Showing posts with label National Debt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label National Debt. Show all posts

Sunday, January 27, 2019

Diary of Gideon Welles: Tuesday, April 12, 1864

To-day have a letter from Admiral Lee respecting the exportation of French tobacco from Richmond. This is an arrangement of Mr. Seward to which I have always objected, but to which the President was persuaded to yield his assent some months ago. The subject has lingered until now. Admiral Lee says the French naval vessels and transports are at the Roads and about to proceed up the James River, and inquires if he shall keep an account of their export.

I took the dispatch to the Cabinet-meeting to ascertain from Mr. Seward what his arrangements were, but he was not present. When the little business on hand was disposed of, I introduced the subject to the President, who told me he had seen the dispatch to me and also one to Mr. Stanton from General Butler. He saw them both at the telegraph office, and after he got home he had sent for Fred Seward and Mr. Stanton. They appear neither of them to think the subject of much consequence, but after Stanton had returned to the War Department and read Butler's dispatch, he sent the President word that Mr. Seward ought to give the subject attention. The President had therefore told Fred Seward to telegraph his father, who is in New York, to return.

It is curious, that the President who saw Adl Lee’s dispatch to me should have consulted the Secretary of War and Assistant Secretary of State without advising me, or consulting me on the subject. He was annoyed, I saw, when I introduced the topic. The reason for all this I well understood. He knew full well my opposition to this whole proceeding, which I had fought off two or three times, until he finally gave in to Seward. When, therefore, some of the difficulties which I had suggested began to arise, the President preferred not to see me. It will not surprise me if this is but the beginning of the trouble we shall experience.

At the Cabinet-meeting, Chase, after presenting his weekly exhibit, showing our national debt to be over sixteen hundred millions, said he should have to request the Navy Department and also that of the Interior to make no farther calls on the Treasury for coin. I told him he must provide for foreign bills which stood different from any others, and if he had paid the Interior or any other Department than the State and Navy, which had foreign bills, and possibly the War Department some foreign purchases, I thought it not right; that I had experienced great difficulty in making California payments, but had met them, because I supposed all domestic bills were treated alike.

Chase did not meet the point squarely, but talked on other subjects, and answered some questions of the President's about the daily custom receipts, and explained the operations of his gold dollar certificates, etc. I brought him back to the Navy matter by asking him how our paymasters and agents were to draw abroad, — by what standard of value. He said the legal-tender standard. “What is that standard,” I inquired, “in Nassau, in Rio, in China, or London?”

He made me no other answer than that he was anxious to reduce the price of gold, and that something must be done to effect it. Talked of taxing bank circulation and driving it out of existence. I told him that might be a step in the right direction, perhaps, provided he did not increase his paper issues, but that if he issued irredeemable Treasury paper instead to an unlimited amount, there would be no relief; that by reducing the amount of paper and making it payable in specie on demand he would bring his legal tenders and gold nearer to equality. The President remarked that something must be done towards taxing the bank paper; said he did not fully comprehend the financial questions in all their bearings; made some sensible inquiries of Mr. Chase concerning his issues, which were bought for custom-house purposes.

Mr. Usher made some inquiries and suggestions about bringing down the price of gold and compelling banks and others to disgorge that were worthy an old Whig of thirty years gone by. His ideas were crude, absurd, and ridiculous. He evidently has never given the subject attention.

Mr. Grimes and Mr. Hale had a round in the Senate yesterday. The former had the best of the debate, but still did not do himself, the Department, and the service full justice.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 9-11

Saturday, May 26, 2018

Diary of Gideon Welles: Wednesday, February 3, 1864

Had a brief talk to-day with Chase on financial matters. He seems embarrassed how to proceed, but, being fertile in resources, listening to others still more fertile, and having resorted to expedients in one instance, he will probably experience little difficulty in finding another. There will, however, come a day of reckoning, and the nation will have to pay for all these expedients. In departing from the specie standard and making irredeemable paper its equivalent, I think a great error was committed. By inflating the currency, loans have been more easily taken, but the artificial prices are ruinous. I do not gather from Chase that he has any system or fixed principles to govern him in his management of the Treasury. He craves even beyond most others a victory, for the success of our arms inspires capitalists with confidence. He inquired about Charleston; regretted that Farragut had not been ordered there. I asked what F. could do beyond Dahlgren at that point. Well, he said, he knew not that he could do more, but he was brave and had a name which inspired confidence. I admitted he had a reputation which Dahlgren had not, but no one had questioned D.'s courage or capacity and the President favored him. The moral effect of taking Charleston was not to be questioned; beyond that I knew not anything could be gained. The port was closed.

The conversation turned upon army and naval operations. He lamented the President's want of energy and force, which he said paralyzed everything. His weakness was crushing us. I did not respond to this distinct feeler, and the conversation changed.

Almost daily we have some indications of Presidential aspirations and incipient operations for the campaign. The President does not conceal the interest he takes, and yet I perceive nothing unfair or intrusive. He is sometimes, but not often, deceived by heartless intriguers who impose upon him. Some appointments have been secured by mischievous men, which would never have been made had he known the facts. In some respects he is a singular man and not fully understood. He has great sagacity and shrewdness, but sometimes his assertion or management is astray. When he relies on his own right intentions and good common sense, he is strongest. So in regard to friends whom he distrusts, and mercenary opponents, in some of whom he confides. A great and almost inexcusable error for a man in his position.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 1: 1861 – March 30, 1864, p. 520-1

Monday, April 16, 2018

Gerrit Smith: The True Office of Civil Government, April 14, 1851

[Delivered at Troy, New York, April 14, 1851.]

The legitimate action of Civil Government is very simple. Its legitimate range is very narrow. Government owes nothing to its subjects but protection. And this is a protection, not from competitions, but from crimes. It owes them no protection from the foreign farmer, or foreign manufacturer, or foreign navigator. As it owes them no other protection from each other than from the crimes of each other, so it owes them no other protection from foreigners, than from the crimes of foreigners. Nor is it from all crimes, that Government is bound to protect its subjects. It is from such only, as are committed against their persons and possessions. Ingratitude is a crime: but, as it is not of this class of crimes, Government is not to be cognizant of it.

No protection does Government owe to the morals of its subjects. Still less is it bound to study to promote their morals. To call on Government to increase the wealth of its subjects, or to help the progress of religion among them, or, in short, to promote any of their interests, is to call on it to do that, which it has no right to do, and which, it is probably safe to add, it has no power to do. Were Government to aim to secure to its subjects the free and inviolable control of their persons and property — of life and of the means of sustaining life — it would be aiming at all, that it should aim at. And its subjects, if they get this security, should feel that they need nothing more at the hands of Government to enable them to work their way well through the world. Government, in a word, is to say to its subjects: “You must do for yourselves. My only part is to defend your right to do for yourselves. You must do your own work. I will but protect you in that work.”

