Madison Reenactment Script

Attachment: 2942/Madison_reenactment.pdf

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak with you today about the beginnings of
our country and the foundation on which it stands.

If we the people mean to be our

own governors, we must arm ourselves with the power which knowledge gives. For the

nation of these states is a wonder; the Constitution, a miracle; and their example is the

hope of liberty throughout the world.

What form of government is the United States of America? ____

The answer is a constitutional republic. We are a republic, not a democracy.

The two

great points of di

ﬀ

erence between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation

of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest;

secondly the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the

latter may be extended.

For in a large republic the influence of factious leaders may

kindle a flame within their particular states but will be unable to spread a general

conflagration through other states.

Our system of governance is based on our most

important document: the Constitution.

This form of government was not assured when the revolutionary war ended in 1783.
We were a fragile entity which easily could have devolved into independent and
competing states overrun by foreign countries. I have been called the “Father of the
Constitution,” but I object to that title as the Constitution was

not the o

ﬀ

-spring of a

single brain but the work of many heads and hands.

I served to organize the convention

at which the Constitution was drafted, and I recorded detailed notes throughout the
process never missing a day of the deliberations. I intentionally seated myself in front
of the presiding o

ﬃ

cer to hear all that was said. I prefer not to be in the forefront, but

William Pierce of Georgia kindly stated that “at every question Madison always comes
forward [as] the best informed man of any point in debate.”

During the war, the thirteen states were loosely joined under the Articles of
Confederation. The articles established a confederation congress, sometimes called
the continental congress, who made decisions about the war but little else. The states
were sovereign and independent thus operating on their own special interests without
regard to thinking about a nation as a whole. We were unified only in our desire for
independence from England. Many were apprehensive about a strong central
government and wanted to preserve the power of individual states. To counter the
assertion of states’ rights, Mr. James Wilson said, “

Can we forget for whom we are

forming a government? Is it for men or for the imaginary beings called states?

I later

wrote that the federal government should be limited and its

jurisdiction extends to

certain enumerate objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and

inviolable sovereignty over all other objects.

Both state and federal governments are

answerable to the citizenry and are not rivals;

they are in fact but di

ﬀ

erent agents and

trustees of the people, constituted with di

ﬀ

erent powers, and designed for di

ﬀ

erent

purposes.

I envisioned that

the operations of the federal government will be most

extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in

times of peace and security.

Yet once the war ended, several states were at risk of turning into the same tyranny
which they had opposed in the war; few states had a suitable constitution of their own.
No other country had yet developed a constitution, so there were no examples for us to
follow.

We were experiencing di

ﬃ

culties due to the limitations of the original articles. Under

the Articles of Confederation, representatives to the congress were not elected by the
people and each state had only one vote regardless of size or population. During the
war, the confederation was unable to raise necessary funds to keep the troops
supplied with wages, food, and clothing nearly leading to mutiny of by the army. After
the war, the congress did not have the legal power to respond when foreign countries
put restrictions on United States shipping, when Spain encroached on land in the
south, and when the British continued to occupy forts. States could bar the import of
products from other states. As people settled in the west, they threatened to create
their own states outside of the union or join with Spain. And all thirteen states were
required to agree to amend the document—nearly an impossibility at any time. A
national government was needed to raise money to pay our debts from the war and
fund our operation, to regulate commerce, to print one stable form of currency (rather
than each state minting its own), and to defend the states against foreign threats. There
was no mechanism by which personal liberties could be protected. We needed a

Union

as our bulwark

and

as the only substitute for those military establishments which have

subverted the liberties of the Old World. A crisis had arrived which was to decide

whether the American experiment was to be a blessing to the world, or to blast forever

the hopes which the republican cause had inspired.

I and others realized that a new governing document needed to be created to replace
the insu

ﬃ

cient Articles of Confederation. In 1783, Mr. Alexander Hamilton had called a

convention with resolutions to amend the Articles of Confederation, but the states were
not yet ready for change, and the proposal died due to lack of support. A second
convention was called but again had no support. I called for a convention in 1786 in
Annapolis to specifically address issues of commerce, but only five states responded.
Even with meager attendance, Hamilton audaciously announced that a convention for
reforming the Articles of Confederation would be held beginning the second Sunday in
May of 1787. Although the convention proposed to revise the Articles of Confederation,
several of us including General Washington, Hamilton, John Adams, and John Jay
realized that revision would not be adequate. States were slow to accept the invitation,
but eventually all but Rhode Island sent delegates. Rhode Island feared that it would
lose self-control to the larger states. Shays Rebellion the summer before created fear in
the states and a desire for a stronger government to react which prompted them to
send delegates.

