Wise words of Davy Crockett

[Robert A Whit]

The purpose of hurricane relief should not include dozens of other projects that are not linked to the storm.

I think of the words of then Congressman Crockett at times such as these.

http://www.fee.org/library/detail/not-your-to-give-2#axzz2GrqJXRNH (http://www.fee.org/library/detail/not-your-to-give-2#axzz2GrqJXRNH)

Not Yours to Give

NOVEMBER 19, 2012

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 Crockett arose: <o:p></o:p>

“Mr. Speaker–I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings 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.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
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 not 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.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
“I began: ‘Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and–’ <o:p></o:p>
“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 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 intrusted 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 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 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 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 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 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 you 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 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 every 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, 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 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 weighted 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.”
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 office; or, as in the case of Davy Crockett, a new Crockett.
For either the new faces or the new Crocketts, we must look to the Horatio in ourselves!

[Kathianne]

I may be misreading, but doesn't this more address the whole idea of 'disaster relief,' rather than just the pork?

[Robert A Whit]

I may be misreading, but doesn't this more address the whole idea of 'disaster relief,' rather than just the pork?

Are you saying that when Crockett was in Congress that they had the problem of pork spending?

[Kathianne]

Are you saying that when Crockett was in Congress that they had the problem of pork spending?

I posted civilly and it seems you have a problem with that? You wonder why you get the responses you do?

[Robert A Whit]

I posted civilly and it seems you have a problem with that? You wonder why you get the responses you do?

No. I posted civilly. Nuff said. I have zero problem with civil posts.

I feel it is the flaw of the responder to my posts when they decide that I am not civil, not mine.

[aboutime]

Are you saying that when Crockett was in Congress that they had the problem of pork spending?


Robert. Why don't you tell us? Give us your IN-PERSON witness to the words Crockett spoke when they didn't call it Pork. But "Bringing home the Bacon"????

Give us your personal account, and answer your own question.

P.S. Do you still have your COON-SKIN hat?

[Kathianne]

Robert. Why don't you tell us? Give us your IN-PERSON witness to the words Crockett spoke when they didn't call it Pork. But "Bringing home the Bacon"????

Give us your personal account, and answer your own question.

P.S. Do you still have your COON-SKIN hat?

It seems Robert is unable to extrapolate from his own posts. In this case, he thought he was making a point. Unfortunately for him, it was the wrong one. Anyone surprised?

[Robert A Whit]

My post was not about ME.

Swiftly two posters decided to turn it away from the spending mentioned by Crockett to make it my job to speak for his era.

I guess to two posters, posts are about me. But wait, they claim they don't want the posts to be about me.

Me neither. I wanted the post to be about the words of Davy Crockett.

People, stop thinking you get to jab me. If you had to jab anybody, it would have been the words of Davy Crockett.

[Kathianne]

That sounds and is exactly the way Davy Crockett was but the story isn't true. Not as it was related here ! Crockett was as honest as the year is long and held those values but he never did as the story related. I remember reading long ago that the story was a creation of another author etc.
Will find the source later , got to do some honey-do's right now. The wife keeps me jumping like a frog running errands.. and yet I still love her all the more for it!!--;)-Tyr

I think the quotation was true, just didn't address what Robert claimed it did.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-1994-03-03/html/CREC-1994-03-03-pt1-PgE15.htm



[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 22 (Thursday, March 3, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov (http://www.gpo.gov/)]


[Congressional Record: March 3, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]


TRIBUTE TO DAVY CROCKETT

______


HON. JAMES H. (JIMMY) QUILLEN

of tennessee

in the house of representatives

Thursday, March 3, 1994

Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, one of the most colorful Members of this
body in its 205-year history was undoubtedly David Crockett, the
legendary frontiersman. Davy Crockett was born in what is now Greene
County, TN, which is in my district, in 1786. He was a Member of the
House from 1827 to 1831, and again from 1833 to 1835. In 1836 he went
to Texas to join in its struggle for independence from Mexico, and he
died defending the Alamo on March 6 of that year.
During his service in the House, Davy Crockett was a paragon of
fiscal restraint and public responsibility. Recently, my constituent,
Thelma Cutshall, sent me an excerpt from a biography of Crockett
entitled ``A Humbling Lesson--Congressman Davy Crockett Learns About
Limited Government.'' I have not heard the story before, and it hit me
right between the eyes. I am certain that these words will provide
guidance to my colleagues as well, so I am happy to include them here.

A Humbling Lesson--Congressman Davy Crockett Learns About Limited
Government

(In the following, excerpted from the book, The Life of
Colonel David Crockett (1884), compiled by Edward S. Ellis,
the famous American frontiersman, war hero and congressman
from Tennessee, relates how he learned--from one of his own
backwoods constituents--the vital importance of heeding the
Constitution and the dangers of disregarding its restraints.)
Crockett was then the lion of Washington. I was a great
admirer of his character; and, having several friends who
were intimate with him, I found no difficulty in making his
acquaintance. I was fascinated with him, and he seemed to
take a fancy to me.

. . .
</pre>

[Little-Acorn]

I may be misreading, but doesn't this more address the whole idea of 'disaster relief,' rather than just the pork?

Correct.

The Constitution does not authorize Congress to pay for disaster relief. Whether it's for the house of the widow of a war veteran, or the houses of people hit by a hurricane. The Constitution requires that those be left to the states, or the people.

Not that leftists care what the Constitution says. Distributing govt largesse is their ticket to power, and they aren't about to quit doing it.

.

[Robert A Whit]

Correct.

The Constitution does not authorize Congress to pay for disaster relief. Whether it's for the house of the widow of a war veteran, or the houses of people hit by a hurricane. The Constitution requires that those be left to the states, or the people.

Not that leftists care what the Constitution says. Distributing govt largesse is their ticket to power, and they aren't about to quit doing it.

.

That is correct Acorn. Matter of fact, I at no point stated that Crocketts words spoke of pork. That came from a poster that intended to derail the topic.

[Kathianne]

Here, a fast review of what I really did say. Kath got that famous urge to change the topic to make it all about me.

Odd ball poster in my opinion would pull such a stunt.



Then suddenly I discovered I am her topic and not Davy Crockett.

Sort of stunning eh?

Might be, if you could string some actual ideas together, then again, unlikely from what has actually happened with this thread.

You tried to conjoin Crockett and pork. In actuality his topic was government shouldn't be covering the problems of individuals, rightly. He agreed that they suffered, indeed claimed it was good to help them, he did. However, it wasn't the role of government. THAT was his point.

Nothing to do with pork.

[Kathianne]

The purpose of hurricane relief should not include dozens of other projects that are not linked to the storm.

I think of the words of then Congressman Crockett at times such as these.

http://www.fee.org/library/detail/not-your-to-give-2#axzz2GrqJXRNH (http://www.fee.org/library/detail/not-your-to-give-2#axzz2GrqJXRNH)

Not Yours to Give

NOVEMBER 19, 2012

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 Crockett arose: <o>:p></o>:p>

“Mr. Speaker–I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings 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.
...

bump, Robert's OP, including title.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Why haven't you ever studied Davy Crockett AT???

To most posters, that photo is not Davy Crockett. That is an American actor that played a part by the name of Fess Parker.

A note to posters.

The purpose of his fake name is to he can't be held accountable for stupid remarks.

An honest man says who he is. I assure you all his family does not call him About time.

That's a pic of the actor that played the part of Daniel Boone in the TV series. I used to watch it every time it came on. His Indian sidekick was played by ED Ames and went by the name of Mingo in the TV series.
It had that great opening music / song and the scene were ole Daniel throws the tomahawk and splits a tree in right in half. -Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Here found this as promised..

http://crockettincongress.blogspot.com/2009/10/not-yours-to-give-fable-re-examined.html

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2009"Not Yours to Give": A Fable Re-Examined

Any Google search for “David Crockett” or “Davy Crockett” will eventually turn up dozens of hits on conservative websites that relate the story of a speech Crockett allegedly gave in congress called “Not Yours to Give.”

A number of years ago, The Crockett Chronicle published an article I wrote, “Crockett and Bunce: A Fable Examined,” that debunked this story, but recently I’ve received a number of emails asking about the veracity of “Not Yours to Give,” so I figured it might be a good time to readdress the issue. Plus, in the process of researching “David Crockett in Congress,” I came upon new information that updates my Chronicle article.

The short answer is that “Not Yours to Give” is a fabrication.

Unlike the tale told in the Ellis version and on the web though, Crockett's opposition was countered by a spirited oration by Congressman Clark of New York. The motion for Mrs. Brown's relief was then carried by a vote of 97 to 74,with both Crockett and Chilton voting in the negative.

Perhaps the most egregious falsehood of the Ellis account is his rendering of Crockett's explanation of his vote and his encounter with Horatio Bunce. Bunce's opposition to Congressman Crockett is allegedly based on a vote Crockett made in favor of appropriations to the victims of a Georgetown fire. Crockett never made such a vote. The fire in question was not in Georgetown as stated, but in Alexandria, and the l9th Congress voted on the motion for relief for the victims on January 19, 1827. David Crockett served his first term in the 20th Congress, which convened on December 3, 1827 . In the spring of 1827, David was still on the campaign stump in Tennessee. He won the election in August of 1827.

Ellis also apparently confuses the widow Brown with the widow of naval officer Stephen Decatur. In 1830, Crockett was involved in a similar congressional debate over awarding some unremitted funds to Mrs. Decatur that her husband had claimed as bounty earned in a combat action. Crockett opposed the measure, but likely because of her reputation for profligacy and the fact that she hadn’t been married to Decatur when he’d won the contested prize.

[Robert A Whit]

The purpose of hurricane relief should not include dozens of other projects that are not linked to the storm.

I think of the words of then Congressman Crockett at times such as these.



Perhaps had I stated dozens of other projects are PORK?????????!!!!!!!!

But I did not call those projects pork. Pork comes to us as for the purpose of getting points by some legislator(s) that might be eye candy but not vital.

I was not addressing PORK, but WAS addressing my view that a hurricane qualifies as entitled to be treated as a single issue. I did not intend this to mean PORK.

Pork was the issue of Kathianne and not ME.

For instance, building a new submarine may well be very needed, but my post addresses that as vital as it may be, do not put it into a bill designed to provide relief for voters.

As to why it reminds me of what Davy Crockett said, and thus far, nobody proved that they are not his words, rather Kathianne posted material that makes the case stronger since she used words in the record of congress obtained from Crocketts own biography, making my case stronger and not weaker.

I am not clear why it reminding me of Crocketts words offended Kathianne.

[Kathianne]

Bump again, perhaps Robert will read his own #1 post. I've bolded his own first sentence, but we don't wish to miss his title:


Wise words of Davy Crockett
The purpose of hurricane relief should not include dozens of other projects that are not linked to the storm.

I think of the words of then Congressman Crockett at times such as these.