That, the world over, Government is depended on to instruct, improve, guide, and enrich its subjects, proves, that, the world over, there is little confidence in the democratic doctrine of the people’s ability to take care of themselves: and that the opposite doctrine, that the many must be taken care of by the aristocratic and select few, is well nigh universally entertained. The people’s lack of confidence in themselves is not only proved, but it is accounted for, by this dependence on Government. This dependence of the people on the policy, providence, and guidance of Government, as well in peace as in war, has necessarily begotten in them a distrust of their ability to take care of themselves.

One of the consequences of this self-distrust on the part of the people is, that Government is employed, for the most part, in doing what it belongs to the people to do. And one of the consequences of this illegitimate work of Government is, that Government has become too great, and the people too little — that Government has risen into undue prominence, and the people sunk into undue obscurity. This is evident, wherever we look. The British Government overshadows the British people, and is their master, instead of their servant. It is in France as in Britain. The French Government owns, instead of being owned by, the French people.

The people of every nation are annoyed, enthralled, debased by this meddling of Government with the people’s duties! And never will the liberty, dignity, and happiness of the people be what they should be, until the people shall have risen up, and driven back Government from this meddling. In other words, the people will never be in their proper place, and Government will never be in its proper place, until the work of the people is done by the people.

Whenever the work of the people is taken out of their hands by the Government — or, since the people are quite as ready to shirk their work, as Government is to usurp it — I might as well say, whenever the people devolve it on Government, it is, of course, badly done. This is true, because every work to be well done must be done by its appropriate agent. Whenever Government builds railroads and canals, it builds them injudiciously and wastefully. So too, whenever Government meddles with schools, it proves, that it is out of its place by the pernicious influence it exerts upon them. And to whatever extent churches are controlled by Government, to that extent are they corrupted by it.

That Government does the work of the people badly is not, however, my chief objection to this meddling. There are two other objections to it, on which I lay greater stress than on this. One of these is — that Government, being allowed to do the work of others, fails, for this reason, to do its own work — or, in other words, being allowed to do what it should not do, it fails to do what it should do. The other of these objections is, that the doing by Government of the work of the people has the effect to degrade and dwarf the people.

I said, that Government has naught to do, but to protect its subjects from crimes. The crimes, however, which it permits against them — and, still more, the crimes, which it authorizes, and even perpetrates against them, show how extensively it fails of its duty. We will glance at a few of these crimes.

Slavery is one of them. And who needs to be told, that slavery is a crime? ay, the highest crime against both the body and the soul. Nevertheless, Government, not only permits its subjects to be enslaved, but it actually enacts laws for their enslavement.

Land monopoly is another of these crimes. The right of every man to his needed share of the soil, is as inborn, inalienable, and absolute, as his right to life itself: and the world has suffered more wrong and wretchedness from the violations of this right than it has even from slavery. Indeed, the robbing of men of their liberty is but a consequence of robbing them of their land. The poverty and impotence of the landless masses make them an inviting and easy prey of slavery. The masses, who fall under the yoke of slavery, fall under it because they are poor. Well does the Bible say: “The destruction of the poor is their poverty.” But were the equal right to the soil practically acknowledged, there would be no masses of poverty: and, hence, there would be little or no slavery — almost certainly no slavery. Stupendous, however, and everywhere-practised robbery, as is land monopoly, Government, nevertheless, does not forbid it. Nay, it positively and expressly permits it. Still worse, it does itself practise it. Government is itself the great land monopolist.

The compelling of one generation to pay the debts of another is among these crimes. Government not only suffers its subjects to be robbed of their earnings, in order to pay the debts of former generations, but it actually compels them to submit to such robbery.

There are wrongs done to woman, which fall in this class of crimes. Such is the wrong of denying her the right to control her property. Such is the wrong of denying her the right to participate in the choice of civil rulers. But Government, so far from defending these rights, does itself rob her of them.

The violation of the right to buy and sell freely, whenever and wherever we please, is another of these crimes. Government does, by its Tariffs, annihilate this right.

Now, why is it, that Government is engaged in all this, and, also, in a still greater, variety of nefarious work? It is, because having been allowed to neglect, and go beyond, its own proper and good work, no effectual limits can be set to its improper and bad work. And our answer to the question, why Government fails to perform its appropriate work of protecting its subjects from crimes, is that its meddling with the work, which is not its own, has unfitted it to appreciate and perform the work, which is its own. Let the lawyer dabble with merchandise, and he will be like to lose both his relish and his competency for his law business. Let the doctor annex to his province that of the lawyer, and, ten to one, he will be more interested in his briefs than in his pills. And, so too, if Government shall intrude itself into the province of the people, and usurp the work of the people, one consequence of such intrusion and usurpation will be its growing indifference and infidelity to its own duties — to its own proper work. “Ne sutor ultra crepidam” is an adage quite as applicable to Civil Government, as to an individual.

I referred to two of my objections to the meddling by Government with the work of the people. One of them I have now explained; and I need say no more to show, that it is well founded, and that the misdoing and no-doing of the proper work of Government are a necessary consequence of its meddling with the work of the people. Equally well founded is the other objection. The unhappy effect on the Government is a no more certain consequence of this meddling, than is its unhappy effect on the people.. The character of the people suffers as much from it, as does the character of the Government. The people, who consent to have their proper duties meddled with, and usurped by, Government, are shrivelled in self respect and manly spirit, and are fast tending to impotence. They are the servants and hangers-on of Government. They are swallowed up by it. To a great extent this is true of every people, who crave the guiding and sustaining hand of Government in their farming and manufacturing; in their road-building and canal-building; in their schools and churches. When smarting under the effect of their own follies, they will, instead of manfully undertaking to retrieve themselves, invoke the help of Government. What right-minded person has forgotten the humiliating spectacle, which the American people presented, some fourteen years ago, when they cried out to Government to relieve them of the consequences of that haste to be rich, which had then been prevailing throughout our country? The National Executive was implored: —— a special session of Congress was called for: — and all this, because so many thousands had got swamped in corner-lot and other speculations!

There are several points, on which an explanation may, perhaps, be desired of me.

1st. Do I mean, that Government shall invariably and absolutely forbid slavery? Yes — as invariably and absolutely, as it forbids murder. God no more creates men to be enslaved than to be murdered. And that does not deserve the name of Civil Government, which permits its subjects to be enslaved. And he is a pirate, instead of a Civil Ruler, who lays his hand on men to enslave them. And that is not law, but anti-law, which is enacted to reduce men to slavery, or to hold them in slavery. Hence, they are pirates, mobocrats, and anarchists, who are for the “Fugitive Slave law;” and they are law-abiding, who trample it under foot.

