James Madison's Presidency Trashed by the History Channel!

[Galileo Galilei]

James Madison's Presidency Trashed by the History Channel!

Did anyone catch the History Channel's program today on the early American presidents?

Although some of the program was OK, the treatment of James Madison was dreadful:

1)

They claim that the United States LOST the War of 1812, an outright lie.

Rather, after the war, the British stopped impressing our sailors, stopped arming the Indians, and opened the Atlantic ocean for free trade.

And by the end of Monroe's term, we had declared the Monroe doctrine, keeping the British out of the America's for good.

2)

They made it sound like we lost every battle (except New Orleans).

In reality, we won many great naval victories on the great lakes.

Our record in Canada was mixed, winning and losing battles about 50%/50%.

We held off the British at the siege of Baltimore.

3)

They critisized Madison for "not doing enough" as president.

In reality, Madison wanted to win the war without violating the Constitution or building up a military state.

Madison did not want a war-making state like the monarchies of Europe. Madison set a precedent that you can WIN a war WITHOUT violating the Constitution. Too bad every president since has violated their oath.

4)

They made it sound like the burning of Washington meant we lost the war.

Nevermind that this argument is not made against Lincoln for losing Bull Run (2 of them), the Shenendoah valley, 7 Days, Freidricksburg and Chancellorville, against FDR for Pearl Harbor, or against Bush for 9/11.

The War of 1812 (really the 2nd War of Independence) was very low casualties compared to all our other major wars.

What a joke the history channel is.

They basically said that Madison created the presidency, but was too stupid to know what a president should do once in office! The truth is that Madison ended his 2nd term as the most popluar president in the history of the United States (for presidents who served two terms).

[Golding]

Lincoln is getting high praise, of course.

[Galileo Galilei]

Key American Victories in the War of 1812:

Battle of York
Date 27 April, 1813
Location Present day Toronto, Ontario
Result American victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_York

Battle of Sacket's Harbor
Date 28 May – 29 May, 1813
Location Sackett's Harbor, New York
Result American victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sackett%27s_Harbor

Battle of Lake Erie
Date 10 September, 1813
Location Lake Erie, near Put-in-Bay, Ohio
Result Decisive American Victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lake_Erie

Battle of the Thames
Date October 5, 1813
Location Near Moravian of the Thames First Nation in present day Chatham-Kent, Ontario
Result Decisive American victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Thames

Battle of Horseshoe Bend (1814)
Date March 27, 1814
Location near Dadeville, Alabama
Result Decisive U.S. - Indian victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Horseshoe_Bend_(1814)

Battle of Chippawa
Date July 5, 1814
Location Chippawa, Ontario
Result American victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chippawa

Battle of Plattsburgh
Date September 6 – September 11, 1814
Location Plattsburgh, New York
Result Decisive American victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plattsburgh

Battle of Baltimore
Date September 12 – September 15, 1814
Location Baltimore, Maryland
Result Decisive American victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baltimore

Battle of New Orleans
Date December 23 - January 8, 1815
Location About five miles (8 km) south of New Orleans on the grounds of Chalmette Plantation
Result American victory; British troops and fleet withdraw from Louisiana
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_New_Orleans

Here we have nine major American victories in a short war against a major world power, count 'em!

The reality is we did a lot better in the War of 1812 than in the American Revolution.

And we also did better than in all later wars.

Madison did this without violating the Bill-of-Rights, with no central bank, no standing army, virtually no navy, no income tax, no martial law (except Jackson at the very end), no internment camps, no arrests of newspaper publishers, no violation of habeas corpus, and no war propaganda.

And Madison got a declaration of war from congress and was facing a real external threat.

Don't believe the lie the mass media wants you to believe that the war of 1812 sucked. This is propaganda! They want you to think the Constitution must be discarded for even petty wars like Panama or Iraq.

Wake Up!

[Galileo Galilei]

Lincoln is getting high praise, of course.

The section on Lincoln was pathetic.

Did you notice the lead in on James Buchanan?

They accused him of bias in favor of the south (Buchanan was a northern doughface from Pennsylvania), but they also accused him of not doing enough to prevent secession.

Do you see the contradiction in logic?

If he had been "neutral", or biased towards the north, then the South would have seceeded sooner!

So they don't know what they are talking about.

Buchanan, no doubt, was biased in favor of the South, because he was trying to prevent war and/or secession, something Lincoln did not care about.

[Imperial]

In reality, Madison wanted to win the war without violating the Constitution or building up a military state, which he did.

Madison did not want a war-making state like the monarchies of Europe. Madison set a precedent that you can WIN a war WITHOUT violating the Constitution. Too bad every president since has violated their oath.

Madison's mistake was bowing down to the war hawks and going to war in the first place. I don't think we lost the war, but we didn't win it either. Did we manage to hold ground in Canada for any significant period of time? No. We also won no ironclad concessions from the British.


Rather, after the war, the British stopped impressing our sailors, stopped arming the Indians, and opened the Atlantic ocean for free trade.

They only stopped impressing our sailors because the French threat was destroyed at Waterloo already. Thus, they didn't have a demand for our sailors. We won no concession to stop the British from doing it again if they wanted.

Stopped arming the Indians? Research that a little bit. The Indians were never armed by the British on any significant scale. In fact, the British and Indians stayed a bit separate until right before the War of 1812, when Tecumseh realized that he had to side with the British because the Americans were going to continue pressing into the sovereign Native American territory. However, Tecumseh had no particular faith in the British, who often left the Indians out to dry. Look at the Battle of Fallen Timbers in the 1790s, which would have been heard of by Tecumseh where the British shut the gates of their fort to retreating Indians.

So the only benefit then is free trade on the Atlantic. Is a war worth it to open new trade opportunities? Sounds kinda like Iraq and the oil war to me.


They made it sound like the burning of Washington meant we lost the war.

Nevermind that this argument is not made against Lincoln for losing Bull Run (2 of them), the Shenendoah valley, 7 Days, Freidricksburg and Chancellorville, against FDR for Pearl Harbor, or against Bush for 9/11.

The War of 1812 (really the 2nd War of Independence) was very low casualties compared to all our other major wars.

All true.


And by the end of Monroe's term, we had declared the Monroe doctrine, keeping the British out of the America's for good.

Irrelevant to the War of 1812. Without a war we could have been in the same situation.

The War of 1812 precipitated a depression later on in the decade. Is that worth it? It destroyed the last chance of the Indians to retain their lands, both cooperators and followers of Tecumseh's alliance and cementing genocide.

