Madison v. Hamilton: The Battle Over Republicanism and the Role of Public Opinion

2004 ◽  
Vol 98 (3) ◽  
pp. 405-424 ◽  
Author(s):  
COLLEEN A. SHEEHAN
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
Political Elite ◽  
Alexander Hamilton ◽  
James Madison ◽  
Political Leaders ◽  
The Federalist ◽  
Participatory Politics ◽  
Republican Government ◽  
Political Advantage

This article examines the causes of the dispute between James Madison and Alexander Hamilton in the early 1790s. Though Hamilton initially believed that Madison's opposition to the Federalist administration was probably motivated by personal animosity and political advantage, in later years he concluded what Madison had long argued: the controversy between Republicans and Federalists stemmed from a difference of principle. For Madison, republicanism meant the recognition of the sovereignty of public opinion and the commitment to participatory politics. Hamilton advocated a more submissive role for the citizenry and a more independent status for the political elite. While Madison did not deny to political leaders and enlightened men a critical place in the formation of public opinion, he fought against Hamilton's thin version of public opinion as “confidence” in government. In 1791–92 Madison took the Republican lead in providing a philosophic defense for a tangible, active, and responsible role for the citizens of republican government.

The Federalist Papers

2022 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
18Th Century ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Alexander Hamilton ◽  
James Madison ◽  
Political Debate ◽  
National Unity ◽  
The Federalist ◽  
The Federalist Papers

The Federalist is widely considered to be one of the most influential political writings in the early United States. Consisting of eighty-five essays in total, the first seventy-seven essays were originally published in New York newspapers between October 1787 and April 1788, and the final eight appeared in the first collected edition of The Federalist in 1788, although they were later republished in New York newspapers as well. The Federalist was written collectively by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay to promote the ratification of the newly drafted Constitution. In keeping with the conventions of 18th-century public political debate, The Federalist was published under the pseudonym “Publius” to present its arguments to the public in anonymous terms, focusing attention on the content of the essays rather than the personal views or personalities of the authors. Although Hamilton, Madison, and Jay would not be formally identified as the authors of The Federalist until the publication of a notice in The Port-Folio on 14 November 1807, their collective authorship was widely known by the 1790s, and their reputations as respected statesmen and innovative political thinkers brought considerable attention and credibility to their arguments. Through the voice of Publius, The Federalist explains and defends the core principles and structure of the new government outlined within the Constitution, while also identifying the flaws and weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation. In doing so, The Federalist provides substantive critical and philosophical discussions of federal governance and its relationship to the principles of plural sovereignty, national unity, republican representation, citizenship, national security, commercial interests, and the separation of powers, all of which had a profound influence, not just on the ratification debates, but also on subsequent interpretations of constitutional language and authority, from the founding period to the present. While scholars have endlessly debated the political, historical, philosophical, literary, and cultural impact of The Federalist, these essays continue to serve as foundational texts for studying the politics and culture of the early United States, as well as contemporary interpretations and revisions of constitutional principles in legal, legislative, and cultural spheres.

James Madison's Political Theory: Hostage to Democratic Fortune

2005 ◽  
Vol 67 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard K. Matthews
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
Collective Action ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
Political Thought ◽  
Democratic Theory ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
James Madison

Professor Alan Gibson's insightful article contains much that is admirable. He is, in my view, correct in calling scholars' attention—particularly political scientists—to James Madison's often neglected views in his National Gazette essays and the foundational role of public opinion on all governments. In addition, Gibson asserts several claims hoping to establish Madison's credentials as a democratic theorist that should be of interest as well. Specifically, he seeks to accomplish four tasks: (1) “to clarify the enduring debate over the credibility of Madison's democratic credentials”; (2) to “examine Madison's role in justifying, popularizing, and understanding… public opinion”; (3) to “highlight some of Madison's neglected insights into democratic theory, especially his understanding of the problem of collective action, and thereby establish him as a prescient democratic theorist”; and (4) to argue the case that Madison “contributed to a developing tradition of political thought in America upon a broad-based conception of freedom of speech and on the belief that political truths best emerge from the full flow of ideas.”While I concur with much of Gibson's position—especially his fourth, indisputable point—I also disagree with him on at least one significant position: James Madison was not a democrat.

