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.

[SauronOfMordor]

The only person's birthday we celebrate as a national holiday is Martin Luther King's. The others we share. What's that tell you?

Actually, there are two whos birthdays are national holidays. And putting MLK on even footing with the One whose birthday we celebrate in December is even more telling

[4CJ]

I think of the Confederacy as hundreds of thousands of Stand Waties led by a few thousand 4CJs.

A promotion - Yeeee Haaaaaah!

[Grand Old Partisan]

The 50th state was going to be called "Lincolnia" until Charles Sumner came up with "Alaska", the Aleut word meaning "mainland".

[4CJ]

But regardless of what was the rightful constitution between ratification # 9 and #13, the union was perpetual.

I would think that they were no longer members of any union. I fail to see how the union was perpetual, when 9 members abandoned (secede) from it, forming a new, separate union no consisting of the 13 former members. Additionally, it the AoC still were in force, where is the Congressional act ending the Articles, confirmed by each member?

James Madison, in Federalist No. 43 held that the union was no more:

'What are these principles? Do they require that, in the establishment of the Constitution, the States should be regarded as distinct and independent sovereigns? They are so regarded by the Constitution proposed.'

And that the Articles were abandoned:

In one particular it is admitted that the convention have departed from the tenor of their commission. Instead of reporting a plan requiring the confirmation OF THE LEGISLATURES OF ALL THE STATES, they have reported a plan which is to be confirmed by the PEOPLE, and may be carried into effect by NINE STATES ONLY. It is worthy of remark that this objection, though the most plausible, has been the least urged in the publications which have swarmed against the convention. The forbearance can only have proceeded from an irresistible conviction of the absurdity of subjecting the fate of twelve States to the perverseness or corruption of a thirteenth.

In Federalist No. 41 he asks two questions: '1. On what principle the Confederation, which stands in the solemn form of a compact among the States, can be superseded without the unanimous consent of the parties to it? 2. What relation is to subsist between the nine or more States ratifying the Constitution, and the remaining few who do not become parties to it?'

His reply to 1: 'The first question is answered at once by recurring to the absolute necessity of the case; to the great principle of self-preservation; to the transcendent law of nature and of nature's God, which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed.' In other words, the sovereigns of each state can unmake (secede) from the Articles WITHOUT the consent of any other state.

His reply to 2: 'no political relation can subsist between the assenting and dissenting States.'

[M. Espinola]

"A promotion - Yeeee Haaaaaah!"

Was that a typical, uncouth, confederate swamp scream?

[4CJ]

Was that a typical, uncouth, confederate swamp scream?

'I was near enough at times to the rebel lines during those three terrible days, to hear the unearthly, fiendish yell, such as no other troops or civilized beings ever uttered. It was not a hearty cheer, or hurrah, or roar, but a kind of shriek as dissonant as the "Indian war-whoop", and more terrible.'
Rev. J. Chandler Gregg, Life in the army, in the departments of Virginia, and the Gulf, including observations in New Orleans, with an account of the author's life and experience in the ministry, Philadelphia, PA: Perkinpine & Higgins (1868), p. 80.

I certainly hope so.

If a founder stood an announced to all present in convention, that 'if we are unsatisfied with the proposed [national] government, we can renounce it, this is an additional safeguard to our state', would you consider them to be a crackpot? What if they stated that 'a power remains with the state until it is delegated'? Is that gentleman a lunatic? Are they insane?

[M. Espinola]

"The statement in question was "[p]lease you post any proof that Confederate administration advocated the wholesale slaughter of Americans in disagreement with them."

Already answered. This thread is loaded with examples, from Eastern Tennessee to what became West Virgina. Fanatical 'Confederates' terrorized or murdered those in the South poising a viable threat to stopping their domestic rebellion against the U.S. government.

In many cases Confederate traitors, bullies, tricked & forced Southern men into their pre-plotted service of sedition against their own country. How appalling.

Senator Benjamin Wade (Ohio), speech in the Senate (21st April, 1862)

"If there is any stain on the present Administration, it is that they have been weak enough to deal too leniently with those traitors. I know it sprung from goodness of heart; it sprung from the best of motives; but, sir, as a method of putting down this rebellion, mercy to traitors is cruelty to loyal men. Look into the seceded States, and see thousands of loyal men there coerced into their armies to run the hazard of their lives, and placed in the damnable position of perjured traitors by force of arms."

Senator Benjamin Wade should have replaced Andrew Johnson as President, and would have if only one additional man of courage would have voted to impeach. The Southern Confederate upper crust of the former Slave Empire would have then been properly taught to never even think about dragging this nation into bloody civil war.

When a grouping of renegade politicians, on the payroll of Plantation Inc, along with turncoat Southern military officers conspired to provoke civil insurrection in section of The United States, totally cognizant of the potentials of horrendous future losses of life, they never-the-less proceeded full steam ahead, resulting the greatest domestic loss of life.

Now some words from the barbaric, arch war criminal Jefferson Davis.

'ADJT. AND INSP. GENERAL'S OFFICE, Richmond [Va.], December 24th, 1862.

GENERAL ORDERS, No. 111.

I. The following proclamation of the "President" is published for the information and guidance of all concerned therein:

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE CONFEDERATE STATES. A PROCLAMATION.

. . . .1

Now therefore, I Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America, and in their name do pronounce and declare the said Benjamin F. Butler to be a felon deserving of capital punishment. I do order that he be no longer considered or treated simply as a public enemy of the Confederate States of America but as an outlaw and common enemy of mankind, and that in the event of his capture the officer in command of the capturing force do cause him to be immediately executed by hanging; and I do further order that no commissioned officer of the United States taken captive shall be released on parole before exchange until the said Butler shall have met with due punishment for his crimes."

..3. "That all negro slaves captured in arms be at once delivered over to the executive authorities of the respective States to which they belong to be dealt with according to the laws of said States."

There you have it - sickening.

[4CJ]

Allready answered

Ummm, No. The statement in question was '[p]lease post any proof that Confederate administration advocated the wholesale slaughter of Americans in disagreement with them.'

Butler was adjudged a war criminal. Remember, he's the loon who hung William Mumford for tearing down the union flag.

Regarding captured slaves, can you point to any laws that state they would be executed?

So far, you have not posted anything indicating the Confederate government advocated the wholesale slaughter of Americans in disagreement with them.

[M. Espinola]

Ummm ...yes, answered repeatedly, but you can not accept the responses. This is an endless cycle of rejection of historical facts on your end, and also customary, plus a further example of the Neo-confederate mindset.

"Butler was adjudged a war criminal."

By whom, a pack of traitors in rebellion against their own government?

"Regarding captured slaves, can you point to any laws that state they would be executed?"

It's not bad enough slaves fighting to end Southern slavery in the United States Army or Navy were murdered by confederates, but now you want a formal law, passed by an illegal, criminal collection of Davis's confederate insurrectionists. Davis's orders are not sufficient?

You have claimed to be against slavery in the former Old South, so why are you not overjoyed with the defeat of the promoters of Slavery Inc?

[Grand Old Partisan]

"union flag" -- Wrong! It was the U.S. flag, the Stars and Stripes, the one hated by al-Queda and the Confederates.

[4CJ]

Ummm ...yes, answered repeatedly, but you can not accept the responses.

Ummm, No. The statement in question was '[p]lease post any proof that Confederate administration advocated the wholesale slaughter of Americans in disagreement with them.' You've posted one item about President Davis and General 'Spoons 'loon' Butler.

By whom, a pack of traitors in rebellion against their own government?

The Confederates were traitors to their own government? That would mean they were not confederates wouldn't it?

It's not bad enough slaves fighting to end Southern slavery in the United States Army or Navy were murdered by confederates...

Murdered? Please post your proof of murder. If said persons were killed while waging war on the Confederacy, they are casualties of war.

... but now you want a formal law ...

Yep, PROOF that the Confederate goverment ordered/legislated the murder of blacks. Under Butler 'the slaves have been restored to the plantations and there compelled to work under the bayonets of guards of U.S. soldiers', 'slaves too aged or infirm for work have in spite of their entreaties been forced from the homes provided by the owners and driven to wander helpless on the highway.'

You have claimed to be against slavery in the former Old South, so why are you not overjoyed with the defeat of the promoters of Slavery Inc?

Of course I'm glad slavery ended in the ENTIRE US. For the zillionth time, the war was not waged to end slavery (so said Lincoln and Congress), nor was it a war to continue slavery (such already being legal in the union).

[4CJ]

"union flag" -- Wrong! It was the U.S. flag, the Stars and Stripes, the one hated by al-Queda and the Confederates.

Statement of Joseph Lamb: 'I had a Union flag at home and have yet unless they have gotten in and robbed me of it. About the 1st of June, 1861, I had my likeness taken with the Stars and Stripes across my breast.'

From a letter to Simon Cameron from Thomas Hicks: to 'go where and when ordered to defend the Union flag.'

From W. A. Gorman, battle report: 'But a few seconds, however, undeceived both, they displaying the rebel and we the Union flag.'

From Christian Woerner: 'Fort Stedman was again in possession of our troops and the Union flags in it.'

al-Queda attacked the US and it's flag. The Confederacy did not fire on the US unprovoked, absent the actions of Lincoln war would never have occurred.

[Heyworth]

It's your side stating that slavery was all that the Confederacy was fighting for, that slavery would never have ended.

This is your last position? You've gone from "Lincoln wanted to make slavery permanent" to this?

For the record, my position is that the south was indeed fighting for states rights, although the only states rights issue that had any traction with the southern populace was slavery, with, perhaps, tariffs a very distant second. Had there been no slavery in the south, I think the idea that there would have been secession and a civil war is absurd.

I think that slavery would have ended in the south eventually, without a civil war, although I think it would have taken at least until the middle of the 20th Century. Lincoln would have been quite content to limit it to the states where it already existed and prevent its expansion into new territories, secure in the knowledge that it would fade away in time. But, of course, once it became the cause of a Civil War, it had to be dealt with once and for all.

