Posted on 09/10/2005 4:46:12 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
Lincoln holiday on its way out
By Phil Kabler Staff writer
A bill to combine state holidays for Washington and Lincoln’s birthdays into a single Presidents’ Day holiday cleared its first legislative committee Wednesday, over objections from Senate Republicans who said it besmirches Abraham Lincoln’s role in helping establish West Virginia as a state.
Senate Government Organization Committee members rejected several attempts to retain Lincoln’s birthday as a state holiday.
State Sen. Russ Weeks, R-Raleigh, introduced an amendment to instead eliminate Columbus Day as a paid state holiday. “Columbus didn’t have anything to do with making West Virginia a state,” he said. “If we have to cut one, let’s cut Christopher Columbus.”
Jim Pitrolo, legislative director for Gov. Joe Manchin, said the proposed merger of the two holidays would bring West Virginia in line with federal holidays, and would effectively save $4.6 million a year — the cost of one day’s pay to state workers.
Government Organization Chairman Ed Bowman, D-Hancock, said the overall savings would be even greater, since by law, county and municipal governments must give their employees the same paid holidays as state government.
“To the taxpayers, the savings will be even larger,” he said.
The bill technically trades the February holiday for a new holiday on the Friday after Thanksgiving. For years, though, governors have given state employees that day off with pay by proclamation.
Sen. Sarah Minear, R-Tucker, who also objected to eliminating Lincoln’s birthday as a holiday, argued that it was misleading to suggest that eliminating the holiday will save the state money.
“It’s not going to save the state a dime,” said Minear, who said she isn’t giving up on retaining the Lincoln holiday.
Committee members also rejected an amendment by Sen. Steve Harrison, R-Kanawha, to recognize the Friday after Thanksgiving as “Lincoln Day.”
“I do believe President Lincoln has a special place in the history of West Virginia,” he said.
Sen. Randy White, D-Webster, said he believed that would create confusion.
“It’s confusing to me,” he said.
Senate Judiciary Chairman Jeff Kessler, D-Marshall, suggested that the state could recognize Lincoln’s proclamation creating West Virginia as part of the June 20 state holiday observance for the state’s birthday.
Proponents of the measure to eliminate a state holiday contend that the numerous paid holidays - as many as 14 in election years — contribute to inefficiencies in state government.
To contact staff writer Phil Kabler, use e-mail or call 348-1220.
Well, they can't accuse me of lying since I 'borrowed some of that". Anyway, thanks.
"In 1789 tariff legislation gave American built and owned vessels a preferred tariff. This presumably included vessels built and/or owned in the South."
I see that you did not fully read anything I sent you.
"Pea, you really should stop thinking about the Northern United States as being a foreign country. It would greatly help you overcome your historical myopia."
Most of what I post is commentary and data from the people of the time. If it reflects a sectional divergence, it was probably true at the time, wouldn't you think?
Oh bullshit. You have hemmed and hawed and trotted out the Warehousing Acts which have no bearing on the situation. You have done everything except explain how simple laws economics managed to bypass the south. If the south imported such massive quantities of goods then why weren't those goods delivered directly to them. It wasn't lack of ports. It wasn't lack of suppliers for imported goods. The only possible, reasonable, rational explanation why so little was imported into southern ports is that there was so little demand for imported goods in the southern market. That is what you haven't refuted, Pea. You keep spending your time denying that you said what you said, and accusing others of ignoring evidence which isn't even there. Coastal shipping out of New York to the south grew because it was the most cost effective way of getting the small quantity of imports demanded by southern consumers to them. If there was any great demand then the imports would have gone to them direct. Simple supply and demand dictated that.
Nope, but I can see once again where you are as full of crap as a Christmas turkey. Why would goods from one section of the country pass through the customs house of another port in the country? Didn't the customs houses have enough? Did goods that travelled by train have to clear customs as well? Your fairy tales hold no water, just like most of the rest of your crap.
Nothing you posted about either the tariff legislation of 1789 or the navigation act of 1817 prohibited Southerners from taking the same advantage of the protection afforded domestic industries. The only thing holding them back was lack of initiative coupled with an arrogance toward work brought about by slavery.
