View Single Post
Old 04-21-2008, 06:10 PM   #57 (permalink)
Sebelius for VP, not Hillary
Moderator
 
Sebelius for VP, not Hillary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,254
Country:
Country:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truth-Bringer View Post
No, I am not. I stated there was a conflict of interest. Anytime a source funded by the government promotes more government power and more government spending, that is accurately identified as a potential conflict of interest. I went on to clarify that such does not automatically invalidate their claims. That is why I went on to specifically explain why they were wrong.

No, I'm clarifying.

You're simply misinterpreting the earlier statement. I never said the Founders wanted "no" standing army. Saying that they preferred a national militia and not a standing army does not mean that they wanted to never allow for a standing army. But the majority only wanted a temporary standing army and not a permanent standing army. And they still favored the national militia as the primary means of defense, which collapses your argument.

No, it has not.

It's completely and totally invalid for you to claim that the later quote and the later actions don't supercede the earlier quotes and actions.

This is irrelevant. Produce and present evidence that the majority of American citizens favored a standing army over a national militia. Good luck with that - considering quartered troops was one of the main grievances they had with England...

Fallacious. No one has to prove the first comment was never said. But the second quote, the later quote, proves where his experience led his final opinion to rest, in praising the militia and reaffirming the primary need of the militia in national defense.

It was during war time. Raising a temporary standing army was perfectly Constitutional after war was declared by Congress. That doesn't help your argument.

"Madison was President for the Second War of Independence, more commonly known as the War of 1812. Madison had little enthusiasm for the war, but his hand was forced by the "War Hawks" in his own party."

Madison was not attacking Canada simply for the sake of attacking Canada. This was during the war of 1812. The British were attacking the U.S. from Canada:

"That same year, disaster loomed as 10,000 experienced British troops under command of Sir George Prevost marched from Montreal along Lake Champlain and down the Hudson Valley toward New York City with the intention of cutting the country in two. The British had attempted the same strategy in the Revolutionary War with an army of 9,500 marching south under General John Burgoyne: the Hudson Valley invited this strategy. However, on September 11, 1814, an American fleet commanded by Captain Thomas Macdonough destroyed the British fleet on Lake Champlain. The British army, with its lines of communication and supply jeopardized, fought poorly and retreated into Canada."

Link

The focus on Canada was due to the fact that British troops were invading from Canada. After the war ended, Madison did not continue to pursue invasion plans. He accepted the peace treaty, which kept all territory issues as they were before the war.

Military sources here praising the role of the military... Again, shocking...

Now let's look at the other major battle, and the decisive battle of the war - The Battle of New Orleans:

"The other major British thrust of 1814 had been an attempt to capture New Orleans and gain control of the mouth of the Mississippi. With control of the Mississippi, the British could strangle the commerce of the states and territories west of the Appalachians. This effort was a disaster for the British as a U.S. army assembled by Andrew Jackson inflicted a crushing defeat on a much larger British Army in the Battle of New Orleans."

Link

Were Jackson's troops all U.S. soldiers? No. Were even the majority of them U.S. soldiers? No:

"The fighting in Louisiana was really a series of battles for New Orleans, lasting from December 1814 through January 1815. On the Chalmette battleground , just below the city, a diverse force of soldiers, sailors, and militia, including Indians and African Americans, defeated Britain's finest white and black troops drawn from Europe and the West Indies."

"United States forces at the time of the Battle of New Orleans were much smaller. This detachment was composed of United States army troops; Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Louisiana militia; Baratarian pirates; Choctaw warriors; and free black soldiers."

"Jackson's Forces

Militia units from surrounding states joined local troops in defending Louisiana. These included mounted militia and dragoons, (mounted troops who rode into battle, dismounted, and fought on foot). Major Gabriel Villeré commanded the Louisiana Militia, and Major Jean Baptiste Plauché headed the New Orleans uniformed militia companies. Each of these companies had its own distinctive, colorful uniform, and many of their members had previous military experience in France, Saint-Domingue (Haiti), and Latin America.

Louisianians contributed to the American victory in many ways. Behind the front lines white and free black men forty-five years and older formed home guards to protect private property and maintain order in New Orleans and surrounding towns and posts. Slaves and citizens helped widen canals and build defenses along them. Slaves also fortified military positions and fought in several battles of the Louisiana campaign. Women at home made clothing for the troops and flags and bandages for the militia regiments, while nuns and free women of color nursed the wounded at hospitals and convents.

