Col. Davy Crockett on Government Welfare
Mar 21, 2013 14:19:11 #
Davy Crockett was a member of Congress not too far removed from the founding fathers, but the important actor in this is his constituent farmer who lectured him on the limits of the Constitution. Particularly government welfare. It's too bad it's so long, but it is a good read especially for the Marxists members of this site.
Col. Davy Crockett on Government Welfare
[COMMENT: This is one of the best pieces on government welfare around. Read it well. See also comments on Athens and democracy. E. Fox]
One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was brought up to appropriate money for the benefit of the widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question to a v**e when Colonel David Crockett arose:
"Mr. Speaker, I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, 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 to so 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 v**e 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 bills 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 v**es and was lost.
Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:
"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on.
"The weather was very cold and, when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be 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 e******n, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there but, as the e******n 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 in any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road.
"I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.
"I began: 'Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and - '
"'Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and v**ed for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out e******neering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not v**e for you again.'
"This was a sockdolager... I begged him to tell me what was the matter.
"'Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a v**e last winter which shows that either you have not the 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.
"'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 said, 'I admit the t***h of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any v**e 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 proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you v**ed 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 money 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 entrusted 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 many thousands are 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 of 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 stipulation, 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 v**e for you.'
"NOT YOURS TO GIVE"
"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 v**e; and if you will forgive me and v**e for me again, if I ever v**e 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 on one condition. You say that you are convinced that your v**e 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 v**e, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only v**e 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 goodbye. I must know your name.'
"'My name is Bunce.'
"'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 act. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintances.
"Though I had never met him before, I had heard of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition and been beaten. One thing is certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a v**e.
"At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.
"Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more 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. I got to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if everyone who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.
"But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I have 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 t***hs 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 v**es. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to my self as well as to you. Whether you will v**e for me is a matter for your consideration.'
"I went on to tell them about the fire and my v**e for the appropriation and then told them that I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:
"'And now, it remains 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 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 credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with this convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.'
"He came up on 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 the 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 drops rolling down my cheeks. I tell you, 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 made as a member of Congress.
"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday.
"There is one thing 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 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 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 is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."
Col. Davy Crockett on Government Welfare
[COMMENT: This is one of the best pieces on government welfare around. Read it well. See also comments on Athens and democracy. E. Fox]
One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was brought up to appropriate money for the benefit of the widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question to a v**e when Colonel David Crockett arose:
"Mr. Speaker, I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, 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 to so 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 v**e 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 bills 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 v**es and was lost.
Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:
"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on.
"The weather was very cold and, when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be 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 e******n, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there but, as the e******n 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 in any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road.
"I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.
"I began: 'Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and - '
"'Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and v**ed for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out e******neering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not v**e for you again.'
"This was a sockdolager... I begged him to tell me what was the matter.
"'Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a v**e last winter which shows that either you have not the 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.
"'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 said, 'I admit the t***h of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any v**e 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 proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you v**ed 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 money 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 entrusted 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 many thousands are 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 of 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 stipulation, 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 v**e for you.'
"NOT YOURS TO GIVE"
"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 v**e; and if you will forgive me and v**e for me again, if I ever v**e 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 on one condition. You say that you are convinced that your v**e 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 v**e, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only v**e 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 goodbye. I must know your name.'
"'My name is Bunce.'
"'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 act. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintances.
"Though I had never met him before, I had heard of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition and been beaten. One thing is certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a v**e.
"At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.
"Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more 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. I got to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if everyone who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.
"But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I have 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 t***hs 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 v**es. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to my self as well as to you. Whether you will v**e for me is a matter for your consideration.'
"I went on to tell them about the fire and my v**e for the appropriation and then told them that I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:
"'And now, it remains 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 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 credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with this convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.'
"He came up on 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 the 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 drops rolling down my cheeks. I tell you, 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 made as a member of Congress.
"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday.
"There is one thing 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 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 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 is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."
Mar 22, 2013 02:46:14 #
It always "amazes" me that people love to quote ONE person's OPINION as if it reflected the opinion of ALL people concerning a given time or issue. Davy Crocket had some interesting, and potentially valid opinions but they were just that OPINIONS. Opinions not shared by others of his time and on the issue at hand. While it is interesting to know his opinion, and while it can help enlighten us to how HE felt about things it is still up to US to make our own choices based on how things are in the Here and NOW and as fits the needs of modern society and people. A read of the works of Thomas Paine will show that there was also a sentiment in those times that NO generation had the right to determine the government of any generation except it's own, that EVERY generation had the RIGHT and the DUTY to configure Government to fit it's own needs and that no generation had the Right NOR the power to dictate how another generation must live. So while it is noteworthy what Mr Crockett said from his Frontier perspective it has little bearing on how the rest of his time viewed things and even less bearing on how OUR generation should govern itself.
Mar 22, 2013 11:53:22 #
StarWizard wrote:
It always "amazes" me that people love t... (show quote)
StarWizzard: "...NO generation had the right to determine the government of any generation except it's own, that EVERY generation had the RIGHT and the DUTY to configure Government to fit it's own needs and that no generation had the Right NOR the power to dictate how another generation must live."
How come you are so willing to dump this mess we all created on possibly 3-5 generations into the future? Thomas Paine is correct, but the only Constitutional way to configure government is through Constitutional amendments, legislation which does not follow the letter of the Constitution are in fact unconstitutional and thus invalid. I don't care how the SCOTUS rules, their rulings are invalid if they are not based upon the current tenets written into the Constitution. SCOTUS does not have the right to interpret what it wants the meanings to be, (they seem to be good at trying to do so though) it can only rule on the original intent. The Federalist Papers clarify much of the original intent and help provide the foundation of our government.
A living constitution that changes with every new theory and has no permanent foundation is a prescription for disaster. Wh**ever government official or entity dictates is the law for that particular moment until the next dictate comes along in a day or two. It's a great system for Marxist's dictatorships to thrive in. I guess that's what you want.
While the letter expresses both the farmer and Crockett's opinions of how the Constitution worked, it showed that even the common man understood the underpinnings of our new system of government.
Mar 22, 2013 12:14:23 #
You need to learn to read within the context of the reply given. My quote of Thomas Paine was to make a point. Perhaps you should read my words again keeping in mind the context it is written in.
That much said there is sufficient reason to doubt that Crockett ever made that speech, and even if he did it was AFTER talking to someone else who changed his mind. He frequently v**ed for aid to the poor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett "In an 1884 book written by dime novelist[20] and non-fiction author[21] Edward S. Ellis, Crockett is recorded as giving a speech (the "Not Yours to Give" speech) critical of his Congressional colleagues who were willing to spend taxpayer dollars to help a widow of a US Navy man who had lived beyond his naval service, but would not contribute their own salary for a week to the cause.[22] Ellis describes how the once popular proposal died in the Congress largely as a result of the speech. It was said that a man from Crockett's district, Horatio Bunce, converted Crockett to such a course of action by explaining that the Constitution did not allow Congress to give charity.[22]
The authenticity of this speech is questioned, however, since the Register of Debates and the Congressional Globe do not contain transcripts of speeches made on the House floor. Crockett is on record opposing a similar bill and offering personal support to the family of a General Brown in April 1828,[23] but Crockett considered applications for relief on a case by case basis and sometimes v**ed in favor of the applicant.[24] An article by Crockett biographer James R. Boylston debunking the "Not Yours to Give" speech was published in the November 2004 issue of The Crockett Chronicle. [25]"
A debunking of the Crockett speech story can be found here and this excerpt from it demonstrates that Crockett did NOT share the view this blog is based on and therefore it is unlikely he would have made that speech. You should read the whole article but here is an important excerpt from it http://crockettincongress.blogspot.com/2009/10/not-yours-to-give-fable-re-examined.html "Crockett typically considered petitions for individual relief on a case by case basis, but certainly wasnt opposed to the government giving its wealth to his constituents despite what many of these websites claim.
His primary goal in congress was to acquire for his constituents legal title to the lands upon which theyd settled, and he petitioned the government repeatedly to provide this public acreage at little or no cost. Crockett was a tireless advocate for the poor, a populist who knew poverty firsthand, and he saw nothing wrong with government helping the little guy get ahead."
Further "Marxist Dictatorship" does not represent Marxism, C*******m nor Socialism. Dictatorships exist in ALL economic systems including your beloved "Free Market Capitalism". In fact had Capitalism been as shiny wonderful as some seem to want to paint it Marxism would never have come about. Marx and Engles wrote "The C*******t Manifesto" because of the current abuses of Capitalism prevalent in their day. That Liberals want a more socially conscientious economic system does not mean they support a dictatorship or abusive system, either economically or politically (though one has to wonder if the motivations of those who push so hard for the "Free Market" are as noble as those who push for a fairer economic system). ALL economic systems (and political systems) have their flaws and can be improved. My original posting was intended to call into question the dubious practice of using quotations (especially dubious or questionable ones) of ONE PERSON to justify and frame a point of debate. In actual fact the Founding Fathers themselves were not in complete agreement over what the Constitution meant or how it should be interpretted or applied. That is why we started this nation with 2 political parties to start with. There are those who love to quote 4 or 5 of the Founding Fathers (and quite often completely out of context) and then wish everyone to believe that ALL the original founders shared those exact same sentiments. But the only people foolish enough to believe that are those who've never taken the time to do an unbiased read of the works of ALL relevant material of the period.
That much said there is sufficient reason to doubt that Crockett ever made that speech, and even if he did it was AFTER talking to someone else who changed his mind. He frequently v**ed for aid to the poor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett "In an 1884 book written by dime novelist[20] and non-fiction author[21] Edward S. Ellis, Crockett is recorded as giving a speech (the "Not Yours to Give" speech) critical of his Congressional colleagues who were willing to spend taxpayer dollars to help a widow of a US Navy man who had lived beyond his naval service, but would not contribute their own salary for a week to the cause.[22] Ellis describes how the once popular proposal died in the Congress largely as a result of the speech. It was said that a man from Crockett's district, Horatio Bunce, converted Crockett to such a course of action by explaining that the Constitution did not allow Congress to give charity.[22]
The authenticity of this speech is questioned, however, since the Register of Debates and the Congressional Globe do not contain transcripts of speeches made on the House floor. Crockett is on record opposing a similar bill and offering personal support to the family of a General Brown in April 1828,[23] but Crockett considered applications for relief on a case by case basis and sometimes v**ed in favor of the applicant.[24] An article by Crockett biographer James R. Boylston debunking the "Not Yours to Give" speech was published in the November 2004 issue of The Crockett Chronicle. [25]"
A debunking of the Crockett speech story can be found here and this excerpt from it demonstrates that Crockett did NOT share the view this blog is based on and therefore it is unlikely he would have made that speech. You should read the whole article but here is an important excerpt from it http://crockettincongress.blogspot.com/2009/10/not-yours-to-give-fable-re-examined.html "Crockett typically considered petitions for individual relief on a case by case basis, but certainly wasnt opposed to the government giving its wealth to his constituents despite what many of these websites claim.
His primary goal in congress was to acquire for his constituents legal title to the lands upon which theyd settled, and he petitioned the government repeatedly to provide this public acreage at little or no cost. Crockett was a tireless advocate for the poor, a populist who knew poverty firsthand, and he saw nothing wrong with government helping the little guy get ahead."
Further "Marxist Dictatorship" does not represent Marxism, C*******m nor Socialism. Dictatorships exist in ALL economic systems including your beloved "Free Market Capitalism". In fact had Capitalism been as shiny wonderful as some seem to want to paint it Marxism would never have come about. Marx and Engles wrote "The C*******t Manifesto" because of the current abuses of Capitalism prevalent in their day. That Liberals want a more socially conscientious economic system does not mean they support a dictatorship or abusive system, either economically or politically (though one has to wonder if the motivations of those who push so hard for the "Free Market" are as noble as those who push for a fairer economic system). ALL economic systems (and political systems) have their flaws and can be improved. My original posting was intended to call into question the dubious practice of using quotations (especially dubious or questionable ones) of ONE PERSON to justify and frame a point of debate. In actual fact the Founding Fathers themselves were not in complete agreement over what the Constitution meant or how it should be interpretted or applied. That is why we started this nation with 2 political parties to start with. There are those who love to quote 4 or 5 of the Founding Fathers (and quite often completely out of context) and then wish everyone to believe that ALL the original founders shared those exact same sentiments. But the only people foolish enough to believe that are those who've never taken the time to do an unbiased read of the works of ALL relevant material of the period.
Mar 24, 2013 00:22:57 #
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett
Wikipedia is not a reliable source and it basically is using the information from your other linked source. Some or much of your quote came from the link below.
http://crockettincongress.blogspot.com/2009/10/not-yours-to-give-fable-re-examined.html
I opened and read this link with interest and will concede to you that perhaps Crockett never gave the "Not yours to give" speech in Congress. Neither of the co-writers gave much of a clue as to where they came up with their information refuting the said speech. I searched around for sources that confirmed either one of our contentions, but I found your source as the only source questioning Crockett's veracity. I tend to agree with your conjecture that my piece may be a fallacy rather than factual.
I was aware of Crockett's charitable leanings and his aid and attempted aid to the less well off and poor in his district in Tennessee. If thought the piece was not accurate I would not have used it. I will also admit I didn't save my source for this and have had it for sometime.
From this point on my response is my thoughts from my reading and understanding of socialism and Marxism. I am sure we will disagree with each other's opinions, but that doesn't upset me very much.
Further "Marxist Dictatorship" does not represent Marxism, C*******m nor Socialism. Dictatorships exist in ALL economic systems including your beloved "Free Market Capitalism".
Actually a "Marxist Dictatorship" is usually some form of c*******m.
If Free Market Capitalism" were truly free, not the corrupt crony capitalism that has been prevalent since the early the 1800's politicians started giving favors for money and v**es. Marxism and its cousins, socialism, liberalism, progresivism, etc. almost always leads to c*******m which is usually an oligarchy controlled by elite party members. History confirms most c*******t regimes once in firm control start executing the "useful i***ts" and those needing to be re-educated. Bill Ayers, Obama's buddy, stated in his book Prairie Fire in the late 60's or early 70's that once the Marxist took control, it would be perfectly acceptable to execute 25 million or so American citizens to insure the success of their revolution.
"...politically (though one has to wonder if the motivations of those who push so hard for the "Free Market" are as noble as those who push for a fairer economic system)."
"In fact had Capitalism been as shiny wonderful as some seem to want to paint it Marxism would never have come about."
