Again, you're cherry picking.

First of all, there is a conflict of interest with your source - it is a government source justifying more government power. Imagine that...

Secondly, the quantifier in the quote: "still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger" - does not support your interpretation. He is saying that one cannot say that the state militias could not do the job - therefore a standing army is unnecessary in the final equation.

Thirdly, I will admit that there does seem to be a change at times in Madison's words regarding support of a standing army. After Jefferson was elected President in the House of Representatives, Madison said:

"True to his Democratic-Republican party creed that a standing military is a threat to liberty, Madison writes to Jefferson, "And what a lesson to America & the world is given by the efficacy of the public will when there is no army to be turned [against] it!"

Jefferson's, who Madison was very happy to see elected, quotes on standing armies were:

"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." --Thomas Jefferson

"I do not like [in the new Federal Constitution] the omission of a Bill of Rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for... protection against standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:387

"It is nonsense to talk of regulars. They are not to be had among a people so easy and happy at home as ours. We might as well rely on calling down an army of angels from heaven." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1814. ME 14:207

"There shall be no standing army but in time of actual war." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776. Papers 1:363

"The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so." --Thomas Jefferson

Back to Madison. Now, when we're looking at such a change, one must ask: When did he say it? Why did he say it? And what were his actions after he said it?

If Bill Clinton said "I truly believe in the institution of marriage and that one man can be faithful to one woman" - it would be meaningless because his actions would refute his words. If he said it before getting married or after a divorce, the context would change the validity of the statement as well.

So when did Madison change and begin to allegedly favor a standing army? It was during wartime, during the War of 1812, in which the capital was burned. Obviously, quite an emotional experience for someone to live through, and emotion has a way of clouding reason:

(from the same source) "the 63-year-old Madison remained on horseback for most of four days and nights while the capital burned and then returned immediately to its charred ruins to resume official business. Within a month of the burning of the White House he sends his sixth State of the Union message to Congress candidly acknowledging England's potential "deadly blow at our growing prosperity, perhaps at our national existence."

His choice of words there is clearly emotional. America could not have been conquered by England.

Another factor that most likely influenced his thinking on the issue was that the war was not popular, and some of the state governors exercised their independent rights and refused to allow their militia to serve in the war:

"Initially the war goes badly, and Madison, who has made some bad appointments, must bear some of the blame. Federalists heap criticism upon Madison's leadership and label the war "Mr. Madison's War." The merchants in New England trade with the enemy, and in reward the British blockade imposed in 1813 exempts New England. New England's Federalist governors refuse to let their militia serve outside their own states."

Since Madison was seeing the results of the war first hand, and had to watch Washington DC being burned, such a refusal by governor's could obviously seem very threatening.

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

Madison would not have supported today's foreign policy. You will note from his writings that he constantly states of "asking Congress," "asking Congress" and "asking Congress." He knows the President has no authority to do such things at his own whim. He would not have been in favor of a President able to deploy troops or other military operatives, such as the CIA, to foreign countries in the defense of abstract "American interests."

They don't trump Madison or Jefferson.

The quote refutes itself. Washington says it in 1776. He states the militia "will, in my opinion prove (if the scheme is adhered to) the Ruin of our Cause." (He also states his opinions at that time are "formed from the present view of things.")

He was wrong. America prevailed - and in large part because of their unorthodox tactics. What were his actions after he became President? Did they match his words? No. He did not take action to disband the militia or set up a permanent standing army outside of implied Constitutional bounds.

We can consider the alleged refutations de-bunked and invalid.

Truth-Bringer shifted his argument several times in the debate. Every time I refuted his argument, he shifted to a new one. I have been refuting his latest argument that he made on post 13, where he argued that the Founders did not want a standing army.

America's Founding Fathers on War - They Weren't Neocon Warmongers

__________________
"Of course the fact that a person believes in racial equality doesn't prove that he's a communist...but it certainly makes you look twice, doesn't it? You can't get away from the fact that racial equality is part of the communist line." - Joseph McCarthy

Political Forum Diplomacy Game Map (In Progress)
Current Diplomacy thread

To heap praise upon praise upon the Founders and then totally trash and discount one of the principal founders of the Constitution, shows that one does not actually value the founders at all. It shows hypocrisy and that one is not even consistent with ones own words. Your simultaneous elevation of the founders and disregarding of one of the most influential founders shows that your argument is hypocritical and not to be believed. You use the founders as a cheap talking point, and when you say how great they are, I don't even believe that this is sincere.

That's a pretty hypocritical remark coming from someone who not only cherry-picks the comments made by the founders, but the actual founders themselves. You disregard not only the comments that are inconvenient for your political agenda, but also the actual founders themselves (Hamilton) when inconvenient.

