Paul,
Thank you for the article, which I look forward to reading.  (And thanks to
all who suggested books for my friend>)  I heartily concur with your
observations about Jefferson and Madison in the 1780s - each strike me at
that point in their careers as still prone to mount some quirky ideological
hobby-horses that admirers of their later careers overlook.  When I was
writing about Henry, for example, I set out to discover exactly what
Jefferson was referring to when he famously advised Madison about praying
devoutly for Henry's death.
   Turns out that Madison had taken a routine petition from Augusta County
about accepting hemp in lieu of tobacco for payments of taxes (the county
grew hemp, not tobacco, and there were other counties that enjoyed similar
exemptions) and when his committee reported on that petition, Madison used
it as an opportunity to rail against the legitimacy of the Constitution of
1776 because it hadn't been submitted to the people for a formal
ratification vote.  Jefferson of course insisted on the same argument in
Notes.  A careful review of the enthusiastic support from the county
revolutionary committees and their constituents for the drafting of the new
state constitution at the time - not to mention the circumstances in those
early months of the war - easily undermines Tj/JM's contention, and in time
St George Tucker would write its epitaph in his edition of Blackstone.
    Even more fun, though, is the General Assembly's response to Madison's
committee report : House of Delegates Journal records a firm and clear
resolution that denounces Madison's claims of illegitimacy and bluntly
tells him never to bring it up again.  That's the incident that prompted
Jefferson's remark about praying for Henry's death.  The comeuppance is
worth a glance next time you're browsing the H of D journals  (exact
citations are in my brief narrative in PH: Champion of Liberty).

Hope you and your's are healthy and safe in these challenging times,
All best,
Jon


On Sun, Aug 1, 2021 at 11:49 PM Paul Finkelman <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> The attached discusses a minor piece of this.  The article shows that
> despite Adrienne Koch's belief that there was a "great collaboration"
> between TJ and JM on the Bill of Rights, there was virtually none.  Koch
> compared the dates that letters were sent back and forth between the two
> when JM was in VA (most of the time) and TJ was in France, all of the
> time.  The letters took weeks or months to be exchanged.  Thus, JM moved to
> support a Bill of Rights for tactical reasons and not because he believed
> it was worth doing.  He was utterly contemptuous of "parchment barriers" as
> he called them, and wrote a very narrow B of R (which the Senate made even
> more narrow) to prevent anything from undermining the strong national
> government that he wanted in 1787-90.  Some of what JM did was wonderful,
> and had long term value (adding "speech" to what is now the First Amendment
> is a good example, since most people (including TJ) talked only about "the
> Press" and only one (I think) state had a speech protection.
>
> I do not offer any of this to take shots at JM or TJ.  On this issue they
> were both very good and deserve praised.  But, they came at it from very
> different positions and the evidence and timing of the letters shows that *even
> if *TJ's arguments eventually changed JM's mind, they did not arrive in a
> timely way to affect JM's actions or eventual commitment to proposing a
> bill of rights.  And clearly TJ had not changed JM's mind on the value of a
> BofR
> Thus, when Madison introduced them he declared that  he had "never
> considered this provision so essential to the federal constitution" that it
> should have been allowed to impede ratification. But, with the Constitution
> ratified Madison was willing to concede "that in a certain form and to a
> certain extent, such a provision was neither improper nor altogether
> useless."  This is hardly a ringing endorsement.
>
> Jon:  I don't know if this helps, but here it is.  I suppose I am also
> posting this because I have serous doubts about the rest of Koch's
> filiopietistic book as well.
>
>
> ********
>
>
> *Paul Finkelman, Ph.D. **President*
>
> GRATZ COLLEGE
>
> 7605 Old York Road
>
> Melrose Park, PA  19027
>
> Email: [log in to unmask]
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
> Office: 215-635-7300 x 124
>
> Cell:    518-605-0296
>
>
>
>
> On Sunday, August 1, 2021, 09:41:44 PM EDT, Jon Kukla <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>
> An intelligent general reader of my acquaintance asked me to recommend a
> reliable and accessible treatment of Jefferson's & Madison's political and
> personal relationship.  I'd welcome suggestions, thank you.
>
> ______________________________________
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
> https://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>
> This list is made possible by a grant from the U.S. Institute of Museum
> and Library Services (IMLS).
>

______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
https://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html

This list is made possible by a grant from the U.S. Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS).