While James Madison is known for selected aspects of his legacy—writing the Constitution, The Federalist papers, and the Bill of Rights, this biography presents a more complex portrait. While not gracefully written, this book stays true to the challenging source material, clarifying Madison’s reasoning while pointing out his contradictions, flaws, and frustrations. The book’s revelations also counter recent orthodox framings of our founders’ intentions. For example, in this telling, Madison saw the Bill of Rights not as sacred text, but as a kind of contractual fine print intended to convince the most nervous stragglers to ratify the Constitution. Madison repeatedly characterized the Constitution as imperfect and unfinished, but something that should be refined only through amendments based on exhaustive and painful debates in state and national constitutional conventions rather than by judiciary activism, legislative overreach, or, worst of all, executive order. He was a religious skeptic who believed the state needed to observe strict distance from endorsing any single religion, particularly in education. Contrary to the polarized and exclusionary discourse that dominates our era, Madison was a rational, principled thinker who referred to rules, but who acknowledged diverse views and embraced compromise. For example, he initially thought a national military was to be avoided if at all possible, but learned when in office that one was needed. He also thought slavery was clearly inconsistent with nation’s founding ideals, but he compromised to win approval of the union (and he intended to free his own slaves only after he and his wife died). Madison disliked factions and parties, but founded a “democratic-republican” party to oppose Hamilton’s federalist ideas—which struck him as too British and monarchical. He initially opposed establishing a central bank, but eventually realized one was needed to negotiate debt and trade at an international level. He saw the Constitution as strictly “enumerating” limited rights to the federal government, but he also challenged efforts by states to opt out of the union’s principles of democracy. What would Madison make of 2025 America? I believe he would reject so-called unitary executive theorists as monarchists. He would reject the most extreme judicial originalists as scolds who substitute policing for fluid, enlightened reasoning. He would see party gerrymanders, militia-based mob vigilantes, white supremacists, Christian nationalists, and billionaire power-grabbers like Musk as predictable deviants of the type who have threatened democracies through the ages. In this book, I see Madison as an intellectual and scholar of a type almost never seen in elected office in our poll- and media-driven political landscape. He modeled dispassionate argumentation that combined logic with adherence to secular humanist values. In 2025, we are quite far off the mark that he set, but as a nation, we have been here before. Thanks to books like this, we can hear Madison’s voice again. Maybe it can guide us back to the better path.