1. 1
Austin Lewis
March 7, 2014
Survey of United State History I
2010 – 013
A Reconciliation that Changed the Course of History
Possibly one of the most intellectually stimulating eras of growth in human history, was
the Revolutionary Era within the thirteen colonies of America, from the first thought of
oligarchical tyranny that led to the Revolution, to the debates and agreements that led to
documents that defined the United States. Principle foundations for this intellect was none other
than a Princeton graduate who lost sleep over academia and one of the most literate female
writers in the 18th century. James Madison, a federalist and a founding father, strived for political
stimulation, and ideologically wanted a more complex government that could govern a complex
society through the Constitution. Mercy Otis Warren was quite the contrary, as her life-long
aspirations of writing about political rhetoric contradicted the works of Madison’s. The
inclination to help their new nation find peace, liberty, and structure, despite their opposing
philosophies, arguably led to a reconciled Constitution that would help institute those values.
It is difficult to imagine a young man, oblivious to what his future holds as he studied
various subjects in college, becoming a recognizable intellectual that would also end up
becoming a founding father of his newly developing country. The epiphany that initiated
Madison’s pursuit of political participation was sparked by events in Boston of retaliation due to
the destruction of British tea, and by its response by British Parliament, the Coercive Acts
(Roark 181). The Virginia Convention, a replacement of the royal government, was his new
home as a politician in 1776. In Massachusetts, a young girl eager to learn, much different than

2. 2
other females her age in that aspect, Warren was being praised and motivated by her brother who
was going to Cambridge (Zagarri 1-3). An honorable reputation was held and admired by many
women of her time, due to accomplishments pursued independently, and not solely due to
association with famous men (Zagarri xv). Her role as a Revolutionary propagandist started with
the ideas and proposition to not ratify the Constitution. She viewed it as part a dangerous scheme
that would strengthen the national government at the expense of its citizens (Zagarri 119-120).
Debates would be had and essays would be written as these two lives continued, and as similar
wants for a new country lingered in their minds, ideologies and opinions were used to persuade
the masses on the right kind of government.
Although their objectives in desiring a new and more stable country, separate and
independent from the monarchy of Britain, were inherently similar, their approaches on how the
new government should have been run were drastically different in application and theory. As a
federalist, Madison was obsessed with the ratification of the Constitution, as it supported his
ideology of republicanism, or the idea that few will represent many, so that “factions” are less
prevalent. These factions, according to Madison, were either a majority or minority group that
was united for a common purpose or impulse, which may have disregarded the rights and
liberties of others outside of those factions (Madison 156). These were clear contradictions to
Warren’s ideal governmental power. She viewed the Constitution of having the purposes of
enabling an “aristocratic tyranny,” a political system of which much sacrifice and bloodshed was
sacrificed in order to escape it. She also professed that republicanism was a system founded on
the principles of monarchy, that of which the new country had just gained freedom from (Warren
161). Madison wanted a revolutionary, strict, and large government that would override the state
constitutions, and render the Articles of Confederation inadequate, whereas Warren wanted to

3. 3
preserve the Articles, as they gave power to the states, and restricted the potential for an
oligarchical society. These inherent differences distinguished their titles, federalist and
antifederalist. But those were just labels. These two intellectual beings truly yearned for a similar
outcome, the outcomes of a new nation that was sustainable and free from pure and unjust
tyranny.
Warren’s criticism of the Constitution as promoting a tyrannical government may have
been an exaggeration, though her reasoning was quite elaborate and logical. Within her eighteen
criticisms of the Constitution, she mentions that Congress is its own monopoly for revenue, sets
their own salaries by draining public wealth, and has representation that discredits individuality
(Warren 162-163). Madison’s criticism of factions and how to overcome them seemed to be
subjective, although clearly outlined and argued. He wanted not for the liberties of the people to
be destroyed, nor for everyone to have the same opinions, which were both ways to eliminate
factions. His objective was clear, and he outlined what he did not want from the Constitution.
His intention was order and republicanism as a form of organized government. What these two
main arguments have in common is that they sound radical on parchment and in speech, but they
are arguably mild fixes with different interpretations of how freedom is to be achieved.
Madison seemed to breathe a fiery breath of opposition towards politics and factions. He
wanted power to migrate from the people, to intellectual representatives, and for political
agendas to not interfere with the civil liberties of others who have no say in the matter. Although
this seems evident, perhaps underlying accusations of factions were not so harsh. Madison
understood that partisanship was to always be a part of America with a Constitution, and that he
was not seeking to take the “politics out of politics” (Connelly 200). Factions and political
parties sound an awful lot alike, in the sense that they are either minority of majority groups who

