"The congressional session was nearing its end when the President transmitted to the Senate (April 6, 1808) a report on roads and canals, drafted by the Secretary of the Treasury, which comprised the most comprehensive and constructive domestic program that emanated from this administration. If this could have been put into effect it would have constituted a memorable contribution to the physical development of the country, and it could have been expected to contribute greatly to national unity. Circumstances were distinctly unfavorable to its serious consideration at this time, but the report suggests what might have been done if the acceleration of the European war had not created a crisis in foreign relations and if the government had been in a position to initiate a long-range program for internal improvements.
As the term came into general use it referred to improvements in transportation and communication, but Jefferson's own hopes went further. In his second inaugural, anticipating an eventual surplus beyond what was annually set aside to retire the debt, he said that in time of peace this could be applied to "rivers, canals, roads, arts, manufactures, education, and other great objects within each state." He believed that, even in time of war, necessary expenses could be met without burdening future generations with debt and that the return of peace would be a "return to the progress of improvements." A few weeks later, after he had received from Gallatin the pleasing news that receipts were exceeding expectations, he said that this hastened the moment when they could begin on "canals, roads, college, &c." He did not refer to these objectives in his next annual message, and at the opening of the congressional session of 1805-06 his first concern was to secure an appropriation for the purchase of West Florida. Toward the end of that session, however, Congress authorized the beginning of an interstate road across the mountains - from Cumberland, Maryland, to the Ohio River. This enterprise had its genesis in a provision of the Ohio enabling act of four years earlier, following the suggestion of Gallatin, that a portion of the proceeds from the sale of public lands in the new state be applied to such a purpose. But for this financial prospect and this commitment to Ohio a Congress that was representative of local constituencies and responsive to them might have been undisposed to support such an undertaking. Jefferson was soon to become painfully aware of the conflict of local interests that beset it, but he was sufficiently encouraged to devote considerable attention to the subject of internal improvements in his next annual message to Congress. At the time his mind was by no means untroubled. He had recently been apprised of the dangerous doings of Aaron Burr and had issued a proclamation against that mysterious adventurer without as yet charging him with conspiracy by name. But from the Secretary of the Treasury he had learned that before long a surplus was to be expected and he addressed himself to the question of what should be done with it...
...Looking beyond his own term of office, Jefferson suggested that the surplus expected if peace continued should be applied to great purposes of public improvement. In listing these he now placed education first, thereby differing with Gallatin, on grounds of practicality at least. The Secretary of the Treasury believed that provision for roads would be popular and one for a university unpopular. On his advice Jefferson suggested that a national educational establishment might be endowed by a donation of public lands, which in fact would have been relatively painless. Since the objects he recommended were not among those enumerated in the Constitution, the President supposed that a constitutional amendment would be necessary. He stated elsewhere that several years would be required to secure one, and he wanted to get things started now for just that reason. As a rule, Gallatin was more of a loose constructionist, but he believed that even the broadest possible interpretation of the words "general welfare" would not give the federal government the authority to open roads and canals through the several states without their permission. Therefore, he conceded that a constitutional amendment was needed.
.
"By these operations," said Jefferson, "new channels of communication will be opened between the States; the lines of separation will disappear, their interests will be identified, and their union cemented by new and indissoluble ties." He was lumping the various improvements together, but, judging from what happened, greatest public interest was manifested in roads and canals, just as Gallatin had expected. At the end of the congressional session the Senate adopted by overwhelming vote the resolution which led to Gallatin's report a year later. By-passing the constitutional problem, the resolution directed the Secretary of the Treasury to prepare a plan for the application, to the opening of canals and the building of roads, of which means as were "within the powers of Congress." He was to state what undertakings were required and deserved governmental aid, and also to provide information about works in progress. Thus he was authorized to make a genuinely comprehensive report, and by the same token he needed a long time to prepare it. Meanwhile, he and Jefferson were involved in certain problems and difficulties connected with the Cumberland Road.