The only good guys in the War of 1812 were the Native Americans. They had to fight in a sense against the establishment, America and Britain, just as we fight against the Republicans and Democrats. We work with one side (the Republicans) to advance our ideas like they were forced to work with the British, but it was still basically the same thing.

Madison was generally a good president, but the War of 1812 should be a black eye on his record.

[tonesforjonesbones]

YES the Hitler Channel is part of the Dialectic. What is isn't and what isn't is. I saw one where they tied all the founders to freemasons and said they started the New World Order...that is nothing more than the New World Order bastids demonizing the Founders...so people will think they were bad. You know the New WOrld Order hates freedom and liberty. tones

[Imperial]

Here we have nine major American victories in a short war against a major world power, count 'em!

The reality is we did a lot better in the War of 1812 than in the American Revolution.

And we also did better than in all later wars.

Madison did this without violating the Bill-of-Rights, with no central bank, no standing army, virtually no navy, no income tax, no martial law (except Jackson at the very end), no internment camps, no arrests of newspaper publishers, no violation of habeas corpus, and no war propaganda.

And Madison got a declaration of war from congress and was facing a real external threat.

Don't believe the lie the mass media wants you to believe that the war of 1812 sucked. This is propaganda! They want you to think the Constitution must be discarded for even petty wars like Panama or Iraq.

Wake Up!

You can also find a bunch of British victories, especially when Isaac Brock was in command(probably the best general of the war, unfortunately killed on the frontlines).

He captured Detroit, hundreds of Americans, held Michigan most of the war.

America's only real good thing in that war was Jackson in the south(strategically, not morally) and the new West Point Grads(especially the engineers, who built Fort Meigs and prevented a takeover of Ohio).

[HOLLYWOOD]

Who stirred up the pot ... Do a little research at who financed the War of 1812 for the British?

Look who controls the money today...

[StilesBC]

The only good guys in the War of 1812 were the Native Americans.

On both sides of the border I would add.

[Galileo Galilei]

oh, and I forgot, Lincoln got slaughtered at Cold Harbor:

Battle of Cold Harbor
Date May 31 1864 (2009-05-31) – June 12, 1864 (1864-06-13)
Location Hanover County, Virginia
Result Confederate victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cold_Harbor

Casualties and losses

13,000 for North (YIKES!)

2,500 for South

Lincoln gets a pass on this, even though as many men were lost as the entire war of 1812.

[Patriot123]

My history professor's argument for why Madison sucked was that he had no reason to fight the war in the first place, and that gung-ho "War Hawks" in the Congress at the time pressured him into declaring war. They wanted a war to "define their generation," and Madison gave it to them. Honestly, what reasons where there for fighting the War of 1812? Very, very petty ones. I'll list them out.


1. British violation of US shipping rights, namely the Chesapeake Incident.

2. Conflict with Native Americans. Six Nation Confederacy is in its formation by Shawnee Chief Tecumseh, he goes away leaving his brother, Tenskwatawa, in charge and leaves him with orders not to engage in combat under any circumstances. He does, ultimately engaging with William Henry Harrison and his army at the Tippecanoe River. Hence, the "Battle of Tippecanoe." Harrison won, the Six Nation Confederacy fell a part, and widespread belief came about in the US that the British were behind the attack. (bribing the Native Americans to attack?)

3. Ultimately, it was the "War Hawks" of Congress, some of whom include Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun, who pressured Madison into declaring war. These War Hawks had a strong taste for Manifest Destiny, and had never fought in a war, so they were eager to "prove themselves." Furthermore, like I previously said, they wanted to have a war to define their generation, like the American Revolution defined the past generation. I would argue that if the War Hawks had not pressured Madison, we would have never had the War of 1812. Madison himself was "shy" and simply not a strong guy. He was easily influenced and pressured, and thus he was.


That's it - three main reasons. I don't know about you, but what kind of justification for war is that? People on this forum are so against the Iraq War. What justification did we have for fighting that war? Widespread belief that Saddam had nukes? What about war with Iran? What justification do we have for starting a war with them? What, they took a few people hostage and "apparently" have nukes? What about Vietnam? This is all propaganda. The reasons were cause for conflict. Not a war. You want to avoid war whenever possible, and use it as a last resort. Not jump to it at any time to solve all of your problems, especially when you have an army reduced by more than 50% from the last administrations policies of 'fiscal responsibility' - ie slashing the military budget. Consider the XYZ Affair during Adam's administration. He prevented a war with France, who was doing the same thing Britain was doing in 1812 to our ships. And you know what? Americans were even all for war with France. Adam's was able to prevent a war with France - why didn't Madison try the same strategy Adams did with France?

Consider how the war motto changed from "On to Canada!" to "Not one inch of territory lost!" We not only didn't take any territory in Canada, but we lost to a river - a freaking river - the Niagara River. We actually lost sections of the Northwest at times throughout the war. So as far as I'm concerned, we got crushed in terms of Canada.
Also consider how the War of 1812 had more dissension than any in US History, with the exception of Vietnam. Americans were not behind this war. The Declaration of War was passed 79-49 in the House, 19-13 in the Senate. Hardly a majority supported the war in Congress, too.

As far as I'm concerned, we should have never fought the War of 1812. It was caused by Madison being weak and shy, and buckling under the pressure of the War Hawks. The War of 1812 was like the Iraq or Vietnam War today. A stupid, pointless war that could have been prevented.

[Galileo Galilei]

30 More US vistories in the Second War of Independence:

8 MORE NAVAL VICTORIES;

USS Constitution vs HMS Guerriere
Date 19 August 1812
Location Atlantic Ocean
Result American Victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Constitution_vs_HMS_Guerriere

Capture of HMS Frolic
USS Wasp captures the HMS FrolicThe capture of HMS Frolic was a naval action fought in the Atlantic of the coast of Virginia on October 18, 1812, between sloops-of-war USS Wasp, commanded by Jacob Jones, and HMS Frolic. The result was an American victory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_HMS_Frolic

USS United States vs HMS Macedonian
Date 25 October 1812
Location Atlantic Ocean
Result American Victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_United_States_vs_HMS_Macedonian

Sinking of HMS Peacock
The sinking of HMS Peacock was a naval action fought in the Atlantic off the mouth of the Demerara River, Guiana on February 24, 1813, between the brigs USS Hornet and HMS Peacock. After an exchange of broadsides during which the British vessel's commander was killed, the Peacock attempted to disengage but was pursued by the Hornet and succumbed to raking fire, sinking swiftly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_HMS_Peacock

Capture of HMS Boxer
Date 5 September 1813
Location off Pemaquid Point, near Bristol, Maine
Result American victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_HMS_Boxer