You now are saying that my source is invalid because it's a teacher's resource, and teachers are government employees and the government conspiracy theory makes it all lies.

You've basically invalidated everything you've said as nothing more than paranoid conspiracy theories. You can rest on your conspiracy theories, I'll rest on the words of the founders: Madison, Hamilton, Washington and other constitutional delegates who advocated and built a standing army.

They trump your claim about the Founders opposing a standing army, which has been shown to be false. Also, given that Madison supported and personally ordered the growth of the standing army to fight the British and attempt to conquer Canada in 1812 as President further falsifies your claims.

Your claim about Jefferson is ignorant. Jefferson was in Europe during the Constitutional Convention.

Wrong on two counts. If the quote refutes itself, then you are saying that a founder is wrong, which runs contrary to your deification of them. Even if you're right, you're wrong. Secondly, Washington relied upon both the Continental Army and militia, so you haven't shown that America prevailed due mainly to the strength of the militia (as opposed to a strengthening army and support from the French).

One thing we can consider is that your comments are conspiracy theories. You tipped your hand when you mentioned that a comment made from a teacher's website is essentially government propaganda. That essentially shows that you believe in Illuminati-style conspiracy theories.

__________________
"Of course the fact that a person believes in racial equality doesn't prove that he's a communist...but it certainly makes you look twice, doesn't it? You can't get away from the fact that racial equality is part of the communist line." - Joseph McCarthy

Political Forum Diplomacy Game Map (In Progress)
Current Diplomacy thread

No, I didn't. There are simply multiple issues here.

You haven't refuted anything.

No, you haven't.

The majority of them didn't. And the most prominent Founders didn't. Those are facts. You were the one bringing Madison's authority into this and alleging he changed his position on the issue, which I refuted.

Straw Man. I am not "heaping praise upon the Founders." I am discussing their words and, more importantly, their actions. To deny that Alexander Hamilton's positions were at odds with almost all of the other Founders is to deny the truth. Ample evidence has been presented. You have refused to address it.

I've cherry picked nothing. I'm fully willing to discuss any aspect of any quote I've posted. The quotes and actions are all valid and relevant. Later quotes trump earlier quotes. And actions trump words.

Straw Man. There is no "political agenda" involved. There is only the truth of the matter at hand.

Straw Man. Yet another mischaracterization. Now you're just arguing ad nauseum. I stated there was a conflict of interest with the source, and that's true. That in and of itself does not invalidate the source, nor did I claim it did. That's why I presented other facts to prove that the information was invalid.

Appeal to Ridicule.

And you'll obviously have to ignore all the words and actions of the Founders and facts I presented which refute this...

No, they don't - because they were in the minority. You were the one relying on the authority of "the father of the Constitution."

No it has not. Your assertion is false.

Again, after the war ended, his support of a standing army was not pursued. He reiterated his support of the militia in his state of the union speech in 1815.

Straw Man. My only claim is that Madison respected Jefferson and his views. My claim is that they were members of the same political party, shared a similar political philosophy, and mutually respected each other's views.

No, you are wrong on two counts.

Straw Man. I've made no deification of the Founders. I've already stated any failure to see into the future is denied to any human being. Therefore, this is another invalid comparison.

But...neither can it be used to disprove the strength of the militia. So why are you presenting it as evidence of such?

Again, an Appeal to Ridicule fallacy.

Your argument is a straw man. Given the conspiracy theory overtones in it, your argument couldn't be anything but a strawman, because that's what you believe in.

Not only are those laughable black helicopter overtones in your argument, but you've also contradicted your own points and ideology on several occasions, deifying the founders when convenient and trashing them when convenient. You've also ignored the principal founders who supported a standing army (Madison, Hamilton and Washington). You throw your weight behind Jefferson, who was not a founder of the Constitution and was in Europe at the time of the Constitutional Convention. You do not have an argument here. Just the remains of an out house after it's been hit by a smart bomb.

__________________
"Of course the fact that a person believes in racial equality doesn't prove that he's a communist...but it certainly makes you look twice, doesn't it? You can't get away from the fact that racial equality is part of the communist line." - Joseph McCarthy

Political Forum Diplomacy Game Map (In Progress)
Current Diplomacy thread

Appeal to Ridicule fallacy.

Appeal to Ridicule fallacy.

All Straw Men, all previously cited as such. A clarified statement is:

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.

George Washington - from his Farewell Address on September 17, 1796:

"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world... As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent Patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practise the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the Public Councils… Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences...constantly keeping in view, that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard."

Appeal to Ridicule fallacy. The argument stands. The truth of the matter is irrefutable.