Not true, Marx's version of socialism has only been around since the time of Marx and Engles. Socialism has been plaguing mankind ever since someone figured out how to defraud society and get a free lunch. But of course, you know that.
What's a fairer economic system? Is it one that robs wealth from the productive and doles it out to the unproductive? Is it a system, as in socialism and C*******m, where everyone except the ruling elite live in squalor, misery, fear of their government and disenfranchisement?
I would prefer a system where everyone would have the opportunity to be as poor or as wealthy as they choose without government interference. I believe what I earn is mine to share with whom I please and no one else should be able to force me to share it.
Assuming you own your home, do you really own it?
"In actual fact the Founding Fathers themselves were not in complete agreement over what the Constitution meant or how it should be interpretted or applied."
See the Federalist Papers, they provided an accurate interpretation of our then new Constitution and a vision of the nation it would guide. I agree not all the founding fathers were in agreement with all the tenants of the Constitution, but the Federalist Papers convinced states to ratify it as our form of government. Still many did not like the Constitution and feared it did not either protect the people from the government or did not protect protect the government from corrupt politicians. Corruption is a problem that has manifested itself throughout our history.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source and it basically is using the information from your other linked source. Some or much of your quote came from the link below.
http://crockettincongress.blogspot.com/2009/10/not-yours-to-give-fable-re-examined.html
I opened and read this link with interest and will concede to you that perhaps Crockett never gave the "Not yours to give" speech in Congress. Neither of the co-writers gave much of a clue as to where they came up with their information refuting the said speech. I searched around for sources that confirmed either one of our contentions, but I found your source as the only source questioning Crockett's veracity. I tend to agree with your conjecture that my piece may be a fallacy rather than factual.
I was aware of Crockett's charitable leanings and his aid and attempted aid to the less well off and poor in his district in Tennessee. If thought the piece was not accurate I would not have used it. I will also admit I didn't save my source for this and have had it for sometime.
From this point on my response is my thoughts from my reading and understanding of socialism and Marxism. I am sure we will disagree with each other's opinions, but that doesn't upset me very much.
Further "Marxist Dictatorship" does not represent Marxism, C*******m nor Socialism. Dictatorships exist in ALL economic systems including your beloved "Free Market Capitalism".
Actually a "Marxist Dictatorship" is usually some form of c*******m.
If Free Market Capitalism" were truly free, not the corrupt crony capitalism that has been prevalent since the early the 1800's politicians started giving favors for money and v**es. Marxism and its cousins, socialism, liberalism, progresivism, etc. almost always leads to c*******m which is usually an oligarchy controlled by elite party members. History confirms most c*******t regimes once in firm control start executing the "useful i***ts" and those needing to be re-educated. Bill Ayers, Obama's buddy, stated in his book Prairie Fire in the late 60's or early 70's that once the Marxist took control, it would be perfectly acceptable to execute 25 million or so American citizens to insure the success of their revolution.
"...politically (though one has to wonder if the motivations of those who push so hard for the "Free Market" are as noble as those who push for a fairer economic system)."
"In fact had Capitalism been as shiny wonderful as some seem to want to paint it Marxism would never have come about."
Not true, Marx's version of socialism has only been around since the time of Marx and Engles. Socialism has been plaguing mankind ever since someone figured out how to defraud society and get a free lunch. But of course, you know that.
What's a fairer economic system? Is it one that robs wealth from the productive and doles it out to the unproductive? Is it a system, as in socialism and C*******m, where everyone except the ruling elite live in squalor, misery, fear of their government and disenfranchisement?
I would prefer a system where everyone would have the opportunity to be as poor or as wealthy as they choose without government interference. I believe what I earn is mine to share with whom I please and no one else should be able to force me to share it.
Assuming you own your home, do you really own it?
"In actual fact the Founding Fathers themselves were not in complete agreement over what the Constitution meant or how it should be interpretted or applied."
See the Federalist Papers, they provided an accurate interpretation of our then new Constitution and a vision of the nation it would guide. I agree not all the founding fathers were in agreement with all the tenants of the Constitution, but the Federalist Papers convinced states to ratify it as our form of government. Still many did not like the Constitution and feared it did not either protect the people from the government or did not protect protect the government from corrupt politicians. Corruption is a problem that has manifested itself throughout our history.
Mar 24, 2013 03:40:22 #
I have read both the Federalist Papers and it's counterpart, I wonder if you can say the same? In fact since your response has a most predictably conservative bias to it I think I will refrain from any other response until I know whether or not you have since a balanced discussion is questionable without knowing whether or not you have, with the following one exception; As with all sources of information there are always those who try to discredit those sources who are not in lockstep with their own views.. Wikipedia being one of those sources. I had my own questions about it's reliability so I took the time to research it's reliability and accuracy and that research showed it to be as credible and reliable as any other major reputable encyclopedia so unless you have a credible source to support your view of it then I cannot give credence to your opinion of it.
Mar 24, 2013 13:59:17 #
StarWizard wrote:
I have read both the Federalist Papers and it's co... (show quote)
The problem with Wikipedia as I understand its definitions and facts can be changed by viewers. If so then that leaves it questionable as to a reliable source. I have never tried to alter anything there so I don't know. I use Wikipedia as a quick and dirty source to start out some on my searches.
I picked these links from a goole search "credibility of Wikipedia", I copied most of the first listed links and even included one that you should like. It appears to me that the jury is still out, but I see no reason for anyone not to check Wikipedia as a quick reference. By the way, when I was in high school and college we were not allowed to use encyclopedia materials as references when writing papers. Even then it appears encyclopedias lacked credibility.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Credibility
http://www.dba-oracle.com/t_credibility_wikipedia.htm
http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-12-13/wikipedia-a-work-in-progress
http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/blogger/2006/11/23/on-evaluating-wikidedias-credibility/
Your other source's information (the co authors) was used by Wikipedia which you in turn quoted to me by. As I see it, you used the same source twice.
http://books.google.com/books?id=w81L1qAhNjoC&pg=PA216&lpg=PA216&dq=federalist+papers+counterpart&source=bl&ots=wnI4ls01Ny&sig=T5hSreyDELzQT-porXG5Tf2qkTY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CzBPUf3VF5PG9gTj1YDABg&ved=0CFwQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=federalist%20papers%20counterpart&f=false
I will assume that this article contains some of the Anti-Federalists works to which you reference. You made me more aware of the differing views of the Federalist Papers. However, I knew there were others who wanted more protection for the people from the government than were included in the Constitution. I also know there were many who remained loyal to the crown and some returned to Britain, so not everyone was happy. I confess, I have not read much of the oppositions point of view. I have read most of the Federalist Papers piecemeal over the years, but I am not a expert like yourself.
"In fact since your response has a most predictably conservative bias to it I think I will refrain from any other response until I know whether or not you have since a balanced discussion is questionable without knowing whether or not you have, with the following one exception;..."
Did you mean, whether or not you have a sense of balanced discussion? Or did you mean something altogether different?
"As with all sources of information there are always those who try to discredit those sources who are not in lockstep with their own views.."
You are as guilty as am I, we all like to cherry pick our sources to fit our needs.
Now I don't pretend to be an intellectual scholar, but I've read a lot over the years and have a better working knowledge than many in this country. I believe you to be the same, we unfortunately have opposing ideologies.
For what it's worth department: Two things I tell everyone, once you become the establishment power you will fight just as hard as your perceived enemy did to maintain that power base. And, it takes first class funerals to effect significant change and or balance in politics, these facts are especially true on the local level.
Mar 24, 2013 14:52:46 #
I will check out your supplied references for wikipedia as time allows. In essence though, yes there was a time when Wikipedia's reliability as a source was questioned and it's use as a reference was frowned upon, in the academic world as in other arenas as well. I don't believe that to be the case now, though for me I resolved the issue to my satisfaction some time back. As for the ability of outsiders to 'edit' it, yes there is a limited ability to do so BUT there are checks to ensure any editting or changes are true and accurate ones and any inaccurate changes are swiftly fixed or removed.
As for my ideology, I don't believe I have actually stated my position on anything other than that I question the validity of using the quoted opinions of one man (or even 4 or 5, especially if those quotes are out of context as they so often are) to represent the supposed views of a ill defined majority opinion of others. IF the speech was a real speech then it still remains the opinions of solely one man. If it was not a real speech then it adds further doubt over it's use as a source of doctrine. The reference(s) I included were included solely to point out that there is question whether or not the speech is even authentic, not for any other reason. Had I been looking for a proof that the speech was not real I would have found more complete and more referenced sources to share. From my perspective the fact that Crockett is on record as v****g for Federal Appropriations to the poor and to cheap land title 'grants' would be sufficient cause to doubt the authenticity of the speech, or any view that he thought such action was unConstitutional (either that or he was a hypocrite and I hestitate to accuse him of that).
As for cherry picking? At this point I am unsure of what you believe I am cherry picking. I haven't listed any real sources other than as to call in question the supposed validity of the speech this blog is supposed to be about. I admit to not sharing your views on economic systems and supposed dictatorships (which is not a true cause and effect relationship but is a prevalent idea among conspiracy theorists), but I haven't actually entered into a discussion of such, other than to question your conclusions in passing. Dictatorships come about through wealth disparity as easily (in fact more easily) than through seeking social justice. In fact a serious point could be made that our most affluent times and the largest growth of the middle class (and subsequent shrinking of the poor class) as well as our greatest expansions of the rights of people to all people occurred during our most progressive times and since we have "returned" to a 'free market' conservative system of policies we have seen a significant drift back toward economic and political disparity. I know I have seen much loss of citizen's rights and economic e******y since the 80's but that would be a lengthy (and off topic) discussion.
As for my meaning about a balanced discussion, my intented meaning there is it's hard to have a balanced and intellectual discussion with someone who has only read half (or less than half) of the arguments involved and has made up their mind that the portion they have read is all there is to the matter. Yes I referenced the "Anti Federalist Papers" because they express views from other citizens who were opposed to ratifying the new Constitution and one cannot completely understand the Federalist Papers, nor the issues of the times, without reading both sides. Sadly I have ran into far too many people who love to quote bits and pieces of one side but are either ignorant of the counter arguments of the day or wish to pretend they didn't exist. (Again sadly many "Constitutionalists" are like too many "Christians" in that they pick and choose what fits their already chosen viewpoints and ignore anything that would oppose that view). Please don't confuse that with thinking we are not bound by the Constitution, but as noted previously even those who were involved in drafting it are not in complete agreement as to it's limits and intents. Madison for one actually changed his position on Standing Armies during his time as President. Madison also did not believe a Bill of Rights was necessary and only drafted them upon request (partly from Thomas Jefferson).
From where I stand I would actually place most modern Conservatives in the group that opposed ratification of our Constitution but that's simply because of the attitudes they exude and express. Those same people who cry so loudly for a 'return to the constitution' would have actually been opposed to ratification of it during those times. Ironic to say the least.
As for my "ideology", I am a moderate progressive, or at least like to think I am. There are those who would disagree (from both Right and Left camps). At one time I was an adament "Constitutionalist" but time and research has given me better perspectives on what it truly means to support the Constitution and where our real enemies lie.
I would actually suggest you read Federalist Paper 9 by Madison (I have decided to reread both documents as memories do tend to fade as time progresses).
In essence Madison would have grouped both left and right, conservative and liberal into Factions. I would also suggest that if you haven't yet done so you read the works of Thomas Paine (a favorite of modern conservatives but I suspect it's because they haven't really read his works since he pretty much would be considered an ultra liberal in today's definitions). I would probably suggest "Common Sense" followed by "Age of Reason", "The Rights of Man" and "Agrarian Justice" for starters.
As for my ideology, I don't believe I have actually stated my position on anything other than that I question the validity of using the quoted opinions of one man (or even 4 or 5, especially if those quotes are out of context as they so often are) to represent the supposed views of a ill defined majority opinion of others. IF the speech was a real speech then it still remains the opinions of solely one man. If it was not a real speech then it adds further doubt over it's use as a source of doctrine. The reference(s) I included were included solely to point out that there is question whether or not the speech is even authentic, not for any other reason. Had I been looking for a proof that the speech was not real I would have found more complete and more referenced sources to share. From my perspective the fact that Crockett is on record as v****g for Federal Appropriations to the poor and to cheap land title 'grants' would be sufficient cause to doubt the authenticity of the speech, or any view that he thought such action was unConstitutional (either that or he was a hypocrite and I hestitate to accuse him of that).
As for cherry picking? At this point I am unsure of what you believe I am cherry picking. I haven't listed any real sources other than as to call in question the supposed validity of the speech this blog is supposed to be about. I admit to not sharing your views on economic systems and supposed dictatorships (which is not a true cause and effect relationship but is a prevalent idea among conspiracy theorists), but I haven't actually entered into a discussion of such, other than to question your conclusions in passing. Dictatorships come about through wealth disparity as easily (in fact more easily) than through seeking social justice. In fact a serious point could be made that our most affluent times and the largest growth of the middle class (and subsequent shrinking of the poor class) as well as our greatest expansions of the rights of people to all people occurred during our most progressive times and since we have "returned" to a 'free market' conservative system of policies we have seen a significant drift back toward economic and political disparity. I know I have seen much loss of citizen's rights and economic e******y since the 80's but that would be a lengthy (and off topic) discussion.
As for my meaning about a balanced discussion, my intented meaning there is it's hard to have a balanced and intellectual discussion with someone who has only read half (or less than half) of the arguments involved and has made up their mind that the portion they have read is all there is to the matter. Yes I referenced the "Anti Federalist Papers" because they express views from other citizens who were opposed to ratifying the new Constitution and one cannot completely understand the Federalist Papers, nor the issues of the times, without reading both sides. Sadly I have ran into far too many people who love to quote bits and pieces of one side but are either ignorant of the counter arguments of the day or wish to pretend they didn't exist. (Again sadly many "Constitutionalists" are like too many "Christians" in that they pick and choose what fits their already chosen viewpoints and ignore anything that would oppose that view). Please don't confuse that with thinking we are not bound by the Constitution, but as noted previously even those who were involved in drafting it are not in complete agreement as to it's limits and intents. Madison for one actually changed his position on Standing Armies during his time as President. Madison also did not believe a Bill of Rights was necessary and only drafted them upon request (partly from Thomas Jefferson).
From where I stand I would actually place most modern Conservatives in the group that opposed ratification of our Constitution but that's simply because of the attitudes they exude and express. Those same people who cry so loudly for a 'return to the constitution' would have actually been opposed to ratification of it during those times. Ironic to say the least.
As for my "ideology", I am a moderate progressive, or at least like to think I am. There are those who would disagree (from both Right and Left camps). At one time I was an adament "Constitutionalist" but time and research has given me better perspectives on what it truly means to support the Constitution and where our real enemies lie.
I would actually suggest you read Federalist Paper 9 by Madison (I have decided to reread both documents as memories do tend to fade as time progresses).
In essence Madison would have grouped both left and right, conservative and liberal into Factions. I would also suggest that if you haven't yet done so you read the works of Thomas Paine (a favorite of modern conservatives but I suspect it's because they haven't really read his works since he pretty much would be considered an ultra liberal in today's definitions). I would probably suggest "Common Sense" followed by "Age of Reason", "The Rights of Man" and "Agrarian Justice" for starters.
Mar 24, 2013 20:07:17 #
StarWizard wrote:
I will check out your supplied references for wiki... (show quote)
I think to a certain extent you an I are talking past each other in a very large part. While you are to the left of me and I am to you right, I will not write you off just yet. Some things I feel we agree in a limited way.
The cherry picking remark was meant as stated, I see everyone do it. I don't know if there is much more out there refuting Crockett's speech, I did not personally find anymore and I did look. I will also admit my search sk**ls sometimes are not too good. You should be happy as I conceded your source most likely was correct. If you find more send it along.
I would suggest to you to read the works ofFredrick Bastiat, The 5,000 Year Leap, by W. Cleon Skousen, Rules for Radicals, by Saul Alinski, and the Cloward/Piven strategy. I am sure you have read some of this stuff.
I will try to make time to read some of your suggestions. I will read Federalist 9 as per your suggestion and the other too.
I have told many of my Conservative friends they may not like the Constitution so well if we return to the letter of it. I think I know what the results will be, but I am not sure many "Constitutional conservatives" really have looked at the consequences.
Mar 24, 2013 20:53:12 #
You are probably right, we may well be talking past each other. I, for one, tend to respond to those thoughts that most grab my immediate attention and may be reading past what you want me to see). And I do also agree, to an extent, everyone cherry picks, for one thing it can't be helped as there is too much relevant information for one person to assemble, sift through and digest, coupled with our own prior biases, i.e. we each tend to read into our sources those things that fit best what we already believe. I suppose the real test is how much one questions one's own correctness and how willing is that one to hear what the other side has to say with a mind toward understanding it. People get so wrapped up in the "I'm right and you're an i***t" syndrome that they fail to hear anything that the other side is saying, especially if it disagrees with their cherished beliefs. That, of course, doesn't mean everyone does that but there are far too many who do. I, for one, have actually switched sides over the years, switching from hardcore "Constitutionalist" 'conservative' to a more moderate progressive position. My conversion began during the first Reagan term. (v**ed for him but he's the last GOP P**********l Candidate I could bring myself to v**e for) Too many variables involved to explain why in a short blog though.
One thing I have found over the years is that when people of opposing views actually listen to what the other side is really saying they often find they are not as far apart as they believed. Often both sides see the same problems they just have different answers or approaches, and also quite often the pooling of ideas from both sides usually offers better answers than either side had alone.
I will expand my reading suggestion to include Federalist Paper 10 as it's a continuation of 9. I didn't notice I had moved from 9 to 10 until I started 11. Which, of course, was after I posted my last comments
As I've tried to indicate my postings and objections are on the principal of using the quotation of one (or a few) in an attempt to show that ALL people believed that or that a principal can only be interpretted in that manner. Crocketts speech, real or not, is nothing more than an opinion on the matter, an opinion that isn't necessarily shared by many of the drafters of the Constitution nor of the people of the times. I am certain it was shared by SOME but as noted there were disagreements by the Delegates even after Ratification, as can be demonstrated by the actions of those delegates who later served as Congressmen and President. For one thing there is no way to prove either way whether or not the speech was ever given. There is no record that it was and no way to prove it wasn't. Seeing Crockett's v****g record on the issue and knowing of all the tall tales that were created around him I would lean toward it's another tall tale and never happened, but whether or not it really happened is not the issue, the issue falls back to using an "Important Man's" opinion to "prove" that something is true. I would think that since there is doubt about whether or not the speech happened that one might want to err on the side of caution about it. As a side note, there was a time I believed the speech was real and passed it around on the internet but that was many years ago.
The Problem with returning to the "letter of the Constitution" is manyfold, and I would agree the people who want to do that aren't thinking things through. Not the least problem falls back again to the fact that even the delegates that drafted the Constitution weren't in agreement to what it all means and how to implement it. So which "interpretation" do we employ? And who's Rights gets trampled by whomever else in the process? I'm sure that the African Americans and Native Americans would balk pretty hard at going back to the "original intent", as would women and non landowners. Nor are Liberals "Anti Constitution", as is noted above they just see the problems (and potential solutions) in a different light. You might be surprised by some of what liberals really believe, as opposed to what I keep hearing "WE" believe. In fact I recently saw a posting by a liberal site that was talking about the same kind of "revolution" that some hardcore conservative sites seem to be trying to promote, and for the same reasons. Scary stuff and not a path I care to even consider going down except as a very last resort that is forced upon the people.
