|
James Madison
The Continental Congress, operating under the Articles of Confederation, acted as an assembly of the representatives
of several sovereign states, with little power except when a clear consensus existed among its members.
The necessities imposed by the American Revolution created a willingness to cooperate that diminished
rather swiftly as the war drew to a close. James Madison, a young representative from Virginia, grew increasingly
frustrated by the inability of the government of the Confederation to implement any coherent policies
to guide the nation in peace as it had in war. The American Revolution seemed to have unleashed a spirit
of radicalism that the government was unable to quell, and it appeared to many that the precarious confederation
of states would soon disintegrate.
Madison took an active role in persuading Virginia to take the lead in calling for a constitutional convention
to replace the Articles of Confederation with a document that would provide for a government capable of
preserving the union from foreign foes and from its own particularist tendencies. Not all were content
with the document drawn up in Philadelphia, and many feared that the new Constitution would provide the
vehicle for a tyranny that might not only quell challenges to a national authority, but also use its powers
to supplant the powers of the states themselves. Madison joined with John Jay and Alexander Hamilton in
writing eighty-five essays explaining the federal form of government embodied in the proposed Constitution.
One of the compromises embodied in the Constitution was that between representation of states, many of
which were controlled by a propertied elite, and of the people, who had, after all, fought and won the
War for Independence. The Senate would be composed of two representatives chosen by each state legislature
and serving terms of six years, and the House of Representatives, the members of which were to be chosen
by popular vote and apportioned on the basis of population and would serve a term of two years. The problem
with this compromise, in the eyes of many, was that the House was to consist, at least at first, of only
sixty-five members. This seemed to some too small a number and, since the ratio of representation would
be about 1–45,000, it was feared that the representatives could not be responsive to the needs of such
large constituencies. Moreover, the body would be small enough that it could be controlled by the corruption
of only a few members.
Madison attempted to address these concerns in Federalist Paper No. 55. His arguments stressed
the short terms of office, the imminent reduction of the ratio of representation to 1–30,000, the power
vested in the House by its control of appropriations, and the ineffectiveness of large assemblies. He
did not, of course, envisage the problems that would be created by the emergence of the party system or
the population growth that would lead to the present-day assembly of over 400 representatives, each representing
roughly 450,000 people.
Each of The Federalist Papers intended either to create a fear of what would happen if the Constitution
was not ratified, or to calm a specific fear of potential supporters of the document. What is the point
of Madison’s discussion of the ratio of representation in the various states, and who is he addressing
here? What appeal does he make to history? Madison claimed that the representatives in Congress would
pose no threat either to the hard-fought liberties of the recent war or the future of republican government.
What does he feel will prevent representatives from, becoming "dangerous to the public liberties"?
What will safeguard them from corruption? Was Madison’s faith in the system justified?
|
