Not Yours to Give

personal archives ^ | Provided as courtesy by Charles Starr for Congress

[Chapita]

One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of the widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Mr. Crockett arose:

"Mr. Speaker - I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the 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 to 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 it 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 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 than 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, not 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 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 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 not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of the my district in which I was more 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. 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 call candidates, and---'

"'Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you 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 had 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 you 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 intended by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you that, 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 in I cannot overlook, because of 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 in 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 likes 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 tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he 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 then he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simple 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 thing 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 perceived 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 not right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this country 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 contribution each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of 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 about 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 are 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 other to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, for 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 did not have 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 find speeches I 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 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 acknowledgement of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around this district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied that it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but I will do what I can to keep down opposition, and perhaps, I may exert a little influence in that way.'

"'If I don't,' said I, 'I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am 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 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 to a barbecue, and some to share 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 up on Saturday week,. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowed to see and hear you.'

"'Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name.'

"'My name is Bunce.'

"Not Horatio Bunce?'

"'Yes.'

"'Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before thought 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 mingled 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 by 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 this distinct under such a vote.

"At the appointed time I was at this house having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before. Thought I was considerable fatigued when I reach his house, and, under ordinary circumstance, should have gone early to bed, I kept 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 a year; and I will tell you sir, if everyone 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 open 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 prejudices, or both, had 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 a matter for you consideration only.'

"I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them way I was satisfied to was wrong. I closed by saying:

"'And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the 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 Davey 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 you 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 repetition I have ever made, or shall ever 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 wish to call to 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 the 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 it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- David Crocket was born August 17, 1786, at Limestone (Greene County), Tennessee. He died March 6, 1836, as a defender of the Alamo.

[RonDog]

More on Susan decatur here:

http://www.decaturhouse.org/pressroom/timeline.htm
137 posted on 1/26/02 2:24 AM Pacific by Huck

Stephen Decatur here:

http://www.zweb.com/parpro/Decatur.html
138 posted on 1/26/02 2:26 AM Pacific by Huck

GREAT work, Huck!

Here are those links, activated by HTML, fo those who do not like to "cut and paste":

http://www.decaturhouse.org/pressroom/timeline.htm

http://www.zweb.com/parpro/Decatur.html

[michigander]

Please forgive the size of this reply.

This appears to be the a description of Senate debate reguarding the fire that Horatio Bunce makes reference to (?... This is the only reference I could find that fits the description of the event Bunce describes) :

The House debate:

In the end $20,000 was voted for relief. But, the name David Crockett does not appear in the listing of the yeas and nays.

Upon further review, David Crockett wasn't a member of the 19th. Congress.
But, was a member of the 20th. Congress.

A list of members of the 19th Congress:

A list of members of the 20th Congress:

So, unless further evidence comes to light, the events as described in "Not Yours to Give", appears (IMHO) to be an urban legend (a very old one).

[RonDog]

Do you have a link to the source on the web?

Bottom right corner.

Here are links to the image that you posted, and a little transcription:

U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1873
Register of Debates, House of Representatives, 20th Congress, 1st Session
Pages 2085 & 2086 of 2840
and
Pages 2087 & 2088 of 2840 :

Wednesday, April 2, 1828
FAMILY OF GENERAL BROWN

". . . .The bill from the Senate for the relief of Mrs. Brown,
was read a third time.
. . . . .Messrs. CHILTON and CROCKETT (who had been
absent from the House during the discussion yesterday)
delivered their sentiments in opposition to the principle
of the bill. The latter offering to subscribe his quota,
in his private character, to make up the sum proposed...

[RonDog]

Thank you, michigander!

First, thank you for sharing THIS marvelous website that you found for us:

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation - (from the Law Library of Congress)

Second, thank you for the wonderful images that you posted about the fire in Alexandria!

Here are some HTML-activated links to those images, for those who wish to explore further:

Register of Debates, Senate, 19th Congress, 2nd Session,
Pages 67 through 70, Relief of the Sufferers at Alexandria

U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1873
Bills and Resolutions, House of Representatives, 19th Congress, 2nd Session
Bill 383

Register of Debates, House of Representatives, 19th Congress, 2nd Session,
Pages 747 through 748, Sufferers by Fire at Alexandria-Duties on Wool and Woollens

And, third...

Thank you for teaching me (and MANY other FReepers) how to use HTML!!!

(FWIW, though, I am not yet prepared to call the "Not Yours to Give" story an "urban legend!")

[RonDog]

From Expedia maps:

It appears that ALEXANDRIA (at the bottom of this map) is rather far from the Capitol building, while GEORGETOWN (at the top, on the left) is much closer. Could there have been TWO fires that Congress voted on?

