Truth-Bringer

Invalid. You present nothing new here. Just the same fallacies.

Yes, I have. Your statements are invalid.

No, it is you who are misrepresenting what I said. I have not used the term conspiracy. Show me where I used that term if you disagree. DO I BELIEVE THERE IS A CONSPIRACY? NO. Have I ever said there's a conspiracy? No. I will not repeat the refutation I've given again, as it was satisfactory. You continue to ignore it because it fully refutes your use of the term "conspiracy."

I have stated my position clearly. You refuse to address my clarification. It's not my fault you can't accept it because it nullifies your argument.

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.


I know.

Which you have misinterpreted.

Appeal to ridicule yet again.


Again, what you want to do is ignore the possibility for people to make typing/wording/grammatical mistakes and attack their mistakes rather than the actual argument at hand. This is because you cannot refute the clarification.

The irrelevant fact is that increasing the size of the army does not supercede his clear words stated before and after his Presidency and before and after the war, that the militia was essential, necessary and "is the firmest bulwark of republics." He did not want the standing army to ever replace the militia - and therefore the increases were never intended for such a purpose, and therefore my argument stands.

Again, I've fully explained when and why I added the extra quotes by Jefferson, WHICH YOU'VE REFUSED TO ADDRESS. You ignore my explanation because you cannot refute it, and you continue to cling to a Straw Man.

What comment is false? I agreed that he called for an increase of the army before the war, and also during the war. That however doesn't change the fact that he favored the militia as the primary means of defense of a free state. That is what you cannot prove, because Madison's quotes and actions forbid it. That's why you haven't ONCE addressed his quotes on the militia. He also called for new training for the militia at the same time he called for training for the army. If he wanted to replace the militia with the army, why did he want the new training academies to train them?????? That inconvenient fact puts your argument to rest.

Madison's quotes are Madison's quotes. They're not my opinions.

This is a mischaracterization that you continue to repeat. I guess I'll just have to keep repeating my clarification:

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.

Why can't you address my clarification?

Irrelevant. Since it does not mean he wanted the standing army to replace the militia, it means nothing. The issue here is militia versus standing army. If your claim is that Madison wanted a standing army instead of a militia, it is a claim that has no basis in fact. If he changed his mind and wanted both, his words indicate that he wants the militia as the primary means of defense.

A source may be correct on some points and incorrect on others. That is a fact. If my source is correct on a point, I will point it out. If it is incorrect, I will acknowledge it.

This military source is not correct on the "conquering Canada" objective. First of all, THEY PROVIDE NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR CLAIM. That's a slight problem. Let's look at the views of multiple historians from 25 separate books and see what evidence they have of this notion:

J.C.A. Stagg, Mr. Madison’s War: "His claim, for example, that Madison coveted Canada to enhance the effectiveness of the restrictive system rests on pretty thin evidence."

"Not Recommended

Julius W. Pratt, Expansionists of 1812 (1925).

Despite its virtues, Pratt’s work cannot be recommended as a book on the causes of the war for two reasons. First, Pratt overstated the American desire to expel the British from North America, claiming that this was “a factor of primary importance in bringing on the war” (p. 12). Secondly, Pratt suggested that northerners and southerners in the U.S. had struck a bargain to seize Canada from Great Britain and the Floridas from Spain. “Thus,” he concluded, “the war began with a double-barrelled scheme of territorial aggrandizement” (p. 13). Pratt rested his case mainly on two contemporary remarks: one by congressional War Hawk Felix Grundy of Tennessee in 1811 proposing such a deal and another by anti-war Federalist Senator William Hunter of Rhode Island in 1813 claiming that such a deal had been agreed to (pp. 140, 149). Pratt’s evidence for this grand bargain is thus very thin indeed. Although it is certainly true that the desire for Canada played an important role in promoting war sentiment in the West, this region was too sparsely settled to drive the war movement. In the more populous East, which produced most of the votes for war, contemporary sources show that maritime issues dominated.

Link

Wikipedia concludes on the War of 1812:
"After long debates historians now agree that Americans did not desire to acquire Canadian lands, but to stop British aid to the hostile Indians." They say that statement could be challenged, but has not been. There is much that could be questioned on the source, but since that was openly marked, and is still unchallenged, that obviously speaks to its veracity.


But you wanted to disqualify Jefferson... Now you want to use him? LOL. You can't have it both ways...

First of all, Jefferson was not in power in government when making this statement and was therefore not actively promoting the policy. Secondly, the quantifier here is EVERYTHING. They wanted to remove the threat of England, who was not respecting their neutrality, not keep the land:

"(In the War of 1812) the US declared war on Great Britain and struck at the only British possession on the continent: Canada."

What facts? Again, the military source was an opinion. They provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support that claim. The evidence above shows no one in a real position of power ever making those claims.

Again, Madison was under significant pressure from the war hawks in Congress:

"The Congress that was elected in 1810 and met in November 1811 included a group known as the War Hawks who demanded war against Great Britain. These men were all Democratic-Republicans and mostly from the West and South. Among their leaders were John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, Henry Clay of Kentucky, and Felix Grundy of Tennessee. They argued that American honor could be saved and British policies changed by an invasion of Canada."

Link

I do think he made a mistake in giving in, but he was not a perfect man. He made mistakes, and this was one of them. Nevertheless, he did strive for neutrality, which is something George Bush has never even attempted, so the comparison falls flat:

"Madison and neutrality. Madison was just as committed as Jefferson to staying out of the European war, and he continued to rely on economic pressure. The Non-Intercourse Act of 1809 replaced the Embargo Act. The logic behind the law was that the United States would open its ports to all nations except Britain and France. If either of those two nations stopped violating American neutrality rights, the United States would reestablish commercial ties.

Problems in the west. While Madison and Congress grappled with the neutrality issue, Native Americans renewed their objections to American settlement north of the Ohio River. Tribes were still being coerced into giving away or selling their land. Through the Treaty of Fort Wayne (1809), the Delaware and Miami gave up much of the central and western parts of the new Indiana Territory for only ten thousand dollars.

Voting for war. On June 1, 1812, President Madison sent a war message to Congress. Frustrated at the failure of the neutrality measures and pressured by the War Hawks, Madison felt he had no choice."

That's not spinning - that's what Madison truly wanted. He was pressured into war and made the mistake of giving into the pressure. He was not a perfect man, but he did seek neutrality first. As for the military motives, they were simply seeking to expel the British from Canada.

The British were in a position to immediately send troops in through Canada:

"From the end of the American Revolution in 1783, the United States had been irritated by the failure of the British to withdraw from American territory along the Great Lakes; [and] their backing of the Indians on America's frontiers."

The American plan was to isolate and then capture Quebec City, thereby cutting off any further British troop movement up the St Lawrence River and into the Great Lakes. It was a strategic move. Not a war for true conquest.

Which alliances would be part of - so why can't you address that?