Lincoln holiday on its way out (West Virginia)

West Virginia Gazette Mail ^ | 9-8-2005 | Phil Kabler

[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.

[Non-Sequitur]

in other words, you can name NOBODY who was NOT a common criminal or WAR CRIMINAL, who was executed for their crimes!

OK, if it'll shut you up.

Addison Waugh - clerk in the pharmacy in the Eldridge House Hotel.

Joe Eldridge - porter in the hotel and brother of the hotel owner. By all accounts he was mildly retarded and Quantrill's scum shot him anyway.

Major F. B. Bancroft, 8th Kansas. Recovering from illness contracted outside Vicksburg he was dragged outside his home and shot.

Every man in the Johnson House Hotel was ordered out and shot. Twelve died.

Dr. Jerome Griswold, local physician. Shot in front of his wife.

Josiah Trask, editor of the "Lawrence State Journal", shot with Griswold. The man who shot him then robbed his widow of her wedding ring.

Edward Fitch, school teacher.

George Holt and John Crane, owners of a shoe store. One of Quantrill's scum robbed them and then shot them.

Dennis Murphey, a 60 year old resident. One of Quantrill's scum asked him for a glass of water. When Murphey handed it to him, he took it with his left hand and then shot Murphey with the pistol he held in his right.

George Burt was handing over his wallet to one of Quantrill's scum who told it to hand it over. The man then shot Burt in the head. There were numerous examples of this happening.

August Ehles, a blacksmith, ran to hide in a corn patch carrying his infant child. One of Quantrill's scum took careful aim and shot him, and left the child crying in his arms.

George Albach was sick in bed when Quantrill's scum ordered the house evacuated. His family carried him out of the house on a mattress. Quantrill's scum fired the house and then once it was burning they shot Albach.

Charley Palmer, a printer's assistant, shot with George H. Sargent.

Those are just some of the named victims. Now, please show your evidence that they were all common criminals and/or war criminals. Put up or shut up.

[stand watie]

SOORY, but your argument is UNpersuasive.

ALL of the persons on the kill lists were wanted for COMMON CRIMES in at least one IT, AR or MO jurisdiction. their crimes were arson, robbery,burglary,torture,rapes & coldblooded murders.

you & i have talked about this more than once & you still cling to the FICTION that the KS jayhawkers, "volunteer KS cavalry", redlegs & other border-FILTH were angelic.

UNfortunately, YOU know BETTER than that, though you protest otherwise.

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

you're in one word, PITIFUL.

and you aren't intelligent enough to be a FReeper. otoh, you'll make a GREAT DU-dummy. be GONE to DU!

free dixie,sw

[Non-Sequitur]

ALL of the persons on the kill lists were wanted for COMMON CRIMES in at least one IT, AR or MO jurisdiction. their crimes were arson, robbery,burglary,torture,rapes & coldblooded murders.

Absolute, utter bullshit, and I'm honestly don't care if my use of that word upsets you because I cannot think of anything that describes your claim more accurately. Another word that describes any of your claims more accurately, for that matter. You cannot produce a single, solitary shred of evidence to back your claim up. Not one. All those men I named, and over 100 men and boys slaughtered by Quantrill's scum, were all innocent victims. And your asinine babbling to the contrary doesn't change it.

[Non-Sequitur]

for example, when i posted EVIDENCE of the 15,000+ helpless CSA POWs that were tortured, starved, denied medical attention/blankets/warm clothing & MURDERED ( because it was cheaper to kill them than to feed them!) at Point Lookout DEATH CAMP (think DACHAU in America!), all he did was:

1. try to change the subject &

2. attack me personally.

Wrong. First thing I did was laugh unroariously at the latest stane watie BS. If memory serves at one time you were claiming that all those prisoners where drowned. Have you backed off that bit of insanity?

[Non-Sequitur]

He also had several newspaper editors arrested by the military and their presses destroyed after he suspended Habeus Corpus. I'm sure GWB would love to do that also.

Like who?

[Non-Sequitur]

Thank you for speaking for George Washington. Are you channeling him or is he speaking in your ear?

No need to, Washington left written words that show his beliefs. Read his Farewell Address where he said, "For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes." Washington would not have understood those who rebelled against the United States, or who placed loyalty to state above loyalty to country. And I doubt that he would have supported a rebellion in the defense of slavery.

[M. Espinola]

The only time you unload your verbal rubbish loads is when someone has spoken the truth, countering the cultist propaganda of crackpot confederates ..........like you.

[Gianni]

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

Recent court rulings require rewording: Do you think they'd be correct in doing so (there's little doubt left that they can, and will)?

[Gianni]

[4CJ] The original states did not seek approval of anyone.

[mac] Vermont did.

4CJ, you gonna tell him, or am I?

[4CJ]

Based on your answers to my questions regarding legislative, executive and court powers, you take the Ginsberg/Breyer liberal neocon position of a living Constitution. I, on the other hand, understand that IF the government needs more powers, it is the responsibility of the people of the several states to AMEND the Constitution.

In answer to your question ('if your home was totally blown away ... [would] you would refuse federal, state or city assistance to begin again?'], I would indeed. I have insurance paid for by me. IF I lived in a flood plain I would purchase flood insurance. Nowhere in our state or federal Constitution is the state or federal government authorized to reward stupidity.

I asked you a simple question, '"[i]f Congress enacted a law that all handicapped, the elderly and infirm must be euthanized, and the courts agreed, would that said law be legal?"' to which you refused to answer NO as any rational person would.

In response to my question, '"[i]f no, would it be treason to fire on US forces attempting to seize your grandparents?"', you replied, '[i]t sounds like these grandparents are off their rockers LOL'. Possibly you simply misunderstood the question in your haste to respond, so I'll rephrase the question and posit it again:

Given that Congress passes a law MANDATING euthanasia of the elderly or infirm, and YOUR parents or grandparents fall into the appropriate category, the federal authorities show up at their door to complete the process. Would it be treason to fire on said US forces attempting to seize your grandparents?