[lonevoice]

Thank you all for a most interesting read. This story has long been a favorite, though I've never seen an investigation of its history. As to whether it is a story representing historical events, or a composite based on philosophical accuracy, perhaps you fellers will be the ones to discover. The "Broken English" version may be that author's attempt to duplicate, in written form, Crockett's Tennessee dialect and accent. If so, it may suffer from that author's lack of skill, as well as his own embellishments.

[RonDog]

From http://oha.ci.alexandria.va.us/archaeology/decades/ar-decades-1820.html:

Discovering the Decades: 1820s

Alexandria Archaeology Looks Back at 250 Years of Alexandria History

"...And then, a disaster occurred which probably affected Alexandria more adversely than any other single event-the tragic fire of January 1827.

The fire originated, by accident in the workshop of Mr. James Green, cabinet maker, which stood in the interior of the square bounded by Fairfax, Prince, Royal, and King Streets and near the intersection of the two last.... The back buildings of several houses on Royal Street were consumed, as was also a frame dwelling fronting on the alley, and immediately south of Mr. Green's work shop. The fire soon reached Fairfax Street where it was checked on the North by the three story fire proof, occupied by Messrs. Edward Stabler and Sons as a drug store, but every other house on the West side of Fairfax Street south to Prince Street was simultaneously wrapped in flames and speedily consumed. From Fairfax and Prince Streets the fire jumped to the corner of Water [Lee] and Prince. In a few minutes, both sides of Prince-Street, between Water and Union, together with a warehouse on the east side of Water Street-four others on the West side of Union Street south of Prince, and three others on the same side of Union, north of Prince-were all in flames, and every house except two was destroyed-many of them with their whole contents.... For five hours the flames were rushing from house to house with increasing fury-furniture and goods, were scattered in every direction, women and children were flying for safety, and houses that were not burnt, were often on fire, sometimes dozens at once. [Alexandria Gazette 1/23/1827]

A town committee calculated the destruction at "53 buildings consisting of dwellings, ware and storehouses, exclusive of a number of stables and other outbuildings; all of which are valued at sixty thousand nine hundred and twenty dollars; and personal property which we have estimated at forty-six thousand, three hundred and fifty-seven dollars; making an aggregate sum of one hundred seven thousand, two hundred and seventy-seven dollars." Other damage estimates ranged as high as $150,000.

Alexandria was so prostrated by this conflagration that the U.S. Congress appropriated funds for disaster relief. Several representatives, however, questioned the constitutionality of providing such aid to a private corporation..."

And from http://dcpages.com/Tourism/History_and_Culture/041500dcname.shtml:

Origins of the Name District of Columbia

"...The initial plot of land authorized by the Constitution for the seat of the US government was a 100-square mile area. The first commissioners appointed to acquire the property for the new capital and construct the first government buildings made the obvious choice and named the city Washington. At the same time, they decided to call the entire 100 square-mile area the District of Columbia. Congress later went along with this decision through legislative references to the area.

The city of Washington as designed by L'Enfant did not, of course, fill the 100 square-mile area authorized by the Constitution for the seat of government. The area also included the cities of Georgetown (1751) and Alexandria (1749), which were already in existence. Congress designated the rest of the 10-mile by 10-mile portion outside the corporate limits of these three cities as the County of Alexandria, in the section given by Virginia, and the County of Washington, in the Maryland-ceded portion.

In 1846 Congress voted to give back to Virginia all the land that state had given to the government in 1790 for creation of the District of Columbia. This move returned about 32 square miles of territory to Virginia. Residents of Alexandria and what is now Arlington County, Virginia, thus lost District of Columbia residency and again became Virginia citizens..."

[RonDog]

From http://politicalgraveyard.com/bio/bully-bunker.html:

"I ...limit The Political Graveyard primarily to those who have participated in politics at the state and federal levels. Among local officials, all that I have chosen to include are mayors of cities above a certain size..."

• Bunce, George of Manchester, Hartford County, Conn. Member of Connecticut state senate 2nd District, 1839. Burial location unknown.
• Bunce, George H. Delegate to New York state constitutional convention 32nd District, 1915. Burial location unknown.
• Bunce, Harvey of Boonville, Cooper County, Mo. Delegate to Missouri state constitutional convention, 1865. Burial location unknown.
• Bunce, Joseph H. of Louisville, Jefferson County, Ky. Mayor of Louisville, Ky., 1869. Burial location unknown.
• Bunce, Zephaniah W. Member Michigan territorial council, 1824-27. Burial location unknown.
• Bunch, Samuel (1786-1849) Born in Grainger County, Tenn., December 4, 1786. U.S. Representative from Tennessee 2nd District, 1833-37. Died September 5, 1849. Interment in private or family graveyard. See also: congressional biography.
• Bunch, Samuel H. Delegate to Missouri state constitutional convention 23rd District, 1845-46. Burial location unknown.

