Skip to main content

The Tragedy of the Ten-Million Acre Bill

President Franklin Pierce
I readily and, I trust, feelingly acknowledge the duty incumbent on us all as men and citizens, and as among the highest and holiest of our duties, to provide for those who, in the mysterious order of Providence, are subject to want and to disease of body or mind; but I can not find any authority in the Constitution for making the Federal Government the great almoner of public charity throughout the United States. To do so would, in my judgment, be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive of the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded.
Franklin Pierce, in his veto of the 1854 Bill for the Benefit of the Indigent Insane
Though forgotten today and though issued by a one-term president whose name is synonymous with Oval Office mediocrity, the veto of the Bill for the the Benefit of the Indigent Insane became one of the most long-reaching vetoes in the history of the presidency. With it, Franklin Pierce derailed an early attempt to define a wide federal responsibility for the general welfare; the government would not seriously consider a broad role in this arena until forced into it by the social blight of the Great Depression.

Three times before, in 1848, 1850, and 1852, the great social reformer Dororthea Dix had petitioned Congress for a land grant that would fund asylums for the indigent insane. Three times, her request disappeared into the maw of conflicting interests and philosophies about the proper disposition of federal land. Only a few politicians considered her request from the moral angle. Finally, in 1854, she prevailed, only to see President Pierce veto the Bill for the Benefit of the Indigent Insane.

Pierce vetoed the bill on three grounds. First, he wrote, nothing in the Constitution authorized Congress to pass this kind of legislation. Second, however worthy the bill might be, enactment would open a floodgate of federal welfare legislation. Third, care of the indigent insane was properly the right and responsibility of individual states. Dix, of course, pursued the legislation in the first place because in her mind the states had abdicated their responsibility.

Dix used her powerful personality in the cause of social reform. Her organizing skills were limited, though, and she did not respond to Pierce's veto with a lobby or movement. Subsequent 19th C. progressives did not pursue health care reform of any kind even when they had the organizing ability. Because of the precedent set by Pierce's veto, the federal government did not significantly involve itself in social reform legislation until the New Deal (with of course the notable exception of the bills underlying Reconstruction).

And so Pierce, a president whom historians have described as "timid and unable to cope with a changing America," established the terms of a debate that resound today. In terms of promoting the general welfare, what is the proper extent of the federal role versus those of the states and private philanthropy? Or is the question itself disingenuous? In some matters, perhaps leaving the general welfare up to the states is a rationalization that accepts injustice in the interests of limited government and the advantages that brings to special interests.

For liberals and progressives, Dix's defeat taught a lesson that went largely ignored for 75 years: Congress is unlikely to pass social reform legislation out of a sense of moral imperative. Social reform legislation requires organization, a skill progressives finally mastered and applied during liberalism's great era stretching from 1933-1965. Today, despite the left's inability to mount a large-scale progressive movement, the lesson of 1854 is reflected in the efforts of thousands of community organizations across the United States. One of their members became president.

To read more about this fascinating episode in American history, see The Social Service Review, Vol. 36, No. 1, March 1962 (link unavailable).

Popular posts from this blog

Turn Trash to Treasure: An Easy Way to Help SAGE and the Corvallis Environmental Center!

Clear clutter and unwanted items from your home and you can help raise funds for the Corvallis Environmental Center--all year long!  Just take your unwanted items to an ARC Thrift Store where they sell them and donate the proceeds to the CEC.  It easy!  Here's how:

1. Collect Items in Good Condition

Not all donate-able items are eligible, so check out the list of items that will raise money for the CEC:
www.corvallisenvironmentalcenter.org/turn-trash-to-treasure
2. Put a sticker on each eligible item Stickers are located in a big envelope on the window outside of the CEC office at 214 SW Monroe Ave., Corvallis

3. Drop-off Items at The ARC! Items can be dropped off anytime during store hours at either location.

The ARC Thrift Stores:
928 NW Beca Street, Corvallis (541) 754-9011
936 Main Street, Philomath (541) 929-3946

Hours:
Monday-Saturday: 10am-5:30pm
Sunday: 12pm-5:30pm
Thanks so much for helping support SAGE and the other programs of the Corvallis Environmental Center!!!

Beans, Beans and More (or Less) Allergenic Beans!

We have a little good news this week: my son passed a home bean challenge for both pinto and cannellini (white) beans last night. Hooray!

At our last allergist visit, they ran the numbers on a number of varieties of beans and many were Class 0, with values like 0.68. My son's doctor thought it was reasonable to try these at home.

Going to stop for a moment and interject: DON'T DO THIS WITHOUT YOUR DOCTOR'S DIRECTION. A lot of things go into whether home challenges are a good idea for your child: how serious the allergen typically is, how far the hospital, how experienced the parents are with recognizing reactions. Many doctors are not comfortable with this at all. But, in our case, it makes sense to do some challenges at home because my son tests slightly allergic to dozens of foods.

He has avoided all beans since around age five, when he started developing new allergies. First it was tuna. Then cashews. Then (to our great surprise), he suddenly became allergic to garbonzo be…

Best Food Allergy Tweets/Posts From 2013 ACAAI Meeting

Sorry, guys...I've been very busy the last couple of weeks, but just over a week ago one of the largest allergy and asthma conferences, the annual American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, was tweeting its brains out.

Here were the tweets and (virtual) presentations I thought were most interesting:

ACE inhibitors are often used to treat high blood pressure. I believe Lisinopril was the one specifically mentioned. This goes hand in hand with the idea that older patients, especially men, can see changes in the severity of their allergic reactions as they age.

Here's an answer on the question many of us asked about component testing. Just as with RAST, the number itself doesn't matter; just the positive result.

Gross! But yes, give your kids the bobber after the dog/ brother/ mailman licked it.

Conversely, tree-nut-allergic individuals have a 30% incidence of concurrent peanut allergy. 
So stop blaming yourselves, FA mommies! I've said this consistently - Mother Natur…