Capture of HMS Epervier
The capture of HMS Epervier was a naval action fought off Cape Canaveral, Florida on April 29, 1814 between the sloop-of-war USS Peacock and the brig HMS Epervier in which the Epervier was captured.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_HMS_Epervier

Capture of Cyane
HMS Cyane was a British warship captured by the USS Constitution on 20 February 1815 during the War of 1812. Cyane was sailing in company with HMS Levant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_Cyane

Capture of HMS Penguin
On March 23, 1815 USS Hornet captured HMS Penguin in a short battle off Tristan da Cunha. This was one of several naval engagements which took place after the War of 1812 had ended.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_HMS_Penguin

22 MORE LAND VICTORIES;

Battle of Tippecanoe
Part of Tecumseh's War/War of 1812
Date November 7, 1811
Location near modern Battle Ground, Indiana
Result United States victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tippecanoe

Battle of Fort Harrison
Date September 4 – September 15, 1812
Location Terre Haute, Indiana
Result United States victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Harrison

Siege of Fort Wayne
Date September 5 – September 12, 1812
Location Fort Wayne, Indiana
Result American victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Fort_Wayne

Raid on Gananoque
September 21, 1812
Gananoque, Ontario
the Americans seized the stores and burned the government depot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Gananoque

Raid on Elizabethtown
Date February 7, 1813
Location Elizabethtown
Result Successful American Raid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Elizabethtown

Siege of Fort Meigs
Date 28 April – 9 May, 1813
Location present-day Perrysburg, Ohio
Result American Victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Fort_Meigs

Battle of Fort George
Date May 25 – May 27, 1813
Location Present day Niagara on the Lake, Ontario
Result American victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_George

Battle of Craney Island
Date June 22, 1813
Location Portsmouth, Virginia
Result American victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Craney_Island

Battle of Talladega
Date November 9, 1813
Location Mississippi Territory
Result U.S. victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Talladega

Battle of Tallushatchee
Date November 3, 1813
Location Mississippi Territory
Result U.S. victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tallushatchee

Battle of Longwoods
Date 4 March, 1814
Location near Wardsville in present day Southwest Middlesex, Ontario
Result American Victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Longwoods

Battle of Big Sandy Creek
Date May 29 – May 30, 1814
Location Sandy Creek (town), New York
Result American victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Big_Sandy_Creek

Battle of Fort Stephenson
Date August 2, 1813
Location Sandusky County, Ohio
Result American Victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Stephenson

Battle of St. Michaels
Date August 10, 1813
Location St. Michaels, Maryland
Result American victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_St._Michaels

Raid on Port Dover
Date 14 May - 16 May, 1814
Location Port Dover, Norfolk County, Ontario
Result American Victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Port_Dover

Capture of Fort Erie
Date July 3, 1814
Location Fort Erie, Ontario
Result American victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_Fort_Erie

Siege of Fort Erie
Date 4 August – 21 September, 1814
Location Fort Erie, Ontario
Result American victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Fort_Erie

Battle of Caulk’s Field
Date August 31, 1814
Location near Fairlee, Maryland
Result American victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Caulk%27s_Field

Battle of North Point
Date September 12, 1814
Location North Point, Maryland
Result Strategic American Victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_North_Point

The First Battle of Fort Bowyer
September 1814
Location Fort Bowyer, Alabama
The defeat at Fort Bowyer led the British to decide to attack New Orleans instead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Bowyer

Battle of Malcolm’s Mills
Date November 6, 1814
Location Oakland, Brant County, Ontario
Result American Victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Malcolm%27s_Mills

Battle of Pensacola
Date November 7 – November 9, 1814
Location Pensacola, Florida
Result American victory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Pensacola_(1814)

Don't believe the LIE that James Madison was an incompetent president!

[Galileo Galilei]

My history professor's argument for why Madison sucked was that he had no reason to fight the war in the first place, and that gung-ho "War Hawks" in the Congress at the time pressured him into declaring war. They wanted a war to "define their generation," and Madison gave it to them. Honestly, what reasons where there for fighting the War of 1812? Very, very petty ones. I'll list them out.


1. British violation of US shipping rights, namely the Chesapeake Incident.

2. Conflict with Native Americans. Six Nation Confederacy is in its formation by Shawnee Chief Tecumseh, he goes away leaving his brother, Tenskwatawa, in charge and leaves him with orders not to engage in combat under any circumstances. He does, ultimately engaging with William Henry Harrison and his army at the Tippecanoe River. Hence, the "Battle of Tippecanoe." Harrison won, the Six Nation Confederacy fell a part, and widespread belief came about in the US that the British were behind the attack. (bribing the Native Americans to attack?)

3. Ultimately, it was the "War Hawks" of Congress, some of whom include Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun, who pressured Madison into declaring war. These War Hawks had a strong taste for Manifest Destiny, and had never fought in a war, so they were eager to "prove themselves." Furthermore, like I previously said, they wanted to have a war to define their generation, like the American Revolution defined the past generation. I would argue that if the War Hawks had not pressured Madison, we would have never had the War of 1812. Madison himself was "shy" and simply not a strong guy. He was easily influenced and pressured, and thus he was.


That's it - three main reasons. I don't know about you, but what kind of justification for war is that? People on this forum are so against the Iraq War. What justification did we have for fighting that war? Widespread belief that Saddam had nukes? What about war with Iran? What justification do we have for starting a war with them? What, they took a few people hostage and "apparently" have nukes? What about Vietnam? This is all propaganda. The reasons were cause for conflict. Not a war. You want to avoid war whenever possible, and use it as a last resort. Not jump to it at any time to solve all of your problems, especially when you have an army reduced by more than 50% from the last administrations policies of 'fiscal responsibility' - ie slashing the military budget. Consider the XYZ Affair during Adam's administration. He prevented a war with France, who was doing the same thing Britain was doing in 1812 to our ships. And you know what? Americans were even all for war with France. Adam's was able to prevent a war with France - why didn't Madison try the same strategy Adams did with France?

Consider how the war motto changed from "On to Canada!" to "Not one inch of territory lost!" We not only didn't take any territory in Canada, but we lost to a river - a freaking river - the Niagara River. We actually lost sections of the Northwest at times throughout the war. So as far as I'm concerned, we got crushed in terms of Canada.
Also consider how the War of 1812 had more dissension than any in US History, with the exception of Vietnam. Americans were not behind this war. The Declaration of War was passed 79-49 in the House, 19-13 in the Senate. Hardly a majority supported the war in Congress, too.

As far as I'm concerned, we should have never fought the War of 1812. It was caused by Madison being weak and shy, and buckling under the pressure of the War Hawks. The War of 1812 was like the Iraq or Vietnam War today. A stupid, pointless war that could have been prevented.

1)

Violation of shipping rights is reason enough to counter-attack against the world's bully. These violations went back to the revolutionary war, and increased after Jefferson became president. Jefferson and Madison were men of peace. They both wanted free trade with both the French and British. Frankly, the British took advantage of them and America's naval weakness. The fact is, we've had free trade on the Atlantic ever since.

2)

This was a secondary reason for war. While James Madison and Jefferson were inviting Indian Chiefs to Washington, the British were handing out rifles to Indians who would attack Americans.

3)

Your third reason is pure bullshit. Madison made up his own mind. The congress voted for the war, 19-13 in the Senate and 79-49 in the House, as the Constitution provides.

Madison and Jefferson tried everything with the British for over a decade, including economic coercion instead of war. The British did not take the hint.

How does your history professor's logic work on the revolutionary war? Certainly the 13 colonies had no right to commit treason and start the war.

As far as dissention, well, Madison did not stoop to the level of an FDR and let an attack happen on purpose. Or a Woodrow Wilson, who sent the Lucitania into a war zone with munitions and fabricated the Zimmerman telegram. Or Lincoln who wanted a first shot from the South, or LBJ and his gulf of Tonkin, or McKinley and the Maine.

Madison did not use war propaganda, which is the main reason for the dissent. Madison did not believe in that. Madison allowed the dissent to continue unabated because of his staunch defense of free speech. Even during the Harford Convention, which met the definition of treason, Madison merely sent messengers them and told them it was a bad idea. (you either get out of the Union or you don't, you don't commit treason)

You totally ignore my points about Madison defending the Constitution during a major war, and parrot MSM war propaganda. The idea that Madison was a bad president was invented in 1889 by Henry Adams. It contradicted the fact that Madison was hailed as the greatest president of all time after the war was over, and eliminated the Federalist party from existence. Name another president who was so successful that the opposition party totally disappeared? That's how popular Madison was, because everyone could see his greatness, even John Adams and John Quincy Adams, his former enemies agreed.

You totally forget that Great Britian was the world's bully, controlling the world's oceans, seizing land everywhere, etc. They are like the United States is today! If some lesser country today tried to kick the US out of their domain, would you blame them? Get real. The War of 1812 was an extension of the War of 1775, both patriotic defenses aganist tyranny and in favor of liberty!!

[Galileo Galilei]

Consider the XYZ Affair during Adam's administration. He prevented a war with France, who was doing the same thing Britain was doing in 1812 to our ships. And you know what? Americans were even all for war with France. Adam's was able to prevent a war with France - why didn't Madison try the same strategy Adams did with France?



Adam's policies almost provoked a war with France. Do you not remember our peace treaty with France? They helped us win the War of 1775.

Adam's was the weak president who didn't have the balls to veto the alien and sedition acts.

The idea of a war with France was also idiotic. Great Britian had a way more powerful navy, they were the ones meddling in our shipping. France was, too, but they didn't have the means to do it nearly as well. And after 1805, when France's navy was almost wiped out, France became even less relevant.

And if we did have a war with France, what were we going to do? Invade the Louisiana territory? Invade France? It was the British who had forts that were never abandoned as the Treay of Paris of 1783 required.

If Adams had beaten Jefferson in 1800, we might have had a war with France. Then after we and France wear ourselves down, the British move in and exploit both of us. That what the British did all over the world, divide and conquer. It didn't work in America.

[literatim]

Adam's policies almost provoked a war with France. Do you not remember our peace treaty with France? They helped us win the War of 1775.

A treaty that was nullified when they chopped off the king's head.

America was on the brink of war with Britain or France. Both sides were pushing for us to take a side in their squabbles. Adams took a hard line neutral stance which resulted in France becoming irate when they thought we should support them.


Adam's was the weak president who didn't have the balls to veto the alien and sedition acts.

He was a strong President who disbanded the national army after peace was guaranteed with France and Hamilton was pushing for America to conquer everything on the eastern side of the Mississippi.


The idea of a war with France was also idiotic. Great Britian had a way more powerful navy, they were the ones meddling in our shipping. France was, too, but they didn't have the means to do it nearly as well. And after 1805, when France's navy was almost wiped out, France became even less relevant.

And if we did have a war with France, what were we going to do? Invade the Louisiana territory? Invade France? It was the British who had forts that were never abandoned as the Treay of Paris of 1783 required.

If Adams had beaten Jefferson in 1800, we might have had a war with France. Then after we and France wear ourselves down, the British move in and exploit both of us. That what the British did all over the world, divide and conquer. It didn't work in America.

Adams signed a peace treaty with France. He prevented us entering a perpetual European war. The Federalists were pushing hard for Adams to take the side of Britain while the Anti-Federalists (including Jefferson!) wanted us to take the side of France. He chose neither.

[Galileo Galilei]

Consider how the war motto changed from "On to Canada!" to "Not one inch of territory lost!" We not only didn't take any territory in Canada, but we lost to a river - a freaking river - the Niagara River. We actually lost sections of the Northwest at times throughout the war. So as far as I'm concerned, we got crushed in terms of Canada.



You forgot about the Treaty of 1818, a follow-up from the war of 1812. The British ceded lots of territory to us:

Treaty of 1818
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_1818

We got half of present day North Dakota, a large chunk of Minnesota, and a small part of South Dakota.

During the War of 1775, the British occupied for extended periods of time New York, Philadelphia, Charleston, and Boston, the four largest US cities. During the War of 1812, the British only occupied Washington for one day.

Again, the double standard appears.

[Galileo Galilei]

A treaty that was nullified when they chopped off the king's head.



Wrong. You are parroting the argument of Alexander Hamilton. Both Jefferson and Madison pointed out that a change in government does not affect the treaty. A new treaty must be made if a change is needed.

Please see the Pacifus-Helvidius Debates of 1793. (Hamilton vs Madison).

[literatim]

Wrong. You are parroting the argument of Alexander Hamilton. Both Jefferson and Madison pointed out that a change in government does not affect the treaty. A new treaty must be made if a change is needed.

Please see the Pacifus-Helvidius Debates of 1793. (Hamilton vs Madison).

I disagree with both Madison and Jefferson in this. If there is a revolution, it most certainly does effect treaties.

The anti-Federalists wanted us in that war as much as the Federalists did. Their only difference was which side we would take.

[Galileo Galilei]

I disagree with both Madison and Jefferson in this. If there is a revolution, it most certainly does effect treaties.

The anti-Federalists wanted us in that war as much as the Federalists did. Their only difference was which side we would take.

Sorry, that must be put in the treaty. Madiosn and Jefferson both opposed loose constructionism.

Under your logic, if a change in government occurs, then all international agreements and treaties are nullified? All of them, or just some of them?

What amounts to a change in government. When Jefferson took over from Adams, is that not a change in government? So didi that nullify all our treaties?

[Galileo Galilei]

What irks me, is how they treat Madison's presidency.

They always make a big deal that early in the War of 1812, things did not go well.

But as you can see, things went fine starting in 1813, and went well with the navy right off the bat. And things were not so bad in 1812, Madison got re-elected by a comfortable margin.

QUESTION:

Have you ever heard the media say Lincoln was a bad president because the civil war did not go well for the north for the first 2 years?

Ever heard anyone say McKinley was a bad president because the Maine sunk?

Ever heard anyone say Wilson was bad because we did not declare war sooner?

Ever heard FDR bitched about because of Pearl Harbor or losing the Phillipines?

What about Truman, when we almost got kicked out of Korea?

Was Bush a bad president because 9/11 happened?

No, only James Madison gets marked down in the presidential ratings, precisely because Madison alone, in US history, and in world history, fought the War of 1812 under the rules of the US Constitution AND under Christian Just War principles.

The agenda against James Madison is an agenda against the Father of the Constitution and is an insideous agenda against the Contitution iteself!

[Patriot123]

If Madison was so for following the Constitution, why did he create the Second Bank of the United States?



Violation of shipping rights is reason enough to counter-attack against the world's bully. These violations went back to the revolutionary war, and increased after Jefferson became president. Jefferson and Madison were men of peace. They both wanted free trade with both the French and British. Frankly, the British took advantage of them and America's naval weakness. The fact is, we've had free trade on the Atlantic ever since.

There were other ways for us to have free trade on the Atlantic that didn't include war. Once again, keep in mind that our military budget was slashed nearly entirely by Jefferson. What position were we in to fight this war?



This was a secondary reason for war. While James Madison and Jefferson were inviting Indian Chiefs to Washington, the British were handing out rifles to Indians who would attack Americans.
Proof? Exactly. It was thought that the British were doing this. There was no proof - just speculation after the Battle of Tippecanoe.



Your third reason is pure bullshit. Madison made up his own mind. The congress voted for the war, 19-13 in the Senate and 79-49 in the House, as the Constitution provides.
Debatable. Refer to last point.


How does your history professor's logic work on the revolutionary war? Certainly the 13 colonies had no right to commit treason and start the war.
They didn't. It was the colonies who were ultimately responsible for what events occurred, and it was the fault of propaganda of men like Sam Adams for leading the colonies into the war.



You totally ignore my points about Madison defending the Constitution during a major war, and parrot MSM war propaganda. The idea that Madison was a bad president was invented in 1889 by Henry Adams. It contradicted the fact that Madison was hailed as the greatest president of all time after the war was over, and eliminated the Federalist party from existence. Name another president who was so successful that the opposition party totally disappeared? That's how popular Madison was, because everyone could see his greatness, even John Adams and John Quincy Adams, his former enemies agreed.
Well, that's not entirely true - the Federalist Party disappeared because it was the party of the rich, and the party of Adams, of course. People identified it with tyranny after Adam's administration and the Alien and Sedition Acts. The party was all ready on its way out the door, and this can be seen if you look at the numbers of Federalists in the Congress after Adam's administration. Washington was viewed more highly - he was viewed as the best. And Washington did make the opposition disappear - only there were no parties at the time :p I'm not saying that Madison was all that bad. I'm saying that the War of 1812 was fought for petty reasons, and comparable to Iraq or Vietnam.


You totally forget that Great Britian was the world's bully, controlling the world's oceans, seizing land everywhere, etc. They are like the United States is today! If some lesser country today tried to kick the US out of their domain, would you blame them? Get real. The War of 1812 was an extension of the War of 1775, both patriotic defenses aganist tyranny and in favor of liberty!!
Probably not, possibly so. But Madison was, once again, pressured into declaring war by the war hawks. Look at any source and it will state this - even the White House website says this :D http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/jamesmadison/ This is what we studied. Any source will say this - I trust that you will have a hard time finding any source that states the opposite. Madison was, in fact, pressured - at least in part, by the war hawks, to declare war.

[Pericles]

Just to add a few points for consideration.

Britain accepted the US demands (impressment of seamen issue) (rights of neutral shipping), but this communcation was crossing the Atlantic to Washington, at the same time the declaration of war was being sent to London. A case of bad timing.

Give our reading of the Constitution, if Congress decalres war, we expect the Presidient to carry that into execution, do we not? The decision is that of Congress to make.

Militarily, the US is not well prepared for war, a habit carried into modern times, so not unusual at all. Initial US victories are against a Britain which is already engaged in fighting Napoleon, so the action in North America is just a unpleasant diversion for the British. After the defeat of Napoleon in 1813, Britain can now prosecute the war aginst the US, and thus Washington is burned, and raids along the coast are conducted. Both sides tire of the while thing, as the confilct in Europe subsides, making moot the original causes of the war.

In another case of bad timing, which is the theme of this war, the most spectacular US victory occurs after the peace treaty is signed. The war is important because it brings to prominence Andrew Jackson politically, and Winfield Scott as the best US general of the war. Scott becomes commanding general of the US Army, and establishes the strategy used in the Mexican War 1846 -1848 and the strategy used by federal forces 1862 -1865 after his death in 1861. Scott also picked the key officers who would later command US and Confederate Armies.

[Imperial]

Madison alone, in US history, and in world history, fought the War of 1812 under the rules of the US Constitution AND under Christian Just War principles.

The US was the aggressor against the Native Americans. There was nothing just in our war against Tecumseh, which started in 1810-1811 with a preemptive strike by future President Harrison.

The thing that pressured that conflict to start was our coercing Indians to sign treaties that were distinctly unfavorable to them. We had made a treaty after the Battle of Fallen Timbers that gave us Kentucky and Tennessee but gave the Indians essentially the Old Northwest. Yet we continually forced the Native Americans to yield more land after.

Tecumseh is one of the few heroes to emerge from that war.



Proof? Exactly. It was thought that the British were doing this [giving weapons to Indians]. There was no proof - just speculation after the Battle of Tippecanoe.

I brought this point up earlier. The British and Indians were NOT allies until right before the War of 1812. In fact, you could make a good argument that the Battle of Tippecanoe and Harrison's preemptive strike actually forced Tecumseh to side with the British- an early example of the blowback we always oppose.