The purpose of hurricane relief should not include dozens of other projects that are not linked to the storm.

I think of the words of then Congressman Crockett at times such as these.

http://www.fee.org/library/detail/not-your-to-give-2#axzz2GrqJXRNH (http://www.fee.org/library/detail/not-your-to-give-2#axzz2GrqJXRNH)

Not Yours to Give

NOVEMBER 19, 2012

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 Crockett arose: <o>:p></o>:p>

“Mr. Speaker–I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings 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.<o>:p></o>:p>
<o>:p></o>:p>
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 not 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.<o>:p></o>:p>
<o>:p></o>:p>
“I began: ‘Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and–’ <o>:p></o>:p>
“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 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 intrusted 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 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 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 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 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 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 you 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 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 every 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, 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 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 weighted 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.”
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 office; or, as in the case of Davy Crockett, a new Crockett.
For either the new faces or the new Crocketts, we must look to the Horatio in ourselves!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

As to why it reminds me of what Davy Crockett said, and thus far, nobody proved that they are not his words, rather Kathianne posted material that makes the case stronger since she used words in the record of congress obtained from Crocketts own biography, making my case stronger and not weaker.
.

Sorry my friend, read my post number 50..
The story reflects Crockett's nature but as told it was not accurate. Your point was accurate but the story was a bit off. --Tyr

[Robert A Whit]

Here found this as promised..

http://crockettincongress.blogspot.com/2009/10/not-yours-to-give-fable-re-examined.html

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2009

"Not Yours to Give": A Fable Re-Examined



Any Google search for “David Crockett” or “Davy Crockett” will eventually turn up dozens of hits on conservative websites that relate the story of a speech Crockett allegedly gave in congress called “Not Yours to Give.”

A number of years ago, The Crockett Chronicle published an article I wrote, “Crockett and Bunce: A Fable Examined,” that debunked this story, but recently I’ve received a number of emails asking about the veracity of “Not Yours to Give,” so I figured it might be a good time to readdress the issue. Plus, in the process of researching “David Crockett in Congress,” I came upon new information that updates my Chronicle article.

The short answer is that “Not Yours to Give” is a fabrication.

Unlike the tale told in the Ellis version and on the web though, Crockett's opposition was countered by a spirited oration by Congressman Clark of New York. The motion for Mrs. Brown's relief was then carried by a vote of 97 to 74,with both Crockett and Chilton voting in the negative.

Perhaps the most egregious falsehood of the Ellis account is his rendering of Crockett's explanation of his vote and his encounter with Horatio Bunce. Bunce's opposition to Congressman Crockett is allegedly based on a vote Crockett made in favor of appropriations to the victims of a Georgetown fire. Crockett never made such a vote. The fire in question was not in Georgetown as stated, but in Alexandria, and the l9th Congress voted on the motion for relief for the victims on January 19, 1827. David Crockett served his first term in the 20th Congress, which convened on December 3, 1827 . In the spring of 1827, David was still on the campaign stump in Tennessee. He won the election in August of 1827.

Ellis also apparently confuses the widow Brown with the widow of naval officer Stephen Decatur. In 1830, Crockett was involved in a similar congressional debate over awarding some unremitted funds to Mrs. Decatur that her husband had claimed as bounty earned in a combat action. Crockett opposed the measure, but likely because of her reputation for profligacy and the fact that she hadn’t been married to Decatur when he’d won the contested prize.




Thank you for a fine story.

I could not find the story in my book on the history of Davy Crockett. Still, I am reminded of the nature of Davy Crockett who it seems was anti such spending.

Alexandra is very close to Georgetown, in walking distance in that area with a river crossing as well. But I find nothing in that account that claims Crockett approved such spending.

Best reply to me today is yours.

Thanks. And guess what folks?

He did not turn it into a diatrabe about me. Imagine had Kathianne done that?

[Kathianne]

Sorry my friend, read my post number 50..
The story reflects Crockett's nature but as told it was not accurate. Your point was accurate but the story was a bit off. --Tyr

Tyr, from what I found on Congressional Record, the story is true, at least in main. On the other hand, the point Crockett was making or if record is wrong, was purported to be making was that the government was not the avenue for relief from bad tidings. Private relief, yes. Members of Congress would be welcome to join.

The idea of 'disaster relief' from government? No.

[Robert A Whit]

That's a pic of the actor that played the part of Daniel Boone in the TV series. I used to watch it every time it came on. His Indian sidekick was played by ED Ames and went by the name of Mingo in the TV series.
It had that great opening music / song and the scene were ole Daniel throws the tomahawk and splits a tree in right in half. -Tyr

My error. There was once a TV program about Davy Crockett though. The lead in song is still in my mind. Yes, Daniel Boone also was featured on a TV show.

Corrected. No, I was correct. Fess Parker did play Davy Crockett. As I said, the photo was not that of Davy Crockett but was the actor.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51n9KIzljrL._AA160_.jpg (http://www.amazon.com/Davy-Crockett-King-Wild-Frontier/dp/B003V3ISSO/ref=sr_1_fed0_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1357186415&sr=1-1&keywords=davy+crockett+tv+series)
Davy Crockett, King Of The Wild Frontier (http://www.amazon.com/Davy-Crockett-King-Wild-Frontier/dp/B003V3ISSO/ref=sr_1_fed0_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1357186415&sr=1-1&keywords=davy+crockett+tv+series) Starring

The trailer. http://www.amazon.com/Davy-Crockett-King-Wild-Frontier/dp/B003V3ISSO/ref=sr_1_fed0_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1357186715&sr=1-1&keywords=davy+crockett+tv+series

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Tyr, from what I found on Congressional Record, the story is true, at least in main. On the other hand, the point Crockett was making or if record is wrong, was purported to be making was that the government was not the avenue for relief from bad tidings. Private relief, yes. Members of Congress would be welcome to join.

The idea of 'disaster relief' from government? No.


Yes, indeed the point being made is right but the story as related in the OP had SOME MAJOR FLAWS.
The author messed up the names , the dates and the location .. Mixed up the two different appropriation
attempts. Robert Whit just posted the version that had it messed up. For more detail read my post number 50 and click to read the link provided also.-Tyr

[Robert A Whit]

Yes, indeed the point being made is right but the story as related in the OP had SOME MAJOR FLAWS.
The author messed up the names , the dates and the location .. Mixed up the two different appropriation
attempts. Robert Whit just posted the version that had it messed up. For more detail read my post number 50 and click to read the link provided also.-Tyr

When it comes to believing the written record of Congress vs what some author claims, I opt for the record of Congress my Freund.

The gist of Davy Crocketts beliefs were in the story I related.

[Kathianne]

When it comes to believing the written record of Congress vs what some author claims, I opt for the record of Congress my Freund.

The gist of Davy Crocketts beliefs were in the story I related.

However. NOT in the way you related.

[Gaffer]

Well Tyr, Fess Parker did play Daniel Boone in the TV show, but before that, in 1955 he played Davy Crockett. It was first shown on the Wonderful World of Disney. The first week was Davy Crockett Indian Fighter, the second week was Davy Crockett goes to Congress, and the third week was Davy Crockett at the Alamo. All of us kids were glued to the TV for those three weeks. Everything was Davy Crockett. I did have a coonskin hat too. It was about a year later when the three shows were combined into a movie Davy Crockett King of the Wild Frontier. That's when I got to see it in color.

I still remember waiting for the last show about the Alamo and my Dad coming home and mentioning to my mother there would be a lot of disappointed kids tonight when Davy gets killed. I was stunned.

The show sparked an interest and as I grew older I read everything I could find on the Alamo, Davy Crockett, Bowie, Travis, Santa Anna and the whole period. Which naturally spurred other reading of related events and expanded my horizons even more. But Davy Crockett Indian Fighter was the catalyst.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

When it comes to believing the written record of Congress vs what some author claims, I opt for the record of Congress my Freund.

The gist of Davy Crocketts beliefs were in the story I related.

No argument from me about the gist of the story but Crockett could not have voted in early 1827 because he was still stumping in Tennessee. Not your mistake but that of the original author my friend.-Tyr

http://crockettincongress.blogspot.com/2009/10/not-yours-to-give-fable-re-examined.html

Unlike the tale told in the Ellis version and on the web though, Crockett's opposition was countered by a spirited oration by Congressman Clark of New York. The motion for Mrs. Brown's relief was then carried by a vote of 97 to 74,with both Crockett and Chilton voting in the negative.

Perhaps the most egregious falsehood of the Ellis account is his rendering of Crockett's explanation of his vote and his encounter with Horatio Bunce. Bunce's opposition to Congressman Crockett is allegedly based on a vote Crockett made in favor of appropriations to the victims of a Georgetown fire. Crockett never made such a vote. The fire in question was not in Georgetown as stated, but in Alexandria, and the l9th Congress voted on the motion for relief for the victims on January 19, 1827. David Crockett served his first term in the 20th Congress, which convened on December 3, 1827 . In the spring of 1827, David was still on the campaign stump in Tennessee. He won the election in August of 1827.
Ellis also apparently confuses the widow Brown with the widow of naval officer Stephen Decatur. In 1830, Crockett was involved in a similar congressional debate over awarding some unremitted funds to Mrs. Decatur that her husband had claimed as bounty earned in a combat action. Crockett opposed the measure, but likely because of her reputation for profligacy and the fact that she hadn’t been married to Decatur when he’d won the contested prize.

[Robert A Whit]

Well Tyr, Fess Parker did play Daniel Boone in the TV show, but before that, in 1955 he played Davy Crockett. It was first shown on the Wonderful World of Disney. The first week was Davy Crockett Indian Fighter, the second week was Davy Crockett goes to Congress, and the third week was Davy Crockett at the Alamo. All of us kids were glued to the TV for those three weeks. Everything was Davy Crockett. I did have a coonskin hat too. It was about a year later when the three shows were combined into a movie Davy Crockett King of the Wild Frontier. That's when I got to see it in color.

I still remember waiting for the last show about the Alamo and my Dad coming home and mentioning to my mother there would be a lot of disappointed kids tonight when Davy gets killed. I was stunned.

The show sparked an interest and as I grew older I read everything I could find on the Alamo, Davy Crockett, Bowie, Travis, Santa Anna and the whole period. Which naturally spurred other reading of related events and expanded my horizons even more. But Davy Crockett Indian Fighter was the catalyst.

Thanks to you two who managed to stick to the topic of Davy Crockett and telling us that one Actor played both Boone and Crockett. I almost got talked out of saying that Parker did play Davy Crockett.

As a teen then, I sure did watch him play both characters.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Well Tyr, Fess Parker did play Daniel Boone in the TV show, but before that, in 1955 he played Davy Crockett. It was first shown on the Wonderful World of Disney. The first week was Davy Crockett Indian Fighter, the second week was Davy Crockett goes to Congress, and the third week was Davy Crockett at the Alamo. All of us kids were glued to the TV for those three weeks. Everything was Davy Crockett. I did have a coonskin hat too. It was about a year later when the three shows were combined into a movie Davy Crockett King of the Wild Frontier. That's when I got to see it in color.

I still remember waiting for the last show about the Alamo and my Dad coming home and mentioning to my mother there would be a lot of disappointed kids tonight when Davy gets killed. I was stunned.

The show sparked an interest and as I grew older I read everything I could find on the Alamo, Davy Crockett, Bowie, Travis, Santa Anna and the whole period. Which naturally spurred other reading of related events and expanded my horizons even more. But Davy Crockett Indian Fighter was the catalyst.

In 1955 I was barely a year old! Jim Bowie died at the Alamo too, my older brother and I worshiped him and his knife! We bought knives and learned to throw them at a very early age. My Indian grandfather taught us how to throw knives , tomahawk, and how shoot the bows that he made for us. The good old days my friend. Brings back such fond memories of both my dad and my grandfather..-Tyr

[Robert A Whit]

It is easy to get confused Tyr about fires of that era. Georgetown, though close to Alexandra is over the Potomac River. I have enjoyed meals in that town.

But fires in that era were pretty common. I don't know why a fire in Georgetown is ruled out. By that guy that is not quoting from the record of congress. Georgetown is very close to the river too but on the other side, the DC side. I would think since DC is federal, and Georgetown is also federal, the story is about Georgetown and not a town in a state. VA where Alexandria is, is not the seat of the Fed Government. Just sayin.

[Robert A Whit]

In 1955 I was barely a year old! Jim Bowie died at the Alamo too, my older brother and I worshiped him and his knife! We bought knives and learned to throw them at a very early age. My Indian grandfather taught us how to throw knives , tomahawk, and how shoot the bows that he made for us. The good old days my friend. Brings back such fond memories of both my dad and my grandfather..-Tyr

I am so happy some of my friends like discussing Davy Crockett rather than a different topic called Pork. I think she did that trying to disrupt my posts.

I have long meant to get down to the Alamo but alas may never get there. I too did a lot of research into that era. But when it was on TV, I just knew the legends. In 1955, I was a Senior in high school who spent part of my first Summer in 1956 busting my ass as a carpenter for my uncle in Salt Lake City. We had to put in 12 hour days in blistering heat. (We being my uncles crew on one job erecting new brick homes)

[gabosaurus]

I've been to the Alamo twice. I've read about the Alamo and the battle for Texas Independence.
The more you read, the more you realize what is legend and what is fact. A lot of what people know about the Alamo is more legend than fact.
Sort of like the White House version of the War in Iraq. :rolleyes:

[Robert A Whit]

I've been to the Alamo twice. I've read about the Alamo and the battle for Texas Independence.
The more you read, the more you realize what is legend and what is fact. A lot of what people know about the Alamo is more legend than fact.
Sort of like the White House version of the War in Iraq. :rolleyes:

Two wildly different instances of history I believe.

In the case of the Alamo, what is assumed to be true is generally what was created on film. Fiction sells.

As to the war with Saddam Hussein, a lot of myth on that one too.

For instance one will never read a democrat admitting that Bill Clinton signed a law that turned out to be very close to the tipping point.

They don't admit that they were pleased to start the war.

They don't admit that they spent a lot of time war mongering.

It's amazing to read the Democrats war chants before they got remorse after no WMD was found. Yet during Clinton all we heard were chants that he has WMD and those chants continued till Bush put that myth to rest once and for all. Make no mistake, Democrats have tried to pin all the blame on Bush and we will see if history lets them get away doing that.

[Gaffer]

In 1955 I was barely a year old! Jim Bowie died at the Alamo too, my older brother and I worshiped him and his knife! We bought knives and learned to throw them at a very early age. My Indian grandfather taught us how to throw knives , tomahawk, and how shoot the bows that he made for us. The good old days my friend. Brings back such fond memories of both my dad and my grandfather..-Tyr

The Bowie Knife which Jim Bowie is credited for, was actually invented by his brother following a bear attack which left him badly injured and half scalped. Jim made the knife famous by using it in brawls. Bowie was a smuggler, gambler and brawler. He did a lot of slave smuggling in Louisiana. He actually went to Texas just ahead of the law.

Some interesting characters ended up at the Alamo, ner-do-wells and failures, looking for a new start.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The Bowie Knife which Jim Bowie is credited for, was actually invented by his brother following a bear attack which left him badly injured and half scalped. Jim made the knife famous by using it in brawls. Bowie was a smuggler, gambler and brawler. He did a lot of slave smuggling in Louisiana. He actually went to Texas just ahead of the law.

Some interesting characters ended up at the Alamo, ner-do-wells and failures, looking for a new start.

Thanks, now I'm even more impressed with the character of the man. He is even more of a rough character than I knew!! Well, they all got their new start at the Alamo as heroes that fought as bravely as any ever have. Look behind ever great success story and you will most often find countless failures that occurred on the way to that success. Bowie was a real rough and tough hombre! Hell , I admire him more now after gaining that info..-Tyr

[Gaffer]

Thanks, now I'm even more impressed with the character of the man. He is even more of a rough character than I knew!! Well, they all got their new start at the Alamo as heroes that fought as bravely as any ever have. Look behind ever great success story and you will most often find countless failures that occurred on the way to that success. Bowie was a real rough and tough hombre! Hell , I admire him more now after gaining that info..-Tyr

You might have some similarities to Bowie, but your an honest straight up guy where he was more of a shyster. He was also wanted for land swindles. You're more the Sam Houston type in my mind.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You might have some similarities to Bowie, but your an honest straight up guy where he was more of a shyster. He was also wanted for land swindles. You're more the Sam Houston type in my mind.

Sam Houston has been a hero of mine ever since I was about ten years old and read a book about him. Back then I thought nobody could touch Sam Houston, Andy Jackson , Lafayette or John Paul Jones--( "I have just begun to fight ") which was Jones's reply to a Brit ship's demand for Jones to surrender his sinking ship. I still to this day admire that line utterd by a man standing on his own sinking ship!!
AND HE DID, JONES AND HIS MEN BOARDED THE BRIT SHIP FORCED ITS SURRENDER AND CUT LOOSE THE BOARDING ROPES AND PLANKS JUST AS HIS SHIP SANK. A FEW YEARS LATER I MOVED UP TO MEN LIKE ROBERT E. LEE, JEB STUART,STONEWALL JACKSON, ALEXANDER THE GREAT, CHARLEMAGNE, HANNIBAL, NAPOLEON, ETC..
My early childhood years and all the time to read was glorious! --TYR

[mundame]

Could you summarize the point that you hope Crockett was making, Robert? It seems to be long and complicated and I'm not sure I get the point that you are interested in. I, ahem, was raised in Davy Crockett's home locale, so I would be glad to understand this.

[Robert A Whit]

Could you summarize the point that you hope Crockett was making, Robert? It seems to be long and complicated and I'm not sure I get the point that you are interested in. I, ahem, was raised in Davy Crockett's home locale, so I would be glad to understand this.

I suppose I can. It is in plain English so far as I can read his point. However you asked nicely.

I thought most of the forum agree that the constitution lays out the rules of spending the public funds taken to carry out the duties in the constitution. We have all read the amendments. Some of us, me included, have lived at certain points where amendments have been added. We know the process and purposes of amendments.

Not to do this so round-about, let's get to Crocketts point since it was made during his lifetime.

Crockett spoke to paying for charity. I believe he spoke to charity inside DC, the seat of the Federal Government and not Alexandria as some other pundit said. Alexandria is in a state and Georgetown is part of DC.

Sorry for the way this post is organized if you are still confused.

So, what made me think of this now is when the Feds are embroiled in an argument over funding charity.

It has nothing at all to do with Pork spending as a poster decided to bring up.

Do you happen to know if during Crocketts era he had to deal with pork?

Perhaps in his Era, such charity would be pork spending. I seek advice on this very issue.

It is my view that to be pork spending, it should be spending that is sort of silly spending. Maybe a museum for butterflies just to bring jobs to some congresspersons area.

What are your thoughts.

[Robert A Whit]

The Bowie Knife which Jim Bowie is credited for, was actually invented by his brother following a bear attack which left him badly injured and half scalped. Jim made the knife famous by using it in brawls. Bowie was a smuggler, gambler and brawler. He did a lot of slave smuggling in Louisiana. He actually went to Texas just ahead of the law.

Some interesting characters ended up at the Alamo, ner-do-wells and failures, looking for a new start.

Interesting.

But wasn't his brothers last name also Bowie? That would mean the knife is named accurately though not for Jim.
I wonder how this got confused???

[Robert A Whit]

Thanks, now I'm even more impressed with the character of the man. He is even more of a rough character than I knew!! Well, they all got their new start at the Alamo as heroes that fought as bravely as any ever have. Look behind ever great success story and you will most often find countless failures that occurred on the way to that success. Bowie was a real rough and tough hombre! Hell , I admire him more now after gaining that info..-Tyr

I have one of the best books on the life of Davy Crockett and of course the book speaks of what is known about the events at the Alamo. Since the principals were killed, the record can easily lead to myths.

I know of the Bowie knife but other than from movies, not that much about the man himself. I love learning stuff like what you guys are discussing. Houston of course is a legend in TX and it is my view that his accomplishments are even greater than most citizens realize.

I believe he was Governor of TX and hope I am not in error.

Who knows enough about Houston to fill us in?

I am pretty sure he was NOT at the Alamo at that time and ended up being the one that defeated the Mexicans. Any corrections from you guys is appreciated.

[Missileman]

The purpose of hurricane relief should not include dozens of other projects that are not linked to the storm.

I think of the words of then Congressman Crockett at times such as these.

http://www.fee.org/library/detail/not-your-to-give-2#axzz2GrqJXRNH (http://www.fee.org/library/detail/not-your-to-give-2#axzz2GrqJXRNH)

Not Yours to Give

NOVEMBER 19, 2012

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 Crockett arose: <o:p></o>...

If you think about it, Crockett would likely argue that the federal government has no constitutional authority to provide any relief whether hurricane, unemployment, etc. and should therefore not be involved in it.

[mundame]

So, what made me think of this now is when the Feds are embroiled in an argument over funding charity.

It has nothing at all to do with Pork spending as a poster decided to bring up.

Do you happen to know if during Crocketts era he had to deal with pork?

Perhaps in his Era, such charity would be pork spending. I seek advice on this very issue.

It is my view that to be pork spending, it should be spending that is sort of silly spending. Maybe a museum for butterflies just to bring jobs to some congresspersons area.

What are your thoughts.


Yes, Crockett seems to have objected to an act of local charity being made a federal matter.

The Hurricane Sandy thing is a disaster relief issue, of course, which has a lot of precedent. But apparently some congressmen made a whole Christmas tree out of it and tacked on many things for their own districts.

[Robert A Whit]

If you think about it, Crockett would likely argue that the federal government has no constitutional authority to provide any relief whether hurricane, unemployment, etc. and should therefore not be involved in it.

I believe you are abxolutely correct.

Apparently the term pork spending dates back to around 1873. Way back when slaves were in vogue, where even presidents had many of them, pork barrels were contested for on some plantations with the winner of the contest getting the pork barrel. So it says on Wikipedia.

At one point the home with a full salted pork barrel was considered well to do.

[Robert A Whit]

Yes, Crockett seems to have objected to an act of local charity being made a federal matter.

The Hurricane Sandy thing is a disaster relief issue, of course, which has a lot of precedent. But apparently some congressmen made a whole Christmas tree out of it and tacked on many things for their own districts.

I believe in his principles so far as the Federal Government goes. A different question would be, what about states, counties, cities? Should they spend taxpayers money on the relatively few?

Each state has full authority to have so constructed it's constitution that short of violating the federal constitution, seems to me what they can do is almost anything the public in said state wants.

A question that should be handled by the Supreme Court is why is this a duty of the Feds?

I don't see it as general welfare. Matter of fact, in the preamble, that is where we find the word welfare and it only says to promote the general welfare.

So, what is promoting? What is general welfare?

Even so, Gabby says and I believe she is correct, that the help is not given, but loaned. I believe that the SBA handles the loans. i am not clear what role FEMA might play as to free help or even help that is a loan. I recall talking to a Katrina survivor and she got money from FEMA plus a trailer to live in. She did not claim that was a loan.

[Little-Acorn]

From the OP:
"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."

This was Crockett's point, as impressed upon him by the farmer he met.

The Constitution's authorization for Congress to spend tax money on certain things and nothing else, is found in the (misnamed) "Welfare Clause", which is the first part of Article 1 Section 8.

See http://www.little-acorn.com/html/welfare.htm

[Kathianne]

If you think about it, Crockett would likely argue that the federal government has no constitutional authority to provide any relief whether hurricane, unemployment, etc. and should therefore not be involved in it.

Which was my point in post #2. Reason I mentioned pork? Not to 'push buttons' but as a response to post #1.

[avatar4321]

Excellent story. Is it accurate? I can believe it is. But I would like to know if it actually is.

I've come to my own smiliar conclusions. Government isnt for charity. We have no right to rob our fellow citizens to "give" to others. Especially if we are unwilling to give of ourselves.

But that's what is occuring in our government. Both parties have been infected with the disease to take the wealth of others by force to give to their pet causes (which are usually just ways to enrich themselves).

If I understand the Gospel correctly, taking money from others to give to others is wrong. We are supposed to give of our own wealth. I may not be a perfect man, but I am one who wants to live the Gospel the best I can. And I believe if we ceased with the government spending on "charity" but instead, stepped up as a people and ministered to the needs of our neighbors ourselves, we would be blessed by the Hand of Divine Providence to such a degree that we would think it absolutely foolish that we ever tried to govern this way.

But this isn't something that can be changed with laws and politics. This is something that needs to change in our own hearts. We need to realize like Ebeneezer Scrooge did, that we need to give of ourselves, and not just rely on government to take care of the poor and afflicted.

It starts with ourselves and our families. We will change what we can and let God do the rest.

[avatar4321]

I believe you are abxolutely correct.

Apparently the term pork spending dates back to around 1873. Way back when slaves were in vogue, where even presidents had many of them, pork barrels were contested for on some plantations with the winner of the contest getting the pork barrel. So it says on Wikipedia.

At one point the home with a full salted pork barrel was considered well to do.

That doesn't seem accurate because 1873 was after slavery was abolished.

[avatar4321]

If you think about it, Crockett would likely argue that the federal government has no constitutional authority to provide any relief whether hurricane, unemployment, etc. and should therefore not be involved in it.

And he would be absolutely correct if he did argue that.

We don't usually think about the fact that our government is being corrupt by providing the people with things they actually want, but the fact is, it is.

[Kathianne]

That doesn't seem accurate because 1873 was after slavery was abolished.

Thank you! I let that go earlier, I didn't want to be accused of acting 'above' anyone else. LOL!

[Gaffer]

I have one of the best books on the life of Davy Crockett and of course the book speaks of what is known about the events at the Alamo. Since the principals were killed, the record can easily lead to myths.

I know of the Bowie knife but other than from movies, not that much about the man himself. I love learning stuff like what you guys are discussing. Houston of course is a legend in TX and it is my view that his accomplishments are even greater than most citizens realize.

I believe he was Governor of TX and hope I am not in error.

Who knows enough about Houston to fill us in?

I am pretty sure he was NOT at the Alamo at that time and ended up being the one that defeated the Mexicans. Any corrections from you guys is appreciated.

I don't want to derail this thread any more than it has been. We can start another thread about the history of Texas if you want to discuss it.

[Robert A Whit]

From the OP:
"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."

This was Crockett's point, as impressed upon him by the farmer he met.

The Constitution's authorization for Congress to spend tax money on certain things and nothing else, is found in the (misnamed) "Welfare Clause", which is the first part of Article 1 Section 8.

See http://www.little-acorn.com/html/welfare.htm

That explanation hits the nail on the head.

A good book to read is by Amity Schlaes called The Forgotten man.

While knowledge can be very frustrating, what I call, we can know the problems but have no power to solve them syndrome.

You just know that the way they run the system is wrong but they keep promising benefits at the expenxe of xome other person you don't know.

Fix it with Bill Gates money or Warren Buffets money is the cry of democrats.

Democrats led us into this mess but won't take responsibility for their part of the problem.

I really enjoyed reading Amity's book. I found it at the local library.

Maybe it would do some good to send to every member of congress

The Wise words of Davy Crockett

When he made a mistake, he corrected the mistake

[Robert A Whit]

I don't want to derail this thread any more than it has been. We can start another thread about the history of Texas if you want to discuss it.

Sure. Be my guest. I enjoy history. I asked about Houston. Perhaps we can start with those early leaders that made the difference.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=603489#post603489)
The purpose of hurricane relief should not include dozens of other projects that are not linked to the storm.

I think of the words of then Congressman Crockett at times such as these.


http://www.fee.org/library/detail/not-your-to-give-2#axzz2GrqJXRNH (http://www.fee.org/library/detail/not-your-to-give-2#axzz2GrqJXRNH)

Not Yours to Give

NOVEMBER 19, 2012

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 Crockett arose: <O:p></O>...





If you think about it, Crockett would likely argue that the federal government has no constitutional authority to provide any relief whether hurricane, unemployment, etc. and should therefore not be involved in it.



I agree.

I opened the OP by commenting that since it is known by any correctly thinking person, that congress will indeed pay sums for Sandy relief, that at a bare minimum the law should stand alone and not include other projects of all kinds. Be they pork spending or not. Be they for very just and worthwhile purposes or not.

Sandy is not a purse to contain any other form of spending.

This way we can see with some measure of transparency what they did with the money.

This constitution used to have 4 corners as the lawyers would say. Today they more than write all over the document, they pick up scraps of paper, maybe off table knapkins and invent brand new things. Suich as Obama care.

[jimnyc]

Thread has been cleaned of off topic and bickering. PLEASE remain on topic going forward, even ignore this post! :)

[Robert A Whit]

Yes, Crockett seems to have objected to an act of local charity being made a federal matter.

The Hurricane Sandy thing is a disaster relief issue, of course, which has a lot of precedent. But apparently some congressmen made a whole Christmas tree out of it and tacked on many things for their own districts.

WOW, I would expect that. However true that is, I took note of the projects named by Kathianne and accept on good faith that a lot of that spending was for just purposes. My objection was more due to transparency than anything. Crockett made the better argument, thus I posted his wise words.

They used Sandy as a huge purse to contain things not relative to Sandy. Why do that? I think it is to escape close scruitany.

Then they can include items I personally feel are not proper duties of the Fed Government.

But bear in mind, I don't so much ask them not to spend on the items listed by Kathianne, but to segregate those items. Don't combine a new runway for some airport in AK with some vital purpose say in Florida. (not meant to be more than illustration)

Bear in mind, this administration promised transparency. I personally would veto all laws that were hard to understand. Were it me at 1600 Pensylvania Ave. Fat chance that will ever happen.

[Robert A Whit]

Why didn't you scrub off post 42 Jim?

It was nothing more than a taunt.

[jimnyc]

Why didn't you scrub off post 42 Jim?

It was nothing more than a taunt.

Done... Let's just move forward now, and forget about the past, and concentrate on topics instead of animosity.

[mundame]

Sandy is not a purse to contain any other form of spending.




Well said!

[Little-Acorn]

(oops, duplicate post)

[Little-Acorn]

The point of Crockett's story, is that the Fed govt had no authority to spend money on charity back then, no matter how deserving the recipient of that charity may have been. Such spending was to be left "to the States, or the People", as other parts of the Constitution demanded.

BTW, that was true back then, whether the charitable object was people whose house had burned down, or people whose houses or businesses had been hit by a hurricane.

Would anybody like to guess what part of the Constitution has changed since then, to give the Fed government the authority to spend money to pay victims of Hurricane Sandy?

[hjmick]

Would anybody like to guess what part of the Constitution has changed since then, to give the Fed government the authority to spend money to pay victims of Hurricane Sandy?

No part has of the Constitution changed that provides for such relief.

[aboutime]

No part has of the Constitution changed that provides for such relief.


I agree. No part has been changed.

But. Since that can be proven.

Would someone like to show us...where, in the Constitution. Does it tell members of Congress to get their Automatic, Annual Pay Raise?

[avatar4321]

That explanation hits the nail on the head.

A good book to read is by Amity Schlaes called The Forgotten man.

While knowledge can be very frustrating, what I call, we can know the problems but have no power to solve them syndrome.

You just know that the way they run the system is wrong but they keep promising benefits at the expenxe of xome other person you don't know.

Fix it with Bill Gates money or Warren Buffets money is the cry of democrats.

Democrats led us into this mess but won't take responsibility for their part of the problem.

I really enjoyed reading Amity's book. I found it at the local library.

Maybe it would do some good to send to every member of congress

The Wise words of Davy Crockett

When he made a mistake, he corrected the mistake

Republicans and Democrats are both responsible. So are the rest of us

[avatar4321]

I agree. No part has been changed.

But. Since that can be proven.

Would someone like to show us...where, in the Constitution. Does it tell members of Congress to get their Automatic, Annual Pay Raise?

They shouldn't get annual pay raises.

[aboutime]

They shouldn't get annual pay raises.


Totally agree with you avatar. However. Not many Americans are aware of how members of Congress get that Automatic pay raise each year.

Unless one member takes the floor, of either the Senate, or House of Representatives, and presents a Bill to Withhold the Auto Pay Raise. THEY ALL GET IT....If nothing is done.

That's how they planned it. And when Americans DEMAND that Congress shouldn't get a pay raise. Little do they know. They (the Citizens) might as well be BARKING AT THE MOON.