Law is for the protection of rights. And they, who believe, that enactments for the destruction of rights are law, know not what are the elements of true law. The American people in their folly, and madness, and devilishness, are busied, under their Fugitive Slave Law, in trying the questions, whether this man and that man are slaves — whether this being and that being, “made in the image of God,” are chattels and commodities. As well, (and not one whit more blasphemously,) might they try the question, whether God is entitled to His throne, or whether God shall be permitted to live. The American people proudly imagine, that theirs is the highest style of Christian civilization. And, yet, where shall we look for ranker atheism, or more revolting features of barbarism?

2d. Do I mean, that men have an equal right to the soil?

Yes — as equal as to the light and the air: and Government should, without delay, prescribe the maximum quantity of land, which each family may possess. In our country, as its population is so sparse, this quantity might go as high as a couple of hundred acres. A century hence, however, and the population may have increased so far, as to make it the duty of Government to reduce this quantity to a hundred acres. Two centuries hence, and it may, for a similar reason, be necessary to bring it as low as fifty acres. The population in Ireland is already so dense, that not more than some ten or twenty acres should be allowed to each family in that island.

To the question, whether I would have the landless claim improved land, I answer — not until the stores of wild land are exhausted. The people of Ireland should be put in immediate possession of the soil of Ireland, “vested rights” to the contrary notwithstanding. In our country, such rights may be spared, for a while longer. But the day is not distant, when, if they have not been previously and peacefully disposed of by Homestead Exemption and Land Limitation laws, they will be compelled to give way before that paramount natural right to the soil, which inheres as fully in every man, as does his right to himself.

3d. Do I mean, that a People may repudiate their national debt? I do. The debt of Great Britain is an average burden on each of her families of, say, one thousand dollars. That of Holland imposes a greater burden. These debts are crushing. The masses groan, and despair, and perish under them. All obligation to pay them should be promptly disavowed. So far is the present generation from being morally bound to lie under this burden, it is morally bound not to lie under it. No generation is bound to begin its career under burdens. No generation is bound to enter upon the race of life, incumbered with the dead weights of debt, which former generations have entailed upon it. On the contrary, if it would fill its page in the world’s history with usefulness and honor, (and no less than this does God require of it,) it must insist on having a free and a fair start.

But we are told, that a national debt is incurred in carrying on patriotic wars. To this we reply, that wars, which the people, who are carrying them on, believe to be just, they are willing to pay for: and that, therefore, every generation may, reasonably, be expected, and required, to pay for its own wars. Far fewer would be wars, if they, who wage them, had to pay for them. Had President Polk sent round the hat for contributions to carry on the Mexican war, the sum total would have been insufficient to pay for one volley. His noisiest partizans and the most bloated patriots would have cast in not more than Sixpence apiece. They loved the war; but they would have others pay for it. They delighted in the entertainment; since it was to be left to others to bear the expense of it. Right glad were they of a chance to dance; if others could be compelled to pay the fiddler.

What, however, it is asked, if the national debt has been created, or increased, by expenditures on “internal improvements” — such as railroads and canals? We answer, that each generation must be left free to choose what wars it will engage in, and, also, what canals and roads it will build: — with the proviso, nevertheless, as well in the one case, as in the other, that it shall pay, as it goes — or, to say the least, that if it makes debts, it shall pay them. But, it may be said, that a single generation, could not build and pay for, an Erie Canal. Then, let one generation build it as far West as Utica ; and the next extend it to Rochester; and the next to Buffalo. But, whether it shall be built by one, or by several, generations, let Government have no part in building it — let not Government be the owner of it, or of any canal, or of any railroad. Were there no other objection to such ownership, it is sufficient, that it puts into the hands of Government a power and a patronage of corrupting influence on both the Government and the people. No small objection to such ownership is, that it occasions so much legislation, and consumes so much of the time of our public councils. (Let it not be inferred from what I have here said, that I would not have our State finish its canals. It should finish them with the least possible delay, or sell them. It has no moral right to keep them unfinished any longer than is necessary.)

Pennsylvania owes forty millions of dollars for her State works. They cannot be sold for one-third of that sum. Now, to compel the payment of the remaining two-thirds from any other generation than the one, which had the fingering of the moneys, that these works cost — than the one, whose demagogues and log-rollers contrived and carried forward these works—is downright robbery. Nevertheless, these demagogues and logrollers were regarded, in their day, as the benefactors of posterity. Pretty benefactions to posterity are those, which posterity has to pay for! and which are generally worth less than half their cost!

A conclusive objection to national debts is the vast increase of Governmental power, which they occasion. Without reflection, one might say, that Government is weak in proportion to the amount of debt, which the nation owes. But, with reflection, he will say, that Government is strong in proportion to such amount. It is true, that the nation is weak in proportion to the extent of the national debt — but it does not follow, that the Government is. The debt due from a nation is a mortgage upon all its wealth and industry. Now, the collecting of this debt is in the hands of the Government. All the persons employed in collecting it are servants of Government. All the power wielded in collecting it is power of the Government — as much so, as if the Government were the creditor, as well as the collector. If, then, the power of Government is to be kept within due limits, the nation must be kept out of debt.

4th. Do I mean to be understood condemning all Tariffs? I do. I would not have a Custom-House on the face of the earth. But, what if our nation should grow rich with a Tariff, and poor without it? Then, let it grow poor. Whatever may be the effect on its wealth, every nation is to cultivate the freest, fullest, friendliest intercourse with every other nation. The nations of the earth constitute, and should feel, that they constitute, a brotherhood. But, restrictions on trade build up frowning barriers across this brotherhood, and are fruitful sources of estrangement and war. In the words of the poet, they

“Make enemies of nations, who had else
Like kindred drops been mingled into one.”

Great, very great, is the crime of Government in imposing these restrictions. Would I send a barrel of flour to the starving family of my Canadian brother? Would he send a roll of cloth to my freezing family? The arresting, by an individual, of this mutual beneficence would be held by all to be very criminal. But the arresting of it by Government is surely no less criminal. The case here supposed is one, which fairly illustrates the inhumanity and irreligion of Tariffs.

But the profit, the profit, of Tariffs is still urged upon our regards. We deny the fact of such profit. We believe, that, even in a pecuniary point of view, truth and justice and benevolence are gain. What, however, were we convinced of such profit? We must not suffer ourselves to be influenced by it. Even to look upon it, is to expose ourselves to be seduced from our opposition to the inhumanity and sin of Tariffs. We must not go so far into the way of temptation, as even to contemplate a motive for doing wrong. The bare contemplation of the motive may bring us to yield to its power, and to do the wrong.

What can be more unjust than Tariff-taxation? Instead of taxing the rich, in proportion to their riches, it taxes the poor, in proportion to their poverty. That they are thus taxed is obvious. For the poor man is poor, in proportion to the number of children he has to bring up; and, in that proportion, is the amount of Tariff-taxed supplies, which he needs for their subsistence. It often occurs, that a poor man pays, under Tariff-taxation, a greater amount of taxes than a rich man pays under it. One-quarter of the wealth of the nation pays a greater amount of Tariff-taxes than do the other three-quarters.

