More handpicked essays just for you.
Effective leadership communication skills and organizational success
Importance of communication in leadership
James madison influence on america
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
During his entire life, James Madison, who is one of the founding fathers, contributed many dedications to the States, especially when creating the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. As the fourth president of the U.S, he consciously chose to create a new model of presidential power that he thought would fit better with the system of the separation of powers after seeing “the danger overwrought executive power poses to republican constitutionalism” (Kleinerman). Despite of having such good intention, some of his actions led the country through some significant suffers. On one hand, people like John Adams suggested that the Madison administration "has acquired more glory, and established more Union, than all three predecessors, Washington, …show more content…
Adams, and Jefferson, put together" (Langguth, 395). His unique presidency was a significant proof for his accomplishment. Resisting the allure of greatness in order to comport with a republican constitutional order, Madison actively sought to transform the presidency into something much less active (Bailey, 124). Therefore, after the war, when he could have reclaimed the importance of his leadership, he emphasized instead the contribution of his cabinet, Congress and even the states. Furthermore, Madison constructed a better life for his people during his tenure. When the former president assumed office in 1809, the federal government had a surplus of $9,500,000; by 1810, the national debt continued to be reduced, and taxes had been cut (Slatyer). Likewise, Madison had a paternalistic attitude toward American Indians, he encouraged them to give up hunting and become farmers; he also spent time meeting with Southeastern and Western Indians. As pioneers and settlers moved west into large tracts of their territory, Madison ordered the US Army to protect Native lands from intrusion by settlers. Yet, several decades later, Henry Adams concluded that Madison's presidency was “a long recitation of 'executive weaknesses' and mismanagement.” (Rutland 1990). In addition, this judgment has been widely accepted by many historians nowadays. First, James Madison took down the banking system. When the first Bank of the United States was scheduled to expire in 1811, and while Madison's treasury secretary said the bank was a necessity, Congress failed to re-authorize it. Even though the absence of a national bank made war with Britain very difficult to finance, Congress passed a bill in 1814 chartering a second national bank, but Madison also vetoed it. It was not until 1816 that the second national bank was authorized when Madison had learned the bank was necessary from the war with Britain (Rosen) Another mistake of Madison was assigning James Wilkinson as general at Louisiana coast.
Although many soldiers complained that Wilkinson was inadequate and a two-year congressional investigation into the Wilkinson matter proved to be inconclusive, Madison chose to retain Wilkinson for political reasons. Later on, when Wilkinson was defeated in two battles by the British, Madison relieved the officer from active military service. Historian Robert Allen Rutland stated that the Wilkinson affair left "scars on the War Department" and "left Madison surrounded by senior military incompetents ..." at the beginning of the War of 1812 (1990). As a president, Madison failed to maximize his power and authority while he held the office. Most importantly, he failed to use his power in order to control his commander. The former president failed to regulate his own office. When he ordered the US Army to protect Native lands from intrusion by settlers, to the chagrin of his military commander Andrew Jackson, they resisted carrying out the president's order. And by 1815, with a population of 400,000 European-American settlers in Ohio, Indian rights to their lands had effectively become invalid. …show more content…
(Rutland) Finally, Madison’s decision to have less active role in his presidency resulted in discrepancy during the Way of 1812. Although numerous people gave him credit for holding the Union together during the War of 1812, I believe that his previous mismanagement made the war last longer and became more tremendous than it was supposed to be. In the beginning, Madison did not make it sufficiently clear to Congress that he wanted a war with Britain and thus did not lead the country to war the way he should have. Even though he was aiming to create a new model of presidential power, giving people that much power was not always the right choice. Instead, he could be more successful by using his power, but he did not. As a result, when Americans called for a "second war of independence" to restore honor and stature to the new nation, Madison hurriedly called on Congress to put the country "into an armor and an attitude demanded by the crisis".
He specifically recommended enlarging the army, preparing the militia, finishing the military academy, stockpiling munitions, and expanding the navy (Ketcham, 509). Still, the precipitance led to poor preparation. By that time, there were serious threats of disunion from New England, which engaged in extensive smuggling with Canada and refused to provide financial support or soldiers (Stagg). Because of certain faults above, Madison then could not finance the quick hiring of mercenaries so his military force consisted mostly of poorly trained militia members at the time war
began. In conclusion, James Madison has successfully achieved his own goal since starting the presidency. And despite the fact that he had accomplished the constitutional concept for separation of power in government, and successfully reduced the national tax and debt, Madison's administration had its faults and blunders. The former president did not keep the bank as he should have; he did not effectively lead Congress in the manner we expect; he failed to manage his cabinet effectively; and he failed to capitalize on the War of 1812 to transform himself and his administration into the objects of greatness one would expect from a great president. (Kleinerman)
Upon recognizing the necessity for a network of subterfuge, Washington created the Culper spy ring. Housed in New York City under the command of Colonel Benjamin Tallmadge, its purpose was more than merely gaining intelligence. It also was tasked with planting and passing false intelligence to the British. Looking back, the questions that must be asked are: What role did this spy ring play in the war? Did it help bring about the American victory? Was the spy ring responsible for uncovering the plot by Benedict Arnold to turn West Point over to the British? Major Benjamin Tallmadge, appointed by Washington to be his chief of intelligence, was responsible for setting up the intelligence service utilizing friends who operated out of New York, Long Island, and Connecticut. The spies were tasked with acquiring and passing information to General Washington concerning British activity in and around New York.