Since the cost of the proposed road was soon estimated at $6,000 per mile, exclusive of major bridges, little beyond surveying and planning could be done under the original appropriation of $30,000, which was actually the only one made in Jefferson's administration. According to the terms of the Act on March 29, 1806, he appointed three commissioners to lay out the road, subject to his approval. Meanwhile, he was to get the consent of the states through which it would pass. He had no difficulty with Maryland and Virginia, but when he submitted the first report of the commissioners the legislature of Pennsylvania still had the matter under advisement. The commissioners recommended a route from Cumberland to Brownsville in a direct line to a point below Wheeling on the Ohio River. The act whereby the Pennsylvania legislature gave its consent a few weeks later included a resolution that the route be altered so as to pass through Uniontown and Washington if, in the President's judgement, this could be done consistently with the act of Congress, but that, if not, the road could pass over whatever grounds in the state he should deem most advantageous. On the advice of Gallatin, who believed that because of the conflict of local interest and the opposition of Philadelphia nothing better could be expected, Jefferson agreed to a slight deflection of the road to Uniontown, where Gallatin had formerly lived. This was en route to Brownsville, and the President would not commit himself beyond this later point."
The chapter goes on, specifically addressing Gallatin and Jefferson's views of the Constitutional amendment referred to earlier. I encourage people to read it. It is important to read the Gallatin report in light of the Cumberland Road. Jefferson's concern was with the primacy of the federal government in making these improvements. He did consider the federal government constitutionally empowered to make such improvements, he simply felt that he could not impose upon the states. These were not just state interests, but local interests, were very important at the time. Philadelphia commonly opposed projects that could help western Pennsylvania if the route was directed from Virginia or Marlyand, rather than from Philadelphia. These sorts of provincial disputes stretched back to the French and Indian War in the 1750s, when General Braddock had to squabble with leaders in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia to determine which route he would cut through the forest to reach the French. Jefferson was unequivocally of one mind with Gallatin on internal improvements, and on the authority to appropriate money for internal improvements. There were lingering Constitutional questions about what he could do without the permission of state governments, but these are hardly libertarian quibbles about public works that modern day libertarians would like to have Jefferson aligned with them on. He wasn't. In the early republic, the nuances of intergovernmental relations weren't entirely ironed out yet - that was the full extent of the constitutional question. Internal improvements are as American as baseball and apple pie, and they are as constitutional as letters of marque and the regulation of the land and naval forces.
I will note that this merely confirms what I stated earlier: Jefferson was concerned with the nature of the expense and burdening future generations with debt - which was in part a constitutional issue. So he was more than willing to entertain the idea so long as government receipts could pay for them - but since they couldn't... Contrast this with Hamilton's willingness to take on government debt. You just can't ignore this fact and turn Jefferson into some Hamiltonian unqualified booster for internal improvements when he clearly objects to internal improvements when they burden the public purse.
ReplyDeleteIf that's what you stated earlier I completely missed that. My impression was that you were contending that Jefferson considered public works engaged in by the federal government to be unconstitutional activities.
ReplyDeleteClearly Jefferson did not support debt-financing much of anything the government did. Very, very, very few people considered debt-financing to be good practice at the time. Even Hamilton was circumspect. These financing issues are completely different from the internal improvement issue, though.
RE: " You just can't ignore this fact and turn Jefferson into some Hamiltonian unqualified booster for internal improvements when he clearly objects to internal improvements when they burden the public purse."
When did I turn Jefferson into a Hamiltonian, anonymous? You're just making things up now. I never said he had a Hamiltonian view of the debt - he most clearly didn't. And I never said he had unqualified support for internal improvements. My point is that he, like practically all of the founding fathers (not all - but a huge portion of them) - felt very positively about internal improvements, supported both privately and by the state and national government. That was my claim. He definitely had concerns about the debt. He also had concerns about intergovernmental relations and imposing improvement plans on the states without their consent. But he did not have any problem with a reading of the general welfare clause that included public works and internal improvements.
I should also note, I've remarked on Jefferson's views on the debt before on this blog. So instead of imputing something to me, you might be interested in reading this post, where I cover his views on the debt and the generational social contract:
ReplyDeletehttp://factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.com/2010/04/charlotesville-musings.html
BTW, it is interesting that you pick Malone's hagiographic treatment of Jefferson; not a source I would use to get a full bodied picture (warts and all) of the man.
ReplyDelete"When did I turn Jefferson into a Hamiltonian, anonymous?"
ReplyDeleteThe earlier conversation contrasted the two viewpoints if I remember correctly.
Anonymous -
ReplyDeleteSuggest another source and I'd be happy to look at its treatment of this issue and report back on the blog.
