7 votes

"Galileo" to Speak on James Madison & War of 1812

"Galileo" to Speak on James Madison & War of 1812

Galileo will be making a feature speech on James Madison & the War of 1812

The speech will cover Madison's achievements including the Constitution, Bill-of-Rights, Federalist Papers, and the War of 1812.

The speech will also cover the problem of systemic liberal bias against our sacred Founding Fathers.

A lively session of questions and answers will follow the speech.

The event is sponsored by Pints & Politics and the RPDC.

Please attend and bring your friends, neighbors, and countrymen!

Tuesday, August 5

at 5:30pm - 7:30pm

"The 5100" Restaurant, 5100 Erling Ave, McFarland, WI

DETAILS HERE:

https://www.facebook.com/events/1442940925980056/?ref=4

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The war of 1812 was a false

The war of 1812 was a false flag, so was the revolutionary war. Guys we're still a British colony. We knew we were going to be attacked and let it happen, plus we just passed the 13th Amendment, remember? No titles of nobility!? Anyway the founding fathers were evil bastards who saw this coming a long time ago. So we fought England because of taxation without representation, but the founding fathers setup the same system here? It was rigged from the beginning guys! We're so suppose to have 3 branches that check eachother. Lmao... all the braches are corrupt yall, they all just follow whatever the executive branch does. Supreme court justices are hand picked! And what gives them soul interpretation of the constitution anyway? The Senate and the house are always divided and just filled with ppl who just want to spend our money. Guys its all a fraud!

Actually, the Battle of

Actually, the Battle of Hastings was illegal. Therefore King Harold Bluetooth is still legally in charge.

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.

American Imperialism: Born Hand-in-Hand With the Constitution

Unless otherwise noted, quoted passages come from American Imperialism in 1898, edited by Richard Miller.) Many look to the time 1898 as the beginning or commencement of the American drive for imperialism; empire. The Spanish – American War, involving the United States in Cuba and the Philippines, is seen as this point – when America began on the road to empire (at least by those willing to recognize the imperial nature of the U.S. Many are not.). The drive to empire began much earlier than 1898. Justin Raimondo recently wrote an essay on the War of 1812, “1812: The War Party’s First ‘Success’,” in which he describes the war in terms both neocon and imperial: The two-hundredth anniversary of the beginning of the War of 1812 is upon us, and I’m shocked and surprised the War Party hasn’t planned a celebration: after all, as Jefferson Morley points out in Salon, this was the first neocon war, i.e. an unnecessary war of choice. The warhawks, led by John Calhoun, were motivated less by outrage over British harassment of American persons and commerce than by the emerging delusion of Manifest Destiny that energized the earliest advocates of an international American empire. The Appalachian and southern states were the epicenter of this ultra-nationalistic agitation, and the editors of the Nashville Clarion gave voice to the imperialist impulse when they asked: “Where is it written in the book of fate that the American Republic shall not stretch her limits from the Capes of the Chesapeake to Noorka Sound, from the isthmus of Panama to Hudson Bay?” It should be noted that it was members of the Jeffersonian party that encouraged the war (again from Raimondo): Much more important, as a factor in starting the war, was the agitation of the “warhawks,” a group of younger members of the Jeffersonian (or Democratic-Republican) party in Congress, who charged that His Majesty’s Government was encouraging attacks on American settlers by the Indians, and who dreamed of conquering Canada. Indeed, the latter motivation was underscored by the libertarian congressman John Randolph, who declared: Sir, if you go to war it will not be for the protection of, or defense of your maritime rights. Gentlemen from the North have been taken up to some high mountain and shown all the kingdoms of the earth; and Canada seems tempting to their sight. The war of 1812 is not the first, or only, example of American dreams and actions taken toward the imperial aspirations of this nation, founded on the principle that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” From the beginning of the Republic, it seems the implementation of Jefferson’s sentiment was to be brought by the sword. But the ground had to be made fertile first: …there was a certain consistency in our continental outlook, regardless of party, sectional, or economic affiliation. Whether it was Thomas Jefferson envisioning an “empire for liberty,” or John Quincy Adams advocating the Monroe Doctrine as an ideological weapon for thwarting Tsarist expansion, or Whig merchants dreaming of an “Empire On The Pacific, the common denominator for each was the conception of America as a continental colossus, unchallenged by the powers of Europe, or by weak neighbors to the north and south. By the time of the Civil War, the United States had determined the skeletal outlines of its continental domains and had developed an ideology of expansion by which it could bridge the gap between its domestic achievements and it unfulfilled overseas ambitions.