Madison was hailed as the greatest president of all time after the war was over, and eliminated the Federalist party from existence. Name another president who was so successful that the opposition party totally disappeared? That's how popular Madison was, because everyone could see his greatness, even John Adams and John Quincy Adams, his former enemies agreed.

Umm, if you look at history the Federalists actually came closer to winning the White House under Madison than they did under Jefferson and Monroe. Madison's invasion of Canada was unpopular in New England and emboldened opposition.


You totally forget that Great Britian was the world's bully, controlling the world's oceans, seizing land everywhere, etc. They are like the United States is today! If some lesser country today tried to kick the US out of their domain, would you blame them? Get real. The War of 1812 was an extension of the War of 1775, both patriotic defenses aganist tyranny and in favor of liberty!!

So the Patriots tarring and feathering Loyalists, seizing their land, and forcing them to leave was not AMERICA being a bully? (Mind you, Loyalists who fled to Canada would later oppose us in the War of 1812). Or us forcing the Native Americans to make horrible treaties on threat of force was fair? How about the Trail of Tears, which was forced by Jackson who gained a political foothold after this war? If some Indians tried to kick the US off of their sovereign domain, would you blame them? Get real. The War of 1812 was an extension of America's bullying it had pursued since 1775, both nationalistic aggression against freedom and in favor of tyranny!!

[Young Paleocon]

What irks me, is how they treat Madison's presidency.

They always make a big deal that early in the War of 1812, things did not go well.

But as you can see, things went fine starting in 1813, and went well with the navy right off the bat. And things were not so bad in 1812, Madison got re-elected by a comfortable margin.

QUESTION:

Have you ever heard the media say Lincoln was a bad president because the civil war did not go well for the north for the first 2 years?

Ever heard anyone say McKinley was a bad president because the Maine sunk?

Ever heard anyone say Wilson was bad because we did not declare war sooner?

Ever heard FDR bitched about because of Pearl Harbor or losing the Phillipines?

What about Truman, when we almost got kicked out of Korea?

Was Bush a bad president because 9/11 happened?

No, only James Madison gets marked down in the presidential ratings, precisely because Madison alone, in US history, and in world history, fought the War of 1812 under the rules of the US Constitution AND under Christian Just War principles.

The agenda against James Madison is an agenda against the Father of the Constitution and is an insideous agenda against the Contitution iteself!

Are you implying Wilson should have gone to war earlier?

[Galileo Galilei]

If Madison was so for following the Constitution, why did he create the Second Bank of the United States?


There were other ways for us to have free trade on the Atlantic that didn't include war. Once again, keep in mind that our military budget was slashed nearly entirely by Jefferson. What position were we in to fight this war?



The bank bill was signed after the war was over. George Washington set a precedent regarding whether a bank bill was constitutional. This was a gray area in the Constitution, which has the power to regulate the value of currency. Whether a bank was necessary and proper was settled by George Washington.

No, there was no other way to protect free trade besides war. Madison made it a point that we could win a war without creating a military state. It is too bad that people today forget this, and even Ron Paul supporters seem to be unaware.

The British spent about 300 years, from 1588 until WWI, proving that they were the world's bully. The only way to deal withy bullies that initiate force against you is self defense.

[Galileo Galilei]

Are you implying Wilson should have gone to war earlier?

No, I am implying that the mass media promotes presidents who provoke wars. Wilson is usually portrayed as a man who was really smart and knew we needed war, but the American people were too stipud to realize this.

[Galileo Galilei]

The US was the aggressor against the Native Americans. There was nothing just in our war against Tecumseh, which started in 1810-1811 with a preemptive strike by future President Harrison.



Wrong, sovereign states and sovereign individuals provoked the wars against the Indians when Madison was president. The British also provoked wars by allying with Indians.

[Galileo Galilei]

Umm, if you look at history the Federalists actually came closer to winning the White House under Madison than they did under Jefferson and Monroe. Madison's invasion of Canada was unpopular in New England and emboldened opposition.



err, Jefferson LOST to Adams in 1796 and barely won in 1800.

As I stated earlier, Madison's last two years were the most glorious in US history. He handed the presidency to his buddy Monroe who won easily in 1816.

The election of 1812 came at the worst time of the war, and Madison still won the election by a comfortable margin.

In fact, Madison who stood for election dozens of times between 1774 and 1829 lost only one close election, to Charles Porter in 1777.

Madison was only 26 at the time, and Porter bribed voters by buying them free whiskey. Ten years later, Madison smashed Porter in another election by a ratio of almost 10 to 1.

James Madison started the Era of Good Feelings.

[Icymudpuppy]

1)

Violation of shipping rights is reason enough to counter-attack against the world's bully. These violations went back to the revolutionary war, and increased after Jefferson became president. Jefferson and Madison were men of peace. They both wanted free trade with both the French and British. Frankly, the British took advantage of them and America's naval weakness. The fact is, we've had free trade on the Atlantic ever since.


N. Korea and Cuba should have declared war on us years ago.

[CitizenPlain]

...

[Imperial]

Wrong, sovereign states and sovereign individuals provoked the wars against the Indians when Madison was president. The British also provoked wars by allying with Indians.

Actually, Harrison went to Washington DC to get approval for his war. DC gave it. He came home with a handful of federal troops to help him too. It wasn't just states and citizens. They were definitely agitating for it, but DC gave a wink and a shove.

Also, Madison could have still stood against a national war with the Indians and resisted the war hawks. He didn't; he failed in that regard.

Finally, you have shown no proof the "British also provoked wars by allying with Indians." Show a source, b/c Tecumseh and his alliance only sided with them AFTER Harrison's preemptive strike. Before that, the Indians refused to work with the British. However, there were some cooperators with the Americans.


err, Jefferson LOST to Adams in 1796 and barely won in 1800.

As I stated earlier, Madison's last two years were the most glorious in US history. He handed the presidency to his buddy Monroe who won easily in 1816.

The election of 1812 came at the worst time of the war, and Madison still won the election by a comfortable margin.

In fact, Madison who stood for election dozens of times between 1774 and 1829 lost only one close election, to Charles Porter in 1777.

Madison was only 26 at the time, and Porter bribed voters by buying them free whiskey. Ten years later, Madison smashed Porter in another election by a ratio of almost 10 to 1.

James Madison started the Era of Good Feelings.

Sorry, I meant Jefferson in 1804. Madison in 1812 was the best run of the Federalists since 1800. 1804, 1808, 1816 and 1820 were all easy Democratic-Republican wins. 1812 could have been flipped with New York and Pennsylvania supporting the Federalist. This was unlikely, but a closer run for the Federalists than any of the other four elections nearest to it. Thus, rather than Madison securing a Democratic-Republican dynasty he actually was just another part of the Virginia dynasty that had the weakest election in over a decade.