I don't think a positive or a negative impression of Jefferson the man is going to change the facts of this case. His actions regarding the Cumberland Road are clear. In the context of the Gallatin report and his public statements on internal improvements, I think someone who views Jefferson negatively and someone who views him positively have to come to roughly the same position.
But please - suggest other sources.
Perhaps tonight I'll look through some of his correspondence in his second administration too, and see what that offers.
"These financing issues are completely different from the internal improvement issue, though."
ReplyDeleteNo, they were integral to them. Contrast Jefferson's position with the report put out by Tench Coxe (Hamilton's ally). Debt financing was constitutional issue and an ideological one.
I'd start with Onuf's 1994 article on the historiography of Jefferson studies.
I'm not sure how I need to phrase this for you to get it, Anonymous.
ReplyDeleteYes - debt financing WAS a constitutional issue AND an ideological one. That's entirely obvious and has never been challenged by anyone on this blog. However, the question of government financing, while it impacts the practical implementation of internal improvements, is an entirely different constitutional question than the question of whether appropriations for internal improvements were constitutional. Am I making myself clear?
Think of it this way - appropriations for internal improvements can go on regardless of whether the money is appropriated from creditors or from taxpayers. The debt question is obviously important, but it doesn't speak to the constitutionality of appropriations for internal improvements.
I don't need to read a review of Jefferson studies right now, and in a cursory search I can't find an Onuf article on this from 1994.
1. Could you be more specific about the article, and
2. Does this say anything at all about the question of the constituionality of internal improvements, because if it doesn't I really don't have time to read it right now.
btw - is this mommsen1625 from Cafe Hayek?
ReplyDelete"...is an entirely different constitutional question than the question of whether appropriations for internal improvements were constitutional. Am I making myself clear?"
ReplyDeleteSure, but as far as I know I have as yet to challenge that assertion.
Remember what my original statement was - that both clauses cited in the original blog post were controverted in the early republic (and during their creation for that matter). Someone named Daniel argued that the Jefferson administration and the Republicans (assuming this Daniel meant the Democratic-Republicans) were all loco for internal improvements and this somehow undercuts my point (which it really doesn't).
RE: "Sure, but as far as I know I have as yet to challenge that assertion."
ReplyDeleteYou repeatedly bring up the debt issue though. Why? No one has challenged you on it. You raised the issue out of the blue in the old post, and after repeatedly telling you I agree on his position on the debt issue, you continue to bring it up and claim that it is integral to the question of the constitutionality of internal improvements (see your comment from 8:53). It is NOT integral to the question at hand about internal improvements.
RE: "Someone named Daniel argued that the Jefferson administration and the Republicans (assuming this Daniel meant the Democratic-Republicans) were all loco for internal improvements and this somehow undercuts my point (which it really doesn't)."
You challenged the idea that the Jefferson administration supported these internal improvmeents and their constitutionality. You said that their support was "rather unlikely" you said that after the fall of the Federalists that view of that clause wasn't revived until the 1930s (ie - not during the Jefferson administration), you said that Jefferson rejected Gallatin's report and its constitutionality (glossing over exactly what constitutional question he was concerned about - which is why I had to belabor that point here).
This is getting ridiculous, anonymous. Your points are there in black and white for everyone to read. Continuing to mention the national debt doesn't obscure what you said about internal improvements.
And finally - please stop it with this "democratic-republican" issue. Jefferson's party was alternatively referred to as the "republican party", the "democratic party", and the "democratic-republican party". The Jeffersonians themselves prefered to call themselves "republicans", and regularly referenced principles of republicanism (rather than democracy, which was considered dangerous) which is why I refer to them as "republicans".
This is what I wrote:
ReplyDelete~~~ "These all saw the light of day to varying degrees, but they were all formulated and pushed by the Jefferson administration and Republicans in the Congress."
Since the Albemarle and Chesapeake Canal was not even under construction until the 1850s that seems rather unlikely. ~~~
This seems rather qualified to me.
"Jefferson's party was alternatively referred to as the "republican party", the "democratic party", and the "democratic-republican party"."
Sure, and historians for the sake of you know, clarity, use the term "Democratic-Republican." You know, since we had another Republican party that was founded out the rump of the Whigs, etc. in the 1850s.
"You said that their support was "rather unlikely" you said that after the fall of the Federalists that view of that clause wasn't revived until the 1930s (ie - not during the Jefferson administration)..."
No, I stated that the clause was not read by the Supreme Court that way until the 1930s, not that it wasn't revived until the 1930s.
Let me quote myself again:
ReplyDelete~~~As for its practice in the early republic; following the election of 1800 the Hamiltonian perspective was rejected for roughly a generation (so you are wrong abouts its early use). In fact, it was not until the 1930s that the view of the clause that you are purporting here was recognized by the Supreme Court.~~~
Generation does not mean a hundred and thirty years; and the Supreme Court was not the only place where this issue was dealt with.
Again, you made this really bizarre claim that how could anybody possibly read these clauses any other way ("mental gymnastics" is the term you used as I remember); and I stated, ahh, well, rather easily because it was a live issue until the 1930s at least. This is the nub of the matter. These terms have been controversial for a pretty damn long time; since the founding. If they were as clear as you claim then one would expect that they wouldn't be so controversial from their inception.
I hate to belabor this point, but it is pretty goddamn obvious that I am right on this matter.
RE: "This seems rather qualified to me."
ReplyDeleteYou considered it unlikely that Jefferson formulated and pushed this. You said elsewhere that view of the general welfare clause wasn't held until the 1930s. It seemed quite clear to me. But to end all this confusion, let me put it this way. Do you or do you not agree with this statement:
- Thomas Jefferson supported the appropriation of federal funds for the construction of public works and internal improvements, and considered such appropriations ot be constitutional.
We can settle this easily if you just respond to that rather than continuing to dodge the issue.
RE: "Again, you made this really bizarre claim that how could anybody possibly read these clauses any other way ("mental gymnastics" is the term you used as I remember); and I stated, ahh, well, rather easily because it was a live issue until the 1930s at least."
ReplyDeleteYou don't think people were capable of mental gymnastics in the 1930s? People do mental gymnastics to get to the conclusions that they want to all the time.
RE: "If they were as clear as you claim then one would expect that they wouldn't be so controversial from their inception."
What is this, the dew-eyed innocent school of thought on constitutional law?
"You said elsewhere that view of the general welfare clause wasn't held until the 1930s."
ReplyDeleteBy the Supreme Court (and that is established fact). See there are three branches of government, one is the Supreme Court; there is also the Congress and the Presidency and they compete with one another as to the constitutionality of their actions.
"You don't think people were capable of mental gymnastics in the 1930s?"
ReplyDeleteSure they were. But as part of your original claim you stated that in the early republic your view was in use; and I stated that it was rejected by the Jefferson administration. You seem to think that internal improvements trumps any claims about said rejection; I'd argue that it doesn't.
As for the Republican Party of Thomas Jefferson, these historians would disagree:
ReplyDeleteThe Formation of the Republican Party in Virginia, 1789-1796 The Formation of the Republican Party in Virginia, 1789-1796Harry AmmonThe Journal of Southern History, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Aug., 1953), pp. 283-310
"Oh the Colossus! The Colossus!": James Jackson and the Jeffersonian Republican Party in Georgia, 1796-1806 "Oh the Colossus! The Colossus!": James Jackson and the Jeffersonian Republican Party in Georgia, 1796-1806George R. LamplughJournal of the Early Republic, Vol. 9, No. 3 (Autumn, 1989), pp. 315-334
The Jeffersonian Republicans in Virginia: An Interpretation
Harry Ammon
The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. 71, No. 2 (Apr., 1963), pp. 153-167
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4246932
Calculating the Price of Union: Republican Economic Nationalism and the Origins of Southern Sectionalism, 1790-1828Brian SchoenJournal of the Early Republic, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Summer, 2003), pp. 173-206
Senator Benjamin Hawkins: Federalist or Republican? Senator Benjamin Hawkins: Federalist or Republican?C. L. GrantJournal of the Early Republic, Vol. 1, No. 3 (Autumn, 1981), pp. 233-247
I'm not denying a lot of people call them Democratic-Republicans. It doesn't make it wrong or confusing to call them Republicans. Only someone completely unfamiliar with American history would confuse that with the party that emerged out of the Whigs.
This is getting old very fast, anonymous. Do you agree with that statement or not? If you just give me a straight answer one way or another I'll concede that I woefully misunderstood all your other statements.
ReplyDelete"You don't think people were capable of mental gymnastics in the 1930s?"
ReplyDeleteSo, your hypothesis is that generations of Americans who opposed this reading were doing "mental gymnastics" from 1789 to the 1930s eh? Their stance couldn't possibly be principled and based on reason?
I never said it wasn't principled. My point is precisely that they have their principles, and they try to read those principles into the Constitution. It's a pretty natural phenomenon. Everybody does that with texts.
ReplyDeleteYou insert all these colorful phrases into our discussion, anonymous. You talk about Republicans being "loco" for internal improvements. You bring up the issue of principle here. I'm not sure where you're getting all this stuff.
I think that most of the Constitution is quite plain, and where it is vague it seems to be clearly giving the Congress discretion. The general welfare clause is about as straightforward as statements come in the Constitution. Same with the second amendment for that matter (there's another example of where people try to read their own principles into it through tortured logic). The idea that it may be unwise or inappropriate for Congress to appropriate money in certain ways for the General Welfare is a reasonable way to argue against public works and internal improvements. The idea that the constitution forbids it IS mental gymnastics.
"Only someone completely unfamiliar with American history would confuse that with the party that emerged out of the Whigs."
ReplyDeleteI didn't confuse them; I pretty clearly recognized what you were getting at.
"This is getting old very fast, anonymous."
Vice versa really.
"Do you agree with that statement or not?"
No, I do not agree with your original contention, and never have and there is no reason for me to agree with it.
"I didn't confuse them; I pretty clearly recognized what you were getting at."
ReplyDeleteYes, I understand that - I'm replying to your concerns about confusion and clarity, not your own confusion.
I'm done. Let me know if there's something from Onuf or anywhere else on internal improvements specifically that you want me to look at.
"My point is precisely that they have their principles, and they try to read those principles into the Constitution. It's a pretty natural phenomenon. Everybody does that with texts."
ReplyDeleteBeing principled and having principles are not the same thing. My mouth is agape at this point. Anyway, perhaps you ought to raise this sort of doubt about position.
"You insert all these colorful phrases into our discussion, anonymous. You talk about Republicans being "loco" for internal improvements."
Excuse me for being a normal person. Point being that I am characterizing your argument.
"The idea that it may be unwise or inappropriate for Congress to appropriate money in certain ways for the General Welfare is a reasonable way to argue against public works and internal improvements. The idea that the constitution forbids it IS mental gymnastics."
Which really has nothing to do with the original matter at hand. You want to use this rather specific example (where you know, the constitution actually mentions roads and stuff) as a means to justify a general reading of the clause itself. I reject that.
Anyway, I'm done with this.
ReplyDeleteOK, I'm not done - I really can't resist...
ReplyDeleteRE: "Being principled and having principles are not the same thing. My mouth is agape at this point."
Of course not. But presumably to be principled you have to have principles. This faux drama queen outrage with a particular sensitivity and haughtiness on any questions regarding history has GOT to be mommsen1625. Is this mommsen1625? Come on - tell me!
RE: "Excuse me for being a normal person. Point being that I am characterizing your argument."
But that's the whole problem, mommsen1625. You're not characterizing my argument. You're changing it. If you were only characterizing it it wouldn't be an issue.
RE: "Which really has nothing to do with the original matter at hand. You want to use this rather specific example (where you know, the constitution actually mentions roads and stuff) as a means to justify a general reading of the clause itself. I reject that."
This post isn't even about the clause, mommsen. This is about internal improvements. And most of the argument in the other thread got off onto a tangent about internal improvement which I am continuing here. Keep up.
The principle is the same, though. Internal improvements are justified on the basis of my reading of the General Welfare clause, which I share with Jefferson.
"Of course not. But presumably to be principled you have to have principles."
ReplyDeleteAnd one can be principled about principles and unprincipled about them.
Just call me John Drake.
"You're not characterizing my argument. You're changing it."
Nope, I am characterizing them.
"This post isn't even about the clause... This is about internal improvements."
The post wouldn't exist if not for the earlier conversation; so one might as well just cut to the chase. Ooh, sorry for the colorful phrase.
"Internal improvements are justified on the basis of my reading of the General Welfare clause..."