In addition to what we have said, is the consideration, that Tariff-taxes are so much greater than would be the direct taxes in their stead. We now pay, even in time of peace, thirty millions a year to defray the expenses of the General Government. Let its expenses, however, be defrayed by direct taxes, and the thirty millions would be brought down to three:—and, moreover, the South would pay, far more nearly than now, her full proportion of the nation’s taxes. We have spoken of the reduction of taxes in time of peace. What would be the reduction in time of war we scarcely need estimate: for when direct taxes shall have come into the place of Tariff-taxes, and the expenses of war shall, as well as other national expenses, have to be met by direct taxes, there will, probably, be no war.

Never, never, will there be an honest or frugal Government, until it is sustained by direct taxation: — for never, never, will the people be duly watchful of the conduct of Government, until the cost of Government shall be directly felt by them.

The Government, which taxes the poor, as this Government taxes them, is a robber of the poor, instead of discharging the Governmental duty of protecting the poor.

And I would not be content with the mode of taxation, which the free-trade men propose. They ask, that the people shall be taxed according to their property. But I ask for a still further concession to justice and humanity. I ask, that they shall be taxed according to their ability. Now, his ability to pay taxes, who has ten times as much property as his poor neighbor, is not but ten fold as great. It is infinitely greater. The poor man, Who has but two hundred dollars a year, on which to subsist his family, pays his taxes from the little store, every copper of which is urgently negded for their subsistence. But, the rich man by his side, whose income is two thousand dollars a year, pays his taxes from his superfluity. Equity and fraternity do, therefore, claim, that this rich man should pay taxes both for himself and his poor neighbor.

I close my argument with regard to Tariffs by remarking, that if Government will, at all events, sustain and enrich the manufacturers against foreign competition, it should do so by giving them bounties. These bounties I would, of course, have produced by assessments on property, or rather on ability, instead of taxes on consumption.

5th. Do I meant, that Government shall have nothing to do with Schools? I do. In this country, nearly every person admits, that Government should not have aught to do with churches. Why, then, should it have aught to do with schools? Because, says the answerer, schools are the places, in which to get education, whilst churches are the places, in which to get religion. But, in the esteem of many of us, there is great danger, that the education will prove worthless, nay positively and frightfully pernicious, which does not include religion; which is not, at every step of its progress, blended with religion, and identical with religion, and designed to promote religion. Moreover, in the esteem of many of us, the school, in its legitimate use, is, quite as emphatically as even the church itself, the place to get religion. Our school-years constitute that impressible period of life, which is far more hopeful than any or all after years to the plastic hand of the religious teacher. How important, then, that the school-teacher — that every schoolteacher — be also a religious teacher! Is it said, that religion can be taught during our school-years, and yet not in school?

We admit, that it can: — but it will be with comparatively little hope of success, unless it be taught in school also. Is it said, that religion may be gotten, after our school-years are ended? But, not to say, that the heart may, by that time, be imperviously and forever closed against religion, there is but too much reason to fear, that the religion, which is gotten after our school-years are ended, will, in general, be found to be a picked-up, superficial, and easily-parted-with religion, contrasting very widely, in this respect, with the religion of childhood — with the religion, which incorporates itself with, and becomes an inseparable part of, the very being of its possessor. Certain it is, as a general truth, that the religion, which we would fasten in the heart, must be put there in childhood. Do we wonder, that the Roman Catholic is so tenacious of his religion? We will not, if we reflect, that he imbibed it in his childhood. Do we wonder, that Roman Catholics are so strenuously opposed to our common school system? We will not, if we reflect, how deeply they believe in their religion, and how determined they are to imbue everything with it, and how conscientiously opposed they are, therefore, to excluding school-hours, or any portion of school-hours, from the influence of religion. And, in all this, Roman Catholics are right. And, in compelling them to uphold a system of education, which is an infidel system, or which, to say the least, is, to whatever extent it is religious, opposed to their religion, they are cruelly wronged. We call it an infidel system: — and such it virtually is. For, at the most, it contemplates but the toleration, instead of the inculcation, of religion: — and, what is more, it will not even tolerate any other than a conventional and nominal religion. What positive and earnest religion there is among the people of a school district must, so far as the school is concerned, be held in abeyance. Were such a religion allowed to enter our district schools, it would break them up. The doctrine, that “a man’s a man,” whatever his condition, or color, is an essential, fundamental religious doctrine: — and I add, that the current religion of our country is spurious, because it lacks the practical recognition of this doctrine. Now, the honest and hearty attempt to teach this doctrine in our district schools would be resisted to the last degree. It would be held to be a gross and unendurable violation of that religious neutrality, which is a confessed part — nay, the very corner-stone — of the common school structure. The instance has occurred in my own county, where the presence of an antislavery book in the school-library produced great commotion. It was voted out. I have heard of warm indignation in an adjoining county at the discovery in a school-library of William Jay’s history of the Mexican war. The proslavery histories of that war are welcome to our school-libraries. But William Jay’s is an antislavery history. The common school compromise in regard to religion tolerates proslavery, but not antislavery. The common school neutrality in regard to religion permits the praising, but not the condemning, of our war against Mexico.

A popular argument for Government or district schools is, that they are a cheap police. I admit, that good schools are. And so are good churches. Why, then, should not Government take upon itself the care of the churches, as well as of the schools? And since good family-government is, also, a cheap police, and a thousand fold more important to this end than either schools or churches, or both put together, why should not Government take under its supervision our family affairs also? In this cheap-police plea for Government schools, there is, at least, one thing taken for granted, which should not be. It is, that without the help of Government, there would not be schools, or, at least, not so many: whereas the probability is, that, were there no interference of Government, our schools would not only be better than they now are, but quite as numerous also.
It is asked — what will the poor do to get their children educated, in case Government aid is withdrawn? We answer, let them do anything rather than hang upon Government for an education — for an education, which, because it is Governmental, is emasculated of all positive, earnest, hearty religion — for an education, in which, because it is Governmental, the substance of morality is exchanged for the show of morality — and in which what is honest and uncompromising and robust and manly in character is made to give place to pusillanimity, effeminacy, calculation, baseness.

The Government of Prussia sees to it, that the children of Prussia are educated. Nevertheless, it forbids them, when educated, to exercise their education on certain proscribed topics. But, how much worse is this than the system of education, which shuts out vital topics, and the stern demands of principle from the process of education? If my child may not, whilst in the course of his education, be freely instructed in the most radical political and moral truths, and in the duty of their most faithful application, the chances are a hundred to one, that he will not relish such instruction in after years. And, if he has not, whilst in school, been permitted and encouraged to be true to his convictions, the strong probability is, that he will be false to them in subsequent life. Not having been allowed to be a true boy, he will not prove to be a true man. Why is it, that the great mass of the people in this land are ready to make, and uphold laws for chasing down and enslaving the poor? It is because they were taught no better in their childhood. It is because they were cursed with a compromising education. New England boasts much of her common schools. But, what have her people learned in them? To spell, read, write, and cipher, is the answer. But have they learned in them to respect and uphold human rights? They have not. On the contrary, they have learned in them to use their spelling, reading, writing and ciphering, against human rights. It is but a day or two since, that an innocent man was sent publicly from the very capital of New England to the doom of perpetual slavery. This single fact is a sufficient reply to all the beasts of New England schools. The people, who can perpetrate such a crime, are badly educated, and their schools — not to say churches also — are worse than worthless. Is it said, that they consented to this most atrocious sacrifice of their fellow man out of their respect to law? This apology for their case only makes it worse. The people, who can respect as law, who can even know as law, that, which calls for the most horrible form of murder, are, beyond all doubt, educated more into folly than into wisdom, more into falsehood than into truth, more into demons than into men, more into fitness for the society of the under than the upper world. I will not believe all this of our New England brethren. Hence, I will not accept the apology for them, to which I have here referred.

I think it was the mighty John Knox of Scotland, who inscribed over his door: “Love God with all thine heart and thy neighbor as thyself.” Ah, how much better off would New England be, though without so much as one Government school, but with this inscription over her every door and upon her every heart, than she is with all her fulness of learning, and her equal fulness of moral cowardice and of treachery to God and man! But this universal inscription she will never have, so long as her schools are founded on an accommodating policy in respect to fundamental morality, and on that compromise between righteousness and wickedness, which “splits the difference ” between God and the Devil.

Do not suppose from what I have said, that I believe New England to be worse than other parts of our country. I believe her to be quite as good, as any other part of our country.

I have, now, given one answer to the question — what will the poor do to get their children educated, in case Government aid is withdrawn? I have another to give to it. It is, that if Government will protect its subjects in their natural and absolute right to personal liberty, and to the soil, and to buy and sell where they please, and to choose their civil rulers — there will be but few poor.

What, however, if these few poor should be tenfold as numerous, as I suppose they would be — nay, even as numerous as the present poor? — private benevolence would, nevertheless, make abundant educational provision for them. The voluntary principle is found to be sufficient in the case of churches. Why should it be distrusted in the case of schools? But, it has proved itself worthy of reliance in the case of schools. The free gifts made in New England and New York to aid the cause of education would not compare unfavorably in amount with what the laws extort for this object.

If there are poor to be helped, it is voluntary, and not compelled help, that they need. Compelled help is of little worth either to the helper or the helped. Such help is not the twice blessed mercy, of which the great poet speaks:—

“It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.”


Whether, however, our schools, if left, as are our churches, to the voluntary principle, would be sustained or not, I, nevertheless, protest against the doctrine of compelling men to sustain them. Compulsion to this end is, as I view schools, and as ten thousand others view them, a no less invasion, and a no less offensive invasion, of the rights of conscience and of the liberty of religion, than is the compelled support of churches. In our esteem, the school is, in its true character, as fully identified with religion, as is the church: and, hence, when Government interferes with the school, it makes itself, in our esteem, as obnoxious to the charge of meddling with religion, as when it interferes with the church.

My concern respecting the compelled support of schools is not for the religious man only. It is for the infidel also. If I would not have the Roman Catholic compelled to support schools, whose religion is repugnant to his own, neither would I have the infidel compelled to support schools of any religion. The rights of the infidel are to be held as sacred, as the rights of the christian: and Government is to leave both infidels and christians at full liberty to build up such schools, as they may respectively prefer.

But, it is said, that our schools will be as diversified and sectarian, as our churches, if Government, instead of insisting on running them all into the Government-mold, and making them all after one pattern, shall allow its subjects to have whatever variety of schools they will. In the name of consistency then, why not set Government at work to purge our churches of sectarianism? Now, I admit, that sectarianism, whether in schools or in churches, is a very pernicious error. But I deny, that it is an error, which Government is either to correct, or prevent. Government has nothing at all to do with it.

I do not object to charity — though, I confess, that I do not think there would be much occasion for it, were Government to do its part toward a right construction of society. Charity does not cure the ills, which spring from our false social state. It is but a present, and a very superficial palliation of them. Our eleemosynary institutions are busy with the leaves, instead of striking at the roots, of our multiform disorders.

But, though I do not object to all charity, I am totally opposed to charity at the hands of Government. It is justice, and not charity, which the people need at the hands of Government. Let Government restore to them their land, and what other rights they have been robbed of, and they will, then, be able to pay for themselves — to pay their schoolmasters as well as their parsons. The best way to defend Government for undertaking to educate the children of the poor is on the ground, that this is a slight return for its robberies of the poor. The highwayman does, sometimes, compound with his conscience by giving back enough of the spoil to furnish his victim with a supper, or a night’s lodging. But better than all such generosity of the Government and the highwayman would be their ceasing from their robberies.

I said, it is justice, and not charity, which the people need at the hands of Government. Ay, one crumb of justice is worth more than a whole loaf of charity. I would have the people delivered from all necessity of begging. But, so long as they must beg, let them beg, not of Government, but of one another. Let them never consent to gather into groups of mendicants around the almsgiving hand of Government. It is the of Government, which bribe the people into acquiescence in the loss of their rights — of the very rights, which Government is bound to maintain, but of which it has robbed them — or suffered others to rob them. What is worse, these gifts to the people have the power to blind the people to their loss. They are robbed, without knoowing, that they are robbed.

The last thing, which I have to say on the subject of schools, is to refer to the fact, that the American people are ever and deeply deprecating the union of Church and State. I admit, that they cannot deprecate it too earnestly, or too constantly. It is among the greatest of all evils. But, let me here say, that every admitted interference of Government with the duties and business of the people, is a step toward its union with the church, since every such interference prepares the way for another. I add, that the union of Government with the common school is a step, which lacks but one more step of bringing the Government into union with the church: and I add, that this lacking step would soon be taken, if the people had a common religious faith. It is the intolerant diversity of their religious belief — or, in other words, their division into sects — which saves the people of this nation from the union of Church and State. The common impression, that there is an invincible repugnance among us to the union of Church and State — to the thing itself — is not founded in truth. The man, who is willing to have Government sustain, and take care of the schools, can easily be made willing to have it sustain and take care of the churches also; provided only, that the churches are of his faith. Were this a Catholic, or Presbyterian, or Baptist, or Methodist, or an Episcopalian nation — that is to say, were the mass of the people of one religious creed — and were the present false views of the office of Government still to obtain — the nation would speedily be cursed with a union of Church and State. Let it not be inferred, from what I have here said, that I regard sectarianism, in any case, as a good. I have before condemned it. I now add, that it is an unmixed evil. It is “only evil continually.” A crime against Christ and the christian brotherhood is it to go into any sect whatever. By Divine arrangement, the christians of a place are the church of such place. Very presumptuous and guilty therefore are they, who would supplant this with a human arrangement. All, that can be said in favor of sectarianism in the present instance is, that it is one evil counteracting another — one disease preventing another.

The truth is, that Government has got into the sanctuary of the people’s business and interests; and, that, whilst it is suffered to be there, no limits can be set to its meddling and mischief. To-day, it lays its hand upon the school. To-morrow, it lays it on the church. The only safety consists in expelling the intruder from this sanctuary, and in keeping him outside of it, where he may stand sentinel to it, and so fulfil the only office of Civil Government.

I said, that the only province of Government is to protect from crimes the persons and possessions of its subjects. Some of you may think, that this is making the province of Government too narrow to include all its duties. But, which of its duties would be left outside of these limits? Perhaps, it will be asked, if the duty of abolishing the traffic in intoxicating drinks would not be. I answer, that it would not. I ask Government to abolish this traffic, not because I would have Government enact sumptuary laws — for I would not. Nay, I go so far, as to say, that if the drinkers of intoxicating liquors would do no more than kill themselves, I would not have Government interfere with their indulgence. It is murder, not suicide, that I would have Government concern itself with. Nor do I ask Government to abolish this traffic, because I hold, that Government is charged with the care of the public morals. As I have already shown you, I hold to no such thing. Why I ask Government to abolish this traffic is because it is fraught directly, immensely, necessarily, with wide and awful peril to person and property. Neither property, nor life, is safe from the presumption, the blindness, and the fury of the drunken maniac. The drunken driver upsets the stage. The drunken engineer blows up the steamboat. It is a drunkard, who has ravished our wife, or daughter, or sister. It is a drunkard, who has burned our dwelling. It is a drunkard, who has murdered our family.

What is a crime then, if the traffic in intoxicating drinks is not one? And what crime is there, from which Government should be more prompt to shelter the persons and possessions of its subjects?

Perhaps, it will be asked, whether Government, under my definition of its province, would be at liberty to carry the mail; build asylums; improve harbors; and build light-houses? I answer, that nothing of all this is, necessarily, the work of Government. The mail can be carried, as well without, as with, the help of Government. Some of the best and most extensive asylums in our country are those with which Government has nothing to do. And the interest and humanity of individuals and communities might be relied on to improve harbors and build light-houses, as well as to keep bridges and roads in repair. I admit, that harbors and light-houses are an indispensable protection to life and property, and that the failure to supply them is a crime against mankind, and a crime, of which Government should be cognizant. But Government would, probably, never have to compel the merchants of Portland and Boston and New Bedford &c., to supply the New England coast with harbors and light-houses. It certainly would not, were it to allow them the privilege of imposing a reasonable tax for these securities on the vessels, that enjoy them. And, here, let me add, that, inasmuch as Government has undertaken their care and improvement, and supplied itself, at the people’s expense, with the means therefor, the neglected condition of the harbors upon our lakes is among the evidences, that ours is a faithless and dishonest Government.

I close with saying, that the work of Civil Government is not so much to take care of its subjects, as to leave them in circumstances, in which they may take care of themselves: — and not so much to govern its subjects, as to leave them free to govern themselves. Civil Government is to hold a shield over the heads of its subjects, beneath which they may, in safety from one another, and from all others, pursue their respective callings, and discharge their respective duties. Whilst confining itself to this employment, it is a blessing above all praise — above all price. But, when it forsakes its own work to usurp that of the people; and, especially, when, as it has been recently known to do, it arrays itself against the great and holy God, who ordained Civil Government, and blasphemously enacts laws, which are opposed to His laws, then is it a curse and a monster, which deserves to be hated with all our hatred, and resisted at every hazard.

SOURCES: Gerrit Smith, The True Office of Civil Government: A Speech in the City of Troy, p. 5-30; Octavius Brooks Frothingham, Gerrit Smith: A Biography, p. 181-4

Monday, February 16, 2015

The 1864 Republican Platform: Adopted June 7, 1864

1. Resolved, That it is the highest duty of every American citizen to maintain against all their enemies, the integrity of the Union and the paramount authority of the Constitution and laws of the United States; and that, laying aside all differences of political opinion, we pledge ourselves as Union men, animated by a common sentiment and aiming at a common object, to do everything in our power to aid the government in quelling by force of arms the rebellion now raging against its authority, and in bringing to the punishment due to their crimes the rebels and traitors arrayed against it.

2. Resolved, That we approve the determination of the government of the United States not to compromise with rebels, or to offer them any terms of peace except such as may be based upon an unconditional surrender of their hostility and a return to their just allegiance to the Constitution and laws of the United States; and that we call upon the government to maintain this position and to prosecute the war with the utmost possible vigor, to the complete suppression of the rebellion, in full reliance upon the self-sacrificing patriotism, the heroic valor, and the undying devotion of the American people to the country and its free institutions.

3. Resolved, That as slavery was the cause and now constitutes the strength of this rebellion, and as it must be always and everywhere hostile to the principles of, republican government, justice and the national safety demand its utter and complete extirpation from the soil of the republic; and that while we uphold and maintain the acts and proclamations by which the government, in its own defense, has aimed a deathblow at this gigantic evil, we are in favor, furthermore, of such an amendment to the Constitution, to be made by the people in conformity with its provisions, as shall terminate and forever prohibit the existence of slavery within the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States.

4. Resolved, That the thanks of the American people are due to the soldiers and sailors of the army and navy who have periled their lives in defense of the country and in vindication of the honor of its flag; that the nation owes to them some permanent recognition of their patriotism and their valor, and ample and permanent provision for those of their survivors who have received disabling and honorable wounds in the service of the country; and that the memories of those who have fallen in its defense shall be held in grateful and everlasting remembrance.

5. Resolved, That we approve and applaud the practical wisdom, the unselfish patriotism, and the unswerving fidelity to the Constitution and the principles of American liberty with which Abraham Lincoln has discharged, under circumstances of unparalleled difficulty, the great duties and responsibilities of the presidential office; that we approve and indorse, as demanded by the emergency and essential to the preservation of the nation, and as within the provisions of the Constitution, the measures and acts which he has adopted to defend the nation against its open and secret foes; that we approve especially the proclamation of emancipation and the employment as Union soldiers of men heretofore held in slavery; and that we have full confidence in his determination to carry these and all other constitutional measures essential to the salvation of the country into full and complete effect.

6. Resolved, That we deem it essential to the general welfare that harmony should prevail in the national councils, and we regard as worthy of public confidence and official trust those only who cordially indorse the principles proclaimed in these resolutions, and which should characterize the administration of the government.

7. Resolved, That the government owes to all men employed in its armies, without regard to distinction of color, the full protection of the laws of war; and that any violation of these laws, or of the usages of civilized nations in time of war, by the rebels now in arms, should be made the subject of prompt and full redress.

