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.

[M. Espinola]

We realize how difficult truth in reposting is for those still defending the cotton planting slaveocracy, but no matter how you attempt to spin it, the cradle of rebellion & civil insurrection was forever defeated.

Any feeble attempts to once again inflict such a diabolical curse on the land, as the 'Confederacy' shall always be totally rejected & countered by the overwhelming majority of loyal American citizens.

In relation to your twisting "Grand Old Partisan" original statement on your "heroes", let's review the original truthful statement, not your sick lies.

"Slavery is the biggest Big Government program there is. And, the Confederate government was very socialist, with wage and price controls, internal passports, government-owned industries, rationing, production and delivery directives to private industry, bans on most imports, and on and on."

It's amazing to watch you modern day confederate apologists forever dribbling out your historical inventions relating to the Civil War and the Jim Crow era - also gone with the wind.

[Gianni]

Others however, would point out that Lee's inability to adjust his battle plans accordingly was one of his biggest flaws as a tactical commander.

Inability or unwillingness, I'm not sure it mattered. The man was stubbornly insistent that the plan was good. There seems to be a consensus that the South was defeated by their backward economy and lack of resources/men, rather than the incompetence of the high command. There are examples of poor leaders, but Lee should not be placed among them.

[Non-Sequitur]

And, the Confederate U.S. government was very socialist, with wage and price controls, internal passports, government-owned industries, rationing, production and delivery directives to private industry, bans on most imports, and on and on.

The facts show that you're 180 degrees off in that claim.

[Gianni]

Oh really? Then please present your statistics showing the level of imports destined for southern consumers landing in Northern ports during 1862 and 1863. Pea claims it was $331 million for 1860. How much was it 2 or 3 years later?

Per your original statement:

Since we can safely say that the imports destined for southern consumers dropped to zero,

It is sufficient to demonstrate that they were non-zero.

Some time ago, GOPCapitalist posted a record of interstate smuggling activity during the ACW. I remember it well, as it led to a discussion about what scumbags brokers & bankers were, and how they'd betray any loyalties for a buck. The numbers were actually quite surprising.

[gakrak]

good point, they have the most in common. Amen.

[Gianni]

It never fails to amaze me how you can equate opposition to the southern rebellion with being a liberal,

I think it's more like equating support for invasion of the states to big-government. Dangerous in any hands, don't you think?

Now, I'm not sure that wishing fellow Americans were dead flows along political lines, but certainly the people who do so are worthy of contempt by those of us who agree that it takes all kinds.

[Gianni]

While the South did most of the exporting, it imported very little -- and on imports tariffs are assessed.

Certainly, Non, you can agree that this falls into the category of liberal claptrap.

[Non-Sequitur]

Some time ago, GOPCapitalist posted a record of interstate smuggling activity during the ACW. I remember it well, as it led to a discussion about what scumbags brokers & bankers were, and how they'd betray any loyalties for a buck. The numbers were actually quite surprising.

What you're overlooking is that those imports were destined for a Northern consumer and that the Northern party paid the tariff. What little was later smuggled south doesn't affect that.

[Non-Sequitur]

I think it's more like equating support for invasion of the states to big-government. Dangerous in any hands, don't you think?

Except that there was no invasion. You don't invade your own country.

[Non-Sequitur]

Certainly, Non, you can agree that this falls into the category of liberal claptrap.

I very seldom find anything of your's that I can agree with. So what was it that the south imported in such massive amounts that they accounted for as much as 91% of all imports, as Pea claims?

[Gianni]

Emphasis on the "were" the second they plunged into their sedition & insurrection against the United States government and her citizens.

FYI, in Civil War, the Confederates remained Americans throughout. Disagreement with that is disagreement with St Abe and his crew of lackeys who later proclaimed it to be such via the various SCOTUS cases involving the name White. It is not our respect for the Confederates that divides America, but your seething hatred of them.

Do you feel abused, isolated, maybe even rejected?

I feel pride, knowing that my conservatism is suported on a strong ideological base and a love for all Americans; not love of money.

Whose "we" chump? Since when were you correct on anything?

Read the thread, genius. I'm not the one leaping into petty name-calling and wishing people were dead. Maybe if y'all would stop losing your cool, you could hold together a decent argument.

As far as any disrespect for cult worshiping anti-American malcontents in a perpetual state of rebellion,

Calling M. Espinola to the carpet:

What cult do I worship?

What rebellious activities have I engaged in?

[Gianni]

What you're overlooking is that those imports were destined for a Northern consumer and that the Northern party paid the tariff.

Mornin' Non.

I doubt even Robert Reich would believe that the broker ate the cost of the tariff out of the goodness of his heart, even during peacetime; smuggled goods would be exponentially more expensive due to the risk involved in transport. He might carry out the physical act of paying the tariff, but if he does not incur the cost, the tariff is not adversely affecting him.