Most of what I post is commentary and data from the people of the time.
Most of what you post is unsourced and unsubstantiated horse manure.
With respect, your target audience cannot comprehend that imported goods move via trans-shipment to interior points of the country. Or that the SHORTEST route between Europe and the United States is the CHEAPEST route, so naturally products would ship there. Additionally, New York had the deepest harbour, Charleston being only 12 feet deep large ships could never enter the harbour unless it was dredged - which was contemplated circa 1860 to attract trade.
Furthermore, your audience is still looking for that mythical one line sentence, not willing to expend the time to track shipments to the consumer. And lastly, with the secession of the states, Southern exporters would see a rise in revenues and profits, and as a consequence, agricultural interests would seek more mechanical means of increasing production.
free dixie,sw
the DAMNyankee coven (less N-S, the Minister of DAMNyankee Propaganda), if nothing else is CLUELESS.
free dixie,sw
So, Watie, is the 1851 Moline tractor parked next to the captured U-Boat in the park?
And here: http://freerepublic.info/focus/f-news/852576/posts
But I will give you this one more time:
In the early days after the invention of the cotton gin, the American South had controlled its own cotton industry. Southern cotton was shipped directly from southern ports by its owners to the textile mills of England.
During the period before 1860, a combination of factors enabled the cotton trade to become dominated by the North. First, the navigation acts authored by Congress at the turn of the century had established protectionist laws favoring American shipping over foreign interests.
The exporting South was required by law to either use American owned, Northern ships, for their shipping, or pay to the Treasury compensation for their use of foreign ships. Foreign ships were prohibited by law from engaging in coastal trade between US harbors.
The laws also discouraged the Southern businessmen from becoming involved in the shipping business by prohibiting the purchasing of finished ships from overseas.
Therefore, Northern shipping companies, with the aid of Federal laws, came to dominate the carrying trade of the South.
As the trade in cotton increased, northern and particularly New York traders had seen their opportunity and begun sending agents south to purchase all the cotton they could, and ship it themselves by packet ships to England and Europe.
This direct purchase of cotton by the “factors” enabled the Southern growers to quickly turn a profit instead of waiting months for the cotton to be sold, and the money to return to them.
This benefit also cut their profits.
The plantation owners that could retain ownership and ship independently found themselves in a bind. If they wanted to ship their own cotton to market, the packet ship owner would charge them very high rates that were slightly under the rate of the foreign ship rate, plus the Federal shipping penalty that would be added.
The success of the shipping business produced larger and faster transoceanic freight ships. These larger ships required 18 to 22 feet of depth to operate.
Sandbars at the mouth of the Mississippi, and particularly at the shallow Charleston harbor presented the merchants with a major obstacle to using the more efficient new shipping. Northern shipbuilders solved this problem with a unique vessel of shallow draft that had an almost perfectly flat bottom.
This made it possible to clear the sandbars without getting stuck. An added benefit was that now bales of cotton could fit more easily in the flat-floored hold and carrying capacity was greatly increased. At first, the sailing qualities of such a vessel was doubted, but soon, to the relief of their owners, these flat-bottomed ships proved to have fine sailing qualities. These were the ships used in the coastal trade.
With these technical advancements, cotton was loaded onto the coastal packets, shipped to New York via these fast boats, offloaded to warehousing, and shipped out on the large V-bottomed ships that sailed the high seas to Liverpool.
All along the way, the middlemen took their cut and New York merchants prospered.
Regularly scheduled coastal packet shipping became a very lucrative trade. Stevedores now had lots of work.. Insurance agents, bankers, accountants, livery agents, boat builders, riggers, and cargo shippers vastly benefited.
Wharf owners stayed busy and Atlantic packets sailed eastward on the "Downhill Passage" with full cargoes and stayed very busy for years.
With the control of the transportation trade business being dominated by Northern interests, and now being vastly aided by the Warehousing Act, southern planters began to complain.