No, there was no other way to protect free trade besides war. Madison made it a point that we could win a war without creating a military state. It is too bad that people today forget this, and even Ron Paul supporters seem to be unaware.

Look at the consequences of the War of 1812: a depression(read Ron Paul's The Case for Gold), continued and accelerated genocide against the Native Americans, and the rise of the tyrannical Jackson. Is "free trade" worth it?

Finally, you said that Madison proved war can be done without breaking the Constitution. I would also point out if Madison had never gone to war the Constitution would also remain intact.

[puppetmaster]

This happens to be my favorite thread currently....

[literatim]

Actually, Harrison went to Washington DC to get approval for his war. DC gave it. He came home with a handful of federal troops to help him too. It wasn't just states and citizens. They were definitely agitating for it, but DC gave a wink and a shove.

Also, Madison could have still stood against a national war with the Indians and resisted the war hawks. He didn't; he failed in that regard.

Finally, you have shown no proof the "British also provoked wars by allying with Indians." Show a source, b/c Tecumseh and his alliance only sided with them AFTER Harrison's preemptive strike. Before that, the Indians refused to work with the British. However, there were some cooperators with the Americans.

Indians were instigating by attacking settlers within our borders. Who can blame Harrison when he had to constantly deal with the threat of their incursion on his territory?



Sorry, that must be put in the treaty. Madiosn and Jefferson both opposed loose constructionism.

Under your logic, if a change in government occurs, then all international agreements and treaties are nullified? All of them, or just some of them?

What amounts to a change in government. When Jefferson took over from Adams, is that not a change in government? So didi that nullify all our treaties?

So you are saying that the USA was bound to all treaties that King George signed simply because it was apart of Britain? When the government that initiated a treaty no longer exists or loses its authority, the treaty is null and void until that government regains its power.

Our constitution is our government. It is no different than a king's son takes the throne. The government is still intact and thus the treaty remains.

A revolution is a complete removal of the original government and an establishment of a brand new government. If our Constitution was annulled, all treaties signed by those put in power by our Constitution would be null and void.


The bank bill was signed after the war was over. George Washington set a precedent regarding whether a bank bill was constitutional. This was a gray area in the Constitution, which has the power to regulate the value of currency. Whether a bank was necessary and proper was settled by George Washington.

No it wasn't because the Bill of Rights was not established until Madison. The tenth amendment pull a tight rein on the federal government.

[Imperial]

Indians were instigating by attacking settlers within our borders. Who can blame Harrison when he had to constantly deal with the threat of their incursion on his territory?

The settlers moved onto territory that was unfairly claimed from the Indians. Most Indian attacks didn't occur on land already claimed by Americans, like say the east coast. The Indians were defending their territory.

Besides that, Harrison had been scheming for a long time to suck up more Indian lands with unfair and often coerced treaties (like the Treaty of Fort Wayne in 1809).

Its like putting US troops in Saudi Arabia and hoping they don't get Al Queda mad.

[Galileo Galilei]

N. Korea and Cuba should have declared war on us years ago.

They would, if they thought they could stand up to us militarily. Frankly, I would not blame them.

[Galileo Galilei]

in that the central bank was forced upon us again.

That's the measure of real control; like the present.

The central bank of 1816 was a temporay measure, aimed to pay off war debts.

In 1832, president Andrew Jackson came to visit the aging James Madison (81 years old) at Montpelier before the election. Madison agreed with Jackson to get rid of the bank, this time for good.

Jackson went ahead and got rid of the bank, no longer fearing opposition by Madison.

After the war of 1812, our economy had become large enough, that no central bank was ever needed again, for either the people or the federal government.

[Galileo Galilei]

Look at the consequences of the War of 1812: a depression(read Ron Paul's The Case for Gold), continued and accelerated genocide against the Native Americans, and the rise of the tyrannical Jackson. Is "free trade" worth it?

Finally, you said that Madison proved war can be done without breaking the Constitution. I would also point out if Madison had never gone to war the Constitution would also remain intact.

The Panic of 1819 only mostly affected speculators. Regular people experienced unprecendented economic prosperity after the War of 1812, the greatest economic boom and rise in per capita income in recorded history through the civil war.

The War of 1812 set a precedent that the President can follow the Constitution during war.

Despite the fact the every war president since Lincoln has violated Madison's precedent, the precedent remains.

If Ron Paul ever become president, and the congress declares war, Ron Paul will have James Madison to look back on. He has no one else, not in America, not anywhere.

Frankly, understanding the War of 1812 is key to getting rid of the military state.

[Galileo Galilei]

So you are saying that the USA was bound to all treaties that King George signed simply because it was apart of Britain? When the government that initiated a treaty no longer exists or loses its authority, the treaty is null and void until that government regains its power.

Our constitution is our government. It is no different than a king's son takes the throne. The government is still intact and thus the treaty remains.

A revolution is a complete removal of the original government and an establishment of a brand new government. If our Constitution was annulled, all treaties signed by those put in power by our Constitution would be null and void.



You forget that treaties contain all sorts of routine business, like fishing rights, immigration, commerce agreements, etc. For every item in a treaty that should be reconsidered when a government changes, you have 10 routine matters that should not change.

The specific issue of the Pacifus-Helvidius Debates of 1793 (Hamilton vs Madison), was Washington's declaration of neutrality with France. We had a treay with France from 1778 still on the books. With the French Revolution, a new treaty should have been negotiated by the Washingotn Administration and then debated by the Senate. This did not happen.

Instead of following the Constitution, Hamilton persuaded Washington to cut corners.

The Pacificus–Helvidius Debates of 1793–1794 matched Hamilton and Madison in the first chapter of an enduring discussion about the proper roles of the executive and legislative branches in the conduct of American foreign policy.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php?title=1910&Itemid=27

Check out the letter from Jefferson to Madison, it is kick-ass!

Jefferson (July 7, 1793):

"For god’s sake, my dear Sir [Madison], take up your pen, select the most striking heresies, and cut him [Hamilton] to peices in the face of the public. There is nobody else who can & will enter the lists with him."

Also see Helvidus # 1, it is probably the best essay of the bunch.



No it wasn't because the Bill of Rights was not established until Madison. The tenth amendment pull a tight rein on the federal government.

Good point, except that Washington did not shut down the bank after the 10th was ratified, nor did congress close the bank, nor did the Supreme Court strike it down.

The reality was that we had HUGE war debts from the Revolution, and the federal government needed money to pay it off. The feds also assumed state debts as well (a questionable idea, but it happend, Madison opposed it). If not for the war debt, there never would have been a central bank in the Founding Era.