By May 25, 1787, enough delegates (29 from 9 states) had arrived to constitute a
quorum. We met in Philadelphia in the same hall in which the Declaration of
Independence had been signed. Philadelphia was one of the largest cities at the time
with about 30,000 in population, and welcomed us graciously. Philadelphia entertained
the delegates with musicals and covered the cobblestones in front of the state house
with gravel to quiet the carriage noise outside. To prevent journalists from publishing

contentious debates and prematurely sharing proposals (which might be defeated) with
the people, the windows and doors of the room were kept locked, and sentries were
posted in the hallway. The heat was stifling, and bluebottle flies attached us outside
and invaded our bedrooms. We su

ﬀ

ered miserably but persevered. Prisoners in the jail

across the street from the state house crowded their windows and pushed long
begging stick through the bars. A cloth cap was held at the end of the stick for
collecting coins. If we delegates weren’t generous enough, the prisoners would jeer
and call us nasty names.

Fifty-five prestigious and knowledgeable delegates attended of whom 39 had been
members of the continental congress, one-third had served in the Revolutionary War, 8
had signed the Declaration of Independence, 7 had been state governors, 34 were
trained as lawyers, and 15 had helped draft their own state constitutions. The average
age of delegates was 42; the youngest was 26, and the oldest (Mr. Benjamin Franklin)
was 81. I was 36 years old. We were all men of property concerned about economic
growth of our country and threats from within and without our nation. Delegates came
and went during our several months of session, so we had perhaps only 30 delegates
at a time. New York so resisted adopting a new constitution that their delegates left the
convention. Not all revolutionary patriots participated. Patrick Henry was skeptical of
my idea of a strong central government, so he did not join the Virginia delegation.
General Washington at first declined to attend for personal and political reasons but
agreed later for fear that the people would accuse him of not being a patriot and
because he staunchly believed in the need for a new constitution. His presence
provided legitimacy and dignity to the proceedings, and he was unanimously elected
as president of the convention on the first day.

We discussed the rules for the convention on the second day. Then on the fifth day,
Virginia governor Edmund Randolph ended the pretense of reform and attacked the
Articles of Confederation. He listed five functions necessary for government but which
the Articles of Confederation could not provide. Mr. Randolph introduced a series of
fifteen propositions which I had prepared in advance of the convention entitled the
Virginia Plan.

Tensions were high throughout the convention. Mr. Elbridge Gerry stated,

Instead of

coming here like a band of brothers belonging to the same family, we seemed to have

brought with us the spirit of political negotiators.

Delegates were suspicious of the

process and each other; there were conflicting views and di

ﬀ

ering loyalties (north v.

south, large states v. small states), and fear of creating a tyranny which would destroy
our hard won liberties. Mr. Franklin suggested that we ask a minister to start each day
with prayer to mitigate tempers. Mr. Hamilton stated that

the appearance of a minister

would give the impression that the convention was in need of prayer, in deep trouble,

and would start rumors.

Others were concerned about funds to pay a minister.

We rejected that to which we had experience: a monarchy and tyranny. Yet republics
were rare at the time of our convention and thought to only work on a small scale such

as locally or regionally. We created something new to the world. Every single facet of
government, though, had to be decided and debated—a day or more for each article.

Articles under consideration during the convention included:

branches of government, the power and scope of each branch, the composition of the
executive and legislative branches, the length of the presidency and representatives
(Hamilton suggested life appointments for the president and Senate), who would elect
the president, who would select congressional members, whether foreigners could
become members of Congress, how new states were to be added, the process of
amendments, the process of ratification, whether there was a need for state
governments, the need for a standing national military, the boundaries and limits of
rights and duties, who would be responsible for compensating legislators—the state or
federal government, and whether legislators could hold other o

ﬃ

ces. Mr. Luther Martin

even proposed that large states be divided into smaller states, and another idea was to
combine all states and redistrict them with equal populations.

The governmental composition of three branches was first established by Mr. John
Adams when he wrote the state constitution for Massachusetts and provided a model
for our convention. These powers must be separate and distinct with their own
boundaries to keep the others in their proper places.

