What do you think?
Rate this book
Power Versus Liberty: Madison, Hamilton, Wilson, and Jefferson
Does every increase in the power of government entail a loss of liberty for the people? James H. Read examines how four key Founders--James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, James Wilson, and Thomas Jefferson--wrestled with this question during the first two decades of the American Republic.
Power versus Liberty reconstructs a four-way conversation--sometimes respectful, sometimes shrill--that touched on the most important issues facing the new nation: the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, federal authority versus states' rights, freedom of the press, the controversial Bank of the United States, the relation between nationalism and democracy, and the elusive meaning of "the consent of the governed."
Each of the men whose thought Read considers differed on these key questions. Jefferson believed that every increase in the power of government came at the expense of liberty: energetic governments, he insisted, are always oppressive. Madison believed that this view was too simple, that liberty can be threatened either by too much or too little governmental power. Hamilton and Wilson likewise rejected the Jeffersonian view of power and liberty but disagreed with Madison and with each other.
The question of how to reconcile energetic government with the liberty of citizens is as timely today as it was in the first decades of the Republic. It pervades our political discourse and colors our readings of events from the confrontation at Waco to the Oklahoma City bombing to Congressional debate over how to spend the government surplus. While the rhetoric of both major political parties seems to posit a direct relationship between the size of our government and the scope of our political freedoms, the debates of Madison, Hamilton, Wilson, and Jefferson confound such simple dichotomies. As Read concludes, the relation between power and liberty is inherently complex.
Power versus Liberty reconstructs a four-way conversation--sometimes respectful, sometimes shrill--that touched on the most important issues facing the new nation: the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, federal authority versus states' rights, freedom of the press, the controversial Bank of the United States, the relation between nationalism and democracy, and the elusive meaning of "the consent of the governed."
Each of the men whose thought Read considers differed on these key questions. Jefferson believed that every increase in the power of government came at the expense of liberty: energetic governments, he insisted, are always oppressive. Madison believed that this view was too simple, that liberty can be threatened either by too much or too little governmental power. Hamilton and Wilson likewise rejected the Jeffersonian view of power and liberty but disagreed with Madison and with each other.
The question of how to reconcile energetic government with the liberty of citizens is as timely today as it was in the first decades of the Republic. It pervades our political discourse and colors our readings of events from the confrontation at Waco to the Oklahoma City bombing to Congressional debate over how to spend the government surplus. While the rhetoric of both major political parties seems to posit a direct relationship between the size of our government and the scope of our political freedoms, the debates of Madison, Hamilton, Wilson, and Jefferson confound such simple dichotomies. As Read concludes, the relation between power and liberty is inherently complex.
201 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2000
About the author
James H. Read
4 books1 followerJames H. Read is professor of political science at the College of Saint Benedict and Saint John’s University of Minnesota.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
October 5, 2013
Solid book on the views on the relationship between power and liberty held by four founding fathers. Some of his arguments are a bit of a hard sell (for instance, that Madison is much more consistent in principle than is typically assumed), but all of them are interesting and well-evidenced nonetheless. This is not an earth-shattering book, but I enjoyed reading it, and I feel like I learned a few things.
July 21, 2025
Outstanding book. The real strengths of the book are found in the discussion of James Wilson and Thomas Jefferson's beliefs regarding power and the protection of rights. The Madison and especially the Hamilton portions of the book are not nearly as strong.
October 21, 2025
At the time the Declaration of Independence was penned, nearly all of the Founders were disgusted by the usurpations of power committed by the Crown. After the Articles of Confederation’s division of sovereignty proved to be unworkable, many framers were ambivalent about devising a government that centralized power. A select few of these men were under the influence of Montesquieu who wrote, “It is necessary from the very nature of things that power should be a check to power.” It is in this context that James H. Read’s cogent study, "Power versus Liberty” explores the thought and actions of Madison, Hamilton, Wilson and Jefferson.
“Power versus Liberty” is a four-way conversation between these men who faced the important issues facing the new nation: the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, sovereignty, i.e., federal authority versus states' rights, freedom of the press, chartering the Bank of the United States, and the meaning of "the consent of the governed."
Students of the Constitution have been perplexed how Madison, a staunch advocate of national power could become a defender of the Virginia Resolutions and a codification of individual liberties. Madison always insisted upon "clear boundaries to governmental power publicly agreed upon by an enduring majority of the people". Thus, for Madison, the intentions of the framers gathered in Philadelphia paled when compared to the consent of the state ratifying conventions. Madison believed that national power was not an inherent threat to liberty; in fact, Madison argued that an impotent government would fail to protect liberty. This, however, does little to explain Madison’s 1791 flip-flop with respect to chartering a national bank.
By way of contrast, few question Alexander Hamilton's consistency Following his studies at King’s College, Hamilton busied himself in New York politics and banking. The onset of the Revolution first brought Hamilton an artillery commission and then a four-year stint as Washington’s chief of staff. At the Philadelphia Convention, Hamilton was concerned with power – creating a national government that could act with energy and efficiency. Hamilton was not one to entertain republican abstractions regarding sovereignty. For Hamiliton sovereignty was operational, sovereignty inhered in government.
