Immigration has become one of the hottest topics of debate in our country, especially as we have accepted refugees from several war-torn nations.
Part of this debate centers on how to fund refugees who often arrive with very little to their name and are in need of almost everything. Historically speaking, this is not a new debate. In fact, it has been argued since the earliest days of our nation. As we continue these conversations, it is worth looking at one of the first immigration debates in Congress to see how our Founding Fathers viewed government aid.
One of the first large groups of refugees to come to America arrived from the French island of Saint-Domingue, now called Haiti. Run by slave labor, the island was one of the world’s wealthiest producers of sugar and coffee. Inspired, in part, by the ideals of the French Revolution, enslaved people launched a massive uprising in 1791 to gain their freedom. Over the next several years, the colony descended into civil war between enslaved rebels, white colonists, and the French Army. As plantations were destroyed and towns were burned, thousands of people fled the island.
Many of these refugees sought safety in America, arriving with little or no property after losing their homes and livelihoods during the revolution. Their arrival created a humanitarian crisis that prompted members of Congress to debate whether the federal government should provide financial assistance.
On Jan. 10, 1794, Samuel Smith of Maryland presented a report from his committee on the condition of the refugees. Smith claimed that such distress had never before been seen in America. He had personally boarded one of their ships and witnessed their condition. Many were elderly men, women without husbands, or children who had lost their parents. Smith urged Congress to immediately appropriate funds to help these people.
Wilson Cary Nicholas of Virginia was the first to respond. He asked for more time to consider the motion because, as he put it, “He suspected that, to bestow the money of their constituents on an act of charity, though it would be extremely laudable, was yet beyond their authority.”
At that point, James Madison rose to speak. As the Father of the Constitution, his words carried considerable weight.
The Congressional Record paraphrased Madison’s speech, saying he “wished to relieve the sufferers, but was afraid of establishing a dangerous precedent, which might hereafter be perverted to the countenance of purposes, very different from those of charity. He acknowledged, for his own part, that he could not undertake to lay his finger on that article in the Federal Constitution, which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. And if once they broke the line laid down before them, for the direction of their conduct, it was impossible to say, to what lengths they might go, or to what extremities this practice might be carried … He wished that some other mode could be devised for assisting the French sufferers, than by an act of Congress. He was in hopes that some other mode equally effectual, and less exceptionable, might be devised.”
The rest of the debate followed much the same line of thought. The representatives generally wanted to help the refugees, but they also felt obligated to consider whether such spending was constitutional, knowing they were accountable to their constituents. Many asked for additional time before voting because they recognized that their decision could establish an important precedent.
This was not the only time Madison addressed the subject of charity. Nearly 10 years earlier, he wrote Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, in which he argued against government-funded support for churches. There, he maintained that government officials possess only those powers granted to them by the people through the Constitution. They cannot simply decide to spend public money on causes they believe are good, even if those causes appear charitable or beneficial. Madison was not arguing against generosity itself; rather, he was arguing against compulsory generosity through government taxation.
In the case of the Saint-Domingue refugees, Congress ultimately approved the requested assistance, but it deducted the amount from the money the United States already owed France from the Revolutionary War. At the time, this appeared to be a reasonable compromise.
Today, the federal government provides a great deal of charitable assistance. Whether that is the right policy is still a question we ask ourselves. While charity may be the right choice, we can’t forget Madison’s concern. Once the government begins giving away free stuff for charitable purposes, it inevitably gains greater power through its ability to promise continued or expanded benefits. In recent elections, candidates have won by promising the most government benefits.
Fulfilling those promises generally requires the government to expand its authority, increase spending, and, effectively, raise taxes. This is not to say that charity is bad. Society has long accepted that government has a role in helping those in genuine need. But as we move from voluntary charity to government-funded forced charity supported by taxation, we also move closer to the constitutional concerns that Madison warned about more than two centuries ago.
James Finck is a professor of American history at the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma. He can be reached at james.finck@swoknews.com. Thanks to the Southwest Ledger and the Lawton Constitution for sharing his column.
