America's Founding Fathers on War - They Weren't Neocon Warmongers - Page 4 - Political Forum

Havoc Wreaker · #31 (**permalink**) 04-12-2008, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

Mind your own business on that.

Why do you have to insult me? I am merely stating an honest opinion.

W.E.B. Du Bois · #32 (**permalink**) 04-12-2008, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Havoc Wreaker

Alexander Hamilton was the most statist of the Founders (this is why today's liberals love him), and he was never elected to national office. Most of his desires for government can be found in the Communist Manifesto. To use Hamilton as the standard for the Founding Fathers, when he was sometimes the sole voice in opposition to the majority of the Founders, simply isn't legitimate.

That's a biased comment. This thread talks about the Founders of the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton was one of the most influential founders of the Constitution, and you basically try to exclude him because he rejects everything your politics favors. Your comment is nothing but an expression of sheer bias, and that all this talk of the wisdom of the founders is not even believed by these Paulists who speak of it.

W.E.B. Du Bois · #33 (**permalink**) 04-12-2008, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Havoc Wreaker

Why do you have to insult me? I am merely stating an honest opinion.

You are now banned for several reasons.

Firstly, posters are not allowed to debate moderation in public.

Secondly, it was none of your damn business. This was about another poster, not you.

Thirdly, your comment is trollish. Me telling you to "mind your own business" is not an "insult" as you falsely claimed.

WEB

W.E.B. Du Bois · #34 (**permalink**) 04-12-2008, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Havoc Wreaker

No, this is incorrect. You have not showed this.

No, it's correct, I've shown this and you merely repeat again and again that I haven't while failing to engage my actual arguments against T-B's claims.

W.E.B. Du Bois · #35 (**permalink**) 04-12-2008, 05:07 PM

I just want to show an interesting quote from James Madison (who although championed the standing army, and helped to build one under his presidency, still appreciated the dangers of the standing army):

America's Anti-Militarist Tradition

Quote:

In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive, will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

W.E.B. Du Bois · #36 (**permalink**) 04-12-2008, 06:27 PM

Here's two more Constitutional delegates who favored a standing army:

Charles Pinckney: "There must also be a real military force. This alone can effectively answer the purpose. The United States have been making an experiment without it and we see the consequences in their rapid approaches to anarchy."

John Langdon: "The apprehension of the national force will have a salutary effect in preventing insurrections."

source

W.E.B. Du Bois · #37 (**permalink**) 04-12-2008, 06:52 PM

George Washington smacking down the militia and calling for a standing army in 1776:

From Revolution to Reconstruction: Presidents: George Washington: Recruiting and Maintaining an Army

Quote:

Relaxed, and unfit, as our Rules and Regulations of War are, for the Government of an Army, the Militia (those properly so called, for of these we have two sorts, the Six Months Men and those sent in as a temporary aid) do not think themselves subject to `em, and therefore take liberties, which the Soldier is punished for; this creates jealousy; jealousy begets dissatisfaction, and these by degrees ripen into Mutiny; keeping the whole Army in a confused, and disordered State; rendering the time of those who wish to see regularity and good Order prevail more unhappy than Words can describe. Besides this, such repeated changes take place, that all arrangement is set at nought, and the constant fluctuation of things, deranges every plan, as fast as adopted. These Sir, Congress may be assured, are but a small part of the Inconveniences which might be enumerated and attributed to Militia; but there is one that merits particular attention, and that is the expence. Certain I am, that it would be cheaper to keep 50, or 100,000 Men in constant pay than to depend upon half the number, and supply the other half occasionally by Militia. The time the latter is in pay before and after they are in Camp, assembling and Marching; the waste of Ammunition; the consumption of Stores, which in spite of every Resolution, and requisition of Congress they must be furnished with, or sent home, added to other incidental expences consequent upon their coming, and conduct in Camp, surpasses all Idea, and destroys every kind of regularity and economy which you could establish among fixed and Settled Troops; and will, in my opinion prove (if the scheme is adhered to) the Ruin of our Cause.

