• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Mr. Madison’s War Versus Mr. Bush’s War

Galileo

Illuminator
Galileo
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
3,368
Mr. Madison’s War Versus Mr. Bush’s War

A comparison of James Madison and his war to George Bush and his war

Full Names

James Madison, Jr.

George W Bush

Also Known As

Father of the Constitution, Father of the Bill of Rights, Co-Author of the Federalist Papers, Author of the Virginia Resolution, 4th President of the United States, Closest confidant of Thomas Jefferson

W, Bush 43, 43rd President of the United States, Neocon

Other Names For Their War

War of 1812, the Second War of Independence, the Forgotten War

War on Terror, War Against Afghanistan, War Against Iraq, War in the Middle East and/or Central Asia

READ THE REST

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107827
 
If Bush is a war criminal then so is Vladimir Putin for working in the KGB and starting a war in Chechnya on 1999 withouth no reason.
 
Well, once again, there were very strong reasons to go into Chechnya, whether they were moral is another question, how it was conducted was certainly immoral - but from Moscow, letting Chechen indepence proceed unimpeded was not something they could tolerate from a perspective of power.

A conflict that might better fit "no reason" would be Reagan going into Grenada... ;) though even there, there were good propaganda reasons to "kick around a little third world country and show the world we mean business", and the domestic appeal of the martial President doing all in his power to protect American lives. I actually don't think there's many examples of wars that fit a "no reason" rationale... "little reason" maybe..;)
 
Last edited:
This thread should be moved to the history forum where it can properly be made fun of.
 
"The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war."

James Madison

Is There a “James Madison Problem”?
gordon s. wood

....

If any of the Founders was a modern man, it was not Madison but Hamilton. It was Hamilton who sought to turn the United States into a powerful modern fiscal-military state like those of Great Britain and France. Madison may have wanted a strong national government to act as an umpire over contending expressions of democracy in the states, as his Virginia Plan suggests. But he had no intention of creating the kind of modern war-making state that Hamilton had in mind. Which is why he had no sense of inconsistency in turning against the state that Hamilton was building in the 1790s.

The great development of the early modern period in the Western world was the emergence of modern nation-states with powerful executives—states that had developed the fiscal and military capacity to wage war on unprecedented scales. Over the past several decades scholars have accumulated a rich historical and sociological literature on state formation in early modern Europe.38 From the sixteenth century through the eighteenth century, the European monarchies had been busy consolidating their power and marking out their authority within clearly designated boundaries while at the same time protecting themselves from rival claimants to their power and territories. They erected ever-larger bureaucracies and military forces in order to wage war, which is what they did through most decades of three centuries. This meant the building of ever more centralized governments and the creation of ever more elaborate means for extracting money and men from their subjects.

These efforts in turn led to the growth of armies, the increase in public debts, the raising of taxes, and the strengthening of executive power.39

....

READ THE REST:

http://74.125.95.104/search?q=cache...on+wood+liberty+fund&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=...itle=1727&chapter=81746&layout=html&Itemid=27

Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different (Paperback)
by Gordon S. Wood
http://www.amazon.com/Revolutionary-Characters-What-Founders-Different/dp/0143112082

Libertarian primer on the Constitution
by Louise Dotter
http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/column/other/275502

A Colored Man's Reminiscences of James Madison
by Paul Jennings
http://www.historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=48

James Madison and the Struggle for the Bill of Rights
by Richard Labunski
http://www.amazon.com/Madison-Struggle-Pivotal-Moments-American/dp/0195181050

Pacificus Helvidius Debates of 1793-1794
by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison
http://www.amazon.com/PACIFICUS-HELVIDIUS-DEBATES-1793-179/dp/0865976880

Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787
by James Madison
http://www.amazon.com/Debates-Federal-Convention-Reported-Madison/dp/0393304051/ref=pd_sim_b_title_1

Marbury v. Madison : The Origins and Legacy of Judicial Review
by William Edward Nelson
http://www.amazon.com/Marbury-v-Mad...=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210609348&sr=1-3

Science and the Founding Fathers: Science in the Political Thought of Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, and Madison
by I. Bernard Cohen
http://www.amazon.com/Science-Founding-Fathers-Political-Jefferson/dp/039331510X

The Presidency of James Madison
by Robert Allen Rutland
http://www.amazon.com/Presidency-James-Madison-American/dp/0700604650

The Republic of Letters: The Correspondence Between Thomas Jefferson and James Madison 1776-1826
by James Morton Smith
http://www.amazon.com/Republic-Letters-Correspondence-Jefferson-1776-1826/dp/039303691X

James Madison: A Biography
by Ralph Ketcham
http://www.amazon.com/James-Madison-Biography-Ralph-Ketcham/dp/0813912652

The Last of the Fathers: James Madison & The Republican Legacy
by Drew R. McCoy
http://www.amazon.com/Last-Fathers-Madison-Republican-Legacy/dp/0521407729
 
Galileo said:
... Madison may have wanted a strong national government to act as an umpire over contending expressions of democracy in the states, as his Virginia Plan suggests. But he had no intention of creating the kind of modern war-making state that Hamilton had in mind.
Click to expand...


Oh really? I guess Madison then strongly advocated leaving the USA American Indians alone, not stealing their territory, and advocated strongly an end to slavery and the slave-trade?

Oh, he didn't do all that? I guess you're wrong then.

Over the past several decades scholars have accumulated a rich historical and sociological literature on state formation in early modern Europe.
Click to expand...


It really wasn't difficult. All written down, primary sources and all that. Hardly a tough job.

These efforts in turn led to the growth of armies, the increase in public debts, the raising of taxes, and the strengthening of executive power.
Click to expand...


