Not Yours to Give

personal archives ^ | Provided as courtesy by Charles Starr for Congress

[RonDog]

More on Susan decatur here:

http://www.decaturhouse.org/pressroom/timeline.htm
137 posted on 1/26/02 2:24 AM Pacific by Huck

Stephen Decatur here:

http://www.zweb.com/parpro/Decatur.html
138 posted on 1/26/02 2:26 AM Pacific by Huck

GREAT work, Huck!

Here are those links, activated by HTML, fo those who do not like to "cut and paste":

http://www.decaturhouse.org/pressroom/timeline.htm

http://www.zweb.com/parpro/Decatur.html

[michigander]

Please forgive the size of this reply.

This appears to be the a description of Senate debate reguarding the fire that Horatio Bunce makes reference to (?... This is the only reference I could find that fits the description of the event Bunce describes) :

The House debate:

In the end $20,000 was voted for relief. But, the name David Crockett does not appear in the listing of the yeas and nays.

Upon further review, David Crockett wasn't a member of the 19th. Congress.
But, was a member of the 20th. Congress.

A list of members of the 19th Congress:

A list of members of the 20th Congress:

So, unless further evidence comes to light, the events as described in "Not Yours to Give", appears (IMHO) to be an urban legend (a very old one).

[RonDog]

Do you have a link to the source on the web?

Bottom right corner.

Here are links to the image that you posted, and a little transcription:

U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1873
Register of Debates, House of Representatives, 20th Congress, 1st Session
Pages 2085 & 2086 of 2840
and
Pages 2087 & 2088 of 2840 :

Wednesday, April 2, 1828
FAMILY OF GENERAL BROWN

". . . .The bill from the Senate for the relief of Mrs. Brown,
was read 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...

[RonDog]

Thank you, michigander!

First, thank you for sharing THIS marvelous website that you found for us:

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation - (from the Law Library of Congress)

Second, thank you for the wonderful images that you posted about the fire in Alexandria!

Here are some HTML-activated links to those images, for those who wish to explore further:

Register of Debates, Senate, 19th Congress, 2nd Session,
Pages 67 through 70, Relief of the Sufferers at Alexandria

U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1873
Bills and Resolutions, House of Representatives, 19th Congress, 2nd Session
Bill 383

Register of Debates, House of Representatives, 19th Congress, 2nd Session,
Pages 747 through 748, Sufferers by Fire at Alexandria-Duties on Wool and Woollens

And, third...

Thank you for teaching me (and MANY other FReepers) how to use HTML!!!

(FWIW, though, I am not yet prepared to call the "Not Yours to Give" story an "urban legend!")

[RonDog]

From Expedia maps:

It appears that ALEXANDRIA (at the bottom of this map) is rather far from the Capitol building, while GEORGETOWN (at the top, on the left) is much closer. Could there have been TWO fires that Congress voted on?

[lonevoice]

Thank you all for a most interesting read. This story has long been a favorite, though I've never seen an investigation of its history. As to whether it is a story representing historical events, or a composite based on philosophical accuracy, perhaps you fellers will be the ones to discover. The "Broken English" version may be that author's attempt to duplicate, in written form, Crockett's Tennessee dialect and accent. If so, it may suffer from that author's lack of skill, as well as his own embellishments.

[RonDog]

From http://oha.ci.alexandria.va.us/archaeology/decades/ar-decades-1820.html:

Discovering the Decades: 1820s

Alexandria Archaeology Looks Back at 250 Years of Alexandria History

"...And then, a disaster occurred which probably affected Alexandria more adversely than any other single event-the tragic fire of January 1827.

The fire originated, by accident in the workshop of Mr. James Green, cabinet maker, which stood in the interior of the square bounded by Fairfax, Prince, Royal, and King Streets and near the intersection of the two last.... The back buildings of several houses on Royal Street were consumed, as was also a frame dwelling fronting on the alley, and immediately south of Mr. Green's work shop. The fire soon reached Fairfax Street where it was checked on the North by the three story fire proof, occupied by Messrs. Edward Stabler and Sons as a drug store, but every other house on the West side of Fairfax Street south to Prince Street was simultaneously wrapped in flames and speedily consumed. From Fairfax and Prince Streets the fire jumped to the corner of Water [Lee] and Prince. In a few minutes, both sides of Prince-Street, between Water and Union, together with a warehouse on the east side of Water Street-four others on the West side of Union Street south of Prince, and three others on the same side of Union, north of Prince-were all in flames, and every house except two was destroyed-many of them with their whole contents.... For five hours the flames were rushing from house to house with increasing fury-furniture and goods, were scattered in every direction, women and children were flying for safety, and houses that were not burnt, were often on fire, sometimes dozens at once. [Alexandria Gazette 1/23/1827]

A town committee calculated the destruction at "53 buildings consisting of dwellings, ware and storehouses, exclusive of a number of stables and other outbuildings; all of which are valued at sixty thousand nine hundred and twenty dollars; and personal property which we have estimated at forty-six thousand, three hundred and fifty-seven dollars; making an aggregate sum of one hundred seven thousand, two hundred and seventy-seven dollars." Other damage estimates ranged as high as $150,000.

Alexandria was so prostrated by this conflagration that the U.S. Congress appropriated funds for disaster relief. Several representatives, however, questioned the constitutionality of providing such aid to a private corporation..."

And from http://dcpages.com/Tourism/History_and_Culture/041500dcname.shtml:

Origins of the Name District of Columbia

"...The initial plot of land authorized by the Constitution for the seat of the US government was a 100-square mile area. The first commissioners appointed to acquire the property for the new capital and construct the first government buildings made the obvious choice and named the city Washington. At the same time, they decided to call the entire 100 square-mile area the District of Columbia. Congress later went along with this decision through legislative references to the area.

The city of Washington as designed by L'Enfant did not, of course, fill the 100 square-mile area authorized by the Constitution for the seat of government. The area also included the cities of Georgetown (1751) and Alexandria (1749), which were already in existence. Congress designated the rest of the 10-mile by 10-mile portion outside the corporate limits of these three cities as the County of Alexandria, in the section given by Virginia, and the County of Washington, in the Maryland-ceded portion.

In 1846 Congress voted to give back to Virginia all the land that state had given to the government in 1790 for creation of the District of Columbia. This move returned about 32 square miles of territory to Virginia. Residents of Alexandria and what is now Arlington County, Virginia, thus lost District of Columbia residency and again became Virginia citizens..."

[RonDog]

From http://politicalgraveyard.com/bio/bully-bunker.html:

"I ...limit The Political Graveyard primarily to those who have participated in politics at the state and federal levels. Among local officials, all that I have chosen to include are mayors of cities above a certain size..."

• Bunce, George of Manchester, Hartford County, Conn. Member of Connecticut state senate 2nd District, 1839. Burial location unknown.
• Bunce, George H. Delegate to New York state constitutional convention 32nd District, 1915. Burial location unknown.
• Bunce, Harvey of Boonville, Cooper County, Mo. Delegate to Missouri state constitutional convention, 1865. Burial location unknown.
• Bunce, Joseph H. of Louisville, Jefferson County, Ky. Mayor of Louisville, Ky., 1869. Burial location unknown.
• Bunce, Zephaniah W. Member Michigan territorial council, 1824-27. Burial location unknown.
• Bunch, Samuel (1786-1849) Born in Grainger County, Tenn., December 4, 1786. U.S. Representative from Tennessee 2nd District, 1833-37. Died September 5, 1849. Interment in private or family graveyard. See also: congressional biography.
• Bunch, Samuel H. Delegate to Missouri state constitutional convention 23rd District, 1845-46. Burial location unknown.

[RonDog]

From http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=C000918:

CROCKETT, David, (father of John Wesley Crockett), a Representative from Tennessee; born at the confluence of Limestone Creek and Noli-Chuckey River in the State of Franklin, which a few years later became Greene County, Tenn., August 17, 1786; attended the common schools for a short time; moved to Lincoln County about 1808 and to what is now Gibson County in 1822; commanded a battalion of mounted riflemen under General Jackson in the Creek campaign in 1813 and 1814; member of the State house of representatives 1821-1823; unsuccessful candidate for election in 1825 to the Nineteenth Congress; elected to the Twentieth and Twenty-first Congresses (March 4, 1827-March 3, 1831); unsuccessful candidate for reelection in 1830 to the Twenty-second Congress; elected as an Anti-Jacksonian to the Twenty-third Congress (March 4, 1833-March 3, 1835); unsuccessful candidate for reelection in 1834 to the Twenty-fourth Congress; went to Texas to aid the Texans in their struggle for independence in 1836; joined a band of 186 men in the defense of the Alamo, San Antonio de Bexar, and was among those killed in that battle which terminated on March 6, 1836; his body destroyed by pyre at the Alamo.

And from http://www.famousamericans.net/samuelbunch/:

Samuel Bunch

BUNCH, Samuel, soldier, born in Granger County, Tennessee, 4 December, 1786; died in Rutledge, Tennessee, 5 September, 1849. He commanded a regiment of mounted yeomen from Tennessee during the Creek war, serving under General Andrew Jackson, and distinguished himself in the attack on Hillibeetown on 18 November, 1813. In the charge of the battle at Horseshoe Bend, on 27 March, 1814, he was among the first to pass over the breastworks of the enemy. For many years he was sheriff of Granger county. He was elected from Tennessee to the 23d congress as a Whig, and was re-elected to the 24th, serving from 2 December, 1833, till 3 March, 1837.

Perphaps this SAMUEL BUNCH is the "Horatio Bunce" of our story.

If the author mistook "Georgetown" for ALEXANDRIA, and "naval officer" for ARMY officer, it is not too much of a stretch to think that Crockett listened to and respected the political advice from a man that he served with during the war, particularly since Col. Samuel Bunch went on to be elected to Congress himself, eh?

Plus, the only references that I can find in a Google search for "Horatio Bunce" - 194 references - seem to refer to the story from the Ellis biography, i.e. Google search for "distinguished naval officer" crockett - 177 references.
(There are few OTHER references to "Horatio Bunce.")

In other news, I can find NO other references to a fire in "Georgetown" for which the Congress appropriated money.

[Positive]

Can you find this?

From the Senate of the United States: “While we devoutly join you in offering our thanks to Almighty God for the return to health of our cities, and for the general prosperity of our county; we cannot refrain from lamenting that the arts and calumnies of factious and designing men, have excited open rebellion a second time in Pennsylvania, and thereby compelled the employment of a military force to aid the civil authority in the execution of the laws. We rejoice that your vigilance, energy and well timed exertions, have crushed so daring an opposition, and prevented the spreading of such treasonable combinations.”

If you can, I would say that your search capabilities vis-à-vis the congressional record are commendable and noteworthy and I would accept your inability to find Crockett’s speech as refutation of the old axiom “absence of proof is not proof of absence.”

[RonDog]

Can you find this?

From the Senate of the United States: “While we devoutly join you in offering our thanks to Almighty God for the return to health of our cities, and for the general prosperity of our county; we cannot refrain from lamenting that the arts and calumnies of factious and designing men, have excited open rebellion a second time in Pennsylvania, and thereby compelled the employment of a military force to aid the civil authority in the execution of the laws. We rejoice that your vigilance, energy and well timed exertions, have crushed so daring an opposition, and prevented the spreading of such treasonable combinations.”

From
U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1873
Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, Volume 3
Page 7 of 527
and
Page 8 of 577

;)

[Chapita]

bttt

[Chapita]

I really want to thank you both for making it possible for the issue of the legitimacy of the issue to have been so well researched and reported!

To me, it is absolutely fantastic that knowledge can be so readily accessed by any means!

Huck, I apologize for my irritation at you for first shading this story with doubt; but you are such a help in the research of the truth! Thank you!

[lonevoice]

If the author mistook "Georgetown" for ALEXANDRIA, and "naval officer" for ARMY officer, it is not too much of a stretch to think that Crockett listened to and respected the political advice from a man that he served with during the war, particularly since Col. Samuel Bunch went on to be elected to Congress himself, eh?

Not a stretch at all, and it fits the author's pattern of errors. It's looking very much as though this story isn't a fabrication. It may have contextual errors, but not of a sort that would refute its underlying legitimacy. Still, I wonder, when Crockett answered the friend who asked about his "Not Yours to Give" speech, did he sound more like this, "The truth wants no trimmins for in her clar naked state o' natur she's as graceful as a suckin colt i' the sunshine. Mr. Speaker! What in the name o' kill-sheep-dog rascality is the country a- comin' to?"

[Huck]

No need to apologize; I came on a little smart alecky. But it worked out for the best. Glad you are enjoying it as I am. Regards,

[michigander]

22 minutes to find that. What took so long? :-)

and "naval officer" for ARMY officer

Has the case for the Relief of Susan Decatur been ruled out as the naval officers widow?
It does appear to fit the description. Although, I can't find a recorded speech by Crockett, there is a great one given by a Mr. Chilton on pages 3818 - 3821.

[RonDog]

22 minutes to find that. What took so long? :-)

LOL! I was goofing off FReeping elsewhere, and did not see his challenge right away...

As for Susan Decatur, I am open to that possibility as well, but it does not fit the timeline as well. We KNOW that he opposed the allocation of money to General Brown's widow at an earlier date, so his "conversion" must have taken place at an earlier date than the Decatur vote. (He was ALREADY "converted" by that time.)

MY current working hypothesis is as follows. Many of these points are tentative, and still open for debate, IMHO.

Ellis wrote this account almost FIFTY years after Crockett died, and may have forgotten many details,
MANY authors at that time "embellished" the biographies of famous men,
Crockett himself promoted many "tall tales" about his exploits,
Crockett was poorly educated, and did not leave very complete written records,
No OTHER written records fully document much of what may have happened.

Here is my best CURRENT explanation of the facts that we have discovered to date:

Crockett may have arrived in Washington EARLY for his first term, which began in March 1827, so that he could have been present on the day of the [DOCUMENTED] fire in Alexandria in January of 1827.
He may have SUPPORTED his collegues in Congress in their [DOCUMENTED] vote to allocate money for the sufferers of this fire, even though he was not yet able to VOTE at that time.
Crockett may have met with SOMEONE on a trip back to Tennessee, shortly after that vote, and have expressed his SUPPORT for spending the money to that person. Whoever it was could have convinced Crockett that his support for non-Constitutional expenditures would cost him his FUTURE vote, even if Crockett was unable to actually vote on the Alexandria fire bill.
This "Horatio Bunce" could have been the commander of his old unit, Samuel Bunch, who would be expected to know the name of one of the men in his command, even if Crockett did not immediately recognize Bunch. OR, "Horatio" could have been a relative of Samuel.
Whoever it was could have helped Crockett to experience his "conversion" to Constitutional spending discipline prior to his [DOCUMENTED] opposition to the bill for the relief for General Brown's widow, and his [DOCUMENTED] offer to pay from his own private funds.

This ROUGH DRAFT of events as they ACTUALLY occurred still has some gaping holes in it, but would be consistent with a TRUTHFUL account of Crockett's actions being "modified for television," as it were - to make a more compelling tale to provide moral education for the kiddies.

Or not. ;)

Still working...

[michigander]

We KNOW that he opposed the allocation of money to General Brown's widow at an earlier date, so his "conversion" must have taken place at an earlier date than the Decatur vote. (He was ALREADY "converted" by that time.)

You appear to contend that Mr. Crockett's "conversion" took place before the Gen. Brown vote. Correct?

It is interesting to look into the documented history of this subject and it really doesn't matter to me one way or the other if it's considered true or not as the bottom line of spending by the federal government should be scrutinized very carefully.

That being said, another point that I find curious is, if you consider the argument of Mr. Tucker in reply #140 by Huck reguarding the giving of a number of cords of firewood to the poor of the "city" and the argument three weeks later by Mr. Polk reguarding the giving of a number of cords of firewood to the poor of Georgetown (pages 558 and 559), that Mr. Crockett wasn't persuaded by either one of those arguments which raise exactly the same points which Mr. Bunce raised (Mr Crockett voted yea for the firewood to be given to the poor of the "city"(page 519, reply #140), voted nay for the suggestion by a Mr. Blair that the legislators that felt the need to vote yes for the poor of Georgetown pay for the firewood out of their own pockets, and voted yea to grant the poor of Georgetown the firewood: pages 241, 242, 243 ).

[michigander]

voted nay for the suggestion by a Mr. Blair that the legislators that felt the need to vote yes for the poor of Georgetown pay for the firewood out of their own pockets

That is an incorrect statement on my part. Mr. Crockett voted nay "viz: Shall the main question be now put?"

But, he did vote yea to grant the poor of Georgetown the firewood.

I'm getting bug eyed reading this stuff. :-)

[RonDog]

You appear to contend that Mr. Crockett's "conversion" took place before the Gen. Brown vote. Correct?

Yes, that was my WORKING hypothesis.

The alternative is that his support for Constitutional limits of spending developed gradually over time, or that the General's widow case had mitigating circumstances, or that the FIREWOOD case had mitigating circumstances.

Or...