Within the pages of One United People: The Federalist Papers and the National Idea, author Ed Millican dissects not only The Federalist piece by piece, but scrutinizes numerous works of other authors in regards to the papers written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. As a result, a strong conclusion asserts that the motives of The Federalist was to create a sturdy nation-state but above all, that American polity is far more complex than pluralism and a free-market economy.
Though Madison faced many predicaments, he also made many fine choices. As Madison tried solving his problems with negotiation, isolationism failed to ensure the safety of the nation. Madison tried to solve his problems by talking to the leaders of Britain and France. “If you agree to stop attacking…” Madison said, “…the United States will stop trading with your enemy”(Hart 168). This reveals how at first, intervention seemed so farfetched and out of the question and intervention was a first priority. In Madison’s mind, this seemed like such a reasonable request, but apparently, to Napoleon and the King of England, it was way too much to ask. Even though Napoleon promptly agreed to Madison’s...
Throughout Jackson's two terms as President, Jackson used his power unjustly. As a man from the Frontier State of Tennessee and a leader in the Indian wars, Jackson loathed the Native Americans. Keeping with consistency, Jackson found a way to use his power incorrectly to eliminate the Native Americans. In May 1830, President Andrew Jackson signed into law the Indian Removal Act. This act required all tribes east of the Mississippi River to leave their lands and travel to reservations in the Oklahoma Territory on the Great Plains. This was done because of the pressure of white settlers who wanted to take over the lands on which the Indians had lived. The white settlers were already emigrating to the Union, or America. The East Coast was burdened with new settlers and becoming vastly populated. President Andrew Jackson and the government had to find a way to move people to the West to make room. In 1830, a new state law said that the Cherokees would be under the jurisdiction of state rather than federal law. This meant that the Indians now had little, if any, protection against the white settlers that desired their land. However, when the Cherokees brought their case to the Supreme Court, they were told that they could not sue on the basis that they were not a foreign nation. In 1832, though, on appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Cherokees were a "domestic dependent nation," and therefore, eligible to receive federal protection against the state. However, Jackson essentially overruled the decision. By this, Jackson implied that he had more power than anyone else did and he could enforce the bill himself. This is yet another way in which Jackson abused his presidential power in order to produce a favorable result that complied with his own beliefs. The Indian Removal Act forced all Indians tribes be moved west of the Mississippi River. The Choctaw was the first tribe to leave from the southeast.
Under the Jackson Administration, the changes made shaped national Indian policy. Morally, Andrew Jackson dismissed prior ideas that natives would gradually assimilate into white culture, and believed that removing Indians from their homes was the best answer for both the natives and Americans. Politically, before Jackson treaties were in place that protected natives until he changed those policies, and broke those treaties, violating the United States Constitution. Under Jackson’s changes, the United States effectively gained an enormous amount of land. The removal of the Indians west of the Mississippi River in the 1830’s changed the national policy in place when Jackson became President as evidenced by the moral, political, constitutional, and practical concerns of the National Indian Policy.
Madison speaks of the problems of the present attempts at a new government saying “our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice, and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and over-bearing majority”.
