Not Yours to Give

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.'

"'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.'

"'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.

I think you both may be slowly losing your grip on reality! Seriously, the only mitigating circumstances I can find for the firewood is that they already had the wood, which, at least in one case, was said to be "rotting". Crockett might have thought it OK to give away wood which would go to waste. Or, since the wood giveaways affected "residents" of the "city, the district, that the Congress actually did possess Constitutional powers broad enough to authorize the donation of wood. Any thoughts on those ideas? (not that we have any documents to back it up--go ahead RonDog, I dare you!)

All I know about the firewood is in post #140. Crockett voted to provide gubmint wood to the city's poor. This was in 1831, which would be after any "conversion" we could come up with. I think that's what michigander was saying. According to my recollection of the record (which I posted), there was a rough storm in the Capital, and the House had excess firewood. I don't have the quote handy, but I recall the wood being described as "rotting." It was proposed that this excess wood be given to the poor, who were burning anything they could find. Crockett voted yea.

So, it seems to me there are at least 3 choices:

1. The "conversion" never took place-- I don't believe this is the correct choice. We have found that he did offer to pay out of pocket and voted against the bills for relief of widows. At least in some cases, he believed what the Ellis tale says he believed.

2. He viewed the donation of firewood as constitutional--We have nothing to back this up, but it is possible. By the 1830s, the question of Congressional power regarding the district had been thoroughly debated, because the anti-slavery forces in the Congress wished to exert the Constitutional authority to ban slavery in the district. Scores of petitions calling for such an action were submitted to the House routinely. So, the fabled Bunce might have no objection to charity which was constitutionally permissable, if such a case existed. According to the Congressional power in the district, that may have been Crockett's view.

3. Crockett was inconsistent-- entirely likely. In the winter of 1831, he may have simply forgotten the principle of Mr. Bunce. Maybe the old woodsman in him wanted to share wood with his fellow man, as he would have done out in the Kentucky woods.

I believe that enough information has been uncovered to confirm a lot of truth in the essence of the Ellis tale, even though almost every fact as been altered. I also like your theory on Samual Bunch. That was an outstanding contribution, IMO.

I also like your theory on Samual Bunch. That was an outstanding contribution, IMO.
Thanks!

And thanks for your "firewood" update.
This appears to be a LONG TERM project, but I know of no OTHERS who are doing so... Just FReepers. ;)

Perhaps we can find some ACADEMIC- or HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION-types, or "David Crockett fan clubs" to help.

FWIW, here is an e-mail that I received from Jon Roland - from post #111:

"I have not personally verified the source, and commend you for your efforts to do so.
Let me know what you find.
As I understand it, the report we have originally appeared in a newspaper of the time, so may be historically inaccurate as newspaper articles often are.
--Jon
===================================================================
Our efforts depend on donations from people like you. To help see
http://www.constitution.org/whatucando.htm
Constitution Society, 7301 RR 620 N #155,276, Austin, TX 78726
512/257-2606
Date: 01/29/02 Time: 18:47:01
http://www.constitution.org/
mailto:jon.roland@constitution.org
===================================================================

Who wants to HELP find and contact these potential David Crockett/"Not Yours to Give" experts?

Thanks for the link, Huck! It looks like a great addition to MY library, too.

The Life of Colonel Davy Crockett (Texas Trilogy 3)

Code: CROCKETT
Price: $18.00

This is the third book in the Texas Trilogy by Edward Ellis.
Davy Crockett's life and his participation in fighting
for Texas' independence at the Alamo are part of this book.
The cover on The Life of Davy Crockett is beautifully crafted
and engraved to look and feel like leather.

Here is an e-mail that I sent to:

Michael A. Lofaro, Professor, Department of English, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville,
and his response back to me:

Hi, Dr. Lofaro - Perhaps you (or some of your graduate students) can help us.
Some of the members of the conservative news forum www.FreeRepublic.com are currently attempting to establish the FACTS behind the classic "Not Yours to Give" article which has been widely circulated over the Internet, in a discussion thread at:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/614198/posts?page=125#125
Our general consensus to date is that David Crockett DID in fact vote against allocating federal funds for the widow of a popular military officer, and MAY have had a political mentor similar to the man identified in the article as "Horatio Bunce," although he was almost certainly NOT in Congress when they voted to provide aid to the sufferers of the tragic fire in the District of Columbia.
You seem to be very well-informed about Colonel Crockett.
What is YOUR opinion about "Not Yours to Give?"
Thank you,
my real name (posting as RonDog, on Free Republic)

Dear my real name,
I haven't worked on this question, but will try to point you to some helpful sources.
I'd start with the Shackford biography of Crockett. It's old, but generally reliable on non--death at the Alamo issues. That will also provide a bibliography and notes that may generate further leads. Another bibliography is Miles Tanenbaum's "Following Davy's Trail" in Crockett at Two Hundred.
The issue of his votes should be something that could be determined from the records of the House and the dates of his service (elected in 1827, 1829, 1833).
Hope this helps. Good luck with your inquiry.
Sincerely,
Michael A. Lofaro

From www.amazon.com:

David Crockett : The Man and the Legend
by James Atkins Shackford, John B. Shackford (Editor), Michael A. Lofaro (Introduction)

List Price: $17.95
Our Price: $17.95
Used Price: $9.95

and from www.greystonehistory.com:

David Crockett: The Man & The Legend
by James Shackford, et al. Davy Crockett has been America's best-known folk hero for at least 160 years. This informed biography first appeared in 1956, at the height of the television-inspired Crockett craze. As noted in the introduction, 'Shackford faced the monumental task of rescuing a nearly unknown David Crockett from the obscurity caused by the popularity of the earlier legendary Davys and deepened by Disney.'

Did you notice that Michael A. Lofaro wrote the introduction for the Hackford book?
You bet! I found him from an EXCELLENT article on Crockett that he wrote here:

The Texas State Historical Association - Handbook of Texas Online

What's interesting is that Lofaro wrote several books about Crockett, but didn't recommend them!
I noticed that, too. Not sure how much (if any) of our thread that he read here, but he AT LEAST read my e-mail, and did not seem to recognize any of the salient points in this story, and he is a MAJOR Crockett scholar. (I do not feel as bad for not knowing about the particulars of the "Not Yours to Give" story, if HE does not know about them either!)

FWIW, the answer must NOT be in any of the books that HE wrote, or he would know about it - you would think... ;)

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.