Posted on 12/29/2004 5:51:19 PM PST by NMC EXP
This is chapter 12 of a book titled The Freedom Philosophy published in 1988 by The Foundation for Economic Education. This story by and about Davy Crockett is taken from The Life of Colonel David Crockett, complied by Edward S. Ellis (Philadelphia; Porter & Coates, 1884).
Holders of political office are but reflections of the dominant leadership-good or bad-among the electorate. Horatio Bunce is a striking example of responsible citizenship. Were his kind to multiply we would see many new faces in public offices, or, as in the case of Davy Crockett, a new Crockett.
One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question to vote when Crockett arose:
"Mr. Speaker-I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every Member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him."
"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more that the bill asks."
He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.
Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:.
"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done."
"The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but as the election was some time off, I did no know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but as I thought, rather coldly."
"I began: 'Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and-'.
'Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for your the last time your were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.'
"This was a sockdolager.....I begged him to tell me what was the matter."
"Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest....But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is."
"I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question."
"No, Colonel, there's no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?"
"Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did."
"It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer his is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people of Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution."
"So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution; there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you."
"I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:"
"Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I have ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot."
"He laughingly replied: 'Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating your for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.'"
"If I don't," said I. "I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it."
"No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you."
"Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-by. I must know your name."
"My name is Bunce."
"Not Horatio Bunce?"
"Yes."
"Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend."
"It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingles but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote."
"At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before."
"Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before."
"I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him-no, that is not the word-I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm."
"But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted-at least, they all knew me."
"In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:"
"Fellow-citizens-I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, have heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is matter for your consideration only."
"I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I satisfied it was wrong, I closed by saying:"
"And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error."
"It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so."
"He came upon the stand and said:"
"Fellow-citizens-It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today."
"He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before."
"I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell your now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress."
"Now sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday."
"There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men-men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased-a debt which could not be paid by money-and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against he honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."
35 million and up
But I should have known better.
You will take advantage of any occasion to trash Bush and the citizens of the United States. We cannot help our fellow man when in need, in your constricted, constipated little mind.
Move to the Bahamas. They have given nothing to the relief effort.
Sure you can. Pull a Mother Teresa - liquidate all of your personal belongings, clean out your bank account and donate it to the suffering.
But when it comes to the public treasury:
Its not yours to give away.
Its real easy to be altruistic with other peoples money isn't it? C'mon sinky - ante up with your own personal stash or get the hell out of the game.
Do you doubt that the representatives of the people would vote to give money to these unfortunates?
Do you doubt that the American people, were they able to vote, would overwhelmingly support helping these poor people?
Don't worry. I'm giving personally. But I support utilizing tax money for this purpose as well.
Since 70% of the other bills the congresscritters approve are un-Constitutional I do not doubt it at all.
Do you doubt that the American people, were they able to vote, would overwhelmingly support helping these poor people?
A couple of glaring problems with this argument: (1) this is not a democracy. (2) by definition one half of the population is of below average intelligence. Further, damn near all of them are poorly educated and uninformed. Bottom line is I truly don't give a rip about the opinion of the great unwashed.
Ever heard the term "tyranny of the majority"?
If so can you define it?
Of course you don't. The majority (including many "unwashed") re-elected George W. Bush, and you're pissed to the gills over that.
Sorry you're mad, but you need to work harder to convince people that your candidate (whoever the hell that is) is the man for President.
Davey Crockett's rule still applies. The Judicial perversion of Constitutional powers is a violation of the Constitution itself, and must be treated as a violation of the supreme laws of the land.
My pleasure.
Send a copy to your congresscritter.
My lawgiver, Ray LaHood was on a local talk show a while back. He was bragging about all the taxdollars he and his partners in crime had donated to the airlines and families of the 9/11 victims.
I pointed out this was un-Constitutional. He came back with a claim on the "general welfare" clause. I read a couple of quotes to him from James Madison re: the general welfare and how that did not mean charity.
LaHood lost it and ended up shouting at me on the radio.
It was so fine.
Regarding the topic at hand you are like a one legged man in a butt kicking contest - ain't got a leg to stand on.
So you start talking about junior.
It is you who have no standing, in reality.
For once you are correct. I am in the minority on a lot of issues.
That does not make me wrong.
Being in the majority does not make you right. It just lumps you in with a bigger crowd.
A few years ago I finally figured out that I do not need the approval or support of others to validate what I believe.
You should try it some time.
You do, however, need the support of others to translate your beliefs into ACTION by the government.
True again.
If I was not by nature a vengeful man I would not even bother to vote anymore for the reason you describe.
That is great you posted that here. It's too bad the only Congressman on the Hill who thinks even remotely like that is Ron Paul.
Wow! I never knew how much I respected Davy Crockett till just reading that article. I always thought of him as the guy who wore a coonskin cap. Could somebody please remind me, how many countries donated $ and assistance to the hurricane victims in this country? My memory isn't what it used to be?
No doubt about it, you are absolutely right. But what I don't understand, is if you believe what you are saying, why are you on this thread insulting a person who has said and done nothing to you on this thread?
He posts a historical article about a moral view that once carried some weight in this country, and asks about how much money is being donated to a disaster relief. Then you appear on the attack, as though he were a powerful threat to you.
He is not a threat to you. He is not plotting against you. Trust me, no one here on this thread is going to hurt you.
No doubt about it, you are absolutely right. But what I don't understand, is if you believe what you are saying, why are you on this thread insulting a person who has said and done nothing to you on this thread?
He posts a historical article about a moral view that once carried some weight in this country, and asks about how much money is being donated to a disaster relief. Then you appear on the attack, as though he were a powerful threat to you.
He is not a threat to you. He is not plotting against you. Trust me, no one here on this thread is going to hurt you.
LOL!! Well, you've contributed exactly nothing to the topic of the thread.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.