Not according to James Madison (you know, one of the primary authors of the Constitution): "I am not unaware of the great importance of roads and canals and the improved navigation of water courses, and that a power in the National Legislature to provide for them might be exercised with signal advantage to the general prosperity. But seeing that such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution, and believing that it can not be deduced from any part of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction and reliance on insufficient precedents; believing also that the permanent success of the Constitution depends on a definite partition of powers between the General and the State Governments, and that no adequate landmarks would be left by the constructive extension of the powers of Congress as proposed in the bill, I have no option but to withhold my signature from it, and to cherishing the hope that its beneficial objects may be attained by a resort for the necessary powers to the same wisdom and virtue in the nation which established the Constitution in its actual form and providently marked out in the instrument itself a safe and practicable mode of improving it as experience might suggest." http://www.constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.htm
I'll return to the substance of my point; the two phrases were controverted from the earliest history of the republic and they are not as clear as you make them out to be.
Yes - Madison did have a difference of opinion on this at least at one point in his time.
ReplyDeleteThis is later in his life, after a well-documented conservative turn, though. Keep in mind what he said in 1815:
"Among the means of advancing the public interest the occasion is a proper one for recalling the attention of Congress to the great importance of establishing throughout our country the roads and canals which can best be executed under the national authority. No objects within the circle of political economy so richly repay the expense bestowed on them; there are none the utility of which is more universally ascertained and acknowledged; none that do more honor to the governments whose wise and enlarged patriotism duly appreciates them. Nor is there any country which presents a field where nature invites more the art of man to complete her own work for his accommodation and benefit. These considerations are strengthened, moreover, by the political effect of these facilities for intercommunication in bringing and binding more closely together the various parts of our extended confederacy. Whilst the States individually, with a laudable enterprise and emulation, avail themselves of their local advantages by new roads, by navigable canals, and by improving the streams susceptible of navigation, the General Government is the more urged to similar undertakings, requiring a national jurisdiction and national means, by the prospect of thus systematically completing so inestimable a work; and it is a happy reflection that any defect of constitutional authority which may be encountered can be supplied in a mode which the Constitution itself has providently pointed out."
I don't honestly know much about Madison, and his positions are notoriously slippery. I would no more allow you to get away with claiming that an 1817 statement is the "Madisonian" position any more than I would assert that this 1815 statement is the "Madisonian" position, but both are certainly important to consider.
Source?
ReplyDelete"I don't honestly know much about Madison, and his positions are notoriously slippery. I would no more allow you to get away with claiming that an 1817 statement is the "Madisonian" position any more than I would assert that this 1815 statement is the "Madisonian" position, but both are certainly important to consider."
That seems to merely bolster my position concerning the controversial nature of the phrases.
Sorry - just his state of the union (or annual address to Congress - I'm assuming the state of the union):
ReplyDeletehttp://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/speeches/detail/3628
I'm not so sure what it bolsters. Certainly it bolsters the idea that people weren't perfectly unanimous - but then again, it would be silly to argue that everyone was perfectly unanimous, and nobody has argued that. Does it suggest that it was controversial? Well, these projects went on unabated and the guy that's often held-up as the poster boy for constitutional opposition to internal improvements clearly isn't so clear cut. That seems to me to suggest that it is LESS controversial than it is commonly assumed to have been. It is commonly assumed that Jefferson and the Republicans were against these sorts of interpretations, that the Louisiana Purchase was too good to pass up, but a fluke, and that Madison was the bedrock of constitutional opposition. Based on all of these statements by Jefferson and Madison we've reviewed today, all of that seems to have gone out the window, and the MOST we can say is that by the end of his administration, Madison expressed constitutionally based reservations that didn't do much to stop the onslaught of internal improvements.
It honestly makes me want to know more about his position in 1817 and why it changed. He alludes to constitutional questions in this 1815 statement, but considers them unproblematic. How does that relate to the 1817 statement? What was the nature of the projects he had in front of him in 1817? Perhaps they were very localized and not beneficial for the GENERAL welfare. If he opposed it for that reason, that would be very different from opposing any appropriation for intenal improvements (which he clearly considered constitutional and an imperative in 1815). So what is more likely - that there was something different about the 1817 proposal but that he held a generally consistent and broad view of the clause, or that the 1817 proposal was consistent with earlier proposals, but Madison's views changed dramatically over the course of two years. Those are the kinds of questions it raises in my mind.
And again, I don't know Madison in too much detail, but he takes quite a conservative turn towards the end of his life. Susan Dunn does a good job recounting the impact of this turn on Virginia society - I'm not sure how it may relate to his late presidency.