Wiki_QA__##

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
Title: Madison Reenactment Script

Original CoS Document (slug): [[https://conventionofstates.com/files/madison-reenactment-script|madison-reenactment-script]]

Login Required to view? No

Attached File: Madison_reenactment.pdf

Created: 2021-08-20 17:39:17

Updated: 2022-08-20 23:00:00

Published: 2021-08-20 01:00:00

Converted: 2025-04-14T20:02:55.731768185


----


{{:cb_mirror_public:media:files_13070_pdfto001.png?nolink&918x1188 |background image}}
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 diﬀerence 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. 



{{:cb_mirror_public:media:files_13070_pdfto002.png?nolink&918x1188 |background image}}
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 oﬀ-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 oﬃcer 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 



{{:cb_mirror_public:media:files_13070_pdfto003.png?nolink&918x1188 |background image}}
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 diﬀerent agents and trustees of the people, //

//constituted with diﬀerent powers, and designed for diﬀerent //

//purposes. //I envisioned that //the operations of the federal //



{{:cb_mirror_public:media:files_13070_pdfto004.png?nolink&918x1188 |background image}}
//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 diﬃculties 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 



{{:cb_mirror_public:media:files_13070_pdfto005.png?nolink&918x1188 |background image}}
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.  //



{{:cb_mirror_public:media:files_13070_pdfto006.png?nolink&918x1188 |background image}}
I and others realized that a new governing document needed to 

be created to replace the insuﬃcient 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 



{{:cb_mirror_public:media:files_13070_pdfto007.png?nolink&918x1188 |background image}}
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 suﬀered miserably but 

persevered. Prisoners in the jail across the street from the state 

house crowded their windows and pushed long begging stick 



{{:cb_mirror_public:media:files_13070_pdfto008.png?nolink&918x1188 |background image}}
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 



{{:cb_mirror_public:media:files_13070_pdfto009.png?nolink&918x1188 |background image}}
central government, so he did not join the Virginia delegation. 

General Washington at first refused to attend for personal and 

political reasons but agreed later for fear that the people would 

accuse him of not being a patriot. 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 //



{{:cb_mirror_public:media:files_13070_pdfto010.png?nolink&918x1188 |background image}}
//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 diﬀering 

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.



{{:cb_mirror_public:media:files_13070_pdfto011.png?nolink&918x1188 |background image}}
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 

oﬃces. 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.



{{:cb_mirror_public:media:files_13070_pdfto012.png?nolink&918x1188 |background image}}
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 diﬃcult 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 oﬀend General 



{{:cb_mirror_public:media:files_13070_pdfto013.png?nolink&918x1188 |background image}}
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 eﬀectual //

//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 eﬀectual 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 



{{:cb_mirror_public:media:files_13070_pdfto014.png?nolink&918x1188 |background image}}
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 eﬀectively 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 diﬃculty 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 



{{:cb_mirror_public:media:files_13070_pdfto015.png?nolink&918x1188 |background image}}
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 oﬃces, 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 



{{:cb_mirror_public:media:files_13070_pdfto016.png?nolink&918x1188 |background image}}
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 //

//diﬀerent interests not by their diﬀerences of size but by other //

//circumstances, the most material of which resulted partly from //

//climate but principally from the eﬀects 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 diﬀerent population in the 

first branch {house] and equal representation in the second 

branch [senate].



{{:cb_mirror_public:media:files_13070_pdfto017.png?nolink&918x1188 |background image}}
We had a model of two houses to follow in the British parliament

—one of the propertied and monied Lords, and one of the 

commoners. Our resolution was to establish a house comprised 

of the common people with shorter terms of oﬃce balanced and 

checked by a senate with wealthier and better educated oﬃcers 

who would hold longer terms. As Mr. Randolph so aptly stated, 

the second branch or senate //must be firm to control the first //

//branch //[or house]//, otherwise it will be overwhelmed by the //

//numbers of the house. it must be firm and stable against //

//encroachment s by the executive also. //Mr. Gouverneur Morris 

agreed that an //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 



{{:cb_mirror_public:media:files_13070_pdfto018.png?nolink&918x1188 |background image}}
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 diﬀerent 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 oﬃcers than the people at //



{{:cb_mirror_public:media:files_13070_pdfto019.png?nolink&918x1188 |background image}}
//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 insuﬃcient? 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 //



{{:cb_mirror_public:media:files_13070_pdfto020.png?nolink&918x1188 |background image}}
//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 aﬃrmative decision, to guard as //

//eﬀectively 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. 



{{:cb_mirror_public:media:files_13070_pdfto021.png?nolink&918x1188 |background image}}
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 suﬃcient that the Articles of Confederation is //

//more imperfect. No man would refuse to quit a shattered and //



{{:cb_mirror_public:media:files_13070_pdfto022.png?nolink&918x1188 |background image}}
//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. Massachusetts was the only 

state with a close vote. Rhode Island never held a ratification 



{{:cb_mirror_public:media:files_13070_pdfto023.png?nolink&918x1188 |background image}}
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 //



{{:cb_mirror_public:media:files_13070_pdfto024.png?nolink&918x1188 |background image}}
//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. //