In discriminating the several

classes of federal power, legislative, executive, or judiciary, the next and most di

ﬃ

cult

task was to provide some practical security for each against the invasion of others. The

accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands,

whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may

justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

A president as the nation’s executive was not guaranteed in the beginning. Mr.
Randolph recommended that three people serve; others suggested a council. The
objection to a single executive was based on the loathing of a monarchy. Delegates
were reticent to speak because they did not want to o

ﬀ

end General Washington, whom

they assumed would be the first president, and did not want to imply that he was not
capable by himself. The decision was made for a single person as the executive
branch, but the next question dealt with the length of term. In rejection of a semblance
of monarchial rule, a term for life was rejected.

The aim of every political constitution is,

or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and

most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take

the most e

ﬀ

ectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold

their public trust. The elective mode of obtaining rulers is the characteristic policy of

republican government. The means relied on in this form of government for preventing

their degeneracy are numerous and various. The most e

ﬀ

ectual one, is such a limitation

of the term of appointments as will maintain a proper responsibility to the people.

Wilson and Mr. Sherman recommended a term of three years; Mr. Pinckney and Mr.
Mason suggested seven years. A concern was that the term be long enough to
demonstrate national stability to foreign powers and not be

responsive to popular

pressure and passions,

yet short enough so that a body of

self-serving aristocrats

was

not formed . As with the election of the president and representatives,

frequent

elections are unquestionably the only policy by which the dependence and sympathy

[of the people]

can be e

ﬀ

ectively secured

. We agreed on four years for the presidency.

The question then arose as to how the president would be elected. Mr. Wilson stated
that the people should elect the president, but Mr. Mason said that process was
impractical. Mr. Rutledge then proposed that the senate elect the president. The
di

ﬃ

culty with this plan was that a president elected by the legislature would be

beholden to them rather than the people in seeking re-election. An electoral college
was the solution. Mr. Wilson and Mr. Hamilton wanted the president to have absolute
veto power over legislative decisions, whereas Mr. Gerry, Mr. Franklin, Mr. Sherman, Mr.
Butler, and I disagreed because that would give the executive too much power. A
conditional veto was approved where a presidential veto might be overridden by a two-
thirds majority in both houses.

There was little disagreement over the powers of the federal congress. They would be
able to, and also be limited to: impose taxes, coin money, establish post o

ﬃ

ces, make

treaties, establish a uniform rule of naturalization, raise armies, call up state militias,
declare war, and regulate commerce. A proposal was made that the national legislature
could veto state laws it deemed to violate the national Constitution, but this was
defeated.

The deep divide regarding congress was whether there would be one or two houses
and how the legislators would be elected. The number of representatives in a single
legislature was contentious. Mr. Brearly asserted that

if representatives are given by

quota

[or population],

Virginia would have sixteen votes and Georgia 1. There would be

three large states

[Virginia, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania],

and ten small ones.

Mr.

William Paterson from New Jersey summed up the fears of the small states that if we

give the large states an influence in proportion to their magnitude, what will be the

consequence? Their ambition will be proportionally increased.

I believed that

the states

are divided into di

ﬀ

erent interests not by their di

ﬀ

erences of size but by other

circumstances, the most material of which resulted partly from climate but principally

from the e

ﬀ

ects of their having or not have slaves.

The true issue to me was of northern

states versus southern states. One branch including slaves at a ration of 5 to 3 would
give the southern states an advantage in the first house, whereas another branch of
free inhabitants only would balance the advantage to the northern states. Mr. Roger
Sherman proposed the Connecticut Compromise of two branches with selection of
representatives based on di

ﬀ

erent population in the first branch

aristocratic branch and a democratic branch would provide checks on each other and

vices would be turned against each other.

Mr. Gerry listed four possible modes of selecting senators and outlined inherent
problems with the first three: 1. by the first branch [house] which would create a
dependency contrary to the end proposed, 2. by the national executive or president
which would tend toward monarchial rule, 3. by the people with the people being
primarily landed farmers and no security for commerce and business, or 4. by
individual legislatures. I opposed the election of senators by state legislatures as that
would strengthen state legislatures and empower states over the federal government. I
was defeated.

Nor was there agreement on the selection of representatives to the first branch. Mr.
Gerry and Mr. Sherman argued that giving the general people the ability to elect
representatives to the house, instead of being elected by state legislatures, would
prove disastrous because these

people would lack information and be easily misled.

Mr. Mason debated the opposite that the

people of the house must know and

sympathize with every part of their community with di

ﬀ

erent interest and views by

districts.

Mr. Wilson contended that

no government could long subsist without the

confidence of the people. Opposition to federal measures proceeded much more from

state o

ﬃ

cers than the people at large.

I added that

the great fabric to be raised would

be more stable and durable if it should rest on the solid foundation of the people

themselves than if it should stand merely on the pillars of the legislatures.

The vote to

allow state legislatures to elect representatives to the house of congress failed by 8 to
3. They would be elected by the general population.

What if our Constitution proved wrong or insu

ﬃ

cient? The delegates provided for two

means of amendment in Article V. The first is generated within the national congress
and ratification of a proposed amendment by two-thirds of the members both houses
of congress. Mr. Gerry, concerned about leaving all of the power of amendment to the
federal congress, proposed a second method which was agreed upon. Two-thirds of
state legislatures may call a convention to consider and ratify an amendment.

Many more issues were debated and decided, and much of the deliberation was based
on the fear of corruption.

In all cases where power is to be conferred, the point first to

be decided is, whether such a power be necessary to the public good; as the next will

be, in case of an a

ﬃ

rmative decision, to guard as e

ﬀ

ectively as possible against a

perversion of the power to the public detriment. It is a misfortune incident to republican

government, though in a less degree than in other governments, that those who

administer it may forget their obligations to their constituents, and prove unfaithful to

their important trust. In all countries there are diversity of interests . . . We must

therefore introduce in our system provisions against the measures of an interested

majority.

Mr. Patrick Henry stated,

The Constitution, therefore, is not an instrument for

the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the

government—lest the government come to dominate their lives and interests.

In the last days of the convention, the draft of the Constitution was submitted to the
Committee on Style to polish the writing. Without discussion beforehand, a preamble
was included. I suspect that it was written by Mr. Gouverneur Morris. The preamble
begins with the most significant line of “We the People.” There was no objection to this
preamble.

We signed the Constitution on September 17 after four months of deliberation. Ten
delegates did not sign the Constitution at the convention: four southern delegates, four
northern delegates, and two border delegates. Of those ten, seven had returned home
prior to the convention’s conclusion. My esteemed Mr. Mason and Mr. Gerry did not
sign because a Bill of Rights was not included. Even Mr. Randolph who proposed the
Virginia Plan, was reluctant to sign.

It is a matter of wonder and regret that those who

raise so many objections against the Constitution would never call to mind the defects

of that which is to be exchanged for it. It is not necessary that the Constitution should

be perfect; it is su

ﬃ

cient that the Articles of Confederation is more imperfect. No man

would refuse to quit a shattered and tottering habitation for a firm and commodious

building because the latter had not a porch to it, or because some of the rooms might

be a little larger or smaller…than his fancy would have planned them.

The Constitution created at our convention required ratification by a two-thirds majority
of the states. The process was arduous and not immediate because objections and
fears of a stronger central government had to be addressed. New York was so
indecisive that Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and I published the 85 Federalist Papers
from October 1787 through May of 1788 to answer concerns article by article. Each
was signed Publius as an anonymous name for the public at large, but I singly or co-
authored 29 or 34% of the papers.

The first to ratify was Delaware on December 7, 1787. The vote was unanimous in their
legislature. The vote was close in three large states. Rhode Island never held a
ratification convention. North Carolina voted not to ratify but did join the Union in
November 1789. New Hampshire was the ninth state to ratify on June 21, 1788,
making the Constitution the guidance for a nation of the United States.

In Europe, charters of liberty have been granted by power. But American has set the
example of charters of power granted by liberty. The Bill of Rights was ratified by
Congress on December 15, 1791.

If these rights are well defined and secured against

encroachment, it is impossible that government should every degenerate into tyranny.

The First Amendment protects our right to think what we like and say what we please.

And if we the people are to govern ourselves, we must have these rights, even if they

are misused by a minority.

The advice nearest my heart and deepest in my convictions is that the Union of States

be cherished and perpetuated. Every man who loves peace, every man who loves his

country, every man who loves liberty, ought to have it ever before his eyes, that he may

cherish in his heart a due attachment to the Union of American and be able to set a due

value on the means of preserving it.

As my co-patriot Mr. Hamilton stated,

If it be

asked, what is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of security in a republic?

The answer would be an inviolable respect for the Constitution and the laws.

Page Metadata
Login Required to view?	No
Created:	2022-06-20 21:33 GMT
Updated:	2023-06-21 03:00 GMT
Published:	2022-06-20 05:00 GMT
Converted:	2025-11-11 12:23 GMT
Change Author:	Christopher Nelson
Credit Author: