Once organized, the House somewhat desultorily addressed banking questions yet again. Two weeks into the session the Committee on Finance submitted a report written, in all likelihood, by Lincoln. Reflecting the standard Whig position, it condemned President Van Buren’s proposal for an independent subtreasury, arguing that a divorce between government and banking was unnecessary and citing the history of “the extraordinary and unprecedented degree of prosperity which accompanied us in our onward march during the period of this union [of banks and government].” The generally dispassionate document criticized the inconsistency of congressional Democrats who between 1831 and 1835 had voted against proposals to separate banking from the government but who now supported Van Buren’s plan to do so. The committee expressed concern that the separation of bank and state could lead to the marriage of public funds and executive patronage, an alliance that might corrupt elections. Since the system already in place had worked so well, it should not be abandoned: “Your committee do not wish to be understood as resisting, without inquiry or examination, all changes in the fiscal affairs of the Government,” the report said. But, it asked, “what are the grounds, what are the reasons and considerations which render this [proposed] change necessary and proper?”
Source: Abraham Lincoln ∶ A Life ▫𓂃
(echo:: @ ⌗)