson, Madison was first and foremost a politician: pragmatic, looking to effect compromises by offering different factions significant benefits, not burdening others too much. And also, recognizing when a past position needed adjustment in the face of changing circumstance.
Madison was a little young to be involved in very early national politics, but he worked his way up in Virginia. By the time the flaws of the Articles of Confederation were manifest, he was ready to attend the Constitutional Convention, with his "Virginia Plan" in hand. He was bitterly disappointed when what he considered one of its main features was nixed: allowing the US Congress to veto any legislation passed by state legislatures. And he wound up being skeptical about the final document. But that didn't stop him from cooperating with Alexander Hamilton on the Federalist Papers, which helped push the Constitution over the ratification finish line.
Cost goes over Madison's efforts in the new republic: one of Virginia's representatives in the very first US Congress; Jefferson's Secretary of State; and finally the country's fourth President.
He was not without bungles and flaws. He arguably miscalculated us into the War of 1812. His focus on pragmatics rather than principles caused him to favor the Second Bank of the United States, while he was steadfast in his opposition to the first one. He was against a "standing Army"… until the War of 1812 demonstrated the woeful inadequacy of state militias.
And his enduring stain was his failure to do anything to wean the South off its evil dependence on enslaved labor. That would have to await a much bloodier resolution.
March 19, 2022
“James Madison: America’s First Politician” by Jay Cost is a good companion book to Ron Chernow’s “Alexander Hamilton,” which I read last year, and David McCulllough’s “John Adams,” which I read a few years ago. All are extensively researched accounts of our nation’s earliest days. “James Madison” is “only” 399 pages (excluding notes and index), making it less-intimidating and generally more readable than the others. Madison is known as the “father of the Constitution,” yet it’s interesting that he wasn’t that happy with the result. Still, he campaigned hard for its ratification, knowing that the Articles of Confederation had failed the new nation. If the United States was to survive, it needed a stronger federal government that could tax, raise an Army and Navy, and enact laws “that advance the general welfare while respecting the rights of the individual,” as Cost writes in his conclusion. Even near the end of his life, Madison, long retired, successfully battled an 1832 effort by South Carolina to void the Tariff of 1828 in that state, a move that could have destroyed the Union. As always, Madison relied on the Constitution as a guide to what could and could not be done, even if he was inconsistent in his interpretation of it. As I read the book, I marked several passages that fascinated me. Page 284 describes Madison’s inconsistency: “By the time of the purchase of Louisiana, then, Madison had positioned himself on both sides of virtually every major constitutional controversy.” Page 296 reminded me of squabbles within today’s Republican and Democratic parties: “The Old Republicans viewed Madison with special skepticism. He was not a true Republican, for he had once been an ally of Hamilton.” Page 351 recounts President Madison’s struggles finding “good leaders” in the War of 1812: “If one looks at the people tasked with running the military, managing the executive, or legislating from Congress at the beginning of the war, one sees a rogue’s gallery of drunkards, fools, cowards, schemers, and Malcontents.” Judging from today’s social media, politics hasn’t changed all that much in 210 years.
August 31, 2025
While I have not read many biographies from the founding era, this biography ranks among my favorite works on this period of American history. Cost paints a vivid picture of Madison and his enduring influence on the constitutional and political fabric of our republic, and he does so with careful historiographical accuracy. He does not downplay Madison’s political contradictions; instead, he addresses them directly, making this tension the central thread of the book. Cost argues that Madison’s apparent inconsistency is actually a reflection of his consistent view of politics and government, evident from his earliest writings in the Virginia Plan to the final correspondences of his life.
Through political rivalries, appointments, election to the House, and later service as secretary of state and president, Madison’s contributions to our country remain both remarkable and consequential. Cost also tackles the issue of slavery, contending that the founding era’s failure to address it directly became a root cause of the political crises that emerged near the end of Madison’s lifetime.
It is an insightful, masterfully written work—academic in its breadth of research and precision of language, yet accessible and deeply engaging. I highly recommend it.
Through political rivalries, appointments, election to the House, and later service as secretary of state and president, Madison’s contributions to our country remain both remarkable and consequential. Cost also tackles the issue of slavery, contending that the founding era’s failure to address it directly became a root cause of the political crises that emerged near the end of Madison’s lifetime.
It is an insightful, masterfully written work—academic in its breadth of research and precision of language, yet accessible and deeply engaging. I highly recommend it.
February 26, 2022
This book was easy to read, which means it is well written. However, at only 400 pages long, there's only so much depth the author could go into on the various events in Madison's career. The main issue was that a lot of time was, perhaps necessarily, spent discussing general history, and less time was spent on Madison's involvement in particular. I got the sense that had this book been written about James Monroe or Alexander Hamilton, large parts of it would have read fairly similarly. In short, this is a good short history book for refreshing your general American history knowledge, and of course it has plenty of information about James Madison himself, but it's not going to make you an expert on Madison.
April 25, 2026
A surprisingly sharp and insightful look at James Madison. This biography does a great job reframing him not as inconsistent, but as someone who treated politics as a full‑time craft. I loved the way it digs into his role in shaping early American government—from the Constitution and Bill of Rights to his evolving views on federal power and political parties. The author shows how Madison essentially invented the style of American politics we still recognize today. Short, smart, and full of fascinating context about the early republic.
March 13, 2023
James Madison Jr. was nicknamed Jemmy as a child. At five foot, four inches, he was the shortest American president and he never weighed more than 100 pounds. He had a sickly constitution and suffered "sudden attacks somewhat resembling epilepsy" throughout his life. Although he was raised Anglican, he was never a particularly devout Christian.
Jemmy was born to a wealthy slave-owning family. The oldest of twelve children, he attended the College of New Jersey (known as Princeton today). He was soft spoken and had trouble speaking in front of large groups. He was not a fan of drunkenness. At parties, he would water down his drinks or only pretend to take a sip to avoid getting too drunk.
He was an excellent student, but didn't know what to do with himself after college. When the Boston Tea Party happened, he found a purpose and got involved in politics. He was on the committee to amend the religious section in Virginia's Declaration of Rights. He was against the establishment of a state religion, believing religious institutions were full of ignorance and corruption.
He served as an adviser to the governor of Virginia between 1777 to 1779 under two different governors, Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson (who became his best friend). After that, he became a member of the Continental Congress.
He focused on work and didn't have much of a social life. He got engaged to a 15-year-old named Kitty when he was in his early thirties, but it didn't work out and she married someone else. He didn't pursue another woman until Dolley Payne Todd who he would wed in his early forties.