Many estimated that New York merchants were making 40 cents on every dollar, but being constantly in debt to the New Yorkers, they were hardly in a position to change this state of affairs.
The Northerners were in full control of the market.
This would eventually turn out to be a major cause of the secession. Now, unless I hear from you, I will assume you did not read this either.
The ignorant rarely understand their own ignorance because they are too busy blaming others.
Here is your error. The article I cited said that
>During 1860 the imports of the South were valued at $331 million; those of the North at $31 million.
Source:
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761557415/Confederate_States_of_America.html
I told you before, and I will be glad to tell you again that you made the mistake of adding 331 and 31, coming up with 362 and launching off on a preposterous tirade about how that just could not possibly be accurate numbers of consumption since it was so totally out of proportion to some measure that you pulled out of your armpit.
You should have said something like, 'hey, what do those numbers represent', rather than being so quick to rant and wanting to make others look silly.
I will tell you again. The $331 million is a total of goods coming into the South (imports) from both European as well as American sources.
The $31, I am guessing here, is likely the amount of European goods directly consumed in the North.
"Why would goods from one section of the country pass through the customs house of another port in the country?"
What does that mean?
"Didn't the customs houses have enough? Did goods that traveled by train have to clear customs as well?"
What does that mean?
"Your fairy tales hold no water, just like most of the rest of your crap."
You ought to say off the sugar.
This is not a point worth discussion since your contentions are so out of line.
Let it suffice to say that the protections afforded by the acts and laws of the congress addressed manufacturing, not agricultural interests. Any commentary on the direction of the Southern industry has to be underpinned by the knowledge that not only was Southern productivity feeding its populations but was also generating sufficient surpluses to send grain north, cotton north and overseas, and in sufficient amounts to essentially be the currency that produced over $300,000,000 worth of imports each year.
And I am sure that you would like a source on that. Here you are:
International Transactions and Foreign Commerce for 1857-1860
(Historical Statistics of the US, section U 187-200, pgs 885-887)
Yeah, they forget that the 'Star of the West' made so famous in Charleston Harbor in January of 1861 was actually one of those flat bottom coastal packet ships that ran a regular trade route down the Southern coast carring all sorts of goods for consumption, and taking back all sorts of cotton, sugar, wheat, rice, and hemp.
Wlat and Non have been arguing that same hogwash for over 4 years. And Non, having lived in Charleston for years knows well that he is being absurd. It is his preoccupation with being a gigantic NON-SEQUITUR 24/7 that makes his commentary obsessive-compulsive to the point of irrationality.
Here's a quote by Howell Cobb about proposed use of slaves in the CS army.
"The moment you resort to negro soldiers your white soldiers will be lost to you. The day you make soldiers of them is the beginning of the end of the revolution. If slaves will make good soldiers our whole theory of slavery is wrong."
If the fight was about tariffs, why would the white soldiers lose faith in the rebellion? It seems that the white soldiers of the Union didn't have such a problem with black soldiers fighting for the United States.
Having grown up in the South, I know there is what can almost be called a pro-Confederate PR machine. For several postwar generations, the Democratic neo-Confederate states through their public schools have taught a glorified and misleading view of the rebellion. In this neo-Confederate fable, slavery is minimized, the South was united behind the rebellion in patriotic fervor and the Radical Republicans were an alien race driven by bitter hatred to the "South". In such a world view, knowledge of the existence of the 1st US Alabama Cavalry has no place.
I would love to see the reaction of such a misinformed Southerner researching his Civil War roots to find that his ancestor served in General Sherman's escort. Priceless!
According to his data, the distribution of that amount was to the South $43,000,000; to the West $35,000,000; and to the North $85,180,000.
Referring again to the imports of 1859 of $317 million, and if they were distributed in the same proportion, then Southern consumption would be $106,000,000; for Western $63,000,000; and for the North $149,000,000. At the time that he wrote his paper, he did not yet have the 1860 census report.
Kettell then provides data from the 1850 US Census that shows that the sales of domestic manufactures to the South were $146,000,000 for that year.
He then researched the manufacturing data and determined that between 1850 and 1859 that the manufacturing output had doubled, and that also the means of payment (on hand assets) for the South had increased at an even greater ratio.
His extrapolated data then is that the inter-sectional trade of 1859 was Northern manufactures sold to the South $240,000,000; imported goods sold or direct shipped to the South $106,000,000.
Based on this data, for 1859, the total value of goods shipped into the South (imported) was $346,000,000.
Incidentally, the encyclopedia article said that the Southern imports in 1860 were $331,000,000.
So, it would seem that the Encarta data is essentially correct.
To get the information in this form, you needed to research the Treasury report and find the value of imports for a particular year and the amounts shipped into the area, Treasury or Commerce reports. The value of manufacturers for a particular year was available from either the Dept. of Commerce records (Historical Statistics of the United States...which I gave you) or the US Treasury Report available either at the Globe, but easier to find in the Statistical Abstract of the US.
Eliminating Kettel, another way to get the data is to go to the Department of Commerce records for a given year; then look up the value of goods flowing into a given city and also look up the tariffs collected. The total value of import goods by Southern cities can be added to obtain totals for the Southern states. Tariff data will give you the amount of European imports directly shipped into the city.
Either way, you can see the vast amounts of trade coming into the South.
As a point of interest, using the same procedure, it is shown that the value of raw materials and produce shipped North from the South in that year was well over $200,000.
Even if we acccept that the sum of $331 million in southern imports from Europe and the north and $31 million in northern imports only coincidentally adds up to the $362 million in foreign imports stated in the Treasury Report, it still means that if $31 million in imports was consumed by the north, the other 90+% consumed by the south and it again fails the common sense test.
And while you're quick to point to the warehousing and navigation acts as causes for the decline of southern shipping, I find this:
"Charleston was blessed with an excellent harbor, yet South Carolinians built and invested in few seagoing vessels. Instead, they depended on ships owned by Londoners or Bostonians. New Englanders increasingly dominated American shipbuilding and maritime investing. Bostonians bought vessel shares in the way that modern investors buy corporate stock shares."
"P.C. Coker, an independent scholar of local maritime history, has described the thinking of a typical colonial Carolina merchant who had 1,200 pounds to invest in the 1730s. With that sum, a merchant could build and outfit a 200-ton seagoing vessel, but he would risk his investment with storms, wars, fires, groundings, and pirates. Or he could pour his money into a dozen slaves and a 500-acre plantation, where he could grow rice and indigo, which fetched high prices. The choice was simple: purchase slaves and a plantation and charter someone else’s ship to send produce to Europe."
(...)
"By 1800, Charleston was steadily losing maritime trade to other cities. Greater precision in navigation and improved vessels allowed ship captains to sail directly from Europe to New York. Ships no longer had to travel the southerly route via the Caribbean and Charleston. The faster transatlantic route between New York and Europe left Charleston out of the loop."
"Many British and New England merchant firms in the 1820s began avoiding Charleston because free black seamen could not enter the city without a hefty bond being posted."
http://www.scseagrant.org/library/library_coaher_fall02.htm
So, according to this, it was the south's own short-sightedness and basic greed that led them to fail to build their own ships, and it was a combination of their racial paranoia and improved navigation techniques that led British ships to steer clear of the place.
But according to Encarta, the number was $31 million.
Oh please.
But I will give you this one more time...
Oh, goody.
In the early days after the invention of the cotton gin, the American South had controlled its own cotton industry. Southern cotton was shipped directly from southern ports by its owners to the textile mills of England.
I will grant you the shipped direct to overseas markets. Even in 1860 over 90% of all cotton exported left from southern ports.
The laws also discouraged the Southern businessmen from becoming involved in the shipping business by prohibiting the purchasing of finished ships from overseas.
I'd be interested in the details of these alleged laws. But assuming that you are correct, did such laws prohibit them from purchasing ships constructed in the United States, or from building ships in southern ports if such a demand existed? The U.S. shipbuilding industry dated from long before the Revolution. Nothing prevented southern businessmen from getting involved in the shipping business, if there had been an interest on their part in establishing or financing such a business. There apparently was none.
