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.
Wrong on both counts sir. From my 549: 'Again, I have no problem with anyone ending slavery, yet defending President Davis et al is not expressing a desire for slavery. A support for the constitutional legality of secession yes.'
From my 458: I did reply - 'we all all of one blood, descendants of Adam and Eve - all brothers and sisters in the eyes of God and myself.' I have never, and will never judge or hate anyone based on he color of their skin. I moved next [door] to several black families, I have black friends, they eat at our table, and swim in our pool with us and my children. As I wrote before, you're 'attempting to pass off YOUR beliefs as mine.'
the TRULY insane FOOLS & HATERS on FR are "members in good standing" of the DAMNyankee coven of idiots, liars, fools, racists & wierdos. were they NOT so busy hating dixie, they'd be some other sort of hate-FILLED bigot.
BUT frankly, i believe you're just being a LITTLE TROLL.
free dixie,sw
As I pointed out, not even the north - with the exception of a few abolitionists - advocated for an end to slavery - there was too much money to be made, and a Lincoln himself noted, such a platform would not have won him the election.
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.
Southern states had protested high tariff rates for DECADES. Newspapers across the republic, and around the world spoke of the monetary concerns:
So the case stands, and under all the passion of the parties and the cries of battle lie the two chief moving causes of the struggle. Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils.Additionally, Lincoln made it perfectly clear that his sole object was collect the revenues from tariff houses - it was refusal to allow this that incensed Lincoln.
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.
Nope. I'm saying to not portray Lincoln as an abolitionist when he was not, or that the war was waged to end slavery - it was to restore the union as it WAS. W could attempt to have the courts set aside Roe v Wade, returning the issue to the states - in essence the Lincolnian position. The Reagan position was to support an amendment ENDING abortion - which is the only way (in a union absent judicial activism or legislative coup [radical republican position]) that a people of several states may Constitutionally override the people of a another state.
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.
Nonsense, it was a state decision. No state could force slavery on another absent a constitutional amendment. The courts had already held that the territories were property in common for ALL the states of the union. Any territory could abolish slavery once it was a state, the federal government had no delegated authority to do so. All states agreed to those terms upon ratification, and as no constitutional amendment had been passed, it was illegal for a state, the federal Congress, or the President to do so.
Nor did they want to compete with slaves in their own states.
I'll agree - most small landowners, including my ancestor, saw the use of slaves as economically unfair.
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.
Democrats split their vote between two candidates. Maybe Lincoln knew he had it in the bag, he didn't even campaign IIRC. Maybe northern voters wanted to continue their socialist wealth redistribution schemes, or supported a massive land grant to railroads and the route west, or simply favoured protection from black competition? Maybe it was because Lincoln promised continue the the Whig platform of high tariffs and internal improvements (PORK)? Much as todays Dims promise job security, higher wages, more social income redistribution, protection of shipping interests etc. Most politicians campaign on the platform to giving you someone else's monies (including that of your children).
it simply remains, easily refuted, NONSENSE.
free dixie,sw
FACT!
free dixie,sw
Please tell me that your post #605 is a parody.
That's absurd. The Republican party was founded on abolitionist principles, out of the Free Soil party. It's true that immediate emancipation was on the agendas of relatively few. The first step was to contain it, then move on to a gradual emancipation scheme. To conflate that gradualism with a desire to make slavery somehow permanent is without merit.
Southern states had protested high tariff rates for DECADES.
But none thought enough of it to mention it in their secession declarations?
Additionally, Lincoln made it perfectly clear that his sole object was collect the revenues from tariff houses - it was refusal to allow this that incensed Lincoln.
Oh, give me a break. What Lincoln was saying in the first inaugural was that he was going to ignore secession and carry on as if it was meaningless. He was also going to keep delivering the mail.
I'm saying to not portray Lincoln as an abolitionist when he was not, or that the war was waged to end slavery - it was to restore the union as it WAS.
No argument on the latter, at least in for the first year and half of the war, but you cannot deny that the war did, in fact, end slavery even if that wasn't its aim at the beginning. The aim in fighting WW2 wasn't to stop the holocaust, either, but it had that happy effect. But as to whether Lincoln was an abolitionist, it's a fuzzier picture. Again to cite Douglass, Lincoln may not have been as hardcore as he'd have liked, but he was way ahead of most, and he did lead the way to abolition.
Nonsense, it was a state decision. No state could force slavery on another absent a constitutional amendment.
The entire reasoning in the relevant part of Dred Scott is that the constitution protects slave property in the territories. And since it guarantees that right throughout the territories, why is is any kind of stretch to imagine that a subsequent decision would have found that slaves brought from one state to another would stay slaves? Certainly many at the time thought so. Lincoln mentions it in the House Divided speech, "We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri. are on the verge of making their State free, and we shall awake to the reality instead, that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave State, " and I've found one passing reference to a slave-stater crowing that Dred Scott meant slave auctions on Boston Common before long.
I missed this part, and simply point out that the 13th amendment was actively supported by Lincoln in the 1864 campaign.
It's really quite simple: Pre-Lincoln, slavery. Post-Lincoln, no slavery.
You forgot Columbus Day.
What's that tell you?
That Nixon should have predicted King Day when he combined Washington and Lincoln's Birthdays into President's Day?
But why would they want to? They had already split off and formed their country, they had implemented a constitution that guaranteed the protection of slavery everywhere in the confederacy and any future territory they may acquire, and also took steps to protect slave imports. All that and they didn't have to share power with Yankees. Why would they want to return?
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).
One of the first acts of the confederate congress was to implement a tariff which protected tobacco and naval stores. But then who was going to uphold the constitution, a supreme court?
"Additionally, Lincoln made it perfectly clear that his sole object was collect the revenues from tariff houses - it was refusal to allow this that incensed Lincoln."
Tariffs collected at southern ports were nil, because southern imports were nil.
Jefferson Davis never appointed a Confederate Supreme Court.
Bwaahaha! Your nose is growing [again] Pinocchio.
Never even nominated one, so far as I know. The confederate congress didn't get around to organizing a court. And they complain about Lincoln's alleged Constitutional abuses. Lincoln never did away with a third of the government.
There not being a Confederate judiciary, Jefferson Davis told any rebel state governors to address any complaints about the Confederate Government to the Confederate Attorney General! The Confederate "President" did not give a damn about the Confederate Constitution or the rights of the rebel states.
tell me how many YEARS was it before the fledgling USA got around to forming a USSC???
was it over 15 years after 7/4/76 perhaps???
free dixie,sw
It appears that Lincoln was a lot smarter than you, despite your notable hindsight.
He knew that during 1860 the imports of the South were valued at $331 million. The portion of that amount that came from Europe, via New York, would now come to the South through Charleston, Mobile, and New Orleans. There goes the Federal tariff revenue.
The portion of imports into the South from northern sources would now have to compete with European manufacturers. They would not be successful unless the tariffs were repealed.
The northern states imported $31 million in goods. Tariffs on that amount would never pay the US Treasury enough to run the government for a month.
In his inaugural, he said he would collect the tariffs, and he meant what he said. Only problem is that it cost 620,000 lives.
could it be that absent the IMPERIALIST WAR fomented by "DIShonest abe" that a CSSC would have been formed by 1862????
free dixie,sw
could it be that absent the IMPERIALIST WAR fomented by "DIShonest abe" that a CSSC would have been formed by 1862????
free dixie,sw
could it be that absent the IMPERIALIST WAR fomented by "DIShonest abe" that a CSSC would have been formed by 1862????
free dixie,sw
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.