Lincoln holiday on its way out (West Virginia)

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.

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.

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.

In 1789, neither the President, congress, nor judiciary could decide whether or not a state ratified - it was totally up to each state for themselves to decide.

That is incorrect. As was pointed out here previously, Vermont was denied admission to the Union until it settled a land dispute with New York. Try again.

Chief Justice Chase later said, 'by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion.'

Meaningless and out of context.

Cases are filed by the injured party, not one seeking permission.

More meaningless drivel. It is actually quite easy to establish a precedent for the court to decide [Roe v. Wade is one example]. Prior to seceding Federal representatives of the Southern states acting on behalf of the nation as a whole could have petitioned the courts for approval of the project. Secession (imo) would have probably would have met with the courts approval and proceeded amicably and fairly without the bloodshed brought on by the South.

The 14th does not apply (post bellum).

No one said anything about the 14th amendment, so stop bringing it up. Article IV Section 2 clearly states: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States". How does Secession proceed [legally] without trampling on the rights of the citizens who do not wish to depart from the Union?

By your reasoning the states could not deprive Tories of their British citizenship but they did.

Once again you confuse the concept of legal Secession with Revolution. I've already asked you to 'man up' about the realities of what happened in 1860. Are you prepared to do so now?

Until you can point to a clause prohibiting secession, it's you that must must admit to waging a war of northern aggression.

I have already considered the possibility that the US Constitution would allow legal secession to take place. I am couching my position that Secession in 1860 was illegal on the way the South left. They trampled over the rights of citizens, the courts, and the remaining States. Had they proceeded at a normal pace for such an endevour, I also have no doubt the Southern people would have rejected the Confederacy. The Secessionists knew they needed a war to rally the South, which is why they acted in the callous manner they did.

I moved next to several black families, I have black friends, they eat at our table, and swim in our pool with us and my children.

If I owned five acres I probably wouldn't have any trouble living next store to you either. Perhaps a more relevant question and one that gets to the core of the matter regarding the true nature of your relationship would be, do you pray together in church?

"Wrong. Until the 14th, there were no American citizens, there were on state citizens."

Is that the best excuse you can dream up for justifying treason?

"We live in under Constitutionally mandated republican form of government, and as such, the wishes of the majority via delegates or votes is supreme (using your logic Lincoln had to accomodate Northern Copperheads)."

I those such as yourself had had their way America would have remained have free and half slave.

"You assert that I 'cherish' treason which is a lie -

Very good to hear you agree with crushing the sedition created by the 'Confederates' in 1860-61.

"I cherish the God given right of self government."

Good line, however if you guys had won just whom would have "the God given right of self government."?

"The states seceded - renounced their allegience to the union - defending themselves from invasion from President Dictator Lincoln."

You are aware lines like that make you look like a frigging nut?

"What clause in the Constitution allows the President to invade a state in the union without request by the state? None. Per the Constitution (Article IV §4) the legislature or Executive of a state must petition for assistance, or else be invaded. No legislature or governor requested aid, thus leaving the only Constitutional grounds for invasion by King Lincoln was the invasion of the states - WHO were these unknown invaders?"

The slavocracy torn up any rights to the provisions of the Constitution when they viciously conspired and then attacked U.S. military installations and naval vessels to deliberately incite civil war with the sick hope of overthrowing the U.S. government. This is called sedition - treason!

Cracks like 'King Lincoln' once more prove you favour traitors in relation to an American President. In terms of 'invaders', your type started the problem and were justifiably crushed. You need to somehow always validate sedition of the slave empire, so have a party in your own backward mind. The plantation era is over sonny.

"Not being members of the American union, they were not traitors - just as George Washington was not a traitor (see my #434)."

You know I noticed at the end of that thread you once again accused yet another FReeper Mac_Truck who was also not in agreement with your neo-confederate are stated that cap again ""You post like you're a member of the Taliban."

Taliban? You expect credibility with slander thrown at a fellow conservative?

"Sedition was not breaking out everywhere.."

That's right, even loyal Southern Americans were assisting in crushing the rebellion of the criminal confederate politicians.

"Per Amendment I, the people of each state have the God given right to assemble. The people were attempting to banish a foreign invader from their soil."

That is warped despicable overview of the United States Armed Froces as "a foreign invader"?

What nerve, pure gaul calling others 'Taliban' with that disgusting crack. You should be deported since you hate this nation to such a degree, but who the hell would want you?

That is incorrect. As was pointed out here previously, Vermont was denied admission to the Union until it settled a land dispute with New York. Try again.

Read my sentence again, ' In 1789, neither the President, congress, nor judiciary could decide whether or not a state ratified ...' The original states did not seek approval of anyone.

It is actually quite easy to establish a precedent for the court to decide [Roe v. Wade is one example]. Prior to seceding Federal representatives of the Southern states acting on behalf of the nation as a whole could have petitioned the courts for approval of the project.

RvW was a court case - filed by a petitioner with a respondent. If any state was harmed by the secession of a state, it was that state's responsibility to file suit. The court does not deliver advisory opinions!

Meaningless and out of context.

Nonsense, if Chief Justice Chase believed that secession was not rebellion, then there goes Lincoln's pretext for war, and that President Davis and the Confederacy had NOT commited treason. Meaning that Union had waged a war of aggression against innocents. Hardly meaningless and out of context.

"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States". How does Secession proceed [legally] without trampling on the rights of the citizens who do not wish to depart from the Union?

The clause means that a state cannot discriminate against citizens of another state while said "foreign" citizen is domiciled there. It does NOT mean that the laws written in Massachussets are incorporated into Georgia law. Again, in a Constitutionally MANDATED republican form of government, the minority must acquiesce to the will of the majority (via representative rule).

Once again you confuse the concept of legal Secession with Revolution. I've already asked you to 'man up' about the realities of what happened in 1860. Are you prepared to do so now?

Above you state that IF the states begged for permission to leave, and IF the court assents, then secession would be legal. Those same people that you claim would be harmed by the alleged illegal secessions would again be disaffected by your alleged legal secession. As it was, Tories not wishing to join the union under the Articles were dragged in against their will, as were those against ratification in 1789. Ted "The Swimmer' Kennedy can't can't prevent passage of a bill by a 1-99 vote, nor can 1 state prevent an amendment, nor can 1 "unionist" in a state prevent secession. If the unionist doesn't want to stay then they can move. It's not a difficult concept.

They trampled over the rights of citizens, the courts, and the remaining States.

The people of New York do not vote in South Carolina. A citizen of New York could not sue South Carolina in court. The people of New York could not ratify for South Carolina. The Constitution mandates a republican (representative) form of government which all states possessed. New Yorkers do not vote on SC representatives or delegates, nor amend or abolish their form of government.

Had they proceeded at a normal pace for such an endevour ...

Where exactly does the Constitution enumerate the 'normal' pace for said event?

'I also have no doubt the Southern people would have rejected the Confederacy.'

That certainly explains those overwhelming votes FOR secession </sarcasm>

Perhaps a more relevant question and one that gets to the core of the matter regarding the true nature of your relationship would be, do you pray together in church?

Yep. In church, at work, and at home. A very good friend of ours was injured in a wreck, and hospitalized, we saw her often, took food to her, helped her and her kids. She is black. I changed tires for a lady at 1AM on my way home one night - she was black. I've given money to strangers and the homeless - black. We grew up with a man we called our brother then and still do, he's black.

The majority of your rant I'll simply ignore, no matter how many times I refute you, by Lincoln's own words and deeds, by the powers DELEGATED to the federal government you refuse to believe, so continue to crouch down lick the hand that feeds you. The states already possesed slavery, if that was all the Confederacy desired, all they had to do was rejoin and ratify Lincoln's 13th Amendment guaranteeing PERMANT slavery.