Thus, Read argues that Hamilton was both a traditionalist and a radical. His traditional side manifested itself in his adoption of the Blackstonian sense of sovereignty; his radicalism in his expansive reading of the Constitution and his desire to transform the American agrarian economy to a commercial industrial one. In short, Hamilton, says Read, was the builder of the modern state. At Treasury he sought to utilize the levers of government to transform the country. Hence, Hamilton paid scant attention to the potential threats power posed to liberty.
James Wilson always sustained a "faith" in popular sovereignty that Hamilton lacked. Throughout his career--as a delegate to the Federal Convention, then at the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention and later as an associate justice of the Supreme Court, Wilson understood the trade-offs between power and liberty. Wilson, a believer that federal authority was paramount—see his Chisolm v. Georgia opinion-- and resided in "a single, national, sovereign people." According to Wilson, governmental control extended only to those activities delegated to them; a sovereign people could be trusted not to place its own liberties in peril.
From Jefferson's perspective, any expansion of federal power presented a threat to liberty. In every contest between liberty and power, he argued, "advantage lies on the side of power." Jefferson feared as Hamilton hoped that the American people would gradually become more supportive of federal government initiatives. Jefferson believed state governments could and should counteract federal legislation. Read is critical of Jefferson for conflating state sovereignty with democratic rights and liberties, particularly his support of the Kentucky Resolutions. Jefferson’s strict constructionism seems quaint, but his willingness to accord state governments supremacy over the national government has done much mischief to our polity. In a sense, then, Jefferson became the intellectual godfather to a variety of dubious policies, from secessionism in the 1860s to sanctuary states today.
Professor Read has produced a work that is both cogent and concise. Particularly important is the attention paid to the barely remembered James Wilson, one of America’s finest jurists and an export from the Scottish Enlightenment. Overall, Read’s study is tempered and balanced, one which offers a fresh look at four of the Founders.
“Power versus Liberty” is a four-way conversation between these men who faced the important issues facing the new nation: the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, sovereignty, i.e., federal authority versus states' rights, freedom of the press, chartering the Bank of the United States, and the meaning of "the consent of the governed."
Students of the Constitution have been perplexed how Madison, a staunch advocate of national power could become a defender of the Virginia Resolutions and a codification of individual liberties. Madison always insisted upon "clear boundaries to governmental power publicly agreed upon by an enduring majority of the people". Thus, for Madison, the intentions of the framers gathered in Philadelphia paled when compared to the consent of the state ratifying conventions. Madison believed that national power was not an inherent threat to liberty; in fact, Madison argued that an impotent government would fail to protect liberty. This, however, does little to explain Madison’s 1791 flip-flop with respect to chartering a national bank.
By way of contrast, few question Alexander Hamilton's consistency Following his studies at King’s College, Hamilton busied himself in New York politics and banking. The onset of the Revolution first brought Hamilton an artillery commission and then a four-year stint as Washington’s chief of staff. At the Philadelphia Convention, Hamilton was concerned with power – creating a national government that could act with energy and efficiency. Hamilton was not one to entertain republican abstractions regarding sovereignty. For Hamiliton sovereignty was operational, sovereignty inhered in government.
Thus, Read argues that Hamilton was both a traditionalist and a radical. His traditional side manifested itself in his adoption of the Blackstonian sense of sovereignty; his radicalism in his expansive reading of the Constitution and his desire to transform the American agrarian economy to a commercial industrial one. In short, Hamilton, says Read, was the builder of the modern state. At Treasury he sought to utilize the levers of government to transform the country. Hence, Hamilton paid scant attention to the potential threats power posed to liberty.
James Wilson always sustained a "faith" in popular sovereignty that Hamilton lacked. Throughout his career--as a delegate to the Federal Convention, then at the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention and later as an associate justice of the Supreme Court, Wilson understood the trade-offs between power and liberty. Wilson, a believer that federal authority was paramount—see his Chisolm v. Georgia opinion-- and resided in "a single, national, sovereign people." According to Wilson, governmental control extended only to those activities delegated to them; a sovereign people could be trusted not to place its own liberties in peril.
From Jefferson's perspective, any expansion of federal power presented a threat to liberty. In every contest between liberty and power, he argued, "advantage lies on the side of power." Jefferson feared as Hamilton hoped that the American people would gradually become more supportive of federal government initiatives. Jefferson believed state governments could and should counteract federal legislation. Read is critical of Jefferson for conflating state sovereignty with democratic rights and liberties, particularly his support of the Kentucky Resolutions. Jefferson’s strict constructionism seems quaint, but his willingness to accord state governments supremacy over the national government has done much mischief to our polity. In a sense, then, Jefferson became the intellectual godfather to a variety of dubious policies, from secessionism in the 1860s to sanctuary states today.
Professor Read has produced a work that is both cogent and concise. Particularly important is the attention paid to the barely remembered James Wilson, one of America’s finest jurists and an export from the Scottish Enlightenment. Overall, Read’s study is tempered and balanced, one which offers a fresh look at four of the Founders.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews