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.
What they are looking for is a simple one line statement, analysis is beyod them. Please forgive those ignorant of economics, Warehousing Acts etc. Per their understanding, ships would sail from England to EVERY American port to deliver goods, and those without ports would never receive an import. They believe that it's economically cheaper to sail a thousand miles further to deliver goods, that foreign suppliers were not seeking quick turnarounds.
They also cannot comprehend the fact that imports dropped with the secessions, and products previously supplied by the southern states would now have to be imported causing imports to increase in 1862. They believe that that importers eat that tariff (in some cases up to 62% of the price), that the tariff is not passed on to the consumer, nor do they understand that tariffs REDUCE profits to foreign suppliers, and that due to the REDUCED profits, US exporters receive LESS revenue from those same foreign suppliers purchase American products.
In terms of your typical cult like, robotic slander directed at everyone not in full agreement with the 'neo-confederate' agenda, "Bin Laden and Islamic terrorists have a similar hatred and methodology.", What never you have, but nothing should surprise the limitless, disgraceful hate you really do harbour for all those who rightfully support the total eradication of the South's slaveocracy, a detestable, evil system constructed on a shaky foundation of broadbased daily abuse & racial hate for countless millions of victims.
Diehard Islamists firmly believe in slavery, just as the 'Confederate' white supremacists did & do to this day. Southern segregationists, with their outlawed Jim Crow 'laws' had a lot in common with those beast like drafters of the so-called 'Nuremberg Laws', yet you never stop supporting the 'Confederates' coupled with their failed goals of further enslavement for profit.
So when you repeatedly & dishonorably tag all those loyal Americans during the Civil War period, who served this country in defeating what was a wicked system of forced slave labour for millions, a staining curse on this land, as you sickeningly attempt to equate with some how being equal with the likes of jihadic terrorist filth such as "Bin Laden and Islamic terrorists"
Once again you more then prove your uncontrolled, malicious hatred for the vast majority of the American people and her institutions of freedom & liberty. If those you support had won the Civil War, terms such as 'liberty & 'freedom' would have been restricted to only the plantation elite.
You still back the treasonous element which tore this great nation in two so they could continue spreading their empire of slavery. How does it feel being completely devoid of any morals promoting a loathsome scourge which rallied good and honourable men to fight to remove it permanently from America's midst.
LEAVE FR & head over to DU to be a HATE-FILLED, DU-dummy.
otherwise ,expect everyone here, who has an IQ over room temperature to RIDICULE your STUPID comments & DIMwitted opinions.
free dixie,sw
why not head over to DU today & be one of the brighter DUMB-bunnies, LIARS & FOOLS over there??
free dixie,sw
may i also remind everyone that had it not been for the IMPERIALIST outlook of the north (and not incidentally the DUMB decision of lincoln, the tyrant, to start a war for NO REASON except to gain more PERSONAL POWER & $$$$$$$.) there would now be THREE free republics living PEACEFULLY side by side,just as Canada & the USA do.
free dixie,sw
i wonder, do IGNORANCE & HATEFULNESS always go hand-in-hand?
personal to "mr SPIN": are you REALLY dumb enough to believe ANY of that REVISIONIST, leftist, BILGE???
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
be gone to DU & sup with the other south-HATING, leftist/revisionist IDIOTS & ARROGANT FOOLS on DU. you'll be WELCOMED by cvn76,#3fan,whisky papa & several other BANNED EX-freepers.
free dixie,sw
be gone to DU & sup with the other south-HATING, leftist/revisionist IDIOTS & ARROGANT FOOLS on DU. you'll be WELCOMED by cvn76,#3fan,whisky papa & several other BANNED EX-freepers.
free dixie,sw
had lincoln, the TYRANT, failed to invade MD & VA, there would have been no NEEDLESS war, which cost the lives of a MILLION citizens.
instead there would now be 3 free countries in North America, living peacefully, side by side.
free dixie,sw
everyone here KNOWS he's a HATER, a moron & a BIGOT of the first rank.
free dixie,sw
over there, they don't mind DUMB cartoons, ignorant (HATE-filled) bilge & bigoted NONSENSE, provided that such NONSENSE & HATEFULNESS is anti-southern & liberal/leftist/revisionist/statist.
you'll fit right in. be gone.
free dixie,sw
Amen!
i would have thought NOT, but perhaps we all have overestimated your intelligence & knowledge of the WBTS.
btw, when are all of you members of the DY coven going to (OPENLY & very obviously) disavow the HATEfulness, meanness & BIGOTRY of "m.eSPINola"
free dixie,sw
That describes Stand Watie to a tee...right down to the moronic cut and paste rants he has saved on his hard drive.
btw,when are you going to DISAVOW the hate-FILLED, arrogant IGNORANCE & moronic parroting of the REVISIONIST, South-HATING AND freedom-HATING nonsense & propaganda (out of the most extreme LEFTIST fringe of northeastern academia), as posted by "m.eSPINola"???
fwiw, i don't believe that "Mr SPIN" realizes that the BILGE he posts is from sources from the "poison ivy league" that also HATES America.
free dixie,sw
I think the conflict would have been deferred but there would have been no lasting peace. There were Unionist regions in the South and pockets of Confederate sympathy in the North that would have been sources of contention. But mainly it would have been impossible for two distinct social systems to coexist. One region based on the American ideals of liberty and the other based on the Assyrian ideals of slavery. It was a good thing for the South that the Confederacy was beaten when it was, because in a later conflict the Union would probably not have been as gentle with the CSA as an independent nation as they were with an internal insurrection.