Secondly, Lincoln did not wage war to end slavery [#453 above]

We didn't go into the war to put down slavery, but to put the flag back, and to act differ at this moment, would, I have no doubt, not only weaken our cause but smack of bad faith; for I never should have had votes enough to send me here if the people had supposed I should try to use my power to upset slavery. Why, the first thing you'd see, would be a mutiny in the [UNION] army.'

By his own admission, no ending of slavery. By his own admission he was not elected to end slavery.

Once again the Confederate states were not attempting to overthrow the government in Washington and make slaves out of yankees. How many people were killed in said attacks? When did Congress declare war on the states doing so? These "attacks" occurred while Congress was in session, why did they not declare war? How can a fort 1000 miles away from a union state defend the union?

When the US secedes from the UN, and Koffi refuse to depart, does China and France have the right to prevent the US from taking it back?

If UN troops seize US property would you consider that illegal?

Do you think that the US government can legislate against free speech and firearms ownership, despite the plain reading of the 1st and 2nd amendments?

Do you think that the US government can seize YOUR property and give it to private enterprise?

Do you think that the US government can legislate God out of the public domaion?

Do you think that the US government can do anything it wants, as that as long as the courts find some international law (say Cuban) to justify their decision, that the court is right and YOU must abide by that decision?

Do you think that the federal government can legally dole out billions and billions of dollars of 'pork', aid to foreign countries, or even give monies to individuals affected by disaster?

If Congress enacted a law that all handicapped, the elderly and infirm must be euthanized, and the courts agreed, would that said law would be legal?

If no, would it be treason to fire on US forces attempting to seize your grandparents?

I don't know about you, but I agree with the founders, prefer not to give in to evil, and as Patrick Henry stated, 'give me liberty or give me death'. If your government can do the above with impunity, that's not government, that's tyranny.

The original states did not seek approval of anyone.

Vermont did.

If any state was harmed by the secession of a state, it was that state's responsibility to file suit.

The Constitution says otherwise. Secession is not legal if it violates the laws of the United States.

..if Chief Justice Chase believed that secession was not rebellion, then there goes Lincoln's pretext for war..

Your quote from Chase is unsourced, out of context, and meaningless. Since when does a Chief Justice by himself decide the law? Besides Justice Taney that is [lol].

The clause means that a state cannot discriminate against citizens of another state while said "foreign" citizen is domiciled there.

The State has NO power to revoke the citizenship the people living within its boundaries. "Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States", including the privilege to remain in the Union, and immunity from those who don't.

If the unionist doesn't want to stay then they can move. It's not a difficult concept.

There is no evidence that Southern Unionists were given any such option, and plenty of evidence of the contrary. try again.

Where exactly does the Constitution enumerate the 'normal' pace for said event?

The Constitution is silent about said event, which in itself casts grave doubt on it's legality in the first place. Up to now I have been generous toward your position by supposing that the 'concept' of Secession 'might' be legal. I see no similar flexibility in yours. Reflective of your underlying distain for the United States perhaps.

That certainly explains those overwhelming votes FOR secession

It explains the fraudulant manner in which the vote was taken, nothing more. Perhaps you could point us to an original source or research paper that would support your [overwhelming votes] position.

Innocent until proven guilty, Watie, you stark raving loon. Why don't you tell us the crimes committed by Benjamin Stonestreet, a 60 year old black Baptist preacher? Or Anthony Oldham, another black preacher?

Here, here's the whole list:

Citizens of Lawrence: George J. Albach, George Albrecht, Clay Allen, Duncan C. Allison, George Alwes, John Anderson, James Argel, Capt. George W. Bell, George Bent, Samuel Bower, R. Brant, James Brechtlesbauer, Joseph Brechtlesbauer, "One Armed" Brown, Dennis Burnes, Michael Burns, George Burt, Judge Louis Carpenter, Charles Clona, Charles Cloud, G. Coal (Coat or Coates), Dwight L. Coleman, Mayor George Callamore, James Cooper, John A. Cornell, P. Cornell, John Lewis Crane, John Dagle, Ralph C. Dix, Stephen H. Dix, Sylvester Dulinsky, William Dulinsky, "Uncle" Frank Dyre, George Early, Carl Eckman, John Edwards, August Eheles (Ethels), James Eldridge, Frank Ellis, Carl Engler (Enzler), John Engler, Phillip Englesman, John Z. Evans, Lemuel Fillmore, James B. Finley, Joe Finley, Edward P. Fitch, Joseph Frank, "Old Uncle" Frank, John Frawley (Fromley), Levi Gates, Levy Gebtry, George Gerrard, Anthony Giebal (Girbal), A. Giffler (Gufler), John B. Gill, Mr. Goldman, John B. Green, Fortune Gregg, Abner W. Griswald, Dr. Jerome F. Griswold, Watt Griswold, Mr. Hanson, Chester D. Hay, (first name unknown) Hendrix, "Uncle" Charles Henry, Calvin Hoge, Nathan Holmes, Ben Johnson, M. Johnson, unnamed baby of Peter Jones, Samuel Jones, George Kallmer, Patrick Keefe, Frederick Kimball, William Klares, Frederick Klaus, William Klaus Jr., W.M.R. Kleffer (Kliffler), Harwick Lambert, O.O. Lambert, John W. Laurie (Lawrie), William Laurie (Lawrie), Christian Leener (Laner), Christopher Leonard, Henry Limbach, John Little, Otis Longley, Richard R. Loomis, Capt. Joseph G. Lowe, Amos McClellen, Daniel McClelland, Jacob McFadden, Michael Mackin (McClaine), (first name unknown) McFarland, Daniel Markle, Thomas Martha (Murtha), Michael Martin, Robert Martin, Michael Meeky (McKee), R. Meeky (McKee), Dennis Murphy, James Murphy, Thomas Murphy, W. Nathan, Mr. Nichols, George Oehrle, James O'Neil, Anthony Oldham, George Page, Charles Palmer, Daniel W. Palmer, James Perine (Perrine), Jacob Pollock (Pollok), George Pope, David N. Purington, George Range, Samuel Range, Peter Reed Sr., A. Reedmiller, Samuel Jeremiah Reel, Samuel Reynolds, James Roach, George N. Sanger, George H. Sargeant, Charles Schmidt, John Schwab, Charles Smith, Rev. Samuel S. Snyder, John M. Speer Jr., Henry Stewart, Joseph Stone, Capt. Nathan Stone, Benjamin Stonestreet, Louis Swan, Simeon M. Thorp, Josiah C. Trask, E.P. Tritch, David Turk, James E. Watson, John Watson, Addison Waugh, (First name unknown) West, Mr. White, (First name unknown) Williams, William T. Williamson, Louis Wise, James Wood and John K. Zimmerman.

"The majority of your rant I'll simply ignore..."

I thought you would since you are locked into the neo-confederate invented version of history.

The states already possesed slavery.." (Which states?)

.."if that was all the Confederacy desired, all they had to do was rejoin and ratify Lincoln's 13th Amendment guaranteeing PERMANT slavery."

One can not 'rejoin' what one was never allowed to overthrow .

"Secondly, Lincoln did not wage war to end slavery"

First off Old Abe did not "wage war" but correctly reacted to a provoked insurrections triggered by political hacks for Slavery Inc.

The issue of Slavery was the paramount issue of the day in 1860, and the sole reason the Southern Slavocracy committed horrible acts of broad-based treason - for $$$$$ & additional power, never mind leaving this nation divided & potentially vulnerale to aggressive acts via European powers.

Lincoln was initially was driven to swiftly crush the so-called 'Confederate' rebellion. Many Northern and some numbers of Southern citizens wanted slavery ended as well, but not the traitors you back to this day. Starting a full scale civil war for the sake of keeping men in chains is our evil. Are you going to attempt to justify slavery as somehow being Biblically correct?

How does it feel knowing everyone in here, regardless of side, are fully cognizant you wanted men, women and even little kids to remain in a state of slavery. If you think Lincoln was a problem for your 'side' you would quickly believe him to be a saint, in relation to myself in his place, dealing with the treasonous promoters of the worst domestic slaughter in United States history. The instigators of the horror this nation was dragged into got off very lightly.

"Once again the Confederate states were not attempting to overthrow the government in Washington and make slaves out of yankees.}

Right, I forgot they only want to have little Southern picnics on the plantation porches and watch their own slaves bake in that rotten heat down there....

"How many people were killed in said attacks?"

At least you admit there were attacks on United States military installations and naval vessels, not to mention anybody living in the South was ruthlessly abused and many times gunned down if not in total accord with the 'Confederate' line.

"When did Congress declare war on the states doing so?" Why would the U.S. Congress declare war on U.S. states? That is insane.

"These "attacks" occurred while Congress was in session, why did they not declare war?"

Answered already. Furthermore the rebellion was addressed with the full military might of the American armed forces wherever acts of terrorism and subversion broke out during 1861 through 1865 and afterwards with the origins of the criminal Klan terrorism against Americans of all types.

"How can a fort 1000 miles away from a union state defend the union?"

The Union 'fort' or ships you speak of were part of the United States of America, no matter the location inside this nation, regardless of what a pack of traitors demanded.

Anyone who attempted or attempts today to destroy that Union, no matter the distance, will pay a heavy total, whether the criminal or terrorist element lurks in South Carolina, Berlin or Baghdad.

"When the US secedes from the UN, and Koffi refuse to depart, does China and France have the right to prevent the US from taking it back?"

First off, we should have withdrawn from the UN a long time ago. Secondly, if or when, in the future, American elected officials wake up and do indeed withdraw, Koffi, the Red Chinese and the Frogs better not even think about preventing anything on American soil.

"If UN troops seize US property would you consider that illegal?"

Naturally. You would not? We have UN troops already in portions of this country.

"Do you think that the US government can legislate against free speech and firearms ownership, despite the plain reading of the 1st and 2nd amendments?"

Of course, when confronting Islamic or other terrorists cells operating anywhere in America and determined to butcher millions of our citizens?

"Do you think that the US government can seize YOUR property and give it to private enterprise?"

You can thank the current men in black robes for that one. Hopefully with two new justices, soon to be on the bench, that incredible ruling will be overturned.

"Do you think that the US government can legislate God out of the public domaion?"

When there is blatant communist infiltration of all aspects of government they will attempt to legislate all kinds of immoral acts against the public good.

"Do you think that the US government can do anything it wants, as that as long as the courts find some international law (say Cuban) to justify their decision, that the court is right and YOU must abide by that decision?"

Why should the US government abide by international rulings promoted by our enemies?

"Do you think that the federal government can legally dole out billions and billions of dollars of 'pork', aid to foreign countries, or even give monies to individuals affected by disaster?"

Combating global terrorism should never be considered 'pork' unless the funds are being abused or stolen and in that case the funding should stop or administered by American or faith based groups contingent on types of aid. In terms of tax monies given to individuals affected by disaster, each individual cases needs to be reviewed - likes the potential hundreds of thousands of Hurricane Rita's wrath. Are you implying if your home was totally blown away by a hurricane, flood, earthquake, etc, you would refuse federal, state or city assistance to begin again?

"If Congress enacted a law that all handicapped, the elderly and infirm must be euthanized, and the courts agreed, would that said law would be legal?"

The Nazi bastards already sunk to that barbaric level. Don't think it can't happen again in the future, and in terms of being 'legal' it's like defending slave labour as somehow being 'legal', which the Nazis and the Southern Slaveocracy already attempted to pull.

"If no, would it be treason to fire on US forces attempting to seize your grandparents?"

It sounds like these grandparents are off their rockers LOL

Once again you have sickeningly demonstrated your total lack of respect for this nation in this "I don't know about you, but I agree with the founders, prefer not to give in to evil, and as Patrick Henry stated, 'give me liberty or give me death'. If your government can do the above with impunity, that's not government, that's tyranny."

Maybe now you know why slaves fought to be free men.

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.