What Would Grover Cleveland Have Done About Hurricane Sandy?

October 31, 2012 - 10:11 AM

The U.S. has historically solved problems through barn raising rather than hand outs.

Such an approach could be the taking from the chapter of one of my favorite presidents, Grover Cleveland. He is one who is largely neglected by the media and historians today, which alone is an indicator he would be someone I would likely admire. He is the only president to not serve his terms sequentially, being both the 22nd (1885 to 1889) and 24th (1893 to 1897) president.

Cleveland was not driven by populist notions, but by principle. He saw serving in office as a sacred responsibility, stating that "Your every voter, as surely as your chief magistrate, exercises a public trust."

Cleveland was different in both his style and substance. While today's presidents are quick to make promises, Cleveland made commitments, stating "Though the people support the government; the government should not support the people." He simply did not believe that philanthropy was the role of the federal government according to the US Constitution.

Cleveland was a stickler when it came to that Constitution and he set a hard standard for other Presidents to maintain. History showed that most would not. Dr. Burt Folsom, in his excellent book, New Deal or Raw Deal, pointed out that:

"In the 1800s, voluntary organizations such as the Red Cross and the Salvation Army were formed to give food, shelter, clothing, and spiritual help to individuals and groups that faces crises. Sometimes, of course, Congress was tempted to play politics with relief. In 1887, for example, several counties in Texas faced a long drought and some farmers lost their crops. Texas politicians helped cajole Congress into granting $10,000 worth of free seeds for these distressed farmers in Texas. After the bill passed the Senate and House, Cleveland vetoed it, saying, 'I can find no warrant for such an appropriating in the Constitution,' Cleveland said. Such aid would 'destroy the partitions between proper subjects of Federal and local care and regulation.' He added, 'Federal aid, in such cases, encourages the expectations of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character.'"

Cleveland believed the American people would not abandon their fellow citizens in the Lone Star state. Folsom noted Cleveland's response: "[T]he friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune."

Cleveland could not be more accurate in his predictions. People not only gave, but did so at a level beyond the imagination of the Texas farmers and the politicians who represented them. Fellow Americans from all over the country gave gifts exceeding $100,000. That amount was more than ten times the amount Congress had tried to take from the taxpayers. The Founding Fathers never saw a "charity" role for government; that perspective was validated in both word and deed by Cleveland's courageous veto and his belief in the American people.

Writer Lawrence W. Reed has noted that "Grover Cleveland proved an exceptional president, not because of the experience he brought to the federal government but because of two things that matter much more — character and principles." This was seen in his decision to avoid the politically expedient in pursuit of what was right.

Politicians are not likely to do what I have suggested because of fear that voters would interpret that as meaning there "is no role for the federal government in such tragedies."  What a sad reason for not doing the next right thing.

The U.S. has historically solved problems through barn raising rather than hand outs.

Such an approach could be the taking from the chapter of one of my favorite presidents, Grover Cleveland. He is one who is largely neglected by the media and historians today, which alone is an indicator he would be someone I would likely admire. He is the only president to not serve his terms sequentially, being both the 22nd (1885 to 1889) and 24th (1893 to 1897) president.

Cleveland was not driven by populist notions, but by principle. He saw serving in office as a sacred responsibility, stating that "Your every voter, as surely as your chief magistrate, exercises a public trust."

Cleveland was different in both his style and substance. While today's presidents are quick to make promises, Cleveland made commitments, stating "Though the people support the government; the government should not support the people." He simply did not believe that philanthropy was the role of the federal government according to the US Constitution.

Cleveland was a stickler when it came to that Constitution and he set a hard standard for other Presidents to maintain. History showed that most would not. Dr. Burt Folsom, in his excellent book, New Deal or Raw Deal, pointed out that:

"In the 1800s, voluntary organizations such as the Red Cross and the Salvation Army were formed to give food, shelter, clothing, and spiritual help to individuals and groups that faces crises. Sometimes, of course, Congress was tempted to play politics with relief. In 1887, for example, several counties in Texas faced a long drought and some farmers lost their crops. Texas politicians helped cajole Congress into granting $10,000 worth of free seeds for these distressed farmers in Texas. After the bill passed the Senate and House, Cleveland vetoed it, saying, 'I can find no warrant for such an appropriating in the Constitution,' Cleveland said. Such aid would 'destroy the partitions between proper subjects of Federal and local care and regulation.' He added, 'Federal aid, in such cases, encourages the expectations of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character.'"

Cleveland believed the American people would not abandon their fellow citizens in the Lone Star state. Folsom noted Cleveland's response: "[T]he friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune."

Cleveland could not be more accurate in his predictions. People not only gave, but did so at a level beyond the imagination of the Texas farmers and the politicians who represented them. Fellow Americans from all over the country gave gifts exceeding $100,000. That amount was more than ten times the amount Congress had tried to take from the taxpayers. The Founding Fathers never saw a "charity" role for government; that perspective was validated in both word and deed by Cleveland's courageous veto and his belief in the American people.

Writer Lawrence W. Reed has noted that "Grover Cleveland proved an exceptional president, not because of the experience he brought to the federal government but because of two things that matter much more — character and principles." This was seen in his decision to avoid the politically expedient in pursuit of what was right.

Politicians are not likely to do what I have suggested because of fear that voters would interpret that as meaning there "is no role for the federal government in such tragedies."

What a sad reason for not doing the right thing.

See more "Right Views, Right Now" opinion and analysis.