BornAliveTruth.org…Check it out today

Someday I should write an essay on an introduction to pro-life apologetics, or, how to defend the pro-life view using science, logic, and observation.

If I ever get into politics, abortion will become my number one issue. Millions of innocent lives are at stake. My passion against abortion really took off when I saw a lecture by pro-life apologist Scott Klusendorf. In his 2 hour lecture, he outlines several cogent scientific and logical reasons to believe that life begins at conception, and his presentation totally blew his opponents argumennts out of the water.

Then I did some reading on my own, and was stunned to read the story of Gianna Jesson, an abortion survivor who goes around the country now speaking for the pro life cause. Abortion survivor? I didn’t know there was such a thing, but my discovery that there are motivates me all the more, and makes me wonder all the more how politicians can talk about a woman’s “right” to an abortion with a straight face.

I watched some videos of Gianna Jesson on youtube and was moved by what I saw. Hopefully someday someone will make a documentary of her story for the world to see on the screen, but until then, I was really pleased to find this TV ad that will be airing in a few states as the presidential campaigns head for the home stretch.

Be sure to check out the 527 website sponsoring the ad, BornAliveTruth.org

Liberty is not unlimited…

Liberty was a word I heard often as I researched the candidacy of Ron Paul this past year. I heard it not only from him, but also from his supporters–on the streets, at rallies, on blogs, and on youtube. “We must defend liberty”; “Liberty…its the most important thing”. Or “The liberty to do whatever we want as long as we don’t infringe on the rights of others”.

It sounded great. And to a substantial extent, I think the cause of liberty is a legitimate one. People should be able to act freely. We should have a free society. But a nagging question kept coming to mind: Is Liberty really the transcendental value that subsumes all else? Should liberty theoretically be defended at all costs? I’m still trying to decide where the proper balance is. As I think on these things, I find one passage written by Rousas D. Rushdooney very captivating. He writes in 1984, in his book titled “Law and Liberty” that:

“When we are told that there can be no laws against _____________[insert any perceived social ill, like pornography, drugs, adultery] without endangering liberty, we must challenge their claim to be interested in liberty. There is no area where freedom is unlimited. Take freedom of speech, for example: no man has the right to slander others, nor do our laws allow him the liberty to do so at will. Neither do we allow any man the liberty to shout ‘fire!’ in a crowded theatre when there is no fire. Freedom of speech does not give any man the right to walk into the floor of Congress and speak his mind. His liberty is limited no only as to where he can say it but also as to what he says. This does not mean that I lack freedom to speak my mind, if it be done decently and in order.

Freedom of press means the liberty to publish, but it does not mean liberty to publish libelous statements, nor does it mean that any man can demand that his freedom of press be subsidized to enable him to publish. A man has the liberty to publish if he provides the cost of publication or interests a publisher in doing so. Moreover, the contents of what is published are also subject to limitations. Libel has already been cited. No man has the right or liberty to publish materials violating the privacy of others. There are all kinds of legitimate and necessary restrictions on every kind of liberty a man has, and these are necessary for the maintenance of liberty.”

As mentioned above, I think the cause for more liberty and less government is for the most part a legitimate one. I am an ardent supporter of almost everyone of Ron Paul’s ideals. The question at issue is: “How far should that liberty be extended and how do we decide at what point it starts and where it ends?”

The usual libertarian response is well placed from a strategic and rhetorical standpoint. Their reply usually goes something like this: “A person should enjoy every liberty he can attain, provided he does not infringe on the liberty of others to act freely in their own right” or something along those lines. Basically, exercise your rights, as long as you don’t violate the rights of others.

I like this explanation, but (aside from the fact that I’m not sure its a biblical perspective, something I’ll articulate another time) I’m not sure it really solves the debate or saves any time. For as soon as these words fall on the dialogue, the debate is not ended with satisfaction to both sides. The argument immediately shifts to issue of what constitutes a violation of another person’s rights?

At this point, someone will try to differentiate the difference between positive and negative rights, saying that people have the right exercise their negative rights, while they are not necessarily entitled to their positive rights. But again, this only starts the process over again: What exactly constitutes “negative” rights? Who says that am entitled to this set of rights but not to another?  A traffic light violates my freedom to move through the intersection when I see fit. Yet, to not have a traffic light would endanger the public safety, thus, as many people as will go through the intersection in the absence of a traffic light, the same number of individual rights will be violated…the right to life and safety of other individual besides myself is negated by the absence of a traffic signal.