Continue reading here:

http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rep3/american-imperialism-con...

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Lamb of God - As the Palaces Burn
http://youtu.be/eWVrdFrpXHE

The War of 1812 was a

The War of 1812 was a bottom-up war, unlike today where wars are top-down.

The leaders if the US, Jefferson and his secretary of state Madison resisted war for over 10 years. But each election, the People gradually voted more and more representatives into congress who were willing to exercise self-defense and fight back against the Empire. Finally, in 1812, the US congress voted for war after 10 long years of debate.

The war was a big failure for the "war party". The Empire was trying to badger the US into war, and then crush it, much as FDR badgered Japan into war and then crushed them. But in 1812, the master-plot by the devious international banksters did not work. James Madison and Andrew Jackson lead the nation of liberty to victory.

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.

Obvious falsehoods?

"The British were a big strong nation badgering a small weak nation. The counter-attack against the British province of Canada was the only feasible option. Self-defense is a moral right."

People are either acting morally or not in time and place. People are individuals. There is no such thing as a Nation that can be moral, immoral, think, act, do, be responsible, or be accountable.

Who ordered people to act violently upon people in any case anywhere? Having the accurate answer, because someone cares to know the answer, affords someone the opportunity to find out, from the horses mouth, what reasons the individual had in mind when they issued that order.

"The US was paying the debt back, but at the same time the British Empire was badgering the US on the high seas, hijacking about 400 US vessels and kidnapping about 8000 seamen. The People of the US finally had enough and fought back."

Who is this US? Who has cause to make payments to who, and for what reasons?

The so called US DEBT was a deal made by specific people for specific reasons in time and place from 1776 onward up to 1787. After the Con Con of 1787 the so called National Debt was a deal made between Alexander Hamilton and whoever he was dealing with during those days in those secret proceedings in Philadelphia.

Who is this thing called the "British Empire"?

Speaking as if things are responsible and accountable is convenient as best (rather than listing the names of the people involved) and at worst the art form is willfully deceptive.

Joe

Pints & Politics..

Cool idea btw !

Isn't the...

...War of 1812 an example of blowback from the folly of expansionism?

- the US foolishly set out to conquer Canada, burned the government buildings in York (Toronto) to the ground

- then we're surprised that the British would land, march up to DC, and burn the White House, Capitol, Library of Congress, etc. to the ground?

Oh, the folly...

No, the war of 1812 was

No, the war of 1812 was self-defense. The British Empire fired the first shots in 1806 and 1807 not to mention 400 ships hijacked and 8000 seamen kidnapped. As for York, the British killed the US commander Zebulon Pike in an "accident", then the Canadians and troops went berserk, until other US officers could restore order.

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.

I do...

...understand about the impressments, etc. going on at the time, with the Napoleonic wars and all. But to react to that by seeking to aggressively conquer Canada, widening the scope of conflict and disagreement, propagandizing it at the time as if it was going to be a cakewalk with Canadians welcoming us with open arms -- do you think that was an appropriate course to take?

I guess, are you saying the British burning our capitol buildings was not at all a response to York (whatever the exact cause of the fire in York, it wouldn't have occurred if the invasion hadn't been unwisely pursued)?

Was just reading a speech by Rep. Samuel Taggart published in the Alexandria Gazzette, June 24, 1812, explaining why he thought this was a rash course to pursue (published in the paper in protest of the closed-door debate going on). Found it in Tom Woods's We Who Dared to Say No to War: American Antiwar Writing from 1812 to Now -- interesting speech.

Anyway, feel free to persuade me otherwise, though. :) I'm certainly not a War of 1812 scholar. Just skeptical of war propaganda, whatever era it came from.

You speak of Canada as if it

You speak of Canada as if it were an independent nation in 1812. In truth, it was a subjugated province under the grip of the tyrant George III. It had taxation without representation, unfree banking controlled by a faraway island, and no written Constitution or bill-of-rights.

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.

I'm viewing...

...Canadians, British and Americans as human beings whose lives and fortunes would be ravaged by an unnecessary expansion of conflict. The rhetoric at the time about how easy the conquering of Canada would be, and how kindly the Canadians would perceive it reminds me somewhat of the rhetoric about how our invasion of Iraq, 'liberating it' from x, y and z, would go over.

I'm also wondering if the desire to liberate and annex Canada came along first, and then wanted a war with Britain to excuse the attempt to do so. At least an influence in the decision-making?

The kidnapping of 8000

The kidnapping of 8000 Americans by the Big Bully Empire, including Canada, came first. It re-started in 1803. And per the Treaty of Paris 1783, British military forts along the Great Lakes were supposed to be de-militarized. They were not by 1812. You have a strange way of defending brutal military empire.

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.

Wait a sec.

Hold on there.

Certainly you understand the difference between defending what the British had been doing and questioning whether the American response was the right, prudent response to it? It's a little concerning that you are conflating the two, which is what advocates for any war often stoop to: paint the opposition as excusing the other side.

I haven't said one word justifying the impressments. But did the war bring the impressments to an end? No. It wasn't until Napoleon was later defeated that this happened.

I'm questioning whether the proposed cure was really a cure, or if it made things worse.

I'm also suspicious of some at the time seeing this as a chance to 'not let a crisis go to waste', and to further their expansionist, manifest destiny inclinations. I'm not saying this with certainty -- but with the history of people using war as a vehicle for achieving ancillary goals, it's good to at least consider this as a possible motivation.

The kidnapping ended because

The kidnapping ended because the US kicked the living shit out of the British Empire at the battles of Lake Champlain, Baltimore, and New Orleans. Once James Monroe took over the war management, the US never lost a battle.

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.

So you're...

...saying the impressment did not continue after the Treaty of Ghent? The subsequent defeat of Napoleon which removed the need for acquiring sailors was not the main factor bringing it to an end?

Also, are you saying that if the US had not gone to war, the impressment would have continued even after Napoleon's defeat?

Yes, impressment would still

Yes, impressment would still be going on today. Just like the US badgers Iran today. Unless you can stand up to a world bully, you will get bullied.

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.

Hmm...

From what I've read so far (just scratched the surface so far), from multiple sources, they're claiming that the end of the Napoleonic wars was the reason impressment ended. You've got me curious to do further research on this to see if the War of 1812 was any factor at all in this ending. In any case, Ghent made no mention of any of the grievances that caused the war in the first place. Just ante bellum status quo. Stalemate.

Wondering...Do you think that if there had been no impressment at all, that the US should have gone to war anyway for other reasons?

No, there would not have been

No, there would not have been a war without the large-scale kidnappings and hijackings. Madison preferred negotiation to war.

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.

the burning of Washington had

the burning of Washington had no military value and was a barbaric act by a so-called civilized nation. It was panned by the London press, and unlike York, was ordered by top military brass.

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.

But did...

...the British use York as an excuse, was my question -- whether or not their actions were morally right.

And I was also asking whether the invasion of Canada was wise. It seems like it was hyped up with a lot of rhetoric, from what I'm reading, as being a slam dunk.

The British were a big strong

The British were a big strong nation badgering a small weak nation. The counter-attack against the British province of Canada was the only feasible option. Self-defense is a moral right.

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.

Self-defense is...

...indeed a moral right, but I'm not yet convinced that this invasion was the only feasible response or that war was even the best approach available. Might not it have been less costly in blood and treasure to seek to avoid, but continue to put up with the spillover effects of the Napoleonic wars until they were over and the impressment, etc. faded away once peace was restored? DC would never have burned (how tragic to think of all that was lost in the Library, etc.; but even more so the lives that were lost or ruined by broader warfare.)