I don't like the way things are going in this nation (or world) either but I cringe when I see logical fallacies and other stuff that isn't well thought out offered up as 'solutions'. (And no, I don't believe all my ideas are completely thought out or well rounded either, but we need to get past the polarizations and start talking to each other if we're going to survive as a Nation).
As for Welfare.. well that's a pretty involved topic and if you want to make it corporate welfare, giveaways and tax loopholes you would likely find me in complete agreement. But even Adam Smith (Wealth of Nations) supported the idea that the rich should pay more in relation to the rewards they have reaped from society. (Read Deut 26 if your beliefs run that way, Tax supported state run welfare in ancient Israel. I believe it's chapter 26 anyway, if you don't find it I will look up the exact reference.. it's a 3rd tithe for welfare purposes)
Funny thing, I just finished reading Animal Farm by George Orwell. (read 1984 in the late 60's but never got around to Animal Farm until now). Was always told it was about Russian C*******m but it could just as easily fit America in the past 40 years. In fact I didn't get any sense (except for the one candidate e******n reference) that would limit the book to any one type of deceptive usurpation of power. The "Pigs" and Dogs could very easily be modern Corporation officers as they could have been Russian Party officials. And the farm animals could just as easily be the American people, especially the working class.
One thing I have found over the years is that when people of opposing views actually listen to what the other side is really saying they often find they are not as far apart as they believed. Often both sides see the same problems they just have different answers or approaches, and also quite often the pooling of ideas from both sides usually offers better answers than either side had alone.
I will expand my reading suggestion to include Federalist Paper 10 as it's a continuation of 9. I didn't notice I had moved from 9 to 10 until I started 11. Which, of course, was after I posted my last comments
As I've tried to indicate my postings and objections are on the principal of using the quotation of one (or a few) in an attempt to show that ALL people believed that or that a principal can only be interpretted in that manner. Crocketts speech, real or not, is nothing more than an opinion on the matter, an opinion that isn't necessarily shared by many of the drafters of the Constitution nor of the people of the times. I am certain it was shared by SOME but as noted there were disagreements by the Delegates even after Ratification, as can be demonstrated by the actions of those delegates who later served as Congressmen and President. For one thing there is no way to prove either way whether or not the speech was ever given. There is no record that it was and no way to prove it wasn't. Seeing Crockett's v****g record on the issue and knowing of all the tall tales that were created around him I would lean toward it's another tall tale and never happened, but whether or not it really happened is not the issue, the issue falls back to using an "Important Man's" opinion to "prove" that something is true. I would think that since there is doubt about whether or not the speech happened that one might want to err on the side of caution about it. As a side note, there was a time I believed the speech was real and passed it around on the internet but that was many years ago.
The Problem with returning to the "letter of the Constitution" is manyfold, and I would agree the people who want to do that aren't thinking things through. Not the least problem falls back again to the fact that even the delegates that drafted the Constitution weren't in agreement to what it all means and how to implement it. So which "interpretation" do we employ? And who's Rights gets trampled by whomever else in the process? I'm sure that the African Americans and Native Americans would balk pretty hard at going back to the "original intent", as would women and non landowners. Nor are Liberals "Anti Constitution", as is noted above they just see the problems (and potential solutions) in a different light. You might be surprised by some of what liberals really believe, as opposed to what I keep hearing "WE" believe. In fact I recently saw a posting by a liberal site that was talking about the same kind of "revolution" that some hardcore conservative sites seem to be trying to promote, and for the same reasons. Scary stuff and not a path I care to even consider going down except as a very last resort that is forced upon the people.
I don't like the way things are going in this nation (or world) either but I cringe when I see logical fallacies and other stuff that isn't well thought out offered up as 'solutions'. (And no, I don't believe all my ideas are completely thought out or well rounded either, but we need to get past the polarizations and start talking to each other if we're going to survive as a Nation).
As for Welfare.. well that's a pretty involved topic and if you want to make it corporate welfare, giveaways and tax loopholes you would likely find me in complete agreement. But even Adam Smith (Wealth of Nations) supported the idea that the rich should pay more in relation to the rewards they have reaped from society. (Read Deut 26 if your beliefs run that way, Tax supported state run welfare in ancient Israel. I believe it's chapter 26 anyway, if you don't find it I will look up the exact reference.. it's a 3rd tithe for welfare purposes)
Funny thing, I just finished reading Animal Farm by George Orwell. (read 1984 in the late 60's but never got around to Animal Farm until now). Was always told it was about Russian C*******m but it could just as easily fit America in the past 40 years. In fact I didn't get any sense (except for the one candidate e******n reference) that would limit the book to any one type of deceptive usurpation of power. The "Pigs" and Dogs could very easily be modern Corporation officers as they could have been Russian Party officials. And the farm animals could just as easily be the American people, especially the working class.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.