But (playing the part of devil’s advocate for a moment) I should have the right to go through the intersection when I want to. So, who’s rights and interests should win the debate? Now the debate simply shifts again: Whether or not, when in conflict, individualism should be valued over collectivism. I have an individual right to traverse the intersection, something that the traffic light delays, and a collection of other members of society who will be traveling through that intersection have a right to public safety and life.

Thus, libertarian rationalism, which adores rationalistic, logical thought process’ to come to its conclusions, seems to falter; for it cannot come up with an enduring, transcendental standard by which to govern society. For any libertarian who asserts that “these are the rights you are entitled to, while these are not” will always be hopelessly challenged to explain how he came to his conclusion about what rights are more important than others (My right to move when I want vs. society’s right to a traffic signal in the interest of public safety), and why when in conflict, this should be valued over that–the traffic light and individualism vs. collectivism being prime examples of this never ending cycle of argumentation.

At this point, having convinced myself that rationally engineered rights can never be rationally clarified (the never ending circle of argumentation referred to in preceding paragraphs), it seems to me that the best way to conclusively address the issue is to adopt an unconventional strategy: Espouse the cause of liberty in theory, and use the Bible and the biblical worldview it provides to clarify what rights should be enjoyed and what rights should be limited. On this basis, issues seem to fall into place: Free speech, yes–but since the 9th commandment says “though shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor” we justify laws against slander. How did property rights vs. eminent domain come to be such an issue from the 1600’s on in the western world? Because religious reformers influenced policy makers who applied the principle “thou shalt not steal” as a limitation on government action. Thus was born the notion that government should be limited in taking land for whatever purpose, and that if it must use the land, it should be paid for.

Adopting the biblical worldview as a standard political mindset and policy guideline will no doubt precipitate a storm of criticism and scandal. It would “forcing our will” on others. How bigoted. But in reality, doing so is no worse than what the Marxist, Socialist, Progressive, Liberal, Republican, or Humanist does every time they vote in the legislature. All law and policy necessarily springs forth from some foundational mindset (call it religion, political philosophy, mindset, etc.) held by each person, and thus, every politician–foundational presuppositions about the world and the humanity it contains; about the origin, purpose, and destiny of mankind as a whole. Christian worldview is one of those mindsets…it just happens to be called religion, while every other philosophy enjoys a more agreeable title–Marx called his Marxism “science” and my libertarian friends call their mindset a “Philosophy of Liberty”.

Now some will cringe from this challenge because they assume that because biblical worldview is found to be dismissed in politics as irrelevant because its religious it’s therefore not relevant to politics because most people in politics don’t think it belongs in the political debate.

Yet the majority’s lack of belief in something does not equate to making it irrelevant. Just because people don’t believe you when you cite the biblical worldview as a justification for action doesn’t mean you must leave it behind when you work in politics. Republicans don’t believe in the Democratic Party, yet the democrats are very successful in implementing their agenda step by step. Perhaps an analogy will help bring this into perspective:

You are walking through a city in the Great State of Texas. You, being the great citizen you are, have your concealed carry permit and a Spingfield .40  caliber X3 subcompact pistol in your back pocket. A thug steps in front of you, waves his knife with meaning, and demands your money or your life. But being the sturdy Texan you are, you snatch out your Springfield and say “Sir, I have a Spingfield .40  caliber X3 subcompact pistol that delivers 30,000 kinetic foot pounds of force on impact! Do reconsider your present course of action or proceed at your own risk! A bullet does carry farther than a knife!” But instead of being deterred like you thought he would be, he instead says “Well, I don’t believe in your gun…” And with this astounding revelation, you think “I can’t believe it. He doesn’t believe me” so you throw down your Spingfield .40  caliber X3 subcompact pistol take off running.

So you go home and do some research. You discover, (using, of course, wikipedia) that guns are indeed very effective. You find a study that documents these facts and effects, print it off, place it in your other back pocket, and start back across the city again, carrying your Spingfield .40  caliber X3 subcompact pistol. Lo and behold, the same crook appears in front of you, waving his knife and demanding your money or your life! So you pull out your Springfield .40 caliber subcompact X3 and exclaim: “Sir, I have a Spingfield .40  caliber X3 subcompact pistol that delivers 30,000 foot pounds of force on impact! Do reconsider your present course of action or proceed at your own risk! and look–I have a study right here proving that my gun is more effective than your knife…statistically, my gun will be much more effective and destructive than your knife. I can prove it!

Full of expectation, you eagerly anticipate his response. But your hopes are dashed as he simply straightens up and says: “It doesn’t matter…I don’t believe in your study. It was probably done by biased researchers who had unreasonable faith in guns anyway”.

Your heart sinks with discouragement as you realize that your efforts are rebuffed by your opponent. So, acting under the realization that he really doesn’t believe in your gun, you throw it down and take off running in the opposite direction.

How absurd. But you have one last chance. You’re walking through the city, and hallo there! Before you appears the same thug, waving his knife, demanding your money or your life! Again, you whip out your Spingfield .40  caliber X3 subcompact pistol and inform him, saying: “Sir, I have a Spingfield .40  caliber X3 subcompact pistol that delivers 30,000 foot pounds of force on impact! Do reconsider your present course of action or proceed at your own risk!” Again, he starts giving his usual mantra: “I don’t believe in your gun…” But this time is different. You’ve decided that pulling the trigger will do more to make him a believer in guns than anything else.

Now, certainly this story is not meant to imply that we should violence to implement our agenda. Nor does it mean that we will force people to become Christians. But what the above story does do is illustrate the folly and absurdity of waiting for your enemies to agree with you as a precondition for action.

But this same fallacy is, I fear, committed by politicians who “personally” claim to be Christians, yet keep that out of the scope of their political philosophy.

Yet what an opportunity we are missing! Christians grow ashamed of the name of Christ and neglect to bring his name into the debate–be it over abortion, gay “rights”, property rights, religious liberty, Ten Commandment displays, etc, and they lose the battle! Wow! I would never has guessed to that once we forgot about God in public debate that we would just happen to lose some ground as well. Unbelievable!

When we bring Biblical foundations to our positions in the public square, we will of course be criticized. But doing so gives us an excellent opportunity to bring the debate into another field that is far more relevant than any social ill–once the our Christian foundation for our political decisions is attacked, simply turn the debate into one issue: Is the Bible true? Is Christianity true? If they can disprove God or the Bible, go for it. But until they do so, you are perfectly justified in subscribing to a something that you think has good evidence and arguments backing it up. The more research and study I do, the more I am persuaded that with a continuing focus on research, knowledge, and dialogue on Christian theology and apologetics, the Christian message and world view is one that we can defend vigorously, reasonably, and logically.

Here’s the summery creed we need to present to our opponents, and then challenge them to attack it–as Christian Apologist, author, and family man Voddie Baucham once stated:

“Is that your final answer? I hope its not. Let me give you an answer to that question that I believe is better than ‘I was raised that way’ or its better than “Well I’m Southern Baptist and that’s the way we believe’ or its better than “I tried it, and it worked for me” Let me tell you why I choose to believe the Bible. I don’t believe the Bible because I was raised that way—because I wasn’t. I don’t choose to believe the Bible because I tried it and it worked for me. My mother’s Buddhism worked for her—that’s why she was a Buddhist! I need something more than just ‘because it works’. Here’s the answer—I’ll give it to you and unpack it for you:

I choose to believe the Bible because it is a reliable collection of historical documents written down by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. They report [of] supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and claimed that their writing are divine rather than human in origin.”

Rational Libertarianism doesn’t solve. It uses logic to arrive at its conclusions, but logical and philosophical conundrums seem to make it a never ending rabbit trail of argumentation against what seem to be, at root, arbitrary standards of what constitutes “rights” and how those rights should be arbitrated when they conflict.

To the contrary, invoking a biblical standard in deciding what liberties should be enjoyed and what ones should not promises, I think, to open up a whole new strategy of debate on social issues and open up discussion much more relevant issues than endless cycles of dispute over “natural rights” and other notions precipitated wholly by human thought. Its time to invoke a standard outside of ourselves, and standard, that, I think, is true. Why not.

Maybe I’m idealist; overly optimistic. After all, maybe this new strategy won’t be as simple as I think. After all, even if we did adopt the Bible as our standard for public policy and liberty, would it indeed clarify anything? Are there not many and diverse ways of interpreting the scriptures?

Undoubtedly yes. Place any two churches side by side and you’ll get a taste of what that’s like. But surely there are some basic principles that could be agreed up and forcefully argued and articulated from God’s word that would provide a lens by which to judge public policy and proper restraint of liberty.

So challenge me. Correct me where I may be wrong; where I might be overlooking a key aspect of an issue or oversimplyfying the problem or the solution. In the meantime though, at least, I think the Biblical world view is more relevant and tenable than most Americans, politicians, and pastors think.

 

Davy Crockett on Public Charity: Not yours to give

Some time ago, I came across this excerpt from a book about Davy Crockett, written by Edward Sylvester Ellis, titled “The Life of Colonel David Crockett”. The portion below gives not only a reason why public welfare shouldn’t exist, but also what should in its place. Certainly, disaster funds and disaster response have their place at the state level, but regarding welfare in light of federal and consitutional purposes, Crockett makes some astute points:

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.”