JTF.ORG Forum
Torah and Jewish Idea => Torah and Jewish Idea => Topic started by: newman on July 18, 2007, 02:15:09 PM
-
Torah requires us to tithe 10% of our income to the poor.....correct?
This law was given before big government, income taxes and social security. If I pay on average 30% of my income in federal taxes and the federal gov't spends 25% of all revenue on social security, have I not allready contributed 7.5% in effect?
Secondly, who should we consider poor? An unemployed/ invalided person in Australia is still able to eat three meals/day, and live under a roof with hot/cold running water and adequately cloth themselves. An unemployed/invalided family with 3 kids get a higher income from social security than they would if they worked at an entry level job. Nobody can be in dire straights unless it is by choice. Should we not expect some measure of personal responsibility here? The biblical injunction is to cloth the poor.....not buy them televisions or booze. If someone is homeless because they blew their income on alcohol or gambling, Are we obligated to give them money and subsidize their stupidity?
If someone with a proper Hebrew perspective can address the above points it would help me greatly.
-
Well, it's not required, but highly encouraged for Jews to give 10% of your income to charity (not necessarily to the poor, but to any charity), since it is a Jewish custom that started with our forefather Abraham who gave 10% of his income to Malcheitzedek, who was a righteous gentile priest of G-d and all religious Jews follow this custom and give 10% of their income to charity. If you are poor yourself, then you just give as much as you can afford. As far as Gentiles are concerned, I don't think it is required since it is not one of the 7 Noahide laws, but is a good thing to do and pleasing to G-d. To me it is logical that the 10% is calculated after taxes, you give 10% of the money that you keep. It is up to you to give it to whichever Charity you want to so you can leave out the drug addicts.
-
Sorry, newman, i hope you don't mind if i join in with asking questions... :-X :P
How about if you want to calculate a percentage to give to the poor but a lot of your income is invested, would the invested wealth be included in the calculation?
Is it a sin not to give this charity?
-
This question is too advanced for me, Lubab will have to answer this one.
The only one I can answer is that it is not a sin if you don't give 10% of your income to charity. But you should give at least some of your income to the poor or to charity. Giving to the poor is required for Jews and is one of the commandments in the Bible. As for Gentiles, I presume charity is highly encouraged to please G-d but is not required.
-
This question is too advanced for me, Lubab will have to answer this one.
The only one I can answer is that it is not a sin if you don't give 10% of your income to charity. But you should give at least some of your income to the poor or to charity. Giving to the poor is required for Jews and is one of the commandments in the Bible. As for Gentiles, I presume charity is highly encouraged to please G-d but is not required.
Thank you.
-
The 10% comes from the money you take in-that means after taxes. (You can do before taxes-but you don't have to).
The Rambam says whom you should give charity to first. You should first take care of your own family the people you know, then the people in your community (this is called the Din of Kadima).
As far as responsiblity goes, its not so simple. The Rabbis tell us that G-d intentionally made rich and poor people so there could be kindness in the world. So really the 10% belongs to the poor person, not us. G-d just wanted to give it to him in this indirect way so you could do the mitzvah. So really you owe him double. You've got to give him his money and you should really give him more because he had to suffer so you could do a mitzvah. It easily could have been the other way around.
With the investments you'd calculate the profit from the investments and take 10% off that.
-
If the 10% is calculated on after tax $ you are being double stung. You have earned all of your pre-tax dollars but a government has stolen 30 to 40 % to give some to the poor.
If you have your own business and have no automatic tax deduction, is the 10% still calculated on after tax income?
With referrence to the fist post ( see top ), who do we consider poor in a western country?
-
Nice answer Lubab.
-
If the 10% is calculated on after tax $ you are being double stung. You have earned all of your pre-tax dollars but a government has stolen 30 to 40 % to give some to the poor.
If you have your own business and have no automatic tax deduction, is the 10% still calculated on after tax income?
With referrence to the fist post ( see top ), who do we consider poor in a western country?
Hey, nobody is saying this is ideal. This is GALUT. If it was a Torah system you would not have the double sting as you say. But would you rather take the 10% from the pre-tax money-then you're really getting a double sting.
Being "poor" in the Torah is a subjective standard-it depends on the person and what sort of standard of living they are used to. Even a rich person who is used to having 20 cars and now only has 18-it's charity to get him back to his standard. If someone's life is in danger that obviously comes before everything.
-
Nice answer Lubab.
Thanks.
-
If the general rule is the order of self, family, neighbour, community etc..
......given that my family are fine, my community is fairly affluent and those who aren't are still doing very well by world standards, can I just give my portion to the poor of Israel or will I get a curse for not giving in my own country first?
-
1. Are you Jewish?
2. Why not just donate it all to JTF? Its the best of both worlds. ;)
-
No....not jewish.
-
No....not jewish.
Really, i thought you were.
-
No....not jewish.
Oh. So you don't have to give the 10%. There goes that problem.
-
Thanks, Lubab....so I can give whatever to whomever and it's still a blessing?
-
Right. As a Noahide there's only one thing you have to do and that's establish courts of justice (based on the Noahide laws).
All your other 6 commandments are negative commandments. ("shalt nots").
It is praiseworthy to give charity nonetheless.
You can also take on most of the 613 commandments for purposes of receiving reward, but they are not obligatory.
-
Right. As a Noahide there's only one thing you have to do and that's establish courts of justice (based on the Noahide laws).
All your other 6 commandments are negative commandments. ("shalt nots").
It is praiseworthy to give charity nonetheless.
You can also take on most of the 613 commandments for purposes of receiving reward, but they are not obligatory.
But if we noachides keep Shabbat in the manner of a Jew or wear tassles as a Jew does we're in trouble, I'm told.
We can take on marriage and honouring our parents as extras and most of us already have, but where can I find clear guide lines as to which of the 613 we can follow and which ones we can't.
-
To my knowledge, Shabbos and tefillin are the only ones that are a problem. I had never heard that Tzitzis was a problem, but I could see why it might be.
I don't know of any list. But I'lll tell you what-if you feel you want to take on a Mitzvah, let me know what it is and I will look into it for you.
Also, I always tell Noahides that they should be active in trying to influence their governments to establish their laws based on the Noahide laws. This is your only positive commandment and not one government today has it.
In Austraillia actually, is proabably your best shot at creating a Noahide government. Maybe start with a letter-writting campaign, then you could run a Noahide candidate, start a Noahide party etc.
It's important the Noahide laws be kept because they are commanded by G-d, not just because we think they make sense. This is the only path to true morality.
-
I don't know of any noachide laws not enforced by our courts. Even the Japanese resteraunts aren't allowed to eat lobsters alive now. Boiling crabs / shrimp alive might be a violation, though.
From memory, the Jewish-only laws we can't follow tend to be things that constitute impersonation of a Jew: Tzitzis, peyot, tefflin, mezuzot, strict Shabbat observence etc. We can wear a kippa in shull and there is a noachide prayer shawl that has no tzitzis and a rainbow pattern around the edge instead of blue. The celebration of Jewish holidays is a bit of a grey area. I think noachides should celebrate all Jewish holidays as they all comemorate the deliverence of the Jews in some respect for which we goyim should give thanks. It is probably the manner in which we celebrate them that is more important as with Shabbat.
The principle behind this is that if the goyim look and act the same as Jews, the other goyim won't know who the difference between Jews and gentiles. It's the same reason catholic lay persons don't wear priest's collars or nuns' habbits.
-
I don't know of any noachide laws not enforced by our courts. Even the Japanese resteraunts aren't allowed to eat lobsters alive now. Boiling crabs / shrimp alive might be a violation, though.
From memory, the Jewish-only laws we can't follow tend to be things that constitute impersonation of a Jew: Tzitzis, peyot, tefflin, mezuzot, strict Shabbat observence etc. We can wear a kippa in shull and there is a noachide prayer shawl that has no tzitzis and a rainbow pattern around the edge instead of blue. The celebration of Jewish holidays is a bit of a grey area. I think noachides should celebrate all Jewish holidays as they all comemorate the deliverence of the Jews in some respect for which we goyim should give thanks. It is probably the manner in which we celebrate them that is more important as with Shabbat.
The principle behind this is that if the goyim look and act the same as Jews, the other goyim won't know who the difference between Jews and gentiles. It's the same reason catholic lay persons don't wear priest's collars or nuns' habbits.
Oh the current laws are very far from the Noahide laws. For starters, the laws have to be based on the belief that these are G-d's laws.
Many slaughterers use a procedure in which they shock the animal and start cutting it up before its dead. This is a big violation of eating the limb of a live animal.
Also violation of the negative Noahide laws is supposed to be punishable by death. The courts should be using the Torah sages to decide their cases not prior precedent, and the list goes on and on.
You are right about the fact that you can commemorate the inner meaning of the Jewish holidays (including Shabbos) you just can't keep them in the way Jews do.
But if you want to light 7 candles to remember that G-d created the world in 7 days-you can certainly do that.
If you learn about the reasons for these holidays
-
I'd love to have the courts based around the Sheva Mitzvot. However, I can just imagine the secular left in the cultural elite screaming their heads off about that....couts based on Torah, Impossible! Of course if it was some east asian hippie-type religion that would not be a problem.
I beleive the US congress passed a motion recognising the Sheva Mitzvot as the oldest form of law. That's a small start.
-
I believe that the concept of Charity is only meant to be given to the G-d fearing and not just anyone who happens to be poor under Halacha. Charity is such a distortion today it is hardly comparable to anything that it was meant to be...
-
I believe that the concept of Charity is only meant to be given to the G-d fearing and not just anyone who happens to be poor under Halacha. Charity is such a distortion today it is hardly comparable to anything that it was meant to be...
I hope G-d is not so strict in evaluatiating whether he will give us the charity He does everyday ::).
-
I'd love to have the courts based around the Sheva Mitzvot. However, I can just imagine the secular left in the cultural elite screaming their heads off about that....couts based on Torah, Impossible! Of course if it was some east asian hippie-type religion that would not be a problem.
I beleive the US congress passed a motion recognising the Sheva Mitzvot as the oldest form of law. That's a small start.
Yes. We will need to explain to the people that any system of government that attempts to ignore religion is doomed to failure.
Religion establishes the highest ideal in the heirarchy of needs and desires. Without that highest ideal established, there is no framework from which to decide moral dilemas.
For instance, the highest ideals in the American institutions are life, liberty, and happiness etc.
However these are not the top of the heirarchy of desires. One must still figure out WHY we want liberty, and WHY we want happiness-what is the purpose of it all (only the Torah tells us this).
Without establishing the highest ideal one will never know how to deal with conflicts between liberty and happiness (as is always played out in the abortion debate-it's the mother's liberty/happiness vs. the baby's life).
If a system of governmet is to endure it must be based on the Torah. Simple as that. We must explain this to the folks.
-
Some Rabbis(a minority) have written that anyone who follows the Sheva Mitzvot have a place in the world to come whether they believe in their divine source or not.
This seems illogical as it is difficult to adhere to any laws unless one has some ultimate moral authority to believe in. The secular cultural elite of today seem to think that it's possible to have no ultimate moral authority still have a moral code that all will agree on and adhere to. They believe they can give ascent to sodomy, infidelity,blasphemy, pornography and abortion but somehow draw the line at pedophelia.
This seems unlikely as they advocate that all people, cultures, religions and ideas all have equal merit and worth. Therefor the opinions and ideas of radical islamists, pedophiles,nazis, and sadists must hold equal virtue to the opinions of secular humanists. How can they assume the ideas of the latter will prevail?
It would seem that the only logical choice is to base morallity on a supreme moral source even if some individuals may have difficulty beleiving in the divinity of that source. I'm sure that secular western humanists would opt for the Sheva Mitzvot if confronted with some of the ghastly possibilities of man-made morallity. Would an agnostic who adheres to Sheva Mitzvot ( this being a more difficult task for him as opposed to one who believes) then get his place in the world to come as the minority opinion suggests?
-
I believe that the concept of Charity is only meant to be given to the G-d fearing and not just anyone who happens to be poor under Halacha. Charity is such a distortion today it is hardly comparable to anything that it was meant to be...
I hope G-d is not so strict in evaluatiating whether he will give us the charity He does everyday ::).
I think I must have mis-stated something. One must not forget that the Torah was given to and solely to the Jewish people within which only its tennents (aside from the Noahide) apply. Therefore, the concept of Charity according to Judaism is directed to the G-d fearing: Jew. Albeit adopted by the Christians and distorted by the liberal/socialist etc. to mean anyone and everyone if they are "less fortunate" or "poor" (even if their cultures have equated such since time began: Africa) To me this definition of Charity, in the Jewish perspective, is quite logical. We are now witnessing the "benefit" of giving charity to the "Bolistianians" the Muslim Indonesians who were dancing on cars handing out candy after 911 and the cyclical International Charity/Welfare raping African. Rabbi Kahane has a fabulous chapter on Charity according to Halacha in his "Jewish Idea Vol 1." This is my understanding of this topic which, to me, is logical and moral.
-
Lubab, I have heard that the death penalty is only for Noahides who break the law in a Jewish nation, also Rav Hutner said the death penalty may be enforced for these crimes but isnt a requirment
-
Lubab, I have heard that the death penalty is only for Noahides who break the law in a Jewish nation, also Rav Hutner said the death penalty may be enforced for these crimes but isnt a requirment
I'm not seeing that in the Rambam, but if Rav Hutner said it then I'm sure it's true.
-
Some Rabbis(a minority) have written that anyone who follows the Sheva Mitzvot have a place in the world to come whether they believe in their divine source or not.
This seems illogical as it is difficult to adhere to any laws unless one has some ultimate moral authority to believe in. The secular cultural elite of today seem to think that it's possible to have no ultimate moral authority still have a moral code that all will agree on and adhere to. They believe they can give ascent to sodomy, infidelity,blasphemy, pornography and abortion but somehow draw the line at pedophelia.
This seems unlikely as they advocate that all people, cultures, religions and ideas all have equal merit and worth. Therefor the opinions and ideas of radical islamists, pedophiles,nazis, and sadists must hold equal virtue to the opinions of secular humanists. How can they assume the ideas of the latter will prevail?
It would seem that the only logical choice is to base morallity on a supreme moral source even if some individuals may have difficulty beleiving in the divinity of that source. I'm sure that secular western humanists would opt for the Sheva Mitzvot if confronted with some of the ghastly possibilities of man-made morallity. Would an agnostic who adheres to Sheva Mitzvot ( this being a more difficult task for him as opposed to one who believes) then get his place in the world to come as the minority opinion suggests?
I brought up your question at the end to my Rabbi. He said someone who is not deliberately trying to make a system of laws separate from G-d, but he's just keeping them anyway would have a place in the world to come.
He said to understand what it means "have a place in the world to come:" or "not to have a place in the world to come" you'd need to delve into this discourse-posted here: http://www.revealtheessence.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=21 So you know a thing or two about heaven and hell.
-
This question is too advanced for me, Lubab will have to answer this one.
The only one I can answer is that it is not a sin if you don't give 10% of your income to charity. But you should give at least some of your income to the poor or to charity. Giving to the poor is required for Jews and is one of the commandments in the Bible. As for Gentiles, I presume charity is highly encouraged to please G-d but is not required.
But then don't some people try and use this as their justification for government socialism?
-
This question is too advanced for me, Lubab will have to answer this one.
The only one I can answer is that it is not a sin if you don't give 10% of your income to charity. But you should give at least some of your income to the poor or to charity. Giving to the poor is required for Jews and is one of the commandments in the Bible. As for Gentiles, I presume charity is highly encouraged to please G-d but is not required.
But then don't some people try and use this as their justification for government socialism?
Yeah. But they're wrong. The Bible says we should give it. It doesn't say the govenment should take it and give it for us.
-
Lubab, why do the slaughterers first shock the animal, then start cutting it up. Couldn't they just numb it, then quickly it instead?
-
Lubab, why do the slaughterers first shock the animal, then start cutting it up. Couldn't they just numb it, then quickly it instead?
I don't understand your question. I think you're missing a word there somewhere-"then quickly it instead" ???
-
Jews should give tzedaka to JTF.
Hmm, Yacov, i agree that money should be given to JTF. However there are needy people with which the money would do more for. Though can it be split into different charities?
-
Jews should give tzedaka to JTF.
Hmm, Yacov, i agree that money should be given to JTF. However there are needy people with which the money would do more for. Though can it be split into different charities?
Yes. It can be split. But JTF money also goes to the hilltop youth who need it more than anybody. They're as poor as anyone because they are isolated and yet their presence their protects millions of Jews in Israel.
-
Really, i thought there was a seperate organization for the Hilltop Youth and JTF was interlinked with it. Are there any images?
-
Really, i thought there was a seperate organization for the Hilltop Youth and JTF was interlinked with it. Are there any images?
There are some around if you google.
-
Here is a good article written in 1884 by Col. David Crockett on the subject of Charity/Taxes.. Enjoy!
Not Yours To Give
Col. David Crockett
US Representative from Tennessee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally published in "The Life of Colonel David Crockett," by Edward Sylvester Ellis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also available as a plain text file and as a .prc file for the PalmPilot.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 suffering of the living, if there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for 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 on 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 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 ever 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."
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 votes, and, of course, 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 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 houseless, 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 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 election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there but, as the election was some time off, 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 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 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 voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine, I shall not vote for you again."
"This was a sockdolger...I begged him 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 vote last winter which shows that either you have not 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 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 you or wounding you.'
"I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the constitution is very different from mine; and 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 honest he is.'
" 'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake. Though I live in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by 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 the same 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 than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing 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 much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even 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 at 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 country 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 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 about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from necessity of 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 usurpation, 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 vote for you.'
"I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go 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 vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote 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 upon one condition. You are convinced that your vote 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 vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote 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 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 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 good-bye. I must know your name."
"'My name is Bunce.'
"'Not Horatio Bunce?'
"'Yes
"'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 for a heart brim-full and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him, before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.
"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 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 real, 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, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one 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 had 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 truths 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 votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only."
"I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:
"And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only 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 by 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 the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.'
"He came up to 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 that 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 big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that 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 ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.'
"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. "There is one thing 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, or a dozen of them, 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 which the country 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 $20,000 when weighed 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 it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."