[Galileo Galilei]

This happens to be my favorite thread currently....

Thank you, I hope this thread wakes some people up.

The War of 1812 is where libertarian theory meets reality.

What Napolean could not do, James Madison got it done.

[Imperial]

The Panic of 1819 only mostly affected speculators. Regular people experienced unprecendented economic prosperity after the War of 1812, the greatest economic boom and rise in per capita income in recorded history through the civil war.

That boom was made on credit expansion and wartime financial overextension, not sound investment. Besides that, the Panic of 1819 also caused lots of business failures and a huge expansion of unemployment not just for speculators but wage laborers too. So it really affected more than just one niche of the American populace.


The central bank of 1816 was a temporay measure, aimed to pay off war debts

It doesn't seem to have prevented an economic downturn...


The War of 1812 set a precedent that the President can follow the Constitution during war.

Despite the fact the every war president since Lincoln has violated Madison's precedent, the precedent remains.

If Ron Paul ever become president, and the congress declares war, Ron Paul will have James Madison to look back on. He has no one else, not in America, not anywhere.

Frankly, understanding the War of 1812 is key to getting rid of the military state.

It is a useful precedent, don't misunderstand me (although there certainly was a lack of leadership and overall big picture tactics in the War of 1812 that led to many of America's defeats in that war). The US needs to know how to execute war constitutionally.

However, its like when Ron Paul fought for a declaration of war on Iraq and declared he would vote against said declaration.

For me, its a question of weighing the costs and benefits. I can never justify the wholesale aggression and devastation that America perpetrated against the Indians(hopefully we can all agree that that was one cost of the war). I also think that the Panic of 1819 was not worth the cost.

So for me it is like my reason for opposing foreign adventurism today: bubbles up our own economy while causing devastation on sovereign individuals. Blowback significantly isn't so much at play here bc the British were far away, Canada was under British protection and had no offensive capability, and we continued to press the native americans after the war.

[Galileo Galilei]

Madison's War Message = Jefferson's Declaration of Independence

War Message to Congress

Washington, June 1, 1812.

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

I communicate to Congress certain documents, being a continuation of those heretofore laid before them on the subject of our affairs with Great Britain.

Without going back beyond the renewal in 1803 of the war in which Great Britain is engaged, and omitting unrepaired wrongs of inferior magnitude, the conduct of her Government presents a series of acts hostile to the United States as an independent and neutral nation.

British cruisers have been in the continued practice of violating the American flag on the great highway of nations, and of seizing and carrying off persons sailing under it, not in the exercise of a belligerent right founded on the law of nations against an enemy, but of a municipal prerogative over British subjects. British jurisdiction is thus extended to neutral vessels in a situation where no laws can operate but the law of nations and the laws of the country to which the vessels belong, and a self-redress is assumed which, if British subjects were wrongfully detained and alone concerned, is that substitution of force for a resort to the responsible sovereign which falls within the definition of war. Could the seizure of British subjects in such cases be regarded as within the exercise of a belligerent right, the acknowledged laws of war, which forbid an article of captured property to be adjudged without a regular investigation before a competent tribunal, would imperiously demand the fairest trial where the sacred rights of persons were at issue. In place of such a trial these rights are subjected to the will of every petty commander.

....

We behold, in fine, on the side of Great Britain, a state of war against the United States, and on the side of the United States a state of peace toward Great Britain.

Whether the United States shall continue passive under these progressive usurpations and these accumulating wrongs, or, opposing force to force in defense of their national rights, shall commit a just cause into the hands of the Almighty Disposer of Events, avoiding all connections which might entangle it in the contest or views of other powers, and preserving a constant readiness to concur in an honorable re-establishment of peace and friendship, is a solemn question which the Constitution wisely confides to the legislative department of the Government. In recommending it to their early deliberations I am happy in the assurance that the decision will be worthy the enlightened and patriotic councils of a virtuous, a free, and a powerful nation

Having presented this view of the relations of the United States with Great Britain and of the solemn alternative grow mg out of them, I proceed to remark that the communica tions last made to Congress on the subject of our relations with France will have shewn that since the revocation of her decrees, as they violated the neutral rights of the United States, her Government has authorized illegal captures by its privateers and public ships, and that other outrages have been practised on our vessels and our citizens It will have been seen also that no indemnity had been provided or satisfacto rily pledged for the extensive spoliations committed under the violent and retrospective orders of the French Government against the property of our citizens seized within the jurisdic tion of France I abstain at this time from recommending to the consideration of Congress definitive measures with re spect to that nation, in the expectation that the result of un closed discussions between our minister plenipotentiary at Paris and the French Government will speedily enable Con gress to decide with greater advantage on the course due to the rights, the interests, and the honor of our country

http://www.constitution.org/jm/18120601_war.htm

Here is the only paragraph mentioning the Indians:

"In reviewing the conduct of Great Britain toward the United States our attention is necessarily drawn to the warfare just renewed by the savages on one of our extensive frontiers — a warfare which is known to spare neither age nor sex and to be distinguished by features peculiarly shocking to humanity. It is difficult to account for the activity and combinations which have for some time been developing themselves among tribes in constant intercourse with British traders and garrisons without connecting their hostility with that influence and without recollecting the authenticated examples of such interpositions heretofore furnished by the officers and agents of that Government."

Here is a good comparison between James Madison and George Bush:

A comparison of James Madison and his war to George Bush and his war
http://www.populistamerica.com/blog/view/49746/mr__madison_s_war_versus_mr__bush_s_war

[Galileo Galilei]

My history professor's argument for why Madison sucked was that he had no reason to fight the war [b]in the first place,

You should tell your history teacher about the US Constitution.

Under the US Constitution, the congress declares war. Once the war is declared, it is the presdient who is obligated to fighting the war. The president has no authority to over-rule the congress and the voice of the people. The War Hawks were elected on a platofrm of defensive war.

[Erazmus]

Did anyone catch the History Channel's program today on the early American presidents?

I try not to watch propaganda. Actually, I don't want TV at all. Seriously. ;)

*Holy crap* I just noticed how old the thread is.

[Aratus]

ken burns with 1865 did not have a full portrait of andy johnson in his montage, i opine insted
whether our veep was drunker than a skunk on the day of the second innagural or perhaps
showing his typoid fever recovery or given a good & total dose of something suspicious or
food poisoning that morning or what, we did not have anything really said about the hurried
swearing in come the sad and tragic day in april of 1865, or the way the trials went behind
the scenes of the conspirators. admittedly Wirz was hanged for Andersonville, and we had
military tribunals, and this all is a lead-in to what the "W" has left us legally or semi-legally...