Congress unwisely gave power over currency and the military to the states. The states didn't want to tax their citizens, so there wasn't enough money for the Revolutionary War. Soldiers from some states had more provisions than soldiers from others, which led to jealousy amongst the troops. The states acted in their own self-interest, not working together for the common good. A strong federal government was the solution Madison and others pushed for.
In 1782, Jefferson asked Madison to purchase property near him and their mutual friend James Monroe so they could all live near each other, but Madison didn't have the money. He was in his early thirties, but being a politician didn't pay very well and his father was still alive, so he hadn't inherited the family estate yet. He had to pinch his pennies.
After serving in the Continental Congress, he served in the Virginia state legislature where he succeeded in passing several bills including the Statute for Religious Freedom, despite Patrick Henry's objections.
He worked with George Washington to expand Virginia's commercial interests. They were also concerned about international trade. If one state raised tariffs on British goods, another state could lower tariffs, which worked out in Britain's favor and pitted the states against each other. A strong federal government was needed to unite the states and keep them from competing with each other.
The economic downturn after the Revolutionary War impoverished many poor farmers who started taking over courthouses in Massachusetts in protest of the government not helping them. This sedition was called Shays Rebellion. Washington was worried this could be the end of America. This event finally got the states to consider revising the Articles of Confederation which kept the federal government too weak to do anything. The Constitutional Convention was held.
The Constitution gave the federal government more power, made branches of government independent of each other, set up two chambers of the legislative branch, set up ways to elect representatives, and also gave some power to the states so power was balanced between groups.
Madison was originally disappointed in the Constitution right after it was written. His original plan was diluted. For example, the slave states got extra power in the House and small states got extra power in the Senate. The states ended up getting more power than he wanted them to.
There was pushback from some states who didn't want to ratify the Constitution. Madison and Hamilton decided to join forces and write the Federalist Papers to convince people the Constitution was a good thing. Once it had been ratified, Madison ran for the House of Representatives against his friend Monroe and won.
He took charge of the House due to being a workaholic and being more knowledgeable than anyone else there. He convinced Congress to pass a national tax to fund the government despite major pushback. He took the lead on writing the Bill of Rights and early amendments to the Constitution.
He also served as President Washington's advisor early on when Washington didn't have much of a cabinet. Madison wrote both Washington's inaugural address and the official response from the House of Representatives, so he was basically talking to himself.
The House voted to make Philadelphia the capital (New York was currently the temporary capital). Madison opposed this and tried to work behind the scenes to change it to his home state of Virginia.
Madison had been a Federalist (in favor of a strong federal government) until the end of the first session of the first congress. He went on to dissociate himself from his Federalists allies (like Hamilton) instead joining with Jefferson and many Anti-Federalists to stop the growth of federal authority.
Hamilton was surprised to find his old friend working behind the scenes to stop the federal government from assuming states debts and creating a Bank of the United States. Biographers have been puzzled by this too, but Madison didn't really flip-flop. He believed government should be neutral between all parties regardless of economic status, while Hamilton felt government should be involved in economic development. Also, Madison thought Congress should have the most power while Hamilton thought the President should. This rift between the two would lead to the creation of the first political parties.
Hamilton wanted the US to pay off its debt so it would be seen as trustworthy and US currency would be worth something. Many veterans had been paid in government bonds which they sold to speculators at 10 to 15 cents on the dollar. The speculators, not the veterans, would get rich if the US bought these back. Madison proposed the profit should be split between the speculators and the veterans in order to be fair, but this would have been disastrous for the economy. No one would have faith in the US paying back its debts if the speculators only got half the money due to them. The value of existing bonds would have plummeted.
Hamilton proposed the federal government take on states debts. Certain states had a lot of debt from fighting the Revolution, but it was only fair the burden be shared equally by all. Also, this would shift the loyalty of the creditors to have a financial stake in the national government. Madison saw this as unfair since some states had already started paying back their debts. He only agreed to it later in exchange for the capital being moved to the Virginia border.
Madison and Jefferson started the Democratic-Republican party to counteract the Federalists. Madison and Hamilton became enemies and Washington was no longer close with Madison.
Madison married the young widow Dolley Payne Todd when he was in his forties and she in her twenties. She was considered very beautiful, and at 5 foot 7 she was a bit taller than him. It was said men on the street would stare at her dumbstruck. Aaron Burr served as matchmaker between the two. She was kicked out of the Quakers for marrying again less than a year after her first husband died, but she didn't really want to be a Quaker anyway.
When John Adams became president, Madison retired from Congress to work on his house Montpelier and oversee his slaves.
Adams passed the Alien and Sedition Acts to win reelection. It gave him the power to put Democratic-Republicans in jail for printing anything critical of him, but this backfired. The number of Republican newspapers skyrocketed despite him. Madison came out of retirement and got elected to the state legislature in 1799 where he'd write the Virginia Resolutions against the Alien and Sedition Acts.
Jefferson appointed Madison secretary of state when he became president. Unlike his predecessors, Jefferson didn't host parties as president, so it fell to Madison and Dolley to throw tea parties and dinners for foreign diplomats, members of Congress, and the local gentry. Full of cards, alcohol, snuff, witty conversation, and dancing, their parties were a hit. Washington DC at the time was still largely under construction, so the Madison house was the social heart of the capital.
Dolley was a great politician in her own right, using these social gatherings to further her husband's career.
Madison was elected president in 1808 and sworn in in 1809. He ran against his former friend Monroe who was now his enemy. When he took office, tensions were high with both Britain and France. Britain was seizing US merchant vessels to keep them from supplying Napoleon and Napoleon was also seizing US vessels to aid in his fight. Jefferson started a trade embargo to hurt Britain, but it ended up only hurting America's economy.
Monroe became his Secretary of State in 1811 after the two had reconciled. The new Congress was more pro-war, partly because they believed Britain was turning Native Americans against them. Although, the Native Americans had their own reasons to be against the US. The Shawnee warrior Tecumseh was trying to forge a native alliance against the US and was defeated by William Henry Harrison at the Battle of Tippecanoe, although the US suffered heavy casualties as well.
Madison recommended Congress declare war against Britain in 1812 after years of trying for a diplomatic solution. Despite being in favor of war, Congress was reluctant to raise taxes to expand the army and navy. The Whig party in Britain, which opposed war, gained power and was willing to give the US what it wanted, but it was too late. War had already arrived. Madison became the first war-time president.
The US wasn't ready for the war it declared. The army and navy were underfunded. The US was going to rely on state militias, but they were poorly trained and the New England states who didn't want war, didn't commit troops. The Secretary of War was a political appointee lacking experience and different branches of the military had to compete for supplies. Officers were selected based on their political party, excluding Federalists even when they were the best qualified.