The First and Second Battalions of Free Men of Color, comprising over six hundred men, played an important role in the Louisiana campaign, just as free black men had during the colonial period in the service of France and Spain. Louisiana was the first state in the Union to commission a military officer of African descent, and an act passed by the Louisiana legislature in 1812 was the first in the nation to authorize a black volunteer militia with its black line officers.

Fighting with Jackson's forces in Louisiana was a group of Choctaws, longtime enemies of the pro-British Creek nation. They were under the command of Major Pierre Jugeant, a part-Choctaw scout who had grown up among Native Americans and spoke various dialects.

The legendary Baratarian pirates also lent assistance to Jackson and the Americans, primarily in the form of military supplies and artillery power. The Baratarians had been approached by British officials to act as allies and waterway guides. Acting as leader of the "Frenchmen of Barataria," Jean Laffite went to American authorities while considering the British offer, ultimately securing from Jackson promises of amnesty for past offenses in return for siding with the United States and committing his men to battle."

Link

"Jackson also accepted the services of Jean Lafitte, a famous local pirate, and 600 free blacks of New Orleans, and brooked no criticism of the use of the black volunteers.

In the climactic battle, Jackson used some 3,000 men, with carefully dug fortifications, to hold off approximately twice as many British troops who made a massed assault, taking over 2,000 casualties, while the Americans sustained 13 killed, 39 wounded, and 19 missing. The British dead included the top commanders, and the troops fled in a rout."

Link

Here's another link with a just few battles of the War of 1812 listed - note there are over approximately 13,000 militia troops listed in those few battles.
You've made several errors and biased remarks in your post. I'll lay them out:
  • You advocate conspiracy theories, saying that the National Endowment for the Arts and the US Army Center of Military History are telling lies because they are part of a big government conspiracy to maintain big government. Therefore, you suggest all government bureaus, statistics and records are lies. These comments alone make your argument a joke. The conspiracy theories that you throw out make this just another Ron Paul conspiracy theory thread.
  • You only use your conspiracy theory when it is convenient for you and you do not apply your conspiracy theory when it might hurt your opinions. You post a thread from a professor, and professors receive federal funding and federal grants. In 2006, the federal government issued $30 billion in support to universities, so your decision to use a university professor who is supported by federal monies, is inconsistent with your advocating that conspiracy theory. source
  • You are telling lies here. You change your argument and you backpeddle, and when I hold you accountable for your own words, you say that I "misinterpreted" your statements.

    This is what you said about standing armies:

    Proof that the Founders did indeed want a national militia composed of the people and not standing armies


    That speaks for itself. You are saying that the founders did not want standing armies. However, now you will not even acknowledge that you did say that. Your comments are too dishonest to debate since you will not even stand by your own words.

  • You told another logically false statement when you said that Madison's support for militia's in 1815 makes his calling for a standing army in the late 1780's and his increasing the armies size by 250% as President in 1810 "invalid." You cannot make facts "invalid."
  • You cited Jefferson heavily and now you say you didn't. Again, a failure to take your own beliefs seriously.
  • Madison called for an increase in the size of the federal army TWO YEARS BEFORE the war, not during wartime as you falsely claimed.
  • Lastly, I would say that you cherry-picked information from your last source, OMITTING information that ran contrary to your opinions and falsely characterizing the source you used. You misportrayed your source as saying that Madison's expansion of the federal army and his use of the militia was defensive, when your own source clearly states that Madison's goal was WAR MONGERING, in direct contradiction to your argument on this thread. From your source:
    "Today this war is regarded in U.S. government texts as a stalemate as best and is primarily remembered for the burning of the White House and the failed expansion into Canada. The initial choices of Generals were bad, and the troops were militia and volunteers. General William Hull, a Revolutionary War veteran, was to invade Canada through Detroit. Instead he surrendered his army and Detroit to a much smaller British and Native American army. General Hull was court-martialed and convicted, but his life was spared by Madison, justified by his previous service to his country. The attempted invasions of Canada through other routes were not so disastrous, but still unsuccessful."
    ...



The last time I checked, "expansion" and "invasion" are not defensive maneuvers. If you actually put all of the facts into your analysis, you would see that the essence of US willingness to use the federal government to support national interests that have nothing to do with national defense, has not changed in 220 years.


WEB
__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary is offline   Reply With Quote