8. Resolved, That foreign immigration, which in the past has added so much to the wealth, development of resources, and increase of power to the nation — the asylum of the oppressed of all nations — should he fostered and encouraged by a liberal and just policy.

9. Resolved, That we are in favor of the speedy construction of the railroad to the Pacific coast.

10. Resolved, That the national faith, pledged for the redemption of the public debt, must be kept inviolate, and that for this purpose we recommend economy and rigid responsibility in the public expenditures, and a vigorous and just system of taxation; and that it is the duty of every loyal state to sustain the credit and promote the use of the national currency.

11. Resolved, That we approve the position taken by the government, that the people of the United States can never regard with indifference the attempt of any European power to overthrow by force, or to supplant by fraud, the institutions of any republican government on the western continent; and that they will view with extreme jealousy, as menacing to the peace and independence of their own country, the efforts of any such power to obtain new footholds for monarchical governments, sustained by foreign military force, in near proximity to the United States.

SOURCE: Thomas Hudson McKee, The National Conventions and Platforms of All Political Parties, 1789 to 1904, 5th Edition Revised and Enlarged, p. 124-6

Monday, September 1, 2014

Senator James W. Grimes to J. H. Gear, W. F. Coolbaugh, A. W. Carpenter, Joshua Copp, J. G. Foote, and other Citizens of Burlington, August 17, 1861

Burlington, August 17, 1861.

I have received your favor of the 15th instant, in which you congratulate me upon my return to the State, and invite me to address the people of this city, at such time and place as I may designate, on the important questions now before the country, involving the existence of the Government.

I appreciate, as I ought, the kind feeling that prompted this invitation, and return you my sincere thanks for it. I would address you at any time and at any place, if I supposed I could communicate a particle of information not already in the possession or within the reach of every citizen of the State. I could only say in many words, what I now say in a few, that it seems to me that there is no safe alternative before us, but to give a firm and ardent support to the Government in its attempt to put down insurrection and rebellion. More than any State in this Confederacy, Iowa should resist the pretended right of a State to secede from it. Our position in the centre of the continent, without foreign commerce, dependent upon other States for our markets and for our means for transportation to reach them, would soon, if the right to destroy the Union by the secession of the States be conceded, place us in the character of a dependent and conquered province. We need, and must have, at whatever cost, a permanent government and unrestricted access to the Atlantic Ocean and to the Gulf of Mexico. There must be no foreign soil between us and our markets.

As one of the Representatives of Iowa in the Federal Congress, I have sought to give expression by my votes to what I believe to be the opinions of the people of the State, and have uniformly voted all the men, money, ships, and supplies, that were asked for. In doing so, I have not only expressed what I believed to be their wishes, but I have acted upon my own convictions of duty. I shall continue to do so until this unholy war shall be brought to a successful conclusion.

The public debt that this war will impose upon us will appall some and perhaps dampen the patriotism of some. Most erroneous impressions, however, seem to prevail as to the magnitude of our present indebtedness, and that which we are likely to create. The entire public indebtedness of this country on the 6th instant, the day Congress adjourned, was a hundred and eleven million dollars, most of which was inherited from the preceding Administration, and the estimated expenses of the next year, for military, naval, and civil purposes, were less than three hundred million dollars, less than the annual expenses of Great Britain in a time of profound peace. In connection with the aggregate of these two sums let us remember that England paid eight thousand five hundred million dollars to carry on her wars with the first Napoleon. She was contending for her commercial rights, and the result showed that her money was well expended: we are not only contending for our commercial rights, but we seek to uphold and perpetuate the best Government ever known among men.

Foreigners call us, with great truth, the most impatient people on the earth. This natural impatience is greatly increased by our present troubles. We all want peace restored and business revived, and most of us believe that a permanent peace can only be established by the victorious arms of our soldiers. Our anxieties in this regard are very liable to cause us to do great injustice to the Government and to ourselves also. We clamor for victories, forgetting that the most thorough preparation is necessary to achieve them. We forget the condition of the country four months ago, and ask that that shall be done in a week which requires months of arduous labor to perform. Very few fully appreciate the difficulties by which the President of the United States found himself surrounded, when he assumed power on the 4th of March last. Many of the Executive Departments had recently been under the control of traitors. The army had been dispersed and demoralized, and many of the most trusted and prominent officers were disloyal. Our vessels-of-war were scattered upon foreign and remote stations. The Departments were full of spies and traitors. The public armories had been plundered and their contents delivered to the rebels. The President was without an army, without a navy, without arms or munitions of war, and with enemies within and without. In this condition of things, and after an almost uninterrupted peace of fifty years, he was called upon to organize in a few weeks five armies, each of them larger than any that had ever been marshaled on this continent, and to improvise a navy with which to blockade a coast greater in extent than that which England was unable to blockade with more than four hundred vessels-of-war in 1812-’14. That there have been mistakes committed in the selection of agents and officers cannot be denied, but, that there has been any lack of energy or of devotion to the cause of the country, it seems to me that no fail man who examines the subject will assert. Few persons comprehend all the labor, the time, and the perplexities involved in furnishing clothing, arms, transportation, stores and pay for four hundred and fifty thousand men, and in purchasing or building, manning, arming, and equipping two hundred vessels-of-war by a Government whose credit was impaired, whose armories had been destroyed, and whose munitions of war had been stolen, and to do all this in the space of three months.

It becomes us to be hopeful and patient, bearing in mind that the authorities in Washington are resolved that their preparation for the conflict shall correspond with the magnitude of the conspiracy they are compelled to encounter.

You say, gentlemen, that you address me without distinction of party, and I find among the signatures appended to your letter the names of many to whom I have always been politically opposed. Permit me to say that the time has arrived when I am anxious to forget all party names, and party platforms, and party organizations, and to unite with anybody and everybody in an honest, ardent, and patriotic support of the Government — not as a party Government with a Republican at its head, but as the national Government, ordained by and for the benefit of the whole people of the country.

SOURCE: William Salter, The Life of James W. Grimes, p. 147-50

Sunday, July 28, 2013

Taxation

Since the days of Cesar Augustus, when the edict went forth that all the world should be taxed, the subject of taxation has been one that has found no favor in the eyes of the people.  There is an innate principle in man, that rebels against the idea of giving money for the general good.  Even in his charities, he wishes his benevolence confined to a specific object.  A subscription for the universal brotherhood of mankind would have few signers.  As you narrow down the object, to our country, our State, our county, our city, our society, our relatives, our family, in proportion does man’s liberality expand.  The man who gives grudgingly to his own family is a niggard, and  will rarely be found contributing to any charitable object, and only then in the hope of subserving some selfish interest.  How such men screw and twist in view of taxation.  They regard it as money thrown away, and are ever ready to complain of the excess of their taxation over that of others.  Next to the self-evident truth, that “all men are born free and equal,” is the right of every man to grumble at his taxes!