The US attacked Canada, thinking they'd be able to easily conquer territory in a three pronged attack. The group crossing the Detroit River was tricked into surrendering by the British and their native allies including Tecumseh who made it look like they had more troops than they did.
The group crossing the Niagara River argued amongst themselves who should be in charge (militias versus regular army). They didn't have enough boats to bring their whole force across the Niagara River. A thousand ended up surrendering.
The group that was to attack Montreal was unable to raise enough troops for several months. When they finally had the numbers, two thirds of the troops refused to cross the Canadian border and the assault was called off.
So conquering Canada wasn't going very well. However, the US navy did have some victories that boosted morale. Madison won reelection, but just barely.
Madison was prone to attacks of bilious fever throughout his life. During the war, in 1813, there was fear it would finally kill him, but it didn't.
Federalists were opposed to the war and Republicans were luke warm on it. In the spring of 1813, the US attacked York and burned the public buildings down. York didn't have strategic value, but the pro-war faction needed a win for political reasons. The US had some victories in 1813, managing to retake land they'd lost earlier, but they also had some devastating defeats. Worse, Napoleon had finally lost in Europe, being sent into exile in early 1814. This meant Britain could now focus its full attention on the US.
In revenge for York, the British marched on Washington DC. Hours before the Battle of Bladensburg, Madison retreated just in time to avoid being captured. Even though the American militia outnumbered the British, they were poorly trained and poorly disciplined leading to an easy British victory.
The British burned down the House, Senate, Treasury, State Departments, Library of Congress, and other public buildings. They also burned down the White House, although Dolley Madison managed to save Gilbert Stuart's famous painting of George Washington.
The British then moved on to Baltimore, where the Americans defeated them. Francis Scott Key wrote the Star-spangled Banner about the victory. After a few more battles, the Americans and British signed a peace treaty in 1814. The Americans hadn't managed to conquer Canada, but they did get some concessions from the British.
After the war, Madison ended his presidency on a high note by funding the army, making transportation improvements, and chartering a national bank (even though he'd been opposed to this earlier, he now recognized its necessity.)
After retiring, he helped Jefferson found the University of Virginia (he became rector of it in 1826). In 1829, he was part of a convention to redraft the state constitution. He frequently hosted guests at his Montpelier estate.
He generally stayed out of the public side of politics, but when South Carolina invoked his name in the late 1820s claiming states could void federal laws to do away with the protective tariff, he entered the public debate one last time.
Madison wrote letters against this, using his clout as Father of the Constitution to point out how bad their arguments were. South Carolina was on the verge of disunion, but a newly renegotiated tariff convinced them to stay with the union.
Due to an agricultural depression, he had to sell a lot of his land. Also, his stepson Payne was a gambler who constantly needed to be bailed out, further impoverishing him.
Ill health caused Madison to be bedridden the last three years of his life. He lived to be 85, outliving both Jefferson and Monroe. He died in 1836. He never had any biological children of his own.
Although he didn't write it all by himself, James Madison is called the Father of the Constitution because he contributed more than others. Like other founding fathers, he was a man of contradictions. He said powers not mentioned in the Constitution (like chartering a bank) were forbidden, but he looked the other way when the government purchased Louisiana and he even chartered a bank himself when he was president. He was against political parties, but he helped create one. Although he knew slavery was wrong, he did nothing to stop it because his livelihood depended on it.
Jemmy was born to a wealthy slave-owning family. The oldest of twelve children, he attended the College of New Jersey (known as Princeton today). He was soft spoken and had trouble speaking in front of large groups. He was not a fan of drunkenness. At parties, he would water down his drinks or only pretend to take a sip to avoid getting too drunk.
He was an excellent student, but didn't know what to do with himself after college. When the Boston Tea Party happened, he found a purpose and got involved in politics. He was on the committee to amend the religious section in Virginia's Declaration of Rights. He was against the establishment of a state religion, believing religious institutions were full of ignorance and corruption.
He served as an adviser to the governor of Virginia between 1777 to 1779 under two different governors, Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson (who became his best friend). After that, he became a member of the Continental Congress.
He focused on work and didn't have much of a social life. He got engaged to a 15-year-old named Kitty when he was in his early thirties, but it didn't work out and she married someone else. He didn't pursue another woman until Dolley Payne Todd who he would wed in his early forties.
Congress unwisely gave power over currency and the military to the states. The states didn't want to tax their citizens, so there wasn't enough money for the Revolutionary War. Soldiers from some states had more provisions than soldiers from others, which led to jealousy amongst the troops. The states acted in their own self-interest, not working together for the common good. A strong federal government was the solution Madison and others pushed for.
In 1782, Jefferson asked Madison to purchase property near him and their mutual friend James Monroe so they could all live near each other, but Madison didn't have the money. He was in his early thirties, but being a politician didn't pay very well and his father was still alive, so he hadn't inherited the family estate yet. He had to pinch his pennies.
After serving in the Continental Congress, he served in the Virginia state legislature where he succeeded in passing several bills including the Statute for Religious Freedom, despite Patrick Henry's objections.
He worked with George Washington to expand Virginia's commercial interests. They were also concerned about international trade. If one state raised tariffs on British goods, another state could lower tariffs, which worked out in Britain's favor and pitted the states against each other. A strong federal government was needed to unite the states and keep them from competing with each other.
The economic downturn after the Revolutionary War impoverished many poor farmers who started taking over courthouses in Massachusetts in protest of the government not helping them. This sedition was called Shays Rebellion. Washington was worried this could be the end of America. This event finally got the states to consider revising the Articles of Confederation which kept the federal government too weak to do anything. The Constitutional Convention was held.
The Constitution gave the federal government more power, made branches of government independent of each other, set up two chambers of the legislative branch, set up ways to elect representatives, and also gave some power to the states so power was balanced between groups.
Madison was originally disappointed in the Constitution right after it was written. His original plan was diluted. For example, the slave states got extra power in the House and small states got extra power in the Senate. The states ended up getting more power than he wanted them to.
There was pushback from some states who didn't want to ratify the Constitution. Madison and Hamilton decided to join forces and write the Federalist Papers to convince people the Constitution was a good thing. Once it had been ratified, Madison ran for the House of Representatives against his friend Monroe and won.
He took charge of the House due to being a workaholic and being more knowledgeable than anyone else there. He convinced Congress to pass a national tax to fund the government despite major pushback. He took the lead on writing the Bill of Rights and early amendments to the Constitution.
