Madison And Jefferson Analysis

The essays on Adams, Madison and Jefferson are interesting in that they show some of the nuances of the "first" party system. Wood notes that the federalists and republicans were not modern parties in any meaning of the word. The federalists considered themselves the government, and considered the republicans to be subversive elements challenging the government (this was particularly interesting in context of the sedition acts, which the federalists thought was legitimate to protect the government, while the republicans developed an early argument for the marketplace of ideas, which symbolizes the birth of public opinion), while the republicans considered themselves a temporary alliance meant to restore true revolutionary values (similar to English Whigs). Jefferson and …show more content…
Wood argues that there is no "Madison problem" (between the Madison of the Federalist, and the Madison of the Kentucky Resolutions). Wood argues that Madison was always concerned about the abuses of the popular legislatures (in his virginia plan, both houses were proportional, and congress would wield a veto over state laws against the Union. Madison also suggested that there be a judicial/executive council to wield this veto. When these were rejected, Madison thought the constitution would fail. Ultimately, Madison supported SCOTUS judicial review) but did not favor the fiscal/executive/military state that Hamilton supported (which was ultimately the most forward looking). Wood's essay on Adams is interesting as well. Adams was outside of the country during the crucial period of the convention. While Adams supported the tripartite structure, he relied on classical rationales of republicanism, which saw each branch as representative of an order of society (the senate- aristocracy, the house- the populace and the executive/monarchy to balance the