From what Tom Woods is saying, the Treaty of Ghent which ended the war in 1814, apparently had not a single word addressing the grievances which the US had claimed as the reasons to go to war. And then when peace in Europe did eventually come to pass, the harassment by the British came to an end as well, just as the opponents of the War of 1812 had predicted.

when you negotiate, you give

when you negotiate, you give a chip to your opponent so they can save face. James Madison wanted peace. WTFU.

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.

You aren't...

...really addressing my questions and concerns here for the most part -- and you haven't acknowledged the difference between questioning the US response and defending the British (I'm not doing the latter).

Don't mean to sound hostile or anything -- I'm just skeptical when it comes to justifications for war, as a default, and I need to see more to be convinced war, including invading Canada, was actually necessary or prudent. I'm open to having my mind changed, though...

Peace :). And have a good weekend

Here are the reasons for the

Here are the reasons for the war, clearly spelled out by James Madison, unlike today where you get multiple choice and shell game reasons:

JAMES MADISON
War Message to Congress
June 1, 1812

To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States:

http://www.presidentialrhetoric.com/historicspeeches/madison...

* As for invading the British province of Canada, it was just basic military strategy, you got a better one? The US had no navy.

* As for the Treaty of Ghent, they just wanted to get the war over and let the other details get settled later. For example, the Onis-Adams Treaty a few years later.

* The Treaty of Ghent was a real peace treaty, a lasting peace lasting 200 years until today, unlike many treaties which are no better than temporary truces or cease-fires.

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.

So I'm getting...

...downvoted and accused of defending a brutal empire, simply for questioning whether 15,000 + dead (estimated from all causes related to the war), all the wounded, all the families affected, all the losses of the Library of Congress, etc., the US being almost in bankruptcy, were all worth it, even though the end result was simply to seek to return to the status quo before the war, without addressing any of the grievances claimed as the reasons for it? I'm supposed to just shut up and salute and bow down before the idols of Madison and Jackson and conventional wisdom and bask in the glory of kicking the $!*% out of people, without any thought to the actual human suffering involved?

Sorry, I'll continue to question ...

US share of world industrial

US share of world industrial output in 1812 = 1.3%

US share of world industrial output in 1913 = 42%

The War of 1812 lead to more economic prosperity and individual liberty than any other event in human history.

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.

Seems a bit...

...farfetched to say that this economic growth would not have occurred without the war. If the impressments were going to disappear anyway when the Napoleonic wars were over, and the US could have entered 1815, without the drain and cost and toll of a wider war, why would things not have been on even better footing for growth? -- especially without the Panic of 1819, which had resulted from the banking practices to finance the war.

(Still no acknowledgement of the difference between defending the British actions and questioning the American response's wisdom.)

Oh, and as to your question above of a better approach than invading Canada...

- working to build up the capability to defend the US ships from impressment attempts -- build up the Navy

- heeding the wisdom of those stating that the impressment would end when the Napoleonic conflict was over (which it did), and not being steered by war fever into rash actions...war always brings unintended consequences and much human suffering -- should always be a last resort, as apparently wasn't really the case here

Not farfetched because the

Not farfetched because the War of 1812 established free trade on the Great Lakes, Mississippi River, Gulf of Mexico, West Indies, Atlantic Ocean, and Mediterranean Sea. That combined with a stable but very small central government that spent only 2% of GDP over the next 100 years lead to the greatest prosperity ever known to man.

Impressment did not end after the War of 1812, it only ended to the US. The British continued the tactic for another 100 years against other weaker colonies and weak states using various pretexts.

As for building up the navy, Madison (and Jefferson before him) feared a military buildup. But they ended up being forced to do so.

Also, building up the navy costs a lot of money, not easy to do for a nation with federal expenditures in 1811 of only 1.23% of GDP.

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.

Since I'd mentioned...

...Tom Woods's book above, thought I'd post a video of him discussing this book, including some comments on the War of 1812, and war in general, which you might find interesting...


http://youtu.be/v8DnPUi3IWU