Either you have a liberal view of the Constitution and believe that the law must be valid because it was passed by Congress, OR you have a conservative view and believe the law invalid, as the power to do so was not delegated to the federal government.

A simple yes or no would suffice.

Now take that process one step further, the people of your state, including you elect representatives to a state convention, who then vote to secede from the US. Is that legal, or do you assert that the federal government can invade the state to force compliance? Or possibly, as Mac thinks, do you petition the Supreme Court for permission to leave?

[Colonel Kangaroo]

Not only do I agree with the rebuttal in post 487, I must add that George Washington was free of the vision problem that affected many Confederates. Too many Southerners could see no farther than the slave shack and plantation mansion and realize that there was a big world out there full of malevolent powers who wanted nothing better than a big say in running North America.

With the educational backwardness of much of the South, the ordinary Southern farmer could be excused in thinking that fighting for Southern dismemberment of the Union was patriotism. But the "elite" should have known better to think such presumptuous thoughts such as the notion that Virginia was a "country" that could stand in the world doing what she pleased as an independent entity. Even if the US had lost will and allowed separation, a backward state like the CSA would not last long in the modern world.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

Wrong. The government continued to exist even after secession. The union of states continued, just with fewer members. The states already had slavery, it was protected, there wouldn't be enough votes to sustain an amendment ending it, Lincoln supported making it permanent, and did not wage war to end it

It was not Lincoln that made the Union perpetual, but it was the Articles of Confederation which predated the Constitution. I can't fault Lincoln for upholding that which was inherent in the birth of the nation.

[M. Espinola]

"Based on your answers to my questions regarding legislative, executive and court powers, you take the Ginsberg/Breyer liberal neocon position of a living Constitution."

I knew you would dream up another Neo-Redneckery responses to your DiLorenzo style baiting, but this one takes the cake. Ginsberg is a communist, Breyer is a fellow traveler and then you invent yet another term to be lumped into those two rabid Reds as being a "liberal neocon" which is a total contradiction in terms, but then again you neo-confederate sickos live on lies and inventions, so this is not surprising.

"In answer to your question ('if your home was totally blown away ... [would] you would refuse federal, state or city assistance to begin again?'], I would indeed."

What a lot of bullocks! lol.. you are so full of it. Fema's hacks offer you a fat check for the taking and Saint Dixie will tell them "No, I shalt not recover a few federal taxes paid over a lifetime in my time of need, eventhough the insuence only covers 60% of my losses."

"I asked you a simple question, '"[i]f Congress enacted a law that all handicapped, the elderly and infirm must be euthanized, and the courts agreed, would that said law be legal?"' to which you refused to answer NO as any rational person would."

I answer but because it was not a simplistic numb nut "No" somehow I am in favour. Incredible. If Congress passed a law to clean up America by disposing of neo-confeds I would gladly support it and contribute, tax right off or not! lol.

"Either you have a liberal view of the Constitution and believe that the law must be valid because it was passed by Congress, OR you have a conservative view and believe the law invalid, as the power to do so was not delegated to the federal government."

Your definition of qualifying as being a 'Conservative' is only applicable when one firmly fanatically fights to reverse America to the era of the evils of the Old South, which so many Americans fought to destroy forever. In your eyes a liberal is one who does not agree with your neo-reb rantings.

"Now take that process one step further, the people of your state, including you elect representatives to a state convention, who then vote to secede from the US."

Any 'real' American in 2005 would never seek to destroy the Union of the United States. Anyone who would should been seen a doctor or the FBI.

"Or possibly, as Mac thinks, do you petition the Supreme Court for permission to leave?"

First off I have no idea if Mac does indeed agree with that position and in terms of petitioning the Supreme Court for permission to leave - I fully agree you should 'leave' on the next flight -one way.

[Gianni]

But the "elite" should have known better to think such presumptuous thoughts such as the notion that Virginia was a "country" that could stand in the world doing what she pleased as an independent entity.

Oddly, the framers of the Constitution saw this as the exact opposite; the Union could not stand as a 'country' or independent entity without New York and Virginia.

I'm curious, as someone who absolutely despised the Constitution and the notion of increased federal power; someone who would gladly have taken Virginia out of the Union at the time of Constitutional ratification, do you consider Patrick Henry a traitor as well?

[Grand Old Partisan]

Those Maryland state legiskators were arrested for specific pro-rebel activities. If some Maryland state legislators today were working for, say, al-Queda terrorists, you can bet that President George W. Bush would have them arrested.

The Lincoln administration did not destroy any presses, but some editors were arrested for conspiring with the Confederates, appealing for desertions from the U.S. Army and for draft-evasion, and other acts of sedition. President Bush would today deal the same way with traitors.

[Non-Sequitur]

Oddly...

Odd accurately describes the overwhelming majority of your posts.

[Gianni]

Odd accurately describes the overwhelming majority of your posts.

I'm always dissapointed when your only resonse is a childish insult, but understand that it's in keeping with your character.

[Gianni]

WE the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected, in pursuance of a recommendation of the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and fairly investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation will enable us to decide thereon,DO, in the name and on behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known, that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby, remains with them, and at their will: That therefore no right, of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by the Congress, by the Senate, or House of Representatives, acting in any capacity, by the President, or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances where power is given by the Constitution for those purposes:

[PeaRidge]

By using references to modern day terrorists, your framing of the point is disingenuous. Although some in Maryland were supporters of the South, others supported states rights and resented Lincoln marching troops through their state without their permission.

What pro-secessionist activities were they engaged in?