He also served as President Washington's advisor early on when Washington didn't have much of a cabinet. Madison wrote both Washington's inaugural address and the official response from the House of Representatives, so he was basically talking to himself.
The House voted to make Philadelphia the capital (New York was currently the temporary capital). Madison opposed this and tried to work behind the scenes to change it to his home state of Virginia.
Madison had been a Federalist (in favor of a strong federal government) until the end of the first session of the first congress. He went on to dissociate himself from his Federalists allies (like Hamilton) instead joining with Jefferson and many Anti-Federalists to stop the growth of federal authority.
Hamilton was surprised to find his old friend working behind the scenes to stop the federal government from assuming states debts and creating a Bank of the United States. Biographers have been puzzled by this too, but Madison didn't really flip-flop. He believed government should be neutral between all parties regardless of economic status, while Hamilton felt government should be involved in economic development. Also, Madison thought Congress should have the most power while Hamilton thought the President should. This rift between the two would lead to the creation of the first political parties.
Hamilton wanted the US to pay off its debt so it would be seen as trustworthy and US currency would be worth something. Many veterans had been paid in government bonds which they sold to speculators at 10 to 15 cents on the dollar. The speculators, not the veterans, would get rich if the US bought these back. Madison proposed the profit should be split between the speculators and the veterans in order to be fair, but this would have been disastrous for the economy. No one would have faith in the US paying back its debts if the speculators only got half the money due to them. The value of existing bonds would have plummeted.
Hamilton proposed the federal government take on states debts. Certain states had a lot of debt from fighting the Revolution, but it was only fair the burden be shared equally by all. Also, this would shift the loyalty of the creditors to have a financial stake in the national government. Madison saw this as unfair since some states had already started paying back their debts. He only agreed to it later in exchange for the capital being moved to the Virginia border.
Madison and Jefferson started the Democratic-Republican party to counteract the Federalists. Madison and Hamilton became enemies and Washington was no longer close with Madison.
Madison married the young widow Dolley Payne Todd when he was in his forties and she in her twenties. She was considered very beautiful, and at 5 foot 7 she was a bit taller than him. It was said men on the street would stare at her dumbstruck. Aaron Burr served as matchmaker between the two. She was kicked out of the Quakers for marrying again less than a year after her first husband died, but she didn't really want to be a Quaker anyway.
When John Adams became president, Madison retired from Congress to work on his house Montpelier and oversee his slaves.
Adams passed the Alien and Sedition Acts to win reelection. It gave him the power to put Democratic-Republicans in jail for printing anything critical of him, but this backfired. The number of Republican newspapers skyrocketed despite him. Madison came out of retirement and got elected to the state legislature in 1799 where he'd write the Virginia Resolutions against the Alien and Sedition Acts.
Jefferson appointed Madison secretary of state when he became president. Unlike his predecessors, Jefferson didn't host parties as president, so it fell to Madison and Dolley to throw tea parties and dinners for foreign diplomats, members of Congress, and the local gentry. Full of cards, alcohol, snuff, witty conversation, and dancing, their parties were a hit. Washington DC at the time was still largely under construction, so the Madison house was the social heart of the capital.
Dolley was a great politician in her own right, using these social gatherings to further her husband's career.
Madison was elected president in 1808 and sworn in in 1809. He ran against his former friend Monroe who was now his enemy. When he took office, tensions were high with both Britain and France. Britain was seizing US merchant vessels to keep them from supplying Napoleon and Napoleon was also seizing US vessels to aid in his fight. Jefferson started a trade embargo to hurt Britain, but it ended up only hurting America's economy.
Monroe became his Secretary of State in 1811 after the two had reconciled. The new Congress was more pro-war, partly because they believed Britain was turning Native Americans against them. Although, the Native Americans had their own reasons to be against the US. The Shawnee warrior Tecumseh was trying to forge a native alliance against the US and was defeated by William Henry Harrison at the Battle of Tippecanoe, although the US suffered heavy casualties as well.
Madison recommended Congress declare war against Britain in 1812 after years of trying for a diplomatic solution. Despite being in favor of war, Congress was reluctant to raise taxes to expand the army and navy. The Whig party in Britain, which opposed war, gained power and was willing to give the US what it wanted, but it was too late. War had already arrived. Madison became the first war-time president.
The US wasn't ready for the war it declared. The army and navy were underfunded. The US was going to rely on state militias, but they were poorly trained and the New England states who didn't want war, didn't commit troops. The Secretary of War was a political appointee lacking experience and different branches of the military had to compete for supplies. Officers were selected based on their political party, excluding Federalists even when they were the best qualified.
The US attacked Canada, thinking they'd be able to easily conquer territory in a three pronged attack. The group crossing the Detroit River was tricked into surrendering by the British and their native allies including Tecumseh who made it look like they had more troops than they did.
The group crossing the Niagara River argued amongst themselves who should be in charge (militias versus regular army). They didn't have enough boats to bring their whole force across the Niagara River. A thousand ended up surrendering.
The group that was to attack Montreal was unable to raise enough troops for several months. When they finally had the numbers, two thirds of the troops refused to cross the Canadian border and the assault was called off.
So conquering Canada wasn't going very well. However, the US navy did have some victories that boosted morale. Madison won reelection, but just barely.
Madison was prone to attacks of bilious fever throughout his life. During the war, in 1813, there was fear it would finally kill him, but it didn't.
Federalists were opposed to the war and Republicans were luke warm on it. In the spring of 1813, the US attacked York and burned the public buildings down. York didn't have strategic value, but the pro-war faction needed a win for political reasons. The US had some victories in 1813, managing to retake land they'd lost earlier, but they also had some devastating defeats. Worse, Napoleon had finally lost in Europe, being sent into exile in early 1814. This meant Britain could now focus its full attention on the US.
In revenge for York, the British marched on Washington DC. Hours before the Battle of Bladensburg, Madison retreated just in time to avoid being captured. Even though the American militia outnumbered the British, they were poorly trained and poorly disciplined leading to an easy British victory.
The British burned down the House, Senate, Treasury, State Departments, Library of Congress, and other public buildings. They also burned down the White House, although Dolley Madison managed to save Gilbert Stuart's famous painting of George Washington.
The British then moved on to Baltimore, where the Americans defeated them. Francis Scott Key wrote the Star-spangled Banner about the victory. After a few more battles, the Americans and British signed a peace treaty in 1814. The Americans hadn't managed to conquer Canada, but they did get some concessions from the British.
After the war, Madison ended his presidency on a high note by funding the army, making transportation improvements, and chartering a national bank (even though he'd been opposed to this earlier, he now recognized its necessity.)
