Library Collections: Document: Full Text

1st. That the law of opinion as already exhibited through the action of several State Legislatures, has, to a certain extent, pronounced itself in favor of surrendering to the individual States the maintenance and supervision of their own invalid citizens. Wherever such a disposition exists, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to combat it, because, however generously the Federal Government might act in the foundation of eleemosynary institutions, it could not prevent the States from doing as much, or more, for their own citizens, at the same time, through special legislative enactments. In the matter of charitable foundations no monopoly or prescriptive right attaches itself to sovereignty as its exclusive prerogative, and private citizens in their individual capacity -- or acting corporately -- towns, counties, or States in their larger corporate capacity, may all equally engage in dispensing benefactions. In like manner, and wherever several similar sources of benefaction co-exist, nothing restricts beneficiaries from exercising a choice in the premises, and availing themselves of such as are most consonant to their tastes, or best answer their immediate wants.

If the care of these Asylums were wholly surrendered to the States, we should be sure, at the outset, that the comfort and support of these war-worn veterans would be more jealously guarded by their own State, than could be the case were they entrusted to the keeping of the General Government. It would be considered a tribute of justice to the meritorious defenders of their country's honor, and more particularly a manifestation of gratitude towards one's own neighbors, to provide for them in this way. And while there might be some differences of opinion in relation to minor matters, there could and would be none with respect to the general scope of the institution. Local pride, and neighborly feeling, would both conspire to make its support as liberal as possible. Beyond the reach of political influences, it would stand as a landmark, not to be interfered with; and each citizen, whether he had or not relatives within its walls, would feel it his duty to strengthen its claims upon the community. Party considerations would not touch it, because, belonging to the State, its interests would be those of all its inhabitants, just as much so as Public Schools or Lunatic Asylums. Every community would have representatives there; every town and city, and political party, would have contributed to the number of its inmates. In fact, the instinct of local pride -- the memory of the events typified by the invalids themselves -- the historical associations clustering about these institutions, would render them objects of tender regard and earnest solicitude on the part of all citizens. No generosity exercised in their behalf would be considered extravagant -- no benefactions of legislative origin would be criticised which looked to their support. For, not only would feelings of pride and patriotism operate to stimulate public opinion into a recognized obligation to the invalids in these homes, thus rendering the annual provisions for their support a matter as unsusceptible of argument as the payment of the Governor's salary, but behind, and antecedent to all this, the deeper voice of nature and consanguinity would make itself heard and felt, since among invalids would be found friends and relatives of all degrees.

And aside from this, even, nothing of the degrading character of pauperism would attach itself to such a form of public charity, because the objects of it would have become so through causes of an ennobling character, and through services which all would admit the value of, and feel proud to make so just a return for. It would not be difficult to foresee that Soldiers' Homes in every State must be popular institutions, which every element of local pride would tend to foster and develop. They would be indelibly associated with the noblest achievements of our day and generation -- would form temples in which to garner up the living records of a mighty struggle, and where the heroes of the conflict could be honored by a nation's gratitude and tenderest sympathy. Around them would cluster such memories of devotion to the public service as would strip the support of their Homes of all semblance of a burthen upon the generosity of the State. The Soldiers' Home, with its warworn inmates, its museum of trophies, and its legendary storehouse of adventures by "flood and field," would be a shrine for visitors, and the centre of an undying historical interest. All citizens would feel themselves bound to it by ties of the closest kind. All would make it more or less of a personal concern to foster its successful administration, and it would stand in singular contrast to all other institutions, in being kept untainted by political chicanery or interference. But another and a more important consideration would be found in the fact, that the nearer the source of benefaction to the invalids themselves, the more likely would it be to satisfy all. Were it possible always to support them at home, it would be by far the best way; but since this cannot always occur, then we must see that the distance between the benefactor and the beneficiary is as small as possible. Home is the best purveyor of all -- next to it the town -- next the county -- next the State -- and last, the General Government.