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 ).
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. :-)
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...