After retiring, he helped Jefferson found the University of Virginia (he became rector of it in 1826). In 1829, he was part of a convention to redraft the state constitution. He frequently hosted guests at his Montpelier estate.
He generally stayed out of the public side of politics, but when South Carolina invoked his name in the late 1820s claiming states could void federal laws to do away with the protective tariff, he entered the public debate one last time.
Madison wrote letters against this, using his clout as Father of the Constitution to point out how bad their arguments were. South Carolina was on the verge of disunion, but a newly renegotiated tariff convinced them to stay with the union.
Due to an agricultural depression, he had to sell a lot of his land. Also, his stepson Payne was a gambler who constantly needed to be bailed out, further impoverishing him.
Ill health caused Madison to be bedridden the last three years of his life. He lived to be 85, outliving both Jefferson and Monroe. He died in 1836. He never had any biological children of his own.
Although he didn't write it all by himself, James Madison is called the Father of the Constitution because he contributed more than others. Like other founding fathers, he was a man of contradictions. He said powers not mentioned in the Constitution (like chartering a bank) were forbidden, but he looked the other way when the government purchased Louisiana and he even chartered a bank himself when he was president. He was against political parties, but he helped create one. Although he knew slavery was wrong, he did nothing to stop it because his livelihood depended on it.
July 29, 2023
I enjoyed listening to this book because I didn’t know much about James Madison and how he contributed to the United States. After listening to the book, I label James Madison as the “father of the US Constitution.” He also moved away from his ideals when he led the country as the US President (e.g., The Nation’s Bank) after the US engaged the British in a war.
I give the book four stars because the author did a great job of covering Madison’s approach to politics, but the book fell short of who Madison was, without knowing Madison, the person.
I give the book four stars because the author did a great job of covering Madison’s approach to politics, but the book fell short of who Madison was, without knowing Madison, the person.
July 3, 2022
I struggled with this one for weeks. It’s remarkably dull. Will pick up a different Madison biography at some point in time.
July 30, 2024
I am reading a biography about each president. This one was ok. Madison was a brilliant man but wasn't real patient or understanding.
January 29, 2023
My book club reads nonfiction American history books set between Jamestown and Jefferson's inauguration, but we've been interested in reading more about some of our early Presidents. Jay Cost's book on James Madison felt like the perfect bridge book to get us from our "usual" time period to another President we want to know more about, John Quincy Adams. This was also the most I had read about the War of 1812, so it was great getting to learn more about a war I'm less familiar with.
Structure/formatting 4.5/5
I wish this book had an appendix of the Federalist Papers, or at least included the ones the author most-referenced. I have not read the Federalist papers, and the author generally referred to them by their number. I was able to get the overall intention of each paper, but having the full text would have greatly increased my understanding without having to have a second book as a reference.
Thoroughness of research 5/5
It is very clear that Jay Cost has studied Madison and his contemporaries. This book also made me want to get to the author's dual biography of Hamilton and Madison sooner because of how he was framing their relationship in this book.
Storytelling 4/5
This book has a very narrow focus when it comes to Madison. I tend to prefer all-encompassing biographies that paint a fuller picture. As a result, this book felt like it glossed over some points or some relationships I would have loved more elaboration on. Even Dolley barely gets page-time in this book. It was a great read, but after visiting Montpelier for the first time last summer, I was hoping for a more comprehensive biography.
Enjoyment 4.5/5
Fantastic book. I just wanted a little more out of it as a biography.
Prior knowledge needed 4/5
As mentioned with the structure and the storytelling, this book expects you to know a little bit already about who Madison was and his role in early American history, especially in regards to the Federalist papers. Names of his friends and rivals will also regularly be mentioned, but because the book is strictly focused on Madison, often further explanation on their relationships are skipped. Being a little familiar with the time period and the people involved in the formation of the Constitution would be very helpful before reading this book, but you could get by with just being familiar with the characters that appear in "Hamilton."
Structure/formatting 4.5/5
I wish this book had an appendix of the Federalist Papers, or at least included the ones the author most-referenced. I have not read the Federalist papers, and the author generally referred to them by their number. I was able to get the overall intention of each paper, but having the full text would have greatly increased my understanding without having to have a second book as a reference.
Thoroughness of research 5/5
It is very clear that Jay Cost has studied Madison and his contemporaries. This book also made me want to get to the author's dual biography of Hamilton and Madison sooner because of how he was framing their relationship in this book.
Storytelling 4/5
This book has a very narrow focus when it comes to Madison. I tend to prefer all-encompassing biographies that paint a fuller picture. As a result, this book felt like it glossed over some points or some relationships I would have loved more elaboration on. Even Dolley barely gets page-time in this book. It was a great read, but after visiting Montpelier for the first time last summer, I was hoping for a more comprehensive biography.
Enjoyment 4.5/5
Fantastic book. I just wanted a little more out of it as a biography.
Prior knowledge needed 4/5
As mentioned with the structure and the storytelling, this book expects you to know a little bit already about who Madison was and his role in early American history, especially in regards to the Federalist papers. Names of his friends and rivals will also regularly be mentioned, but because the book is strictly focused on Madison, often further explanation on their relationships are skipped. Being a little familiar with the time period and the people involved in the formation of the Constitution would be very helpful before reading this book, but you could get by with just being familiar with the characters that appear in "Hamilton."
September 2, 2021
Jay Cost is always worth reading and usually has interesting, thoughtful political analysis to offer. His "James Madison" does not disappoint. While a lot has been written about Madison, Cost really pushes back against the common criticisms of the founder. Cost writes admiringly of Madison, fighting to preserve his historical reputation in what is a fascinating, revisionist history. Cost knows his stuff and this is a brilliant book that will help redeem Madison against many of his detractors in academia.
February 9, 2022
The book itself is excellent, but the more I read about the Founding Fathers, the more I come to understand just how simplistic a history we are taught in schools. Madison, especially, was devoted to a philosophy of government, and it was his dedication to establishing the U.S. as he thought appropriate that dictated everything he did in his life. One might think that's a good thing, and, at least in terms of what the United States came to be, we can point to Madison's enduring work toward his own vision as a major reason why we still have a United States. But it is still intriguing that all the Founding Fathers were dedicated more to their own personal visions regarding government and not to establishing a compassionate country, or one with particular freedoms. They were often just attempting to placate their own egos and to be "right." This often meant undermining "friends," refusing compromise, or just not really taking into consideration anything that didn't fit into their mindset.