Therefore, Northern shipping companies, with the aid of Federal laws, came to dominate the carrying trade of the South.
You have shown where, with the aid of Federal laws, American shipping companies dominated trade in the U.S. You have shown nothing that discouraged southern businessmen from establishing such lines. If there was such a large demand for imports into the south, why didn't southern interests join in and start importing their own goods to their own ports? Millions of bales of cotton going out, and next to nothing coming in. Why? The only possible answer to that is lack of demand or lack of interest on the part of southern money. Not some Northern conspiracy.
As the trade in cotton increased, northern and particularly New York traders had seen their opportunity and begun sending agents south to purchase all the cotton they could, and ship it themselves by packet ships to England and Europe.
I'm sure that middlemen predate your conspiracy, though it may be true that many were from the North. But again, it begs the question of why didn't southerners step up and fill the role of the cotton brokers? The answer is, of course, many did. And they shipped that cotton, not on packets to New York, but on ships directly to overseas customers. But why weren't those ships then loading up on imports and then sailing back to southern ports to unload all those foreign goods you claim that they clammored for? Instead, why did those ships arrive empty only to load cotton?
This direct purchase of cotton by the “factors” enabled the Southern growers to quickly turn a profit instead of waiting months for the cotton to be sold, and the money to return to them...This benefit also cut their profits.
Dealing with middle men can do that. But as you pointed out, they were faced with the choice of dealing with people who had established customers or trying to do it on their own. They found it more financially benificial to deal through brokers. They got their money right away, they limited their risks, they didn't have to deal in areas they were not accustomed or qualified to deal in. Where is that a conspiracy or some sort of burden on the south. All it is is the market at work. People find a demand for services and they fill that demand. The cotton growers saw this service as a benefit and they took advantage of it. Where's the crime in that?
The plantation owners that could retain ownership and ship independently found themselves in a bind. If they wanted to ship their own cotton to market, the packet ship owner would charge them very high rates that were slightly under the rate of the foreign ship rate, plus the Federal shipping penalty that would be added.
But you have not answered the question of why, if so many plantation owners wanted to retain ownership and ship independenty, they did not then form shipping lines, purchase ships, and do so.
With these technical advancements, cotton was loaded onto the coastal packets, shipped to New York via these fast boats, offloaded to warehousing, and shipped out on the large V-bottomed ships that sailed the high seas to Liverpool.
Facts show that you are completely wrong in this. In the year prior to the rebellion over 1.75 million bales of cotton were exported from New Orleans, over 456,000 from Mobile and over 300,000 from Savannah. But fewer than 250,00 were exported from New York. If your story was true then the opposite should be true. All that cotton should have been put on ships to New York and shipped out from there. But they weren't. So your story thus far is basically a fairy tale.
With the control of the transportation trade business being dominated by Northern interests, and now being vastly aided by the Warehousing Act, southern planters began to complain.
More nonsense. What the Warehousing Act states is that goods imported into the United States and destined for shipment again overseas can be stored up to a set period of time under bond, but without paying tariffs. Should those goods be sold to the U.S. market then the tariff is applied. Should they be exported then the bond is refunded and the owner is not out of any money. How anyone can take that simple premise and somehow turn it into a tool against southern consumers is beyond me. And it does nothing to answer the burning question of why, if the overwhelming majority of imports were destined for southern consumers as you and others claim, those goods did not go directly to southern ports. If wasn't lack of adequate ports. The fact that over 90% of all cotton exported left from southern ports show how stupid that claim is. It wasn't the Warehousing Act, that gave no advantage to Nortern merchants who chose to warehouse goods for a period of time instead of shipping them immediately to southern consumers. The only possible, reasonable explanation is that there was, in fact, little demand for imported goods in the south. And if there was little demand, then the tarrif did not unfairly impact them. And if the tariff did not unfairly impact them, then how can any reasonable person present that as a logical explanation for the southern rebellion.
Back to the drawing board, Pea. Your post was entertaining but, when all is said and done, still crap.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.