I suppose we could ask a 'real life' broker whether or not he happily eats overhead costs...

[Gianni]

Let's not change the subject:

[Partisan] While the South did most of the exporting, it imported very little -- and on imports tariffs are assessed.

Do you, Non, believe that you can unilaterally affect imports without impacting exports? Or is this statement by our midwestern friend liberal claptrap.

[Gianni]

You don't invade your own country.

Always at the heart of our little spats, this cannot be assumed.

Too early to remember, but did Lincoln use the word invasion in the call for 75,000 men?

[Non-Sequitur]

Too early to remember, but did Lincoln use the word invasion in the call for 75,000 men?

No he did not. Link

[Non-Sequitur]

Do you, Non, believe that you can unilaterally affect imports without impacting exports? Or is this statement by our midwestern friend liberal claptrap.

Let's get back to the original question, which you're avoiding. What did the south import in such massive quantities that they accounted for upwards of 91% of all imports? It's a simple question, how about an answer?

As to your non-related question, there is no doubt that prior to the rebellion the south accounted for the overwhelming majority of all U.S. exports. During the course of the rebellion, and for many years following, the southern exports of cotton and tobacco and naval stores was almost non-existant. By your reasoning, U.S. trade should have disappeared, tariff income should have dropped to nothing. It did not. Tariff revenues by the middle of the rebellion were higher than in the year prior to the rebellion. Trade following the rebellion grew in spite of losing the cotton exports. All inspite of tariff rates higher than in the 1850s and which increased constantly in the decades following the rebellion. This seems to fly in the face of your claims that all trade rose and fell on southern imports, and that increases in tariffs decreased trade.

[Gianni]

Thanks, for some reason I couldn't remember if the government call for volunteers contained the word invasion, or if that was something that stemmed from newspaper editorials. One thing was sure - at that point both parties were on the march toward an unstoppable war.

I think I'm gonna shower, get some churchin' done, then watch my Viqueens loose horribly to Vick & Co down in Atlanta. Here's hoping you've got better plans for the day.

[M. Espinola]

"Calling M. Espinola to the carpet:"

I'm game, but require knowing first off if this is the official 'red carpet'? What is the proper attire protocol, tuxedo or suit & tie? These are extremely important factors. Once data is supplied, answers on your other two questions can be responded to in quick order.

Naturally it is not your desire my appearance be out of place for this extraordinary special occasion on being called on the one and only 'red carpet'.

Proper attire protocol is a prerequisite. I surely expect the same from you. One's must always look his absolute best when called on the 'red carpet. Undoubtedly you do agree? If so, you may proceed Sir.

The official 'red carpet'

[4CJ]

Lincoln wrote,'Whereas the laws of the United States have been for some time past, and now are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the Marshals by law...'

Regardless of the verbage used by Lincoln, it was illegal. I also find it insane that Lincoln complains and resorts to military force when judicial proceedings or Marshalls are ineffective, yet it was Lincoln that interfered with such repeatedly - refusing to abide by decisions, jailing or placing in house arrest justices and even their wives.

When three northen states refused to supply troops in the War of 1812 as demanded by Madison, the US did not invade the states. When SC nullified the tariff of 1832, no army mached into the the state to force compliance. When the state of Georgia refused to appear in court (Chisholm v. Georgia) in 1792, and ruled that any officer in Georgia attempting to comply with the decision would be put to death, no miltitary force invaded the state. Over the years, when 10 northern states refused to return slaves or fugitives from justice, no army invaded the states. When the State of Wisconsin made it clear that she would never abide by Constitutional requirements, no military was called forth.

Per the US Supreme Court, if the US disagreed with the acts of a state, it was up to the US Government to seek redress in a court of law:

[C]ontroversies as to the respective powers of the United States and the States, instead of being determined by military and physical force, are heard, investigated, and finally settled, with the calmness and deliberation of judicial inquiry. And no one can fail to see, that if such an arbiter had not been provided, in our complicated system of government, internal tranquillity could not have been preserved; and if such controversies were left to arbitrament of physical force, our Government, State and National, would soon cease to be Governments of laws, and revolutions by force of arms would take the place of courts of justice and judicial decisions.
Chief Justice Taney, Ableman v Booth, 62 How. 506, 521(1858)[unanimous opinion]

[4CJ]

n terms of being "a mass murderer, a white supremacist" you neo-confederates should love the guy

I make my sentiments known about Sherman [*SPIT*] every time I write his name. A racist white supremacist, that desired a union of yankees alone - without blacks, without Southerners, without Native Americans. He favoured the extermination of every single Southerer, and you APPLAUD the wanton destruction of civilians and their properties, and agree with his methods. Bin Laden and Islamic terrorists have a similar hatred and methodology. He's YOUR Hero - you have made that abundantly clear.