One of the ironies I just loooove abut libertarians is how they make a huge worship of ancient Rome and of characters like Cicero and whatnot, without realising that Rome was built (and Cicero's fortune was built) on having a professional full-term army which was used extremely aggressively to take territory, riches and slaves from everyone else.

The Last of the Fathers
Click to expand...


Far too Freudian (infantile regression and all that); we do still have fathers around the place, you know.
 
Gurdur said:
Oh really? I guess Madison then strongly advocated leaving the USA American Indians alone, not stealing their territory, and advocated strongly an end to slavery and the slave-trade?
Click to expand...

The British were arming the Indians and duping them into attacking Americans. Madison had a reasonable policy regarding the Indians. This article isn't about the Indians, it's about Madison and Bush's war conduct. You are confusing later presidents who helped slaughter the Indians, like Andrew Jackson & Abe Lincoln, with Madison. Madison never did anything to harm the Indians, and even invited their leaders to Washingto DC to meet with him.

Oh, he didn't do all that? I guess you're wrong then.
Click to expand...



It really wasn't difficult. All written down, primary sources and all that. Hardly a tough job.
Click to expand...

This is a citation by Gordon Wood, a well respected historian and author of many books on early America. His first book was published in 1969.

One of the ironies I just loooove abut libertarians is how they make a huge worship of ancient Rome and of characters like Cicero and whatnot, without realising that Rome was built (and Cicero's fortune was built) on having a professional full-term army which was used extremely aggressively to take territory, riches and slaves from everyone else.
Click to expand...

I don't think Gordon Wood is a Libertarian. This article isn't about ancient Rome.

Far too Freudian (infantile regression and all that); we do still have fathers around the place, you know.
Click to expand...

"Last of the Fathers" is the title of a book by Drew McCoy, your comment makes no sense.

McCoy is not a Libertarian either, to my knowledge. His book is about Madison's life after the presidency. During that time, Madison worked with Jefferson to found the University of Virginia, Madison attended the Virginia Constitutional Convention on 1829, and he played an important part in public affairs by writing many newspaper editorials.
 
Galileo said:
"The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war."

If any of the Founders was a modern man, it was not Madison but Hamilton. It was Hamilton who sought to turn the United States into a powerful modern fiscal-military state like those of Great Britain and France. Madison may have wanted a strong national government to act as an umpire over contending expressions of democracy in the states, as his Virginia Plan suggests. But he had no intention of creating the kind of modern war-making state that Hamilton had in mind. Which is why he had no sense of inconsistency in turning against the state that Hamilton was building in the 1790s.
Click to expand...
Looks like he lost. Whose face is on the ten dollar bill? ;) Hell, Hamilton wasn't even a president.
The great development of the early modern period in the Western world was the emergence of modern nation-states with powerful executives—states that had developed the fiscal and military capacity to wage war on unprecedented scales.
Click to expand...
Uh, unprecedented, except for the precedent of the Kublai Khan era continental conquests, or the Roman Empires continent wide conquests, or the conquests under the Caliphate that ranged over three continents.
This meant the building of ever more centralized governments and the creation of ever more elaborate means for extracting money and men from their subjects.
Click to expand...
And it worked, it did, its full flowering arriving in World War I, much to their chagrin. Jan Block wept. Funnily enough, that war was the beginning of the farewell to kings.
The Last of the Fathers: James Madison & The Republican Legacy
by Drew R. McCoy
http://www.amazon.com/Last-Fathers-Madison-Republican-Legacy/dp/0521407729
Click to expand...
A Virginian.
 
Last edited:
The British were arming the Indians and duping them into attacking Americans. Madison had a reasonable policy regarding the Indians. This article isn't about the Indians, it's about Madison and Bush's war conduct. You are confusing later presidents who helped slaughter the Indians, like Andrew Jackson & Abe Lincoln, with Madison. Madison never did anything to harm the Indians, and even invited their leaders to Washingto DC to meet with him.
Click to expand...

Tecumseh and the Creeks Indians might differ with you.
 
dudalb said:
Tecumseh and the Creeks Indians might differ with you.
Click to expand...

Regarding the Creeks, that was Andrew Jackson's fault, Madison tried to reign him in, but communication was slow in those days.

Tecumseh was a British ally so was a legitimate war target.
 
:GalileoYes, 9/11 was a false-flag military attack orchestrated by the Bush Administration.
Click to expand...

This is as far as I had to read. I've flushed things down toilets with more value than that link.
 
Polaris said:
This is as far as I had to read. I've flushed things down toilets with more value than that link.
Click to expand...


You can say that about Galileo's posting history as a whole.

I see that in his discussion of the war of 1812 that Galileo ignores the American "War Hawks" who advocated the US annexing Canada.
The War of 1812 is a good example of a war in which both sides bear blame for starting. THe British were provoking the Americans with their Seizure of ships and their support of Tecumseh and other Native American Tribes (although I don't blame Tecumseh for being pissed at the US Government) and the Americans were itching to invade Canada
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
You can say that about Galileo's posting history as a whole.

I see that in his discussion of the war of 1812 that Galileo ignores the American "War Hawks" who advocated the US annexing Canada.
The War of 1812 is a good example of a war in which both sides bear blame for starting. THe British were provoking the Americans with their Seizure of ships and their support of Tecumseh and other Native American Tribes (although I don't blame Tecumseh for being pissed at the US Government) and the Americans were itching to invade Canada
Click to expand...

First I'm come across his contributions (I use the term loosely), but I'll take your word for it.

I can't be kind when it Truthers, and it's a safe bet their critical thinking lapse extends to their warped interpretations of history.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom