Skip to comments.Not Yours to Give
Posted on 01/23/2002 9:15:27 AM PST by Chapita
click here to read article
That is why we have deficits and high taxes at present. Congress took upon itself health care for seniors, welfare, and other sundry causes it had NO business involving itself with.
The bill from the Senate, [No. 111] entitled "An act for the relief of Mrs. Brown, widow of the late Major General Brown," was read the third time:
And on the question, "Shall the bill pass?"
The yeas and nays being desired by one-fifth of the members present,
Crockett voted NAY!
I like reading these kinds of historical items regarding the early years of the Republic.
Need more hours in the day also!
The bill from the Senate for the relief of Mrs. Brown was read for a third time.
Messrs. CHILTON and CROCKETT (who had been absent from the House during the discussion yesterday) delivered their sentiments in opposition to the principle of the bill. The latter offering to subscribe his quota, in his private character, to make up the sum proposed, and the former demanded the yeas and nays upon the passage of the bill.
#107 from Gales & Seaton's Register, p. 2086 (typo - date should be April 2, 1828)
U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1873
WEDNESDAY, April 2, 1828 (page 469) and (page 470)
GREAT work, guys!(God, I love this place!)
...which includes THIS discussion between Steve Greenhow and Jon Roland on the authenticity of the... ...quote:
"Crockett on the Power to Make Charitable Donations"
"Tennessee militia colonel David Crockett,
perhaps best known for his role in the 1836 defense of the Alamo,
also served three terms in the United States Congress between 1827 and 1835.
Nationally known during his lifetime as a political representative of the frontier,
Crockett apparently came by that reputation honestly,
inasmuch as he was not above listening to his constituents.
The following excerpt from an 1884 biography by Edward S. Ellis,
"The Life of Colonel David Crockett,"
reveals how his own rural electorate taught him the importance
of adhering to the Constitution
and the perils of ignoring its restrictions."
The following is a email discussion on 07/23/96 on the authenticity of the Crockett story between Steve Greenhow SG), the original poster, and Jon Roland (JR):
At 07:09 PM 7/23/96 -0700, you wrote:
JR: One thing that caught my attention in your quote on Crockett was the reference to "barbecue".
SG: This caught my attention too.
JR: That term was in use in 1884 when the biography was written, but to the best of my knowledge, had not yet been invented as of 1835 when Crockett left Congress.
SG: I wondered about that as well.
JR: Etymologists generally attribute it to a corruption of "barbacoa", originating with the Taino tribe of Arawaks of the Greater Antilles and Bahamas, although in Texas it is attributed to the -BQ (bar B Q) ranch there, which is said to have anglicized it and claimed to have invented it, promoting it during the cattle drive period following the Civil War as a way to promote the sale of beef.
SG: I suppose this word "barbacoa" was borrowed from the Arawaks by the Spanish and it spread through their empire, because around here (Austin, TX) Mexican restaurants commonly offer barbacoa on the menu. It's not quite the same as American barbecue, but does involve meat roasted over a fire. My Webster's 10th Collegiate also mentions the probable Arawak origin and gives the first recorded use of "barbecue" in English as 1709; so it very possibly could have been in use in rural Tennessee between 1827 and 1835, the years during which Crockett served in Congress. I had not heard the bar B Q ranch story, and had not heard of the bar B Q ranch, but it sounds plausible and is quite interesting. This state was literally resurrected by the cattle industry during Reconstruction.
JR: Ellis may have played loosely with Crockett's quotes. Does he explain how he got them? Are there indications of a political agenda that would cause him to invent them? If so, then "Crockett" is "Socrates" for Ellis' "Plato".
SG: "Barbecue" aside, I must assume Ellis was either working from memory, or from extremely comprehensive notes he had made as a very young man, or, as you suggest, playing the role of Plato. Crockett died at the Alamo roughly 48 years before the book was published--a long time for even the best memory to recall dialogue verbatim. Therefore I suspect Ellis may have filled in a few holes here and there with some skillful oratory of his own and was to some degree or another, Plato to Crockett's Socrates. It is no matter to me. The story makes a wonderful, heart-felt point and I am convinced, given the nature of the oral tradition in his time and culture, Crockett would heartily approve. After all, this is the man who claimed to be half-man, half-alligator and to have waged a fist fight with fellow frontier legend Mike Fink that lasted two days running. I once worked for a man who claimed, "there is no bad publicity in show business." Somehow that adage seems to apply here.
SG: As for a Ellis' political agenda, I haven't a clue. I only came across the excerpt ten days ago and do not have the book, but I am looking. My feeling is that it is out of print and a well-stocked library or book-and-paper show may be the only place to find it. Until I do find it and read it, or learn more about the author, I can't speculate on Ellis' agenda beyond what can be deduced from the excerpt. It might be interesting to find outside corroboration, in the Congressional record for example, of Crockett making the speech(es), or a newspaper account of the Georgetown fire Crockett helped to put out, etc., but I will leave that to more aggressive historians. I am grateful to Ellis for putting such a great story down on paper. It's message is still timely today.
\ Steve Greenhow /
\ Austin, Texas USA /
\ email: email@example.com /
\ "And gentlemen in England now-a-bed /
\ Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here, /
\ And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks /
\ That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day." /
\ --Henry V (iv, iii) /
And just why do you say that?
Ellis may have played loosely with Crockett's quotes.From Senate's original bill, at http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsb&fileName=009/llsb009.db&recNum=348:
If Mrs. Brown is the right widow, how is this "Major General Brown" - commanding the U.S. ARMY - a "distinguished NAVAL officer?"
"The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, not doubt, it would but for that speech, it received but few votes, and of course was lost.
Unless that's a different widow. Are there Major General's in the Navy?
Whether the speech was made by Crockett or not, it should have been made by someone.
Thanks for the ping, RonDog.
Even if Crockett did not give the speech, it should be given for bailouts, and any charitable appropriation. Of course, with the passage of the sixteenth amendment, we basically gave away our freedom from tyranny through the Income Tax.
I do believe that through our current system, such as FEMA, the 9/ll disaster would qualify for relief to the victims, but I was not aware that the government had appropriated funds to do so. Isn't this being done under the auspices of the WTC Fund?
Upon reflection, I am not prepared to defend that statement. I withdraw it. Thank you for asking.
One other thing about those paragraphs though. He says "Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress" in reference to the Georgetown fire. He goes on to say that "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."
Here's the problem. The bill above was passed in 1828. Crockett's first term in Congress was the 20th Congress, which served from 27-29. Not only that, as I recall, in the old days there was a lame duck session of Congress months after the election. Anyway, if this vote happened early in '28, and if he said there was a fire several years prior, and that a year after that he was up for re-election, well, the numbers just don't add up. There were factual errors on almost every point in paragraphs two and three. Post #107 seems to confirm one point though, that Crockett offered to pay out of pocket. One wonders if the other House members found that amusing.
A Challenge for more research:
But the REAL challenge, it seems to me, is the whole Horatio Bunce story. If you look at my chronology above, it seems the numbers don't add up, but there may be some truth mixed with fiction. In fact, isn't that the Crockett MO? Anyway, really enjoying your research on this. I would love to see what you can find about a Horatio Bunce. What was Crockett's district? Is there a geneological history? IS there a Crockett Historical Society that might know? I am filled with curiosity.