4. 4
hold similar opinions on political matters, and will sometimes, if given the chance, infringe on
others’ rights as a process of achieving their own agendas. Madison seemed to be opposed to
democracy, but politics with factions let the minds of many, boil in a huge pot of opinionated
and applicable policy making. Warren wanted this system to be a part of the new government,
indeed, but this seemed unlikely with ratification of the Constitution, which in her eyes,
restricted individual liberties and held contradictory principles to that of which America fought
for in the Revolutionary War. Despite Warren’s oppositions towards the Constitution, it was
ratified in 1788 via majority rule. One year later, Warren’s relentless writing and persuasion was
not in vain. The Bill of Rights was the great compromise; it was the reconciliation of the century.
Madison struggled to find a way to heal the wounds that the war had inflicted on the country in
the 1780’s through division and disagreement. Roark quotes Madison saying “it will be a
desirable thing to extinguish from the bosom of every member of the community, any
apprehensions that there are those among his countrymen who wish to deprive them of the
liberty for which they valiantly fought and honorably bled” (208). Many of the states’
constitutional provisions were included in the Bill of Rights, which was a massive compromise
for the antifederalists. Zagarri states that the amendments of the Bill of Rights “helped convince
skeptics that a strong centralized government was not incompatible with a respect for civil
liberties. ‘When the amendments took place immediately on its adoption,’ Mercy admitted in her
History of the American Revolution, ‘the government of the United States stood on a basis which
rendered the people respectable abroad and safe at home.’ The Bill of Rights helped reconcile the
Warrens to the new order of things” (123).
Chaos was controlled into order, and freedom sprang like a butterfly from the cocoon of
oppression, as the Constitution was ratified, and thereafter, including the Bill of Rights. James

5. 5
Madison Jr. and Mercy Otis Warren were historical landmarks that represented intellect,
professionalism, and honor. Both were high-caliber writers, and both felt a need to be involved in
the political scheme of the late 18th century. Their common purpose was to construct and initiate
a new nation’s government that would limit oppression and uphold the values that the
Revolutionary War was fought for. Warren argued for liberty and peace. Madison argued for
structure and peace. Their common objective was to make their newly founded country a better
place for its new inhabitants, who were inherently free from the Britain’s outreaching arm of
tyranny. Despite their ideological differences in how that should be done, and despite their bitter
exchanges that left the nation divided, harmony resided in the Constitution, along with the Bill of
Rights. Liberty, structure, and peace, were values for which blood was shed. They were values
that Madison and Warren fought for in the most intense and passionate manners. As a result of
those events, and as a result of one of the most inspirational compromises in human history, the
United States of America started to, and gradually became, a country that would be instilled with
those treasured values.

6. 6
References
Johnson, Michael P. Reading the American Past: Selected Historical Documents. 4th
ed. Vol. 2. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2012. Print.
Roark, et al. The American Promise: A Compact History. 4th ed. Vol. 1. Boston: Bedford/St.
Martins, 2012. Print.
Connelly, William. James Madison Rules America. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010. Print.
Zagarri, Rosemarie. A Woman’s Dilemma: Mercy Otis Warren and the American Revolution.
Wheeling: Harlen Davidson, 1995. Print.