Sunday, November 4, 2012

Self Governement

Do you think that when a nation rejects God and his commandments and the people lack self governance that God then judges that nation by placing the yoke of wicked civil government on that nation?

I was searching for sermons about self government and the consequences of not practicing it.
I came across an article in answersingenesis.org written by Doug Phillips back in 2008.
It seems rather timely to read given the circumstances that our country is in.

One Nation Over God by Doug Phillips Feb. 6, 2008  


Mention the word government to a typical twenty-first century American and he is most likely to think of Washington, D. C. But if that same American were to travel back in time to 1828 and open a copy of Webster’s newly released dictionary, he would discover that the first definition of government describes “self-government.” Other forms of government, including family (1 Corinthians 11:38–9) and civil government (Deuteronomy 16:18–2025:1Romans 13:1–5), are secondary.
This definition points us back to the Bible, the only source to properly understand our need for government and its real nature. We learn from the Bible that man is to give his heart to God (1 Peter 1:14–16) and to exercise self-control over his mind (2 Corinthians 10:4–6), his members (1 Corinthians 9:26–27), and his actions, so that he can fully honor his Creator (John 14:151 John 2:3–55:2–3).
Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language reflected this distinctively biblical worldview in its definitions of government and sample usages:
“Direction; regulation. ‘These precepts will serve for the government of our conduct.’”
“Control; restraint. ‘Men are apt to neglect the government of their temper and passions.’”
In this modern age of lawlessness, where morality is believed to evolve based on changing culture rather than eternally fixed principles for self-rule, it is not surprising that the only “government” modern man recognizes is an all-powerful state. The biblical doctrine of government, on the other hand, emphasizes a multiplicity—family, church, and state—each grounded in self-control under God. The tension between these two views of government finds its root in the Genesis record, from the Garden of Eden to the Tower of Babel.

Creation and Self-Government

In the beginning, God created man and gave him the first law: to keep the Garden but not eat of the forbidden fruit (Genesis 2:15–17). The law was meant to be a blessing to man, but it came with sanctions should man break it. Both the law and its sanctions communicated truths of vast significance about the Creator, including His righteousness, His love, His authority, and His justice.
At first, there was no civil government to enforce the law. Man was to be self-governing under God. He was to delight in the law of the Lord and keep His commandments. But man proved he would not be self-governing. He broke the law and lost fellowship with His Creator (Genesis 3:23–24). He also fell under the condemnation of the law and brought disorder and confusion into mankind’s relationships.
Family government was introduced at the moment of Eve’s creation. Adam was to be the jurisdictional head of the family, and Eve was to be a helper suitable for him (Genesis 2:18). But Adam failed to honor his governmental duties. He should have refused to eat the forbidden fruit that Eve offered him. At that moment tension entered their relationship. God would then declare to Eve: “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Genesis 3:16).
In the years that followed, three distinct units of government emerged, each with privileges and duties. Today, they are known as family, civil, and church governments. Each government carries a God-ordained instrument of punishment to enforce the moral law of God: The family is given the rod (Proverbs 23:13–14); the state, the sword (Romans 13:4); and the church, the keys (Matthew 16:19). But self-government under God remains the defining obligation of every individual.

The Origins of Civil Government

There is no biblical evidence of a sword-bearing, civil government in the pre-Flood world. The two most notable killers in the world before the Flood—Cain (Genesis 4:8–18) and Lamech—feared retribution from their brothers, but neither of them suffered at the hands of a civil magistrate.
God apparently instituted civil government after the Genesis Flood when He introduced capital punishment for murder (Genesis 9:5). Here we discover that the very first principle of godly civil government is the protection of innocent life. The Lord declared to Noah that “whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed.” God instituted this law because of the creation doctrine of the imago dei (“for in the image of God made he man”).

Nimrod and the Tower of Babel

After the Genesis Flood, God restated His mandate, originally given in the Garden of Eden, for mankind to multiply and fill the earth (Genesis 1:26–289:1). But in the generations that followed, man expressly rejected that mandate. Rather than dispersing and demonstrating self-governance under God, the people gathered at the tower in the city of Babel (Genesis 11:1–9). Their mission: an empire of rebellion—a one-world, centralized government under man. Many commentators believe that the tyrant Nimrod, a “mighty man” of violence described in Genesis 10:9–11, led this enterprise.
The mandate to disperse around the world implied decentralization and self-government (Genesis 1:289:1). The express purpose of the tower, in contrast, was for humans to “make a name” for themselves and to avoid being “scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.”
The new Babel state was distinctively religious in nature. It appeared to have a messianic vision of salvation by government and glory to man, symbolized by the erection of a tower to the heavens. Under this centralized religious state the people were one. The Lord Himself revealed the dangers of this Satanic unity: “Now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do” (Genesis 11:6). In the end, God judged man’s self-seeking attempt to centralize power at Babel by sending confusion and dispersing men by language groups.
It is likely that the city of Babel served as the model for most of the state-sponsored pagan mystery religions of the ancient world. Many early cities adopted major architectural projects, like the ziggurats of Babylon, which perpetuated ideals similar to those of the centralized human government at Babel.
Since the Garden of Eden, mankind has yearned to restore the sense of order and justice that was lost at the Fall. But the question has always been—will man be self-governing under the authority of a multiplicity of God-ordained governments, each with defined and limited powers, or will he seek a Babel-like solution?
Recall that the Hebrew nation insisted on a king with vast powers like their pagan counterparts, while Samuel pleaded for them to remain self-governing under God (1 Samuel 8:510:19). The totalitarian Roman Empire arose in large part as a response to the perceived inefficiencies and weakness of the more decentralized Republic.
More recently the German people of the 1930s looked to a strongman with absolute authority to bring order after the devastation of World War I. This desire for unity under a modern-day Nimrod-like leader—in this case, Adolf Hitler—brought unprecedented horror, not only to the people of the world but to the very Germans who demanded the new regime.

Salvation by Government

Just six thousand years ago, the Serpent asked Eve the question, “Has God said?” (Genesis 3:1). Modern man is asking the same question. He hates the moral law of God and refuses to be governed by it (Habakkuk 1:4). Instead of seeking the favor of the Lord through obedience to His law, modern humans seek deliverance through endless legislation and the promises of an all-powerful “nanny state.”
God intends civil law to be a restraint against evil, not a source of spiritual deliverance (Romans 13:4). Ironically, those who believe in evolving morality are the ones who most vocally argue for salvation by legislation. Because they believe man’s problems arise from outward circumstances rather than sins of the heart, they hope to solve man’s problems through government programs and better education. In such a world, the State, not Jesus Christ, is honored as the true redeemer.
The spirit of Babel is alive and well. Men still crave “government” solutions to spiritual problems. At the heart of this crisis is a misdiagnosis of the basic problem. Man’s problem is not his environment; it is sin (Romans 6:23). The solution begins with spiritual redemption, not social reform or state-imposed order. Because nations are comprised of individuals, the solution requires a change in heart, which only God can do.
The disposition of the individual influences what kind of people rule over him. Because civil governments are ultimately ruled by individuals, the state of their hearts impacts the prosperity of the whole nation. The bottom line is this: Freedom requires self-government; self-government requires righteousness. This explains why, “when the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; but when a wicked man rules, the people groan” (Proverbs 29:2).
As God makes clear from Genesis, proper government begins with self-government and then extends to the family, church, and state, as each jurisdiction honors their God-ordained duties and boundaries.

Thursday, November 1, 2012

Irish Lullaby

For my beautiful daughter, Abigail Joy.

Thursday, October 11, 2012

Boaz's 11th Birthday

The baby of the family turned 11 last Thursday. We had a little hotdog roast for him, with everyone's favorite dessert, Dirt Cake, complete with gummy worms.
For more on Boaz's birthday:
http://laurelscrazylife.blogspot.com/2012/10/boazs-birthday.html

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Government Dependency Will End in Chaos by Ron Paul



The media insists on characterizing statements about dependency on government handouts as controversial, but in truth such statements are absolutely correct. It's not that nearly half of Americans are dependent on government; it's actually more than half. If one includes not just people on food stamps and welfare, but also seniors on Medicare, Social Security and people employed by the government directly, the number is more like 165 million out of 308 million, which is 53%.
Some argue that Social Security and Medicare benefits are a right because people pay into these programs their whole lives, or that we need a government safety net in place for people who fall on hard times. However, this all becomes a moot point when the funds people depend on become worthless due to government default or rampant inflation.

This is less an issue of dignity or dependence on government, and more about the deceitfulness of government promises.

The Fed recently announced that it plans to keep interest rates near zero and keep buying near worthless assets from banks indefinitely. This enables Congress to spend without having to take deficits or the debt seriously and there is every indication they intend to spend with impunity until the system collapses. There are no brakes on the runaway train. The federal debt ceiling law does nothing to limit spending. The ceiling will have to be raised yet again perhaps before the year is out. What is happening in Greece with austerity measures and riots in the street will happen here within a decade according to some realistic estimates if we do not find some way to fiscally restrain our government.

There is little point in a debate about being entitled to healthcare or food or shelter from fellow taxpayers if the whole system has collapsed. And, with the way our politicians have taken over and mismanaged vast amounts of resources, collapse seems almost unavoidable. Yet the number of Americans who have significant dependency on government is dangerously high, and I honestly fear for them.

Worse, corporate welfare is also at an all-time high with no signs of diminishing. Though it is hard to quantify, Tad Dehaven at Cato has estimated that the government spends nearly twice as much on corporate welfare than on social welfare. Both parties are equally guilty. More and more, the business sector is learning to rely on taxpayer largesse in one form or another. They used to be solely concerned with providing a better product to the consumer at a better price. Now, success on Wall Street depends entirely too much on having the best lobbyists on K Street. If one includes the employees of "private" businesses who depend on government contracts, grants or bailouts, there are even more people dependent on government in some way.
Government does not create resources when it taxes people and prints money; it merely redistributes the wealth, while supporting a massive, wasteful bureaucracy along the way. Government is a giant, blood-sucking parasite on our otherwise healthy economy. For too long we have entrusted too much economic power and influence to irresponsible politicians in Washington. It's the chaos that ensues after they run the system into the ground that will be so painful for so many people. But realigning our economy with the free market and away from government mandates and handouts must happen in order for it to thrive again.
The answer is not to keep asking government to do more. The answer is to extricate our economy and ourselves from the grasp of Washington DC as much as possible now, before our dependency becomes our downfall.

Monday, October 1, 2012

Our Dog Gets Babied Today.

Sunday I noticed that our dog, Tayla, was limping and having a real hard time putting weight on her right foreleg. She couldn't even climb up the front steps of the house where she likes to lay in front of the entry door.
Jordon said she had a tumble down a hill and it seemed she must have pulled a muscle up at the shoulder.
This morning, I was looking at the rain coming down on this cool (60*) first day of October and I saw her in the back yard underneath an unfinished chicken tractor (roof, but no sides), shivering.
I don't know why she won't go into her roomy warm dog house.
I took her some food along with some fresh milk, but she just laid there, not interested.
So I took pity on her and had one of the boys carry her into the utility room to recover where Boaz can pamper her.

He put all his jackets down for her to lay on and a bath towel on her for a blanket; much to Johanna's disapproval. It was her towel.
I told her it would wash.


One condition had to be met for her to stay in the house.
The dreaded bath!

After the bath with someone else's bath towel.


Thursday, September 27, 2012

Ice Skating

I took the kids ice skating the first week of September.
On certain days, homeschoolers get a discount.
It's still early in the season, so when we went, we practically had the whole rink to ourselves.
There were only a couple of people on it besides our skating group, which consisted of Johanna, Jordon, Laurel, Levi, Abigail, Boaz, TJ and  Rachel with Natasha and Allen, and Tori and Grant Pine.

Like always, they had fun but were also worn out by the end of the day.




They have these neat little scooters for the little ones.

Monday, September 24, 2012

Davy Crockett vs. Welfare


From The Life of Colonel David Crockett,
by Edward S. Ellis (Philadelphia: Porter & Coates, 1884)

Crockett was then the lion of Washington. I was a great admirer of his character, and, having several friends who were intimate with him, I found no difficulty in making his acquaintance. I was fascinated with him, and he seemed to take a fancy to me.

I was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives when 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 – rather, as I thought, because it afforded the speakers a fine opportunity for display than from the necessity of convincing anybody, for it seemed to me that everybody favored it. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose. Everybody expected, of course, that he was going to make one of his characteristic speeches in support of the bill. He commenced:

"Mr. Speaker – I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. 
Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. 
Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. This government can owe no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. 
If it is a debt, how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it is a debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have its merits examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the War of 1812 precisely the same amount. 
There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in every respect as this lady, and is as poor. She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor; but if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House. 
There are thousands of widows in the country just such as the one I have spoken of, but we never hear of any of these large debts to them. Sir, this is no debt. The government did not owe it to the deceased when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. 
I do not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. 
Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much of our own money 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.

Like many other young men, and old ones, too, for that matter, who had not thought upon the subject, I desired the passage of the bill, and felt outraged at its defeat. I determined that I would persuade my friend Crockett to move a reconsideration the next day.
Previous engagements preventing me from seeing Crockett that night, I went early to his room the next morning and found him engaged in addressing and franking letters, a large pile of which lay upon his table.

I broke in upon him rather abruptly, by asking him what devil had possessed him to make that speech and defeat that bill yesterday. Without turning his head or looking up from his work, he replied:
"You see that I am very busy now; take a seat and cool yourself. I will be through in a few minutes, and then I will tell you all about it."

He continued his employment for about ten minutes, and when he had finished he turned to me and said:
"Now, sir, I will answer your question. But thereby hangs a tale, and one of considerable length, to which you will have to listen."

I listened, and this is the tale which I heard:
Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. When we got there, I went to work, and I never worked as hard in my life as I did there for several hours. But, in spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them, and everybody else seemed to feel the same way.

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. I said everybody felt as I did. That was not quite so; for, though they perhaps sympathized as deeply with the sufferers as I did, there were a few of the members who did not think we had the right to indulge our sympathy or excite our charity at the expense of anybody but ourselves. They opposed the bill, and upon its passage demanded the yeas and nays. There were not enough of them to sustain the call, but many of us wanted our names to appear in favor of what we considered a praiseworthy measure, and we voted with them to sustain it. So the yeas and nays were recorded, and my name appeared on the journals in favor of the bill.
The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the 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, and I thought it was best to let the boys know that I had not forgot them, and that going to Congress had not made me too proud to go to see them.
So I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into my saddlebags, and put out. I had been out about a week and had found things going very smoothly, 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 to the fence. As he came up I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly, and was about turning his horse for another furrow when I said to him: "Don't be in such a hurry, my friend; I want to have a little talk with you, and get better acquainted."

He replied: "I am very busy, and have but little time to talk, but if it does not take too long, I will listen to what you have to say."

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 sockdolager... I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

"Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the Constitution to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; 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 more honest he is."

"I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question."

"No, Colonel, there's no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?"

"Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote which anybody in the world would have found fault with."

"Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?"

Here was another sockdolager; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said:
"Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did."

"It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. 
What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how 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 to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. 
No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The Congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution."

I have given you an imperfect account of what he said. Long before he was through, I was convinced that I had done wrong. He wound up by saying:
"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 talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I 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 full. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said there 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 say that 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 the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it."

"No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you."

"Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say 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. You must let me shake your hand before I go."
We shook hands and parted.

It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in 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 a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.

Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.
I have told you Mr. Bunce converted me politically. He came nearer converting me religiously than I had ever been before. He did not make a very good Christian of me, as you know; but he has wrought upon my mind a conviction of the truth of Christianity, and upon my feelings a reverence for its purifying and elevating power such as I had never felt 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 everyone who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.
But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I 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 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 as I have told it to you, 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 of it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so."
He came upon the stand and said:
"Fellow citizens – It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today."

He went down, and there went up from the crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.
I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some 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. I have had several thousand copies of it printed and was directing them to my constituents when you came in.
"There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men – men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, 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, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, 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."
 
blog design by Paperback Designs