He states that the government had too many leaders and not enough followers. That the government administrated by too many people who had a different motive on running the state. In addition, Madison agreed to what Hamilton was saying. Therefore, Madison helped Hamilton settle this dilemma. “It has been seen that delinquencies in the members of the Union are its natural and necessary offspring; and that whenever they happen, the only constitutional remedy is a force, and the immediate effect of the use of it, civil war.” (Hamilton) Hamilton father explains why this would be a problem with government and predicts what might happen if it reaches to that point. “To this reasoning, it may perhaps be objected, that if any State should be disaffected to the authority of the Union, it could at any time obstruct the execution of its laws, and bring the matter to the same issue of force, with the necessity of which the opposite scheme is reproached.” (Hamilton) Both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison wrote the 18th and 19th Federalist paper. The 18th article spoke about contradicting the argument of anti-federalists that proposed a monarchical rule in America. Madison states that if the anti-federalist and federalist do not collaborate on the rule that they established for the people. They would become like the people in Greek history. “Instead of this obvious policy, Athens and Sparta, inflated with the victories and the glory they had acquired, became first rivals and then enemies; and did each other infinitely more mischief than they had suffered from Xerxes.” Demonstrating a jealous view of power and disorganized fashion. “Their mutual jealousies, fears, hatreds, and injuries ended in the celebrated Peloponnesian war; which itself ended in the ruin and slavery of the Athenians who had begun
When examining selections from Aristotle's teachings or the Federalist Papers, the one common element that is clear is that the authors of these works sought the same goal. That goal was to create a practical and rational outline of a better way of life for those who would seek it. That such an outline would be so necessary or that any one person would presume to be qualified to compose such a treaty, particularly when mankind claims exclusivity as the enlightened, civilized, and intelligent species of the planet, reveals a certain degree of conceit. If conceit is the charge towards Aristotle, or Hamilton, or the other authors of the Papers, then Madison or Hamilton (it is unclear to scholars which man is responsible for the following passage) refutes this charge quite
We can begin to see Jackson's vigilante style leadership following the War of 1812. During this conflict, General Jackson became a national icon through several decisive victories over the British. Most notably the Battle of New Orleans in January 1815. During this battle the British suffered more than 2,000 casualties while the American sustained six killed and 10 wounded. This victory helped to restore the nation's pride which had been floundering, since the torching of the White House by the British. This event in particular assured that Jackson's name was on the tip of every American tongue during a revolutionary time. As a newly
The Madisonian model, which was first proposed by James Madison, is a structure of government made to prevent either a minority or majority group to build up enough power to dominate the others. The Constitution made this possible. One of the principles was to separate the powers of the government into three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. The separation of powers allowed each of the three branches to be independent with the exception of working together in order to govern. Congress passes laws, the president applies and manages the laws, and the courts elucidates the laws in distinct conditions. Madison clarified his beliefs in Federalist Paper No. 51 saying that in order for a government to exist it was necessary for there to be a balance in power. By giving each branch administer constitutional means, they'll avoid intrusions of the others. The constitutional means are a system of checks and balances, where each branch of government has the right to inspect the conduct of the others. Neither branc...
John Adams was the last Federalist president which led to the next 16 years of Thomas Jefferson as president for two terms and James Madison as president for two terms. Jefferson and Madison were members of the Republican Party, which had principles and philosophies that were very different than the views of the Federalists. Jefferson and Madison each abandoned the Republican philosophies for Federalism. Jefferson and Madison took on Federalist views while being President of the United States. However, Jefferson and Madison each picked somewhere to stand their ground and keep some of their Republican views.
President Jackson singlehandedly led the destruction of the Native Americans with his aggressive actions and hostile decisions. President Jackson shirked his responsibility to protect the Native Americans of the United States by ignoring the Supreme Court’s decision, promoting legislation to bring about the separation of Native Americans and whites, and his decision to involve the United States Armed Forces against Indian Tribes. If it was not for President Jackson’s actions, the future of the Native Americans would have been different, or at least the American settlers wanted Indian land for many reasons. These reasons include geography and terrain, location, resources, and old grudges. First, the geography was perfect for farmers with fertile land.
At the time Andrew Jackson was president, there was a fast growing population and a desire for more land. Because of this, expansion was inevitable. To the west, many native Indian tribes were settled. Andrew Jackson spent a good deal of his presidency dealing with the removal of the Indians in western land. Throughout the 1800’s, westward expansion harmed the natives, was an invasion of their land, which led to war and tension between the natives and America, specifically the Cherokee Nation.
During the construction of the new Constitution, many of the most prominent and experienced political members of America’s society provided a framework on the future of the new country; they had in mind, because of the failures of the Articles of Confederation, a new kind of government where the national or Federal government would be the sovereign power, not the states. Because of the increased power of the national government over the individual states, many Americans feared it would hinder their ability to exercise their individual freedoms. Assuring the people, both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison insisted the new government under the constitution was “an expression of freedom, not its enemy,” declaring “the Constitution made political tyranny almost impossible.” (Foner, pg. 227) The checks and balances introduced under the new and more powerful national government would not allow the tyranny caused by a king under the Parliament system in Britain. They insisted that in order achieve a greater amount of freedom, a national government was needed to avoid the civil unrest during the system under the Articles of Confederation. Claiming that the new national government would be a “perfect balance between liberty and power,” it would avoid the disruption that liberty [civil unrest] and power [king’s abuse of power in England] caused. The “lackluster leadership” of the critics of the new constitution claimed that a large land area such as America could not work for such a diverse nation.
The Confederation, he continued, "being destitute of both, wants the great vital principles of a Political Constitution. Under the form of such a constitution, it is in fact nothing more than a treaty of amity of commerce and alliance, between independent and Sovereign States. " Madison called the lack of coercion "a fatal omission" in the Confederation. On February 21, 1787, Madison and Alexander Hamilton, Washington's former assistant who believed passionately in a powerful central government, persuaded Congress to name delegates who would revise the Articles of Confederation.