Madison's Gift

This is a new biography of James Madison that is in effect starts in 1783 and moves mostly chronologically, but splits things into five partnerships he set up -- Hamilton, Washington, Jefferson, Monroe and Dolley.  

As someone who is familiar with the history here from various sources, the material was basically reasonably provided, including showing Madison's flaws at times. But, it didn't as a whole add much I didn't know, while skipping over a few things given his long life. For instance, Marbury v. Madison was left to a brief end-note, involving Jefferson.  Given Madison's constitutional views as a major theme, this was a notable oversight.  Madison's views of various key rulings here would have made a good chapter.  One novel point was the suggestion -- until Hamilton came around -- Madison was in effect Washington's "prime minister" early on.

History does provide a useful reply to originalism. The book not only shows the various conflicting and undeveloped constitutional views of the era, but criticized a take by Madison -- reliance on state ratifying conventions. How to judge that? Determine what a majority of them understood? But, the conventions themselves didn't have an opinion. Individual people did and we don't have much there in various cases. We can make arguable assumptions, e.g., of why $20 was chosen in the 7A, e.g., but that is of limited value. "Is" and "maybe so" are quite different things.

Also, Madison in effect changed his mind on various matters when he saw how the Constitution would operate. This included changing his views on the bank from the 1790s to the 1810s. Hamilton's argument that we should rely on a broad understanding of the text, even if it would not be what the original people involved would necessary expect comes off as practical. Also, the book in effect argues that Madison at times played a bit fast and loose with the text and history to force a few things because it was a useful mechanism to promote certain political positions.  He also spun some of Jefferson's more flowery language when it came off as problematic. 

And, the use of "The Federalist," of questionable importance in respect to ratification, a series of advocacy briefs that at times did not truly express the beliefs of the writers is again shown to be something we should take with a grain of salt. Those who don't know better might think The Federalist was some sort of official commentary, not the opinions of two.  Putting aside the two primary writers eventually clashed on what the Constitution meant. To refer to one of his friend's notable principle in a somewhat different context, it is best to trust the Constitution to the living, with the test of experience, current knowledge and current people applying the text.

Anyway, the book was a brisk read and especially if you are not as familiar with the material, worthwhile. For those familiar with the material, however, it might not be as much so.