Interestingly, none seemed to be doing any of this to line their own pockets. Some had more money than others, but all seemed really intent on building their vision. Some of their discourse reminded me of vituperative faculty meetings and seemed no different than the politics of today. The fact that the U.S. survived also had to do with a bit of luck along the way.
Another interesting aspect of the founding of the country was the way in which the lower "castes" were treated. Madison owned slaves, and although at some point he perhaps pondered whether slavery should exist as an institution, it was more in terms of political necessity than morality. He seemed to be like this in every aspect of his life. He did believe that those who were landowners should have a say in government, but he was able to compartmentalize the various factions of people. I don't think the book addressed what he may have thought about rights of women, but I would guess that, within his mindset, his belief was that women should have a right to have a say regarding women's issues. I doubt it crossed his mind that we would be having conversations about the rights for all. His mind didn't work that way.
It was also pretty terrible (in retrospect) that many of his calculations regarding expansion of the U.S. considered strategy, but never whether it was the right or moral thing to do to just "purchase" land from European countries that was already occupied by Native Americans. It didn't seem to cross any of their minds that, if purchases were to be made, they should be made from those who were already there, not from Europeans who claimed the land as their own. Thus, as the book goes into detail regarding the negotiations with Napoleon for "French" lands, the truly horrifying backdrop is the thought that the existence of Native Americans wasn't even on the radar.
It was also an eye opener to hear about just how terrible a document the United States Constitution turned out to be from the perspective of those who wrote it. It seems to have worked decently (to an extent) in execution, but the entire document was a series of rewrites, redactions, and melding things that didn't go together in an attempt to get *something* that would get the group of states to sign on to. I think in school we're given the impression that our wise Founding Fathers sat down in a room together and wrote a document that provided an enduring legacy that is the envy of most nations. That's not what happened. Nobody could agree on anything (like our current legislation), and some of the material in the Constitution is just the product of people being too exhausted to really take a look at what they had wound up writing down. Even Madison was doubtful that the document could be the backbone of an enduring government. It makes the idea of "original intent" jurisprudence even more absurd.
Interestingly, none seemed to be doing any of this to line their own pockets. Some had more money than others, but all seemed really intent on building their vision. Some of their discourse reminded me of vituperative faculty meetings and seemed no different than the politics of today. The fact that the U.S. survived also had to do with a bit of luck along the way.
Another interesting aspect of the founding of the country was the way in which the lower "castes" were treated. Madison owned slaves, and although at some point he perhaps pondered whether slavery should exist as an institution, it was more in terms of political necessity than morality. He seemed to be like this in every aspect of his life. He did believe that those who were landowners should have a say in government, but he was able to compartmentalize the various factions of people. I don't think the book addressed what he may have thought about rights of women, but I would guess that, within his mindset, his belief was that women should have a right to have a say regarding women's issues. I doubt it crossed his mind that we would be having conversations about the rights for all. His mind didn't work that way.
It was also pretty terrible (in retrospect) that many of his calculations regarding expansion of the U.S. considered strategy, but never whether it was the right or moral thing to do to just "purchase" land from European countries that was already occupied by Native Americans. It didn't seem to cross any of their minds that, if purchases were to be made, they should be made from those who were already there, not from Europeans who claimed the land as their own. Thus, as the book goes into detail regarding the negotiations with Napoleon for "French" lands, the truly horrifying backdrop is the thought that the existence of Native Americans wasn't even on the radar.
It was also an eye opener to hear about just how terrible a document the United States Constitution turned out to be from the perspective of those who wrote it. It seems to have worked decently (to an extent) in execution, but the entire document was a series of rewrites, redactions, and melding things that didn't go together in an attempt to get *something* that would get the group of states to sign on to. I think in school we're given the impression that our wise Founding Fathers sat down in a room together and wrote a document that provided an enduring legacy that is the envy of most nations. That's not what happened. Nobody could agree on anything (like our current legislation), and some of the material in the Constitution is just the product of people being too exhausted to really take a look at what they had wound up writing down. Even Madison was doubtful that the document could be the backbone of an enduring government. It makes the idea of "original intent" jurisprudence even more absurd.
Read
May 19, 2025There doesn’t seem to be a consensus on the best James Madison biography, so I chose this, the most recently published in 2021. I’m happy with my choice, though it should be noted that this is not quite a traditional cradle-to-the-grave biography that covers all aspects of a person’s life. Instead, it’s an examination of Madison’s political philosophy and political roles. It moves chronologically through Madison’s life, but doesn’t much delve into his character and personal life. I was a bit disappointed in that respect, yet still got a good handle on Madison due to Cost’s readable and clarifying prose. He basically connects the dots from Madison’s early days as a politician through the rest of his life, arguing that he was more consistent than historians give him credit for. Madison is often viewed as contradictory. He supported a strong central government at the Constitutional Convention and in the Federalist Papers, and argued against political parties. But he seemingly went back on both of these ideas just a few years later. Cost convincingly shows that this isn’t quite the case, that Madison, at every turn, was motivated by the necessity of a republic for and by the people. Cost’s assessment of Madison’s service as Secretary of State and then president are interesting, especially in regards to the War of 1812, which truly put Madison’s political ideas to the test. Cost shows that Madison was consistent in his politics right until the end, when he argued against nullification during his post-presidency.
There were some aspects in the second half of the book, during and after Madison’s presidency, that I struggled to follow due to the dense writing and political theory that I’m not familiar with. I admittedly glossed over some passages. By and large though, this is a clearly written and often fascinating account of Madison’s extraordinary life. I think it’s a good first book to read about America’s fourth president and vital founding father.
Another thing: reading this book makes me understand just how much of an experiment America was after the constitution was written. Many ideas were tried, things went one way, then snapped back, went another way, then snapped back. It's still an experiment all these decades later, but things were less certain in those early days.
There were some aspects in the second half of the book, during and after Madison’s presidency, that I struggled to follow due to the dense writing and political theory that I’m not familiar with. I admittedly glossed over some passages. By and large though, this is a clearly written and often fascinating account of Madison’s extraordinary life. I think it’s a good first book to read about America’s fourth president and vital founding father.
Another thing: reading this book makes me understand just how much of an experiment America was after the constitution was written. Many ideas were tried, things went one way, then snapped back, went another way, then snapped back. It's still an experiment all these decades later, but things were less certain in those early days.
May 28, 2023
“James Madison” by Jay Cost tells the story of the life of our nation’s fourth President firmly through the lens of his political life — and that’s by design.
As Cost illustrates, perhaps no president in American history is more political than James Madison. “We are all Madisonian,” Cost writes, and it appears accurate on the surface. After siding with both parties in the brutal Federalist-Democratic Republican battles of the 1780s and 1790s, Madison’s presidency and post-presidency mediation of issues like nullification served to unite both sides, effectively eliminating the federalists and creating a national structure we still use today.
