Log in

View Full Version : Not yours to give - A lesson.



Anonymous
10th August 2002, 10:04
A speech before the House of Representatives

By David (Davy) Crockett

Not Yours to Give


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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 one 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 not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of 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. 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 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 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 intended 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 in Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some suffers 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 intrusted 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 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 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 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 suffers by contributing 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 creditable; 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 Constitu- tion, 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 it's 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 others 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 fine 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 acknowledgment 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 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 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 to 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 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-bye. 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 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 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 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 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, 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 your consideration only.


"I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it 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 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 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 reputation 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 insignificance 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 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 Crockett was born August 17, 1786 at Limestone (Greene County), Tennessee. He died March 06, 1836 as one of the brave Southerners defending the Alamo.


Crockett had settled in Franklin County, Tennessee in 1811. He served in the Creek War under Andrew Jackson. In 1821 and 1823 he was elected to the Tennessee legislature. In 1826 and 1828 he was elected to Congress. He was defeated in 1830 for his outspoken opposition to President Jackson's Indian Bill - but was elected again in 1832.


In Washington, although his eccentricities of dress and manner excited comment, he was always popular on account of his shrewd common sense and homely wit; although generally favoring Jackson's policy, he was entirely independent and refused to vote to please any party leader.


At the end of the congressional term, he joined the Texans in the war against Mexico, and in 1836 was one of the roughly 180 men who died defending the Alamo. Tradition has it that Crockett was one of only six survivors after the Mexicans took the fort, and that he and the others were taken out and executed by firing squad.



(Edited by Dark Capitalist at 3:05 pm on Aug. 10, 2002)


(Edited by Dark Capitalist at 11:00 pm on Aug. 10, 2002)

Stormin Norman
11th August 2002, 04:46
I must confess that I hold the same philosophy as Horatio Bunce when it comes to taxation, government spending, and ethics in political leadership. In addition, Davy Crocket was a great man whose legacy speaks for itself.

Thank you, Dark Capitalist. This story was very enjoyable. It makes me happy to hear such common sense, since we live in a time where it is rare amonst men. What an excellent post. Keep up the good work.

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 4:47 pm on Aug. 11, 2002)

Anonymous
29th August 2002, 06:26
Everyone, please read this.

vox
29th August 2002, 07:14
Okay, I read it. In fact, I read it when you originally pasted it here, for I've seen it before. Now what?

I mean, it's great propaganda, but beyond that, what? It's an apocryphal tale at the very best. There's nothing in it to respond to, really. It assumes that, by way of voting, we live in a representational democracy, correct? Yes, of course that's correct, that's part of the story.

So, where does that leave the right-wingers? Nowhere, really. I understand that the moral of the story is supposed to be that the Congress shouldn't spend tax money on anything but a legitimate purpose, but what's a legitimate purpose? (Indeed, in the story itself a man says, "In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes." But immediately goes on to say that's not what the story is about, when that's really precisely what the story is about. The right-wing even has to lie in its own propaganda, its such a habit with them.)

Really, it comes down to a question of the kind of society in which we wish to live. It can be a society where people turn away from each other, as this capitalist tale recommends, or a society in which we turn toward one another, as we socialists recommend.

The choice is ours.

vox

canikickit
29th August 2002, 21:39
this story is pretty boring really. It goes on to long.

Stormin Norman
31st August 2002, 06:49
Did you really expect any of the left wingers here to understand such a common sense idea? They live for hand outs and thrive off of the success of others. Did you expect them to conclude that their political philosophy is evil and should be discarded? No matter how much evidence is presented to them, they will continue to ignore good rationale. The only cure for their kind is to allow them to live under the system that they proport as being righteous. Being the hypocrits that they are, they themselves will never choose to immigrate to these countries. They prefer to live under systems that provide them with the choice to critique the current politics of the day. However, it is unfortunate that they use this human right to extoll the virtues of a ideology that would strip them of these very rights. They threaten the lives of many with their irresponsible notions and fail to accept the evidence of previous disasters. No, my friend. You are not speaking to people with minds capable of understanding the virtues of self determination, hard work, and reason. You are talking to people who choose to abdicate their ability to think for the promises of Utopia. You are talking to some real suckers. Where were they when I was selling insurance plans?

I Will Deny You
4th September 2002, 01:26
Basically, whether or not a person who agree with this article depends on what they feel the role of government should be. Since there are already a ton of other threads on that and I'm sick of repeating myself, I'll just leave it at that.
[hr]Quote: from Stormin Norman on 1:49 am on Aug. 31, 2002
Did you really expect any of the left wingers here to understand such a common sense idea? They live for hand outs and thrive off of the success of others.[hr]Who on this board lives off of hand outs? I know people on welfare, and they sure don't have computers! The only "handout" that I get is government aid for college. But I've been working and saving up my money since I was fourteen . . . so you can't say that I haven't tried my hardest to pay my way through school. Every single time that I got an opportunity to work, I did. And, since I am now working for the government and would not be able to perform my job without a college education, I don't think it's so unjust that I got a few loans.

I do so love the fact that right-wingers will claim that everyone on this board is an upper-middle-class suburban teenager, and then turn around and say we're all getting unemployment checks. Pick one untrue stereotype and stick with it, you capitalists![hr]Quote: from Stormin Norman on 1:49 am on Aug. 31, 2002
Did you expect them to conclude that their political philosophy is evil and should be discarded? No matter how much evidence is presented to them, they will continue to ignore good rationale.[hr]That was overly vague. The same thing could be said about you.[hr]Quote: from Stormin Norman on 1:49 am on Aug. 31, 2002
The only cure for their kind is to allow them to live under the system that they proport as being righteous. Being the hypocrits that they are, they themselves will never choose to immigrate to these countries.[hr]Find me a democratic socialist country and I'll move there.

If you're so against government aid and such, why not move to a country where the rulers ignore the people completely? When you move to Somalia, I'll move to North Korea.

One of the things that I like about the United States (as I am not one of those knee-jerk, blanket "anti-Americans") is that we have the opportunity to change things and, through a combination of luck and hard work, we really can make a difference. If you lived in the 1950's, would you have told Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to just go back to Africa? I am still in America because I care about my fellow Americans and I am trying to make their country better for them. I care about myself and my family, and while my parents' and grandparents' generations had to suffer because of divisions among Americans I am still hoping that my children will not.[hr]Quote: from Stormin Norman on 1:49 am on Aug. 31, 2002
They prefer to live under systems that provide them with the choice to critique the current politics of the day.[hr]You're right, I do prefer such a system. And that is why I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU.[hr]Quote: from Stormin Norman on 1:49 am on Aug. 31, 2002
However, it is unfortunate that they use this human right to extoll the virtues of a ideology that would strip them of these very rights.[hr]How many times do we have to go over this? Not all leftist governments are oppressive. Since you're so anti-authoritarianism and anti-dictatorship, I'm sure you've written plenty of letters supporting Chilean judges' rights to get a crack at Kissinger.[hr]Quote: from Stormin Norman on 1:49 am on Aug. 31, 2002
They threaten the lives of many with their irresponsible notions and fail to accept the evidence of previous disasters.[hr]There have been previous disasters with both economic systems. Don't you get it, you fucking moron? Disasters can happen in capitalist AND communist countries. And it is rarely because of the economic system.[hr]Quote: from Stormin Norman on 1:49 am on Aug. 31, 2002
You are not speaking to people with minds capable of understanding the virtues of self determination, hard work, and reason.[hr]Albert Einstein was a socialist. So are you saying that his mind was incapable of reason? Or hard work?[hr]Quote: from Stormin Norman on 1:49 am on Aug. 31, 2002
You are talking to people who choose to abdicate their ability to think for the promises of Utopia. You are talking to some real suckers. Where were they when I was selling insurance plans?[hr]We were campaigning for socialized medicine so that you couldn't rip us off.

Lindsay

j
4th September 2002, 02:59
Lindsay, that was THE best response to a cappie I have read in a long time. I was going to really respond to this thread till I read your post. You said it perfect.

j