James Madison and Davy Crockett on Socialized Charity
–Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis
While I do not like getting into political debates, I have recently come to terms with the fact that people my age in the United States have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHAT THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT IS IN REGARD TO CHARITY. I highly doubt you could find one in fifty who could tell you about the foundational principles of Capitalism, let alone give you an economic plan that is most God honoring and beneficial to society. Nevertheless most of them will vote to put a political ideology into the White House.
You can read the whole article here.James Madison, the father of our Constitution, said, in a January 1794 speech in the House of Representatives, “The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.
Perhaps an even more interesting historical piece is the speech delivered by Davy Crockett before the House of Representatives sometime in the 1820’s or 1830’s:
One day in the House of Representatives a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:
“Mr. Speaker–I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.
“Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.”
You can read the rest here
One final quote by Williams sums all my concerns up in one sweeping explanation:
Americans demand that Congress spend trillions of dollars on farm subsidies, business bailouts, education subsidies, Social Security, Medicare and prescription drugs and other elements of a welfare state. The problem is that Congress produces nothing. Whatever Congress wishes to give, it has to first take other people’s money. Thus, at the root of the welfare state is the immorality of intimidation, threats and coercion backed up with the threat of violence by the agents of the U.S. Congress. In order for Congress to do what some Americans deem as good, it must first do evil. It must do that which if done privately would mean a jail sentence; namely, take the property of one American to give to another.
So, as a Christian who lives in America and votes in leaders, I hope that you will consider the ethical ramifications of the political ideologies at hand. While we do not and should not use the pulpit to promote politics, we nevertheless have a responsibility to be informed. Just some thoughts.
Nicholas, thanks for this. Walter Williams has pointed out very well the inherent dangers and unconstitutional nature of the welfare state.