Most Irish and Irish-Americans are aware of the private generosity of Americans during the Famine years in Ireland. The role of the American government is another story.
“Indeed, no imagination can conceive, no tongue express, no brush paint the horror of the scenes which are daily exhibited in Ireland,” observed senator Henry Clay in 1847. Calling upon the support of his “Creator,” he reminded his fellow Americans that “the practice of charity” was the greatest act of humanity. In terms of private efforts, Americans heard Clay’s clarion call for relief.
Since most of the American relief passed through the Society of Friends in Dublin, a record has been preserved in its published report entitled, Transactions of Society of Friends during the Famine in Ireland. The report stated that “The munificent bounty of the citizens of the United States was on a scale unparalleled in history.” It showed that 118 vessels sailed to Ireland with U.S. relief goods. The value of these shipments amounted to $545,145. The report, nonetheless, did not include other relief and donations of friends and relatives that passed directly to the victims. With this additional assistance, it has been estimated that the United States raised close to one million dollars for Ireland.
One hundred and fifty years later, most Irish and Irish-Americans are well aware of this private generosity of Americans during the famine years in Ireland. They are less familiar with the role of the American government and its failure to be as forthcoming with relief to the suffering in Ireland.
On June 2, 1846, senator Samuel Chase expressed the first words concerning the misery unfolding in Ireland due to the famine on the floor of congress during a debate over the Walker Tariff. Advocating a less restrictive tariff policy toward England, he effectively emphasized the need the English had for American goods by quoting excerpts from a report in the National Intelligencier: “In many places there are no potatoes left. . . . the wretched sufferers are in vain endeavoring to get provisions in time that their children may not die.” After these comments, approximately six months passed before congress discussed the Irish famine again, but this time in the form of a relief bill.
On February 8, 1847, congressman Washington Hunt introduced to his legislative colleagues a relief measure for Ireland. The bill requested that the United States government spend five-hundred thousand dollars to purchase articles of subsistence for the suffering of Ireland and to provide the necessary transportation. The bill was read twice and then sent to a special committee. While the bill resided in the committee, congressman Charles Ingersoll of Pennsylvania voiced his concern for Ireland. He demanded relief legislation, saying that the Irish played a vital part in our history and that, out of all the countries of the world, the United States could best afford to send financial relief. Despite these efforts of Hunt and Ingersoll, the relief bill never re-emerged on the house floor and died in the committee.
Aware of the abortive attempt in the house, senator John J. Crittenden of Kentucky proposed the same bill in the senate on February 26, 1847. He defended his piece of legislation by pointing to a precedent in American history to prove the bill’s constitutionality. In 1812, James Madison appropriated fifty-thousand dollars, approved by both houses of congress, to purchase and send assistance to Caracas, Venezuela, a city that had just been stricken by a sizable earthquake. Senator Crittenden insisted that Venezuela only represented a “partial calamity” while Ireland’s affliction was a “national” one, and yet America had not helped Ireland. He maintained that even without the historical precedent, the U.S. constitution did not prohibit charity. He made a final moral appeal to his fellow members:
“Can you imagine any moral spectacle more sublime than that of one nation holding out that hand which is full of plenty to the suffering people of another country.”
After senator Crittenden took his seat, senator Thomas Clayton of Delaware rose to express his support for Crittenden’s bill. He moved that the bill be read three times and passed immediately, indicating that he spoke with the authorization of his state legislature and people. They mandated him in a resolution to encourage and approve any government measure that would provide relief for Ireland. The motivation for such a request appeared in the preamble of the resolution: “Christian people blessed with agriculture abundance should provide for those perishing with hunger and want.” Senator Lewis Cass of Michigan also endorsed a bill, arguing that the “Angel of Death” was mercilessly killing the people of Ireland and that the magnitude of this adversity demanded federal relief legislation.
The debate continued through the next day with senator John Niles of Connecticut leading the opposition. He began his harangue by asking whether the Irish famine was a national concern of the American government. He, of course, responded negatively to his own question and elaborated. The Irish famine was the responsibility of the English government and should not concern the United States government. To send relief would make England look weak in the eyes of the world community; thus such action would be “disrespectful.” If funds were sent to Ireland, he inquired why not send funds to Scotland, France and Prussia. Proclaiming “Charity begins at Home,” he argued why do we send money to assist foreign peoples, when some of our own citizens could use it. Finally, he concluded by declaring that the bill was unconstitutional because it used public monies not in the nation’s interest. Such action by the congress can only lead to a tradition promoting “a dangerous exercise of power.”
Despite the opposition and abstentions, the Crittenden bill passed the senate on February 27 with a final vote of 27 to 13 and then made its way to the floor of the house for its approval. The house debate of the bill occurred during the final three days of its session, March 1-3. Congressman Hunt immediately requested that the bill be considered on March 1. Representative Lewis Levin, the leader of the house opposition, proposed that the bill be sent to the Ways and Means Committee. Perceiving the politics of the legislation’s appeal to Irish-American voters, Levin portrayed the bill as legislation “disguised to afford food for party vultures, rather than bread for the starving people.” He then repeated the same opposition arguments given previously in the senate.
The Crittenden bill remained in the committee until the end of the session. Throughout these three days, congressmen Robert C. Winthrop of Massachusetts and John Wentworth of Illinois repeatedly asked for consideration of the bill but their numerous requests were always denied. Towards the end of the session, congressman Wentworth made a last futile appeal because that day the bill met its demise in the committee.
Congressman Winthrop, during one of his appeals, presented what was probably the major reason for the bill being held hostage in the house. As a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Winthrop thought that a general “understanding” existed among its members–that if the bill passed, President Polk would veto it.
President Polk’s diary during these three crucial days for the Crittenden bill proved Winthrop’s inference correct. In a cabinet meeting on May 2, President Polk said that he was aware of the passage of the bill in the senate a few days ago and of its consideration at present in the house. He announced to his cabinet that if the bill passed in the house, he would have no alternative but to veto it. He then gave his justification for such action: “the chief of which was the want of constitutional power to appropriate money of the public to charities either at home or aboard.” After the cabinet meeting, Polk made the following entry in his journal:
I have all the sympathy for the oppressed Irish. . . . A few days ago I contributed $50.00 for their relief but my solemn conviction is the congress possesses no power to use public money for any such purpose.
On March 3, President Polk discussed the situation with his Secretary of State, James Buchanan. During the course of the conversation, Polk reiterated his basic argument, calling the relief bill “unconstitutional.” He informed Buchanan that he had written a veto message just in case the bill passed. By the end of the day, Polk received news of the bill’s defeat in the house, and summarily discarded his veto message.
Although congress and the President prevented the passage of a government relief bill, they did approve and pass a piece of legislation that allowed the use of two public vessels to ship private relief goods to Ireland. In February 1847, senator John Fairfield proposed a joint resolution that sought the services of two disheveled public ships, the Macedonian and the Jamestown, and two expert sea captains, Robert Forbes of Boston and George C. Kay of New Jersey. Because he was opposed to monetary relief, senator Fairfield made a distinction between his and Crittenden’s bills. He maintained that contrary to direct financial relief by the government, his bill did not propose a transfer of property or the passing of title. It only represented “the use” of government property. Also, the constitution did not regulate the navy as it did the expenditures of public funds. In the end, the bill passed through the senate on March 2 and the house on March 3.
The story of the voyages of these two ships was told by Captain Forbes in his Personal Experiences. The Jamestown was a triumph, while the Macedonian was a failure. In the final analysis, however, it appeared that the American government failed the starving Irish. Instead of five-hundred thousand dollars, the Polk administration and congress contributed two wartorn vessels. In this case, the laissez-faire interpretation of the constitution defeated the magnanimous call of charity and drowned out the cries of Irish suffering. Nonetheless, all was not lost. Through private sources, the people of the United States contributed more than any other country to famine-stricken Ireland.
Editor’s Note: This article was originally published in the March/April 1995 issue of Irish America. ♦
Leave a Reply