Again, your argument is ridiculous. You can't blame me for that. You have stated that a source I proved from the National Endowment for the Humanities is part of a government conspiracy. Your comment is a typical Paulist conspiracy theory.

Also, your argument is wrong as the Founders of the Constitution supported a standing army. Furthermore, your argument is flawed since it has relied heavily upon quoting Jefferson, who was not a founder of the Constitution and was in Europe during the Constitutional Convention.

Madison calling for a standing army before he was president in the Federalist Papers:

EDSITEment - Lesson Plan
Later as President, Madison then went on to build that standing army that he called for to do of all things: conquer Canada, flying right in the face of your claim that the founders "weren't neocon warmongers."

I don't even need to trot out Washington and Hamilton calling for a standing army. The fact above alone destroys your argument (once again).


WEB

__________________
"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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Your argument has relied heavily on Jefferson despite his absence from the Constitutional Convention.

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

__________________
"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 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.

What the heck is a Neocon Warmonger?

Here's a primer:

How the War Party Captured the Conservative Right

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

__________________
"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

The link "truth-bringer" provided is called "antiwar.com" which is just another biased opinion piece that he chooses to present, instead of providing objective information (i.e. truth). "Truth bringer" chose to give you propaganda over truth.

__________________
"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

Again, an Appeal to Ridicule and an argument ad nauseum. You keep repeating the same fallacies over and over again. You introduced the word "conspiracy" which has a negative connotation on internet forums. This is why conspiracy boards are separated and marginalized from the rest of the forum. I've stated there is a potential conflict of interest. You continue to ignore this. There is always a potential conflict of interest when a source funded buy a particular entity makes an argument in favor of that entity. HOWEVER, to show that this did not in and of itself disqualify the source, and to more importantly show that this was not relied on in my argument, I went on to specifically explain why their conclusions were invalid. Most of which you continue to ignore.

Again, you continue to ignore that I've never stated this disqualified a source. I addressed all the specifics of your sources. I did not disqualify them on the basis of the potential conflict of interest, I merely commented on it.

If you accept your above reasoning though, please realize this destroys your own argument as it disqualifies all your sources. Whoops...

Also, the fact that those sources may have received funds doesn't disqualify them. Why? BECAUSE I'M NOT USING THEM TO UPHOLD AN ARGUMENT FOR MORE GOVERNMENT SPENDING AND MORE POWER. Therefore, there's no conflict of interest.


No, I have not changed my argument. I don't like to spend a whole lot of time typing up new material all the time. When someone says "Hey, I made a wording/typing mistake - you're misinterpreting it - here's a clarification" it's invalid to ignore this and to continue clinging to the mistake.

Again, this is a misinterpretation. I have since clarified to prevent further misinterpretation. You cannot accept this, because the clarification ends your argument.

No, I am not saying that. I have since clarified to prevent misinterpretation.

What I will acknowledge is that the way I worded it left it open to a negative interpretation, which is why I revised it. You won't accept the revision and cling to a typing/wording error on my part because you don't have an argument.

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.

You cannot make irrelevant facts "valid." Again, Madison had every right to increase the size of the army during a time of war. Madison stated that the militia was essential and greatly praised their efforts during the war. He wanted the militia to continue as the primary means of defense of the country. Having a larger army does not invalidate his words and praise of the militia.

Again, this is simply false and anyone else can easily look back in this thread to see this. I never said I didn't cite Jefferson. I explained that when I cited Jefferson multiple times on the one post, it was done merely to show his solidarity with Madison, not as a foundation of my argument. Regardless, Jefferson was a prominent Founding Father, a two term President, and the author of the Declaration of Independence.

Madison on Jefferson from his first Inaugural address:

"Of those of my immediate predecessor it might least become me here to speak. I may, however, be pardoned for not suppressing the sympathy with which my heart is full in the rich reward he enjoys in the benedictions of a beloved country, gratefully bestowed or exalted talents zealously devoted through a long career to the advancement of its highest interest and happiness."

Well he also called for it during wartime. But that doesn't change the fact that he also praised the militia before and after wartime, after he had called for an increase in the size of the army.

However, after he said that, he said the following:

From Madison's first Inaugural address:

"to keep within the requisite limits a standing military force, always remembering that an armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics-that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe;"

That's checkmate on that issue.

"Expansion" is the word used by the source. Show me Madison using the term "Expansion."

Again, you're ignoring my other sources:

"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."


From Madison's first inaugural address:

"Under the benign influence of our republican institutions, and the maintenance of peace with all nations whilst so many of them were engaged in bloody and wasteful wars, the fruits of a just policy were enjoyed in an unrivaled growth of our faculties and resources. Proofs of this were seen in the improvements of agriculture, in the successful enterprises of commerce, in the progress of manufacturers and useful arts, in the increase of the public revenue and the use made of it in reducing the public debt, and in the valuable works and establishments everywhere multiplying over the face of our land."

Also:

"It is a precious reflection that the transition from this prosperous condition of our country to the scene which has for some time been distressing us is not chargeable on any unwarrantable views, nor, as I trust, on any involuntary errors in the public councils. Indulging no passions which trespass on the rights or the repose of other nations, it has been the true glory of the United States to cultivate peace by observing justice, and to entitle themselves to the respect of the nations at war by fulfilling their neutral obligations with the most scrupulous impartiality. It there be candor in the world, the truth of these assertions will not be questioned; posterity at least will do justice to them."

"To cherish peace and friendly intercourse with all nations having correspondent dispositions; to maintain sincere neutrality toward belligerent nations; to prefer in all cases amicable discussion and reasonable accommodation of differences to a decision of them by an appeal to arms; to exclude foreign intrigues and foreign partialities, so degrading to all countries and so baneful to free ones; to foster a spirit of independence too just to invade the rights of others, too proud to surrender our own, too liberal to indulge unworthy prejudices ourselves and too elevated not to look down upon them in others; to hold the union of the States as the basis of their peace and happiness;"


Invasion certainly can be defensive, if a state of war already exists, initiated by another force. Again, the British were invading and attacking from Canada:

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


Totally false. Tell me about the United States position on foreign alliances under Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe.

Again, that does not automatically invalidate the source. If the information the source has presented in is error, then please show proof of this.

<