Our people have so long lived under a mere nominal taxation, that the idea of an increase sufficient to meet the heavy additional expenses, incurred by the war forced upon us by the South, has caused many to fancy they see ruin staring them in the face.  Secretary Chase says, that the total national debt on the first of July next will not be over six hundred millions.  Looking at this amount in the light of their own private resources, many persons are led to conclude that we shall never be able to liquidate such heavy indebtedness.  Uncle Sam has a large number of children, and, compared with the amount of wealth in his family, this is but a small sum.  After all, it’s his own children who are his creditors, and they will not be unnatural as to oppress him for the amount; so that they get the interest, they will be content to let the principal remain.

But before we conclude that all is lost let us compare our condition with other countries.  There is Old England, for instance, one of the richest, proudest, most haughty and overbearing nations on the face of the globe.  It is true that her children are the best taxed people on earth, and that she drove her son Sam away from her by her cruel and excessive taxation, but she will do for an example; for if she lives under the taxes she finds it necessary to impose upon her people, the United States can grow rich, every mother’s son of us, under the comparatively insignificant taxes that will be necessary to oil the machinery of the Government, and make its wheels run smoothly.

We will select, for example, two articles of luxury, those most generally used in our country and against which the most fault has been found with Congress for taxing so high in its tax bill, viz; spirituous liquors 15 cents per gallon; in England the tax is $2.50 per gallon!  Quite a difference, say ye.  In our bill tobacco is taxed 1-3 per alb.; the English tax it 40 cts. per lb. on unmanufactured, and $2.30 on cigars!  Another difference.  In this way Englishmen pay for their Government $360,000,000 annually. – This may seem to be an enormous sum to our inexperienced eyes, yet it is not one-half the taxes the people there have to pay for the privilege of being the subjects of Victoria, Dei gratia, Queen of England.  Before they begin to pay this amount, or for leave to toil and earn it, they are subjected to $300,000,000 taxes in the shape of rent and tithes, and $40,000,000 poor rate, making a total of 700,000,000!  Then there are the game laws and other peculiarly English regulations that in themselves amount to an enormous tax, perhaps more than the aggregate tax of which we complain.

Talk of taxation, look at that picture, note these facts and ask yourselves, if Englishmen can live and thrive under such a system of onerous and oppressive taxation, is there any fear that we shall sink under the modicum of taxes that it is proposed to impose on us?  No, as the rich resources of our country are developed, and our people become more numerous, the entire debt of the nation, incurred in the prosecution of this war will be cancelled and we will gain become the most prosperous as the most powerful people on the face of the globe.  Until then, let us bear our share of the public burden, meekly, and even though the traitors who have inflicted it upon us escape the just confiscation of their property to assist in lightening the load, yet let us shoulder it manfully and show to the monarchists of the old world that we, as a Republic, have the stamina to meet one of the exigencies that are common to the history of all nations.

– Published in The Davenport Daily Gazette, Davenport, Iowa, Tuesday Morning, May 6, 1862, p. 2

Friday, May 31, 2013

The Government Expenditures

The country was some time ago informed on what seemed to be “reliable authority,” that the expenditures of the Government were fully three millions of dollars per day. – A great deal of astonishment and some apprehension was felt at the statement.  People were justly puzzled and alarmed at the idea of the nation plunging into debt at the rate of one thousand millions of dollars per year.  It now appears that the average expenditures of the Government have not been one million of dollars per day.  The New York Commercial Advertiser says of a speech made on Tuesday, by Mr. Dawes of Massachusetts.  He showed on authority which is entirely trustworthy, that the whole expenses of the present Administration, and for a period of fourteen months and eighteen days, amounted only to $441,000,000, which was three millions less than one million per day on the average.  The entire indebtedness including the seventy millions bequeathed by the last Administration was $482,796,145, on the 22nd of this month.  The speech of Mr. Dawes was in reply to Voorhees of Indiana, who made out that our National debt would soon amount to six thousand million dollars.

Mr. DAWES said:

The expenditures of all the departments of the Government outside of the war and navy, since the Administration came into power are as follows, For the Interior Department, Indians and pensions to the 22nd of May $8,681,860, civil list, foreign intercourse and miscellaneous $21,635,010, making a total of nearly $25,367,000.  The expenditures of the War during that time amounted to $374,172,000 and the navy during the same time $42,055,000, or a total of $416,227,000.  The average daily expenditures in the War Department have been $897,295, and those of the navy $100,852 making the average in both departments $998,147.  No requisitions are unpaid, excepting a few thousand dollars for illegality or disloyalty.  The payments last Thursday were only $864,917 yet the day after when the paymasters came in the expenditures were $2,000,000 but on Saturday only $500,000.  So the expenditures of the government up to the 22nd of May inst. in round numbers, were for the military $374,000,000, navy, $42,000,000, all other expenditures, $25,000,000 – a total of $441,000,000.  From the 4th of March, 1861, till the 22nd of May the public debt including $70,000,000 old debt bequeathed by Buchanan, amounted in the aggregate on Friday last to $481,796,145.  Mr. Dawes run [sic] a parallel between the expenditures under the former administration and the present showing as to the civil list, this administration has been far more honest and economical than that.

The expenditures of the Government have been greater in the past than they will be in the future.  Vast sums of money have been laid out in ships and arms.  The creation of the enormous artillery force which is now so effective an arm of our military department involved lavish outlays of money.  Our coast expeditions have cost us extravagantly.  Arms have been procured at great cost.  In fact we were not prepared for war, and have been obliged to make up for our want of preparation.  We have now made our permanent investments in war material and the current expenditures will be diminished.  The estimate that the war was costing us three millions per day, was made just at the time that hundreds of vessels were charted for the transportation of McClellan’s army from Alexandria to Fortress Monroe and while an immense fleet of steamers were conveying Gen. Grant’s army up the Tennessee river the great cost of these vessels of course swelled the aggregate daily expenditure greatly, but yet the three million estimate was much too large even for that time.

– Published in The Burlington Weekly Hawk-Eye, Burlington, Iowa, Saturday, June 7, 1862, p. 1

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

A Liberal Discount

The Vallandighammers have been very earnestly laboring to make the people believe that a debt of twelve hundred millions of dollars has already been contracted in the prosecution of the war.  It is unnecessary to say that there is a liberal discount upon this as well as a good many other statements of these disinterested and pure minded patriots.  The total expenses of the Government on account of the war amount to $441,000,000.  The total debt of the Nation, including $70,000,000 inherited from Buchanan’s Administration, amounted on the 22d day of May to $481,796,145 – more than seven hundred millions of dollars reduction from their statement.  Knowing how concerned they were and are about the debt and how much they fear the people will not stand up to it, were are certain they will be greatly rejoiced to hear it is so small.

– Published in The Burlington Weekly Hawk-Eye, Burlington, Iowa, Saturday, June 7, 1862, p. 1