As the “Father of the Constitution,” Madison’s influence, of course, still dictates our lives. And in his biography, Cost thoroughly explains (perhaps a bit too thoroughly) the machinations as to how Madison came to exert such influence. He was wholly dedicated to politics, and so was his loyal and loving wife, Dolly. Still known as one of America’s most influential First Ladies, Dolly Madison was perhaps as keen a politician as her husband and proved instrumental in their rise as a founding American power couple.
Madison made mistakes aplenty. His stubbornness (along with Jefferson, Monroe, etc.) entangled us in the destructive War of 1812. He never took the opportunity to deride slavery, even though he knew of its ills as a “serpent,” and owned many slaves. But Madison’s influence is almost unparalleled.
Cost’s biography is political, just like Madison. If that isn’t your flavor, then this isn’t for you. Policy, procedure and debate run this narrative — not story. We don’t really get to know Madison, the man, only Madison, the politician. But perhaps that’s all the same thing.
As Cost illustrates, perhaps no president in American history is more political than James Madison. “We are all Madisonian,” Cost writes, and it appears accurate on the surface. After siding with both parties in the brutal Federalist-Democratic Republican battles of the 1780s and 1790s, Madison’s presidency and post-presidency mediation of issues like nullification served to unite both sides, effectively eliminating the federalists and creating a national structure we still use today.
As the “Father of the Constitution,” Madison’s influence, of course, still dictates our lives. And in his biography, Cost thoroughly explains (perhaps a bit too thoroughly) the machinations as to how Madison came to exert such influence. He was wholly dedicated to politics, and so was his loyal and loving wife, Dolly. Still known as one of America’s most influential First Ladies, Dolly Madison was perhaps as keen a politician as her husband and proved instrumental in their rise as a founding American power couple.
Madison made mistakes aplenty. His stubbornness (along with Jefferson, Monroe, etc.) entangled us in the destructive War of 1812. He never took the opportunity to deride slavery, even though he knew of its ills as a “serpent,” and owned many slaves. But Madison’s influence is almost unparalleled.
Cost’s biography is political, just like Madison. If that isn’t your flavor, then this isn’t for you. Policy, procedure and debate run this narrative — not story. We don’t really get to know Madison, the man, only Madison, the politician. But perhaps that’s all the same thing.
September 8, 2025
Yes, I read another book about President James Madison. I have one more to go before I go to the next founder. James Madison, as I have stated before, was truly the back bone of our Republic! Madison, “did more than any of his contemporaries to inform our understanding of politics. Ask yourself how self-government is supposed to function, and you will inevitably find yourself pondering an idea that was articulated most cogently by James Madison. The people, through the process of bargaining, negotiating, and compromising, can come upon solutions that advance the general welfare while respecting the rights of the individual? Madison. Self-government can span a continent? Madison. The benefits and burdens of policy should be distributed evenly? Madison. Rich citizens should have no greater access to government than the poor? Madison. Government should endeavor to pursue the national interest while respecting constitutional limits? Madison.”
On a side note, it is interesting that some things never change. We have folks in the Legislature, today, that are making millions off of information they are receiving by being on certain committees. They use this information to purchase stock in companies that are contracted with the government. What is interesting is that the same thing was happening in James Madison’s day. He called them “Stock Jobbers”. Maybe Rep. Tim Burchett, who is leading in legislation to stop this, should start calling these folks that are doing this, “Stock Jobbers”! Great read!! Highly recommend this book!!
On a side note, it is interesting that some things never change. We have folks in the Legislature, today, that are making millions off of information they are receiving by being on certain committees. They use this information to purchase stock in companies that are contracted with the government. What is interesting is that the same thing was happening in James Madison’s day. He called them “Stock Jobbers”. Maybe Rep. Tim Burchett, who is leading in legislation to stop this, should start calling these folks that are doing this, “Stock Jobbers”! Great read!! Highly recommend this book!!
February 27, 2022
On a journey to read a biography for every U.S. president, and this was the perfect choice for our fourth commander in chief. Not too dense, but not too opinionated. America's First Politician is an easy read, but also incredibly insightful in describing Madison's attributes (both positive and negative).
Of all the Founding Fathers, Madison seems to evolved the most throughout his life. Like his friend Jefferson, he advocated for a simple, agriculture-based economy during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, and held on to these beliefs while in congress and serving as Jefferson's Secretary of State. But after the War of 1812, he realized the union must diversify their economy, and invest in infrastructure; ideas that his late friend Alexander Hamilton supported, but with an elitist perspective.
Cost doesn't shy away from Madison's lowlights either. Madison knew the practice of slavery was inhumane, but he allowed it because it fueled his livelihood, along with all the other southern planters across the south. He gave a lousy defense of the 3/5 clause in Federalist 54 only because it was included in the constitution, and persuading the public in accepting it in its entirety was his primary goal. Neglecting slavery was the Founders' most costly mistake. And Madison realized this while writing "Advice to my Country".
Of all the Founding Fathers, Madison seems to evolved the most throughout his life. Like his friend Jefferson, he advocated for a simple, agriculture-based economy during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, and held on to these beliefs while in congress and serving as Jefferson's Secretary of State. But after the War of 1812, he realized the union must diversify their economy, and invest in infrastructure; ideas that his late friend Alexander Hamilton supported, but with an elitist perspective.
Cost doesn't shy away from Madison's lowlights either. Madison knew the practice of slavery was inhumane, but he allowed it because it fueled his livelihood, along with all the other southern planters across the south. He gave a lousy defense of the 3/5 clause in Federalist 54 only because it was included in the constitution, and persuading the public in accepting it in its entirety was his primary goal. Neglecting slavery was the Founders' most costly mistake. And Madison realized this while writing "Advice to my Country".
March 4, 2026
This book is a fair overview of the “Father of the Constitution.” Cost’s primary thesis - that Madison’s consistency lay in his conception of government as a neutral arbiter (as opposed to a well-articulated legal philosophy) - is persuasively developed, as are most of the numerous subarguments contained in specific chapters, some of which are unorthodox. In particular, I found Cost’s interpretation of the Virginia Resolutions as a decidedly more conservative document than their Kentucky counterparts convincing, despite both frequently being lumped together in historical accounts. Furthermore, the narrative is balanced in its coverage of the competing political factions in the early Republic, especially in its exploration of the Anti-Federalists (who, although not necessarily correct, made a few prescient critiques of the Constitutional Convention’s work).