If Lincoln wanted to END slavery, he and the radical Republicans never would have allowed West Virginia to enter the union as a slave state.

Pure political expedience. In the end, slavery only lasted in West Virginia (and everywhere else) only four more years. Lincoln's admission of W.VA. as a slave state is much less an indication of his feelings on the Peculiar Institution than the Emancipation Proclamation and his advocacy of the 13th amendment, federal measures that did put an end to slavery.

I'll let Frederick Douglass have the last word:

"Had he put the abolition of slavery before the salvation of the Union, he would have inevitably driven from him a powerful class of the American people and rendered resistance to rebellion impossible.  Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined. "

[stand watie]

a scalawag is the LOWEST form of life.

even a DY is higher up on the southern scale of life. THEY are NOT TURNCOATS.

free dixie NOW,sw

[stand watie]

rotflmRao!

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

why GA, mr. SPIN!

as usual, you're posting IGNORANT, hate-FILLED, BILGE. nothing more,nothing less.

don't you get tired of everyone lol AT you??

free dixie,sw

[4CJ]

Before war began, the seceded states could have rejoined the union, and enjoyed slavery constitutionally protected in every state where it existed, and per the Supreme Court, could carry it to any territory, IF that was their sole desire.

Assuming they did so, and no war occurred, would slavery have been permanent? You state that it would have lasted until the mid-20th century, almost another hundred years. How does extending it end it? Would allowing the states to continue abortion unfettered end it?

Had he put the abolition of slavery before the salvation of the Union, he would have inevitably driven from him a powerful class of the American people and rendered resistance to rebellion impossible.

Meaning it was not the aim of northerners. Lincoln himself favoured colonization/repatriation of blacks.

Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent;

Again, Douglas notes that Lincoln was not an abolitionist.

... but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined.

A sentiment for UNION. Much of the American industry relied on cheap Southern cotton, and few whites wanted to compete with blacks for jobs, especially the free-soilers. Restoring the union with slavery intact would accomplish both.

Lastly, tariffs were very important, enough that the Confederate Constitution prohibited tariffs designed to 'promote or foster any branch of industry', and also prohibited appropriations for 'any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce' other than navigation (buoys, lighthouses etc). It was sink or swim economically. Even with slavery several northern states threated secession, since their industry lay in ruins due to the war of 1812. The Boston Tea Party was a riot over taxes, the Reagan Revolution was due to taxes.

[Heyworth]

So just what is it that you're arguing here? That the protection of slavery had nothing to do with southern secession? There is far too much documentation--secession declarations, editorials, speeches--that says otherwise.

Assuming they did so, and no war occurred, would slavery have been permanent? You state that it would have lasted until the mid-20th century, almost another hundred years. How does extending it end it? Would allowing the states to continue abortion unfettered end it?

What are you talking about? You seem to be trying to have your states rights cake and eat it, too. If you're arguing that only the federal government had the ability and, indeed, the responsibility to end slavery throughout the United States, your position would seem much closer to that of the Radical Republicans than Lincoln, much less the Confederate leadership.

and per the Supreme Court, could carry it to any territory, IF that was their sole desire.

That is something that Lincoln was adamant about changing. From the Cooper Union speech: "Wrong as we think slavery is, we can yet afford to let it alone where it is, because that much is due to the necessity arising from its actual presence in the nation; but can we, while our votes will prevent it, allow it to spread into the National Territories, and to overrun us here in these Free States? If our sense of duty forbids this, then let us stand by our duty, fearlessly and effectively." There was a strong determination in the Republicans to find a way to overturn Dred Scott, since the logical extension of its legal reasoning was that slavery couldn't be outlawed anywhere in the north.

A sentiment for UNION. Much of the American industry relied on cheap Southern cotton, and few whites wanted to compete with blacks for jobs, especially the free-soilers. Restoring the union with slavery intact would accomplish both.

Nor did they want to compete with slaves in their own states. So why was it that the Republicans won the election so handily? Why did Lincoln carry the agricultural western states by as large of margins as the industrialized New England states? Minnesota was carried by the same margin as Massachusetts.

Lastly, tariffs were very important, enough that the Confederate Constitution prohibited tariffs designed to 'promote or foster any branch of industry'

But not so important that the states made more than passing mention of them in their secession declarations, while slavery and the associated issues are mentioned over and over again.

[Grand Old Partisan]

Though not insane like some other neo-Confederates who post on Free Republic, 4CJ will endlessly twist the facts and ignore logic in order to justify his obvious contempt for black people and a wish that patriotic Americans had never abolished slavery.

There are better things to do than argue with America-haters, be they al-Queda or Communistst or neo-Confederates.

[Grand Old Partisan]

Though not insane like some other neo-Confederates who post on Free Republic, 4CJ will endlessly twist the facts and ignore logic in order to justify his obvious contempt for black people and a wish that patriotic Americans had never abolished slavery.

There are better things to do than argue with America-haters, be they al-Queda or Communistst or neo-Confederates.