Where Ivy Matters: The Educational Backgrounds of U.S. Cultural Elites

2020 ◽  
Vol 93 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-172 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Brint ◽  
Komi T. German ◽  
Kayleigh Anderson-Natale ◽  
Zeinab F. Shuker ◽  
Suki Wang
Keyword(s):  
Colleges And Universities ◽  
Political Elite ◽  
Educational Institutions ◽  
Political Leaders ◽  
Educational Backgrounds ◽  
Cultural Elite ◽  
Selective Colleges ◽  
Elite Formation ◽  
The U.S

Status transmission theory argues that leading educational institutions prepare individuals from privileged backgrounds for positions of prestige and power in their societies. We examine the educational backgrounds of more than 2,900 members of the U.S. cultural elite and compare these backgrounds to a sample of nearly 4,000 business and political leaders. We find that the leading U.S. educational institutions are substantially more important for preparing future members of the cultural elite than they are for preparing future members of the business or political elite. In addition, members of the cultural elite who are recognized for outstanding achievements by peers and experts are much more likely to have obtained degrees from the leading educational institutions than are those who achieve acclaim from popular audiences. By focusing on the extent to which industries and cultural domains depend on quickness and facility in the absorption and manipulation of complex and sophisticated symbolic media, our analysis leads to an important specification of the role of highly selective colleges and universities in elite formation.

scholarly journals Rule by the Few in the Federalist Papers: An Examination of the Aristocratic Preference of Publius

2020 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Carl M. Felice
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
American People ◽  
Alexander Hamilton ◽  
James Madison ◽  
Federalist Papers ◽  
The Federalist ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Federalist Papers

AbstractThe Federalist Papers are a set of eighty-five essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay during the founding era of the United States, with the purpose of persuading the states to adopt the Constitution as the replacement for the Articles of Confederation. The Papers were some of the most impressive political writings of the time, and are still cited frequently today by the United States Supreme Court. The arguments set forth in the Papers attempted to defend the Constitution's aristocratic characteristics against its opponents, the Anti-Federalists, while also attempting to normalize an anti-democratic, representative form of government in the minds of the American people. The clever advocacy and skillful rhetoric employed by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay led to the eventual ratification of the Constitution, and consequently the creation of the most powerful and prosperous nation on the planet. This paper examines the differences between the traditional forms of government, the political philosophies of the Papers’ authors, the anti-democratic, aristocratic nature of the government proposed by the Constitution, and the arguments for and against its adoption, as articulated in the Papers and various other writings.

The Publian President in the Twenty-First Century

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanford Levinson
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
National Government ◽  
United States Constitution ◽  
First Century ◽  
Alexander Hamilton ◽  
James Madison ◽  
Political Ambition ◽  
Institutional Power ◽  
The Federalist ◽  
Security Challenges

Many Americans place special emphasis on the arguments presented by James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton, under the name “Publius,” in The Federalist. Often, these are presented in the context of debates about “constitutional interpretation,” that is, the best way to give meaning to disputed passages of the U.S. Constitution. And, often, these are linked with “originalist” approaches that give distinctive weight to the views expressed by Publius. One of the central themes of The Federalist is the necessity of creating a strong national government, with potentially “unlimited” powers, sufficient to meet the challenges, often described as “exigencies,” that will inevitably face the nation. Most obvious, of course, are what we would today describe as “national security” challenges. The question is not only the possession of potentially unlimited powers by the national government as an abstract (and complex) entity. Much of the discussion necessarily involves the degree to which one person, that is, the president, should instantiate this basically unlimited power. There is also a question of “constitutional design”: that is, if one recognizes the necessity for occasional “constitutional dictatorships,” does the United States Constitution present a desirable model for such a powerful executive, especially if we take Publius seriously with regard to the ubiquitous presence of political “ambition” attached to institutional power?

scholarly journals The Quest for Restructuring the Nigerian Nation: Myth or Reality? The Role of Libraries in Amplifying the Debate

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-21
Author(s):  
Harriet Seun Dapo-Asaju ◽  
Oludayo John Bamgbose
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
Public Perception ◽  
Information Services ◽  
Political Space ◽  
Political Leaders ◽  
Informed Decisions ◽  
Other Information ◽  
Information Professionals

AbstractThe primary duty of library and information professionals is to render information services to their patrons. Although the information provided often shapes public opinion and could help in making informed decisions, librarians and other information professionals often steer clear of politics and the processes that lead to emergence of leaders, even though their activities could be greatly affected by the nature of those who emerge as political leaders. It is against this background that this research sought to take a look at the issue of political restructuring, which has been a burning issue within the Nigerian political space, and what roles Nigerian librarians could play in the realization of the demands of restructuring in Nigeria. This article is of the view that besides being perceived as relevant in the scheme of things in Nigeria, librarians’ engagement could further positively impact on the condition of service of librarians and their public perception.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document