The Jealousies of a standing Army, and the Evils to be apprehended from one, are remote; and in my judgment, situated and circumstanced as we are, not at all to be dreaded; but the consequence of wanting one, according to my Ideas, formed from the present view of things, is certain, and inevitable Ruin; for if I was called upon to declare upon Oath, whether the Militia have been most serviceable or hurtful upon the whole; I should subscribe to the latter. I do not mean by this however to arraign the Conduct of Congress, in so doing I should equally condemn my own measures, (if I did not my judgment); but experience, which is the best criterion to work by, so fully, clearly, and decisively reprobates the practice of trusting to Militia, that no Man who regards order, regularity, and (e]conomy; or who has any regard for his own honour, Character, or peace of Mind, will risk them upon this Issue.

W.E.B. Du Bois · #38 (**permalink**) 04-12-2008, 07:11 PM

If you read Washington's letters in 1783, he calls for a standing army to guard against the Native Americans. Washington's plan for national defense is primarily a national militia, but also a national army.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12: George Washington, Sentiments on a Peace Establishment

We can consider the opening post de-bunked and falsified.

LiveUninhibited · #39 (**permalink**) 04-12-2008, 07:55 PM

Quote:

We can consider the opening post de-bunked and falsified.

Huh? I think you have presented good evidence that not all of the founding fathers were against a standing army, but that's not what the opening post was about.

He claimed that the founding fathers would be against pre-emptive wars and foreign intervention. The quotes he showed certainly do suggest that, and there is nothing in those quotes that would suggest this was only because America was weak at the time. The quotes all seem to suggest war as a terrible last resort to defend America's liberty or security - not to go around invading other countries for their own good.

But I suppose the point is moot anyhow because the founding fathers were very limited in what they could know. Hundreds of years of experience separate us from them. The American Constitution was more of a proto-type for more democratic republics and we cling to it as if it were some sacred thing.

Truth-Bringer · #40 (**permalink**) 04-14-2008, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

Hamilton was in favor of a standing army, so long as its funding was approved every 2 years by the Congress. The Congress approves the army budget EVERY YEAR, so our policy on a standing army acts in accord with another founding father: Alexander Hamilton.

To use Alexander Hamilton as a representative for the Founding Fathers is simply not legitimate in any way, shape or form. Hamilton was at odds with most of the principle Founders on a number of key issues.

Hamilton’s Curse

"Hamilton worshipped government power for its own sake, and sought a government that would seek "imperial glory" (his words). He disrespected people like Jefferson who believed the primary purpose of government should be the protection of natural rights to life, liberty and property. He frequently complained of "an excessive concern for liberty in public men" and called for a government of "more energy." As Clinton Rossiter wrote in Alexander Hamilton and the Constitution, "Hamilton . . . had perhaps the highest respect for government of any important American political thinker who ever lived." His "overriding purpose" was "to build the foundations of a new empire" that could "reach out forcefully and benevolently to every person." (Forcefully, yes; but government is never "benevolent.")

"And what does "Hamilton’s Republic" look like, from a government policy perspective? It is one that is run by a dictatorial chief executive with king-like powers, for one thing. At the Constitutional convention Hamilton presented his real agenda: a "permanent" president who would appoint all the governors, and who would have veto power over all state legislation. "A king!" is what his Jeffersonian detractors accused him of asking for, and they were right. He failed at the convention, but few could deny that modern American presidents are every bit as king-like as Hamilton wanted them to be – and more. How else could one describe a president who can bomb any country in the world at will, and without the least bit of congressional approval?

Hamilton lied through his teeth in The Federalist Papers when he spoke favorably about states’ rights and federalism, for his proposal for a "permanent president" would have all but destroyed any semblance of true federalism or "divided sovereignty," as James Madison labeled it."

"Hamilton was a frenetic tax increaser as the nation’s first Treasury Secretary. He championed a standing army as well, not so much to defend against foreign invaders as to intimidate Americans into paying all those burdensome taxes he had in mind for them. He proved this when he accompanied George Washington and 10,000 conscripts into Western Pennsylvania during the Whiskey Rebellion, a tax revolt over Hamilton’s federal whiskey tax by Pennsylvania farmers. Hamilton wanted to hang the two dozen or so tax protesters that were rounded up, but George Washington pardoned them all, infuriating the nation’s first Tax Collector-in-Chief."