[RonDog]

From http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=C000918:

CROCKETT, David, (father of John Wesley Crockett), a Representative from Tennessee; born at the confluence of Limestone Creek and Noli-Chuckey River in the State of Franklin, which a few years later became Greene County, Tenn., August 17, 1786; attended the common schools for a short time; moved to Lincoln County about 1808 and to what is now Gibson County in 1822; commanded a battalion of mounted riflemen under General Jackson in the Creek campaign in 1813 and 1814; member of the State house of representatives 1821-1823; unsuccessful candidate for election in 1825 to the Nineteenth Congress; elected to the Twentieth and Twenty-first Congresses (March 4, 1827-March 3, 1831); unsuccessful candidate for reelection in 1830 to the Twenty-second Congress; elected as an Anti-Jacksonian to the Twenty-third Congress (March 4, 1833-March 3, 1835); unsuccessful candidate for reelection in 1834 to the Twenty-fourth Congress; went to Texas to aid the Texans in their struggle for independence in 1836; joined a band of 186 men in the defense of the Alamo, San Antonio de Bexar, and was among those killed in that battle which terminated on March 6, 1836; his body destroyed by pyre at the Alamo.

And from http://www.famousamericans.net/samuelbunch/:

Samuel Bunch

BUNCH, Samuel, soldier, born in Granger County, Tennessee, 4 December, 1786; died in Rutledge, Tennessee, 5 September, 1849. He commanded a regiment of mounted yeomen from Tennessee during the Creek war, serving under General Andrew Jackson, and distinguished himself in the attack on Hillibeetown on 18 November, 1813. In the charge of the battle at Horseshoe Bend, on 27 March, 1814, he was among the first to pass over the breastworks of the enemy. For many years he was sheriff of Granger county. He was elected from Tennessee to the 23d congress as a Whig, and was re-elected to the 24th, serving from 2 December, 1833, till 3 March, 1837.

Perphaps this SAMUEL BUNCH is the "Horatio Bunce" of our story.

If the author mistook "Georgetown" for ALEXANDRIA, and "naval officer" for ARMY officer, it is not too much of a stretch to think that Crockett listened to and respected the political advice from a man that he served with during the war, particularly since Col. Samuel Bunch went on to be elected to Congress himself, eh?

Plus, the only references that I can find in a Google search for "Horatio Bunce" - 194 references - seem to refer to the story from the Ellis biography, i.e. Google search for "distinguished naval officer" crockett - 177 references.
(There are few OTHER references to "Horatio Bunce.")

In other news, I can find NO other references to a fire in "Georgetown" for which the Congress appropriated money.

[Positive]

Can you find this?

From the Senate of the United States: “While we devoutly join you in offering our thanks to Almighty God for the return to health of our cities, and for the general prosperity of our county; we cannot refrain from lamenting that the arts and calumnies of factious and designing men, have excited open rebellion a second time in Pennsylvania, and thereby compelled the employment of a military force to aid the civil authority in the execution of the laws. We rejoice that your vigilance, energy and well timed exertions, have crushed so daring an opposition, and prevented the spreading of such treasonable combinations.”

If you can, I would say that your search capabilities vis-à-vis the congressional record are commendable and noteworthy and I would accept your inability to find Crockett’s speech as refutation of the old axiom “absence of proof is not proof of absence.”

[RonDog]

Can you find this?

From the Senate of the United States: “While we devoutly join you in offering our thanks to Almighty God for the return to health of our cities, and for the general prosperity of our county; we cannot refrain from lamenting that the arts and calumnies of factious and designing men, have excited open rebellion a second time in Pennsylvania, and thereby compelled the employment of a military force to aid the civil authority in the execution of the laws. We rejoice that your vigilance, energy and well timed exertions, have crushed so daring an opposition, and prevented the spreading of such treasonable combinations.”

From
U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1873
Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, Volume 3
Page 7 of 527
and
Page 8 of 577

;)

[Chapita]

bttt

[Chapita]

I really want to thank you both for making it possible for the issue of the legitimacy of the issue to have been so well researched and reported!

To me, it is absolutely fantastic that knowledge can be so readily accessed by any means!

Huck, I apologize for my irritation at you for first shading this story with doubt; but you are such a help in the research of the truth! Thank you!

[lonevoice]

If the author mistook "Georgetown" for ALEXANDRIA, and "naval officer" for ARMY officer, it is not too much of a stretch to think that Crockett listened to and respected the political advice from a man that he served with during the war, particularly since Col. Samuel Bunch went on to be elected to Congress himself, eh?

Not a stretch at all, and it fits the author's pattern of errors. It's looking very much as though this story isn't a fabrication. It may have contextual errors, but not of a sort that would refute its underlying legitimacy. Still, I wonder, when Crockett answered the friend who asked about his "Not Yours to Give" speech, did he sound more like this, "The truth wants no trimmins for in her clar naked state o' natur she's as graceful as a suckin colt i' the sunshine. Mr. Speaker! What in the name o' kill-sheep-dog rascality is the country a- comin' to?"

[Huck]

No need to apologize; I came on a little smart alecky. But it worked out for the best. Glad you are enjoying it as I am. Regards,

[michigander]

22 minutes to find that. What took so long? :-)

and "naval officer" for ARMY officer

Has the case for the Relief of Susan Decatur been ruled out as the naval officers widow?
It does appear to fit the description. Although, I can't find a recorded speech by Crockett, there is a great one given by a Mr. Chilton on pages 3818 - 3821.

[RonDog]

22 minutes to find that. What took so long? :-)

LOL! I was goofing off FReeping elsewhere, and did not see his challenge right away...

As for Susan Decatur, I am open to that possibility as well, but it does not fit the timeline as well. We KNOW that he opposed the allocation of money to General Brown's widow at an earlier date, so his "conversion" must have taken place at an earlier date than the Decatur vote. (He was ALREADY "converted" by that time.)

MY current working hypothesis is as follows. Many of these points are tentative, and still open for debate, IMHO.

Ellis wrote this account almost FIFTY years after Crockett died, and may have forgotten many details,
MANY authors at that time "embellished" the biographies of famous men,
Crockett himself promoted many "tall tales" about his exploits,
Crockett was poorly educated, and did not leave very complete written records,
No OTHER written records fully document much of what may have happened.

Here is my best CURRENT explanation of the facts that we have discovered to date:

Crockett may have arrived in Washington EARLY for his first term, which began in March 1827, so that he could have been present on the day of the [DOCUMENTED] fire in Alexandria in January of 1827.
He may have SUPPORTED his collegues in Congress in their [DOCUMENTED] vote to allocate money for the sufferers of this fire, even though he was not yet able to VOTE at that time.
Crockett may have met with SOMEONE on a trip back to Tennessee, shortly after that vote, and have expressed his SUPPORT for spending the money to that person. Whoever it was could have convinced Crockett that his support for non-Constitutional expenditures would cost him his FUTURE vote, even if Crockett was unable to actually vote on the Alexandria fire bill.
This "Horatio Bunce" could have been the commander of his old unit, Samuel Bunch, who would be expected to know the name of one of the men in his command, even if Crockett did not immediately recognize Bunch. OR, "Horatio" could have been a relative of Samuel.
Whoever it was could have helped Crockett to experience his "conversion" to Constitutional spending discipline prior to his [DOCUMENTED] opposition to the bill for the relief for General Brown's widow, and his [DOCUMENTED] offer to pay from his own private funds.

This ROUGH DRAFT of events as they ACTUALLY occurred still has some gaping holes in it, but would be consistent with a TRUTHFUL account of Crockett's actions being "modified for television," as it were - to make a more compelling tale to provide moral education for the kiddies.

Or not. ;)

Still working...

[michigander]

We KNOW that he opposed the allocation of money to General Brown's widow at an earlier date, so his "conversion" must have taken place at an earlier date than the Decatur vote. (He was ALREADY "converted" by that time.)

You appear to contend that Mr. Crockett's "conversion" took place before the Gen. Brown vote. Correct?

It is interesting to look into the documented history of this subject and it really doesn't matter to me one way or the other if it's considered true or not as the bottom line of spending by the federal government should be scrutinized very carefully.

That being said, another point that I find curious is, if you consider the argument of Mr. Tucker in reply #140 by Huck reguarding the giving of a number of cords of firewood to the poor of the "city" and the argument three weeks later by Mr. Polk reguarding the giving of a number of cords of firewood to the poor of Georgetown (pages 558 and 559), that Mr. Crockett wasn't persuaded by either one of those arguments which raise exactly the same points which Mr. Bunce raised (Mr Crockett voted yea for the firewood to be given to the poor of the "city"(page 519, reply #140), voted nay for the suggestion by a Mr. Blair that the legislators that felt the need to vote yes for the poor of Georgetown pay for the firewood out of their own pockets, and voted yea to grant the poor of Georgetown the firewood: pages 241, 242, 243 ).

[michigander]

voted nay for the suggestion by a Mr. Blair that the legislators that felt the need to vote yes for the poor of Georgetown pay for the firewood out of their own pockets

That is an incorrect statement on my part. Mr. Crockett voted nay "viz: Shall the main question be now put?"

But, he did vote yea to grant the poor of Georgetown the firewood.

I'm getting bug eyed reading this stuff. :-)

[RonDog]

You appear to contend that Mr. Crockett's "conversion" took place before the Gen. Brown vote. Correct?

Yes, that was my WORKING hypothesis.

The alternative is that his support for Constitutional limits of spending developed gradually over time, or that the General's widow case had mitigating circumstances, or that the FIREWOOD case had mitigating circumstances.

Or...