Unfortunately, there are a few caveats to my recommendation of this book. While Madison the thinker is thoroughly fleshed out, I can’t say I felt the same way about Madison the human being (the inclusion of more direct quotes from him may have helped in this regard). Likewise, although the concluding chapter on Madison’s retirement offered good explanations of his response to the Nullification Crisis, I would have appreciated some discussion of what Madison made of other developments during this period (e.g., the Missouri Crisis, the Second Party System, etc.).
Still, overall, this volume is a good roadmap for those hoping to make sense of Madison’s sometimes less-than-consistent policy positions.
Verdict: 3.5/5
Unfortunately, there are a few caveats to my recommendation of this book. While Madison the thinker is thoroughly fleshed out, I can’t say I felt the same way about Madison the human being (the inclusion of more direct quotes from him may have helped in this regard). Likewise, although the concluding chapter on Madison’s retirement offered good explanations of his response to the Nullification Crisis, I would have appreciated some discussion of what Madison made of other developments during this period (e.g., the Missouri Crisis, the Second Party System, etc.).
Still, overall, this volume is a good roadmap for those hoping to make sense of Madison’s sometimes less-than-consistent policy positions.
Verdict: 3.5/5
October 15, 2022
James Madison is a difficult subject for a popular history/biography book. His story lacks the dramatic flair of a Jefferson, Hamilton, or Franklin. His life remained narrowly focused on his work well into adulthood, for the good of our country, but not so great for modern day biographers.
Because of this, he's not spoken about in the same volume as the other significant Founding Fathers. Jay Cost makes a worthy attempt to change that. It's an important job, because few can claim as much credit for making the United States of America the successful experiment it became.
For the most part, he succeeds in this very readable biography. Cost does a solid job laying out not only how Madison's personal convictions formed our society, but the logic behind some of his biggest contradictions. It manages to achieve in 400 pages what many biographies fall short on with twice as much space.
My only nitpick is how Cost flies right past the creation of the Bill of Rights. It's one of Madison's crucial contributions, but while Cost breaks down how they were brought up and passed, he doesn't speak at all about Madison's original writing of them, how they were changed, and how his personal beliefs drove the process. It's a big omission in an otherwise insightful book.
Because of this, he's not spoken about in the same volume as the other significant Founding Fathers. Jay Cost makes a worthy attempt to change that. It's an important job, because few can claim as much credit for making the United States of America the successful experiment it became.
For the most part, he succeeds in this very readable biography. Cost does a solid job laying out not only how Madison's personal convictions formed our society, but the logic behind some of his biggest contradictions. It manages to achieve in 400 pages what many biographies fall short on with twice as much space.
My only nitpick is how Cost flies right past the creation of the Bill of Rights. It's one of Madison's crucial contributions, but while Cost breaks down how they were brought up and passed, he doesn't speak at all about Madison's original writing of them, how they were changed, and how his personal beliefs drove the process. It's a big omission in an otherwise insightful book.
September 17, 2023
Continuing my journey through the presidents brings me to our 4th. Mr. Cost seems to have no agenda. He shows us how President Madison helped guide our nation's founding and serve as really the first professional, full-time politician. That's basically what he did after college other than a brief period of semi-retirement during the 1790's. I don't think Madison gets as much credit as someone like Hamilton because his story wasn't nearly as romantic. He didn't have as many enemies as Hamilton and lived a long life instead of being killed by a rival in a duel. He was soft-spoken and seemingly had no extramarital affairs. He wrote 29 of the 85 Federalist Papers and continued to write essays throughout his life trying to guide the young nation. Even a few years before he died he again picked up the pen to aid in the nullification crisis. He was small in stature, soft-spoken, and never served in the military. I think that these are the reasons that he is not put on the pedestal of the greats. Madison may not have had all of the foresight as Hamilton but he was able to move those ideas ahead through the political process. I was particularly interested in reading more about the War of 1812 and came away with a broad overview through this book.
June 30, 2023
If you are looking for a succinct and coherent account of Madison's work and his contributions to US history and governance, this fits the bill. What this 399 page work doesn't have a lot of are the personal anecdotes and quotes that add a lot to my favorite biographies. Perhaps that is due in part to the nature of James Madison himself, a man who seems to have dedicated much of his time to his work. But he must have written a love letter or two to Dolley in his time, and I would have liked to have read that stuff too.
What I appreciate more about Madison after reading this book is how he consistently fought to ensure that the government operated for the benefit of all citizens as opposed to favoring the wealthy. Also, as the first war-time president, I also have a greater appreciation for the extreme challenges faced by Madison during his presidency in dealing with the unfriendly and aggressive Britain and France while backed by an inadequate military force. Perhaps he was a better president than he is typically given credit for by historians. Or perhaps I am too influenced by an adoring biographer.
What I appreciate more about Madison after reading this book is how he consistently fought to ensure that the government operated for the benefit of all citizens as opposed to favoring the wealthy. Also, as the first war-time president, I also have a greater appreciation for the extreme challenges faced by Madison during his presidency in dealing with the unfriendly and aggressive Britain and France while backed by an inadequate military force. Perhaps he was a better president than he is typically given credit for by historians. Or perhaps I am too influenced by an adoring biographer.
February 17, 2023
Is it even-handed or is it both sides-ing? Probably both! Cost does a good job of illustrating Madison's line of thinking on the issues of the day, for better or for worse, but also portrays him as a principled man of decisiveness and as an ambiguous shoulder-shrugger. Probably the best you can do when you argue your subject as the first American to do what is politically necessary at any specific time.
This is absolutely not the best you can do when portraying a founding father's attitudes towards slavery and Native Americans, though. Madison is only taken to task a handful of times for being a man ideologically opposed to slavery but probably took fewer actions to benefit slaves than Jefferson, and those few criticisms are weak. The only mention of native Americans are as British allies in the War of 1812, which is an incredible oversight when discussing a man whose career under Jefferson into his own term kick-started the centuries-long campaign of indigenous displacement. This book is not that long, we probably coulda put an extra chapter in and barely felt a difference.
This is absolutely not the best you can do when portraying a founding father's attitudes towards slavery and Native Americans, though. Madison is only taken to task a handful of times for being a man ideologically opposed to slavery but probably took fewer actions to benefit slaves than Jefferson, and those few criticisms are weak. The only mention of native Americans are as British allies in the War of 1812, which is an incredible oversight when discussing a man whose career under Jefferson into his own term kick-started the centuries-long campaign of indigenous displacement. This book is not that long, we probably coulda put an extra chapter in and barely felt a difference.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 72 reviews