Quote:
Originally Posted by Truth-Bringer
Again, this is totally false. You introduced the word "conspiracy." I stated there was a conflict of interest, but went on to clarify that it did not, in and of itself, disqualify the source. I then went on to explain specifically why their information was flawed.
|
Your claims here are a conspiracy theory. You are pushing a conspiracy theory that the National Endowment for the Arts is lying because it is a government institution. I identified your conspiracy theory as a conspiracy theory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truth-Bringer
Again...
The vast majority of Founding Fathers, and a majority of the most influential Founding Fathers, supported the militia as the primary means of national defense. This majority allowed for the creation of a standing army for emergency situations, but did not intend for it to replace the militia as the primary means of defense. They believed the United States should remain neutral in foreign wars and should use the militia and army for defensive purposes only. They would not support current U.S. foreign policy.
|
You're back pedaling, which I will admit is good to see, as it shows a recognition that your thrust is over-extended.
This is what you said before:
America's Founding Fathers on War - They Weren't Neocon Warmongers
Proof that the Founders did indeed want a national militia composed of the people and not standing armies
Now you say:
The vast majority of Founding Fathers, and a majority of the most influential Founding Fathers, supported the militia as the primary means of national defense.
So you've essentially retreated your argument from saying the Founders wanted NO standing army to the Founders want the militia as the primary means of national defense. It would have been nice if you could have stated that without me having to point it for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truth-Bringer
No, my argument hasn't relied on heavy quotes from Jefferson. The secondary quotes were merely to show solidarity between Jefferson's and Madison's views, since they were political allies, good friends, and members of the same political party.
|
Your argument has relied heavily on Jefferson despite his absence from the Constitutional Convention.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Truth-Bringer
This has already been shown to be invalid:
But what were Madison's actions after the war ended? Did he relentlessly pursue a standing army? No. In fact, he reiterated his support of the militia in his state of the union speech in 1815. He did call for more military schools, which would also potentially be used for training of the militia as well, but he did not want the primary means of defense to be a standing army:
"As an improvement in our military establishment, it will deserve the consideration of Congress whether a corps of invalids might not be so organized and employed as at once to aid in the support of meritorious individuals excluded by age or infirmities from the existing establishment, and to procure to the public the benefit of their stationary services and of their exemplary discipline. I recommend also an enlargement of the Military Academy already established, and the establishment of others in other sections of the Union; and I can not press too much on the attention of Congress such a classification and organization of the militia as will most effectually render it the safeguard of a free state. If experience has shewn in the recent splendid achievements of militia the value of this resource for the public defense, it has shewn also the importance of that skill in the use of arms and that familiarity with the essential rules of discipline which can not be expected from the regulations now in force. With this subject is intimately connected the necessity of accommodating the laws in every respect to the great object of enabling the political authority of the Union to employ promptly and effectually the physical power of the Union in the cases designated by the Constitution."
Link |
It's a lie for you to say that your quoting part of Madison's state of the Union speech somehow makes it untrue that Madison advocated a standing army in his published
Federalist Papers, which were used to drive public support to ratify the Constitution. While I am sure that you are cherry picking your evidence, even when cherry-picking it makes no logic sense to say that a 2nd comment made 20 years after a first comment proves that the first comment was never said.
So aside from that lie, we can also note how you've ignored the facts in stating your revisionist history.
Madison, the Father of the Constitution, not only called for a standing army before he helped create the constitution, but he built that standing army up from 10,000 men to 35,000 men when he was President. He did this so he could not only defend the United States, but also to do some war-mongering, namely to annex Canada to the United States, thus showing that your beliefs that the Founders hated war mongering is completely wrong and contradicted by the facts.
Sources for troops numbers:
Chapter 5: American Military History, Volume I
Chapter 6: The War of 1812