No one sold out their country. The Supreme Court had previously held UNAMIMOUSLY that the President could not simply take matters into his own hands. The Attoney General did extend his opinion on the matter as well:
To execute the laws of the Union; that is, to aid the Federal officers in the performance of their regular duties.To suppress insurrections against the State; but this is confined by Article 4, Section 4, to cases in which the State herself shall apply for assistance against her own people.
To repel the invasion of a State by enemies who come from abroad to assail her in her own territory.
All these provisions are made to protect the States, not to authorize an attack by one part of the country upon another; to preserve the peace, and not to plunge them into civil war. Our forefathers do not seem to have thought that war was calculated 'to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.' There was undoubtedly a strong and universal conviction among the men who framed and ratified the Constitution, that military force would not only be useless, but pernicious, as a means of holding the States together.
"If it be true that war cannot be declared, nor a system of general hostilities carried on by the Central Government against a State, then it seems to follow that an attempt to do so would be ipso facto an expulsion of such State from the Union. Being treated as an alien and an enemy, she would be compelled to act accordingly. And if Congress shall break up the present Union by unconstitutionally putting strife and enmity and armed hostility between different sections of the country, instead of the domestic tranquillity which the Constitution was meant to insure, will not all the States be absolved from their Federal obligations? Is any portion of the people bound to contribute their money or their blood to carry on a contest like that?
"The right of the General Government to preserve itself in its whole constitutional vigor by repelling a direct and positive aggression upon its property or its officers cannot by denied. But this is a totally different thing from an offensive war to punish the people for the political misdeeds of their State Government, or to enforce an acknowledgment that the Government of the United States is supreme. The States are colleagues of one another, and if some of them shall conquer the rest, and hold them as subjugated provinces, it would totally destroy the whole theory upon which they are now connected.
"If this view of the subject be correct, as I think it is, then the Union must utterly perish at the moment when Congress shall arm one part of the people against another for any purpose beyond that of merely protecting the General Government in the exercise of its proper constitutional functions.
What never you have, but nothing should surprise the limitless, disgraceful hate you really do harbour for all those who rightfully support the total eradication of the South's slaveocracy.
Wrong - the only hatred on these threads is that displayed by you. But yet again, you support the 'TOTAL ERADICATION' of Southerners - just as Osama Bin Laden is seething with hatred of innocent Americans, you share that hatred toward innocents. You revel - almost sadomasochistically - in the perverted, wanton death and destruction of all things Southern, glorify the war crimes perpetrated by Sherman [*SPIT*], Sheridan and others.
For those that ordered, condoned or carried out a war against INNOCENT southern civilians I have nothing but contempt, but for the common Union soldier that abided by the rules of war I have nothing but respect.
...yet you never stop supporting the 'Confederates' coupled with their failed goals of further enslavement for profit.
Lincoln supported continued slavery, offering his support for an Amendment making it permanent and irrevocable. If all the Confederacy desired was to continue slavery all the had to do was remain in the union. The seceding states were simply attempting to distance themselves from lunatics like you.
So when you repeatedly & dishonorably tag all those loyal Americans during the Civil War period, who served this country in defeating what was a wicked system of forced slave labour for millions, a staining curse on this land, as you sickeningly attempt to equate with some how being equal with the likes of jihadic terrorist filth such as "Bin Laden and Islamic terrorists"
Regarding the first part see above, regarding the second [from Dictionary.com]: terrorism
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.Unless you can point to a section/clause of the Constitution that granted the federal government the power to wage war on innocents their actions fit the definition.
You still back the treasonous element which tore this great nation in two so they could continue spreading their empire of slavery.
Wrong. See above. Lincoln would have continued slavery. As far as empire is concerned, the Arizona/New Mexico territories had been open to slave expansion for decades - yet there were a whopping toatal of 21 slaves there. Empire was not their desire, escaping from of union of fanatical lunatics was.
How does it feel being completely devoid of any morals promoting a loathsome scourge which rallied good and honourable men to fight to remove it permanently from America's midst.
Lincoln stated he did not fight to end slavery, Congress did the same. He also stated that never would have been elected, and that the armies would desert if that were the case. Lincoln stated, '[w]e [-------->] 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.'
Devoid of morals? I detest uncivilized warfare waged against innocents - you admire the terrorists that waged such. And you think I'm devoid of morals? Bwahahahahahahaha!
Sherman was not against Southerners, he was very generous in his surrender terms to Joe Johnston. He liked Southerners. Sherman's army took pains to treat Southerners according to their loyalty. My great great grandfather in Georgia was in the path of Sherman's army and after the war he even received compensation from the Southern Claims Commission for two mules Sherman's boys had to use in the cause. He also made wagons for the Union army to use deeper in their march into Georgia. He was just one of many Southerners in Walker, Whitfield and Catoosa counties in Georgia that instead of being exterminated actually aided the Union Army in their mission of ending the war.
the coming of animal & steam drawn devices DOOMED chattel slavery, as mules/oxen/horses & tractors work CHEAPER than people. (kill the PROFIT & every commercial institution DIES!)
fwiw, this weekend i went to a southside VA town (on a religious retreat)& actually stood next to a 1851 MOLINE Steam Traction engine (located in the City park), which according to the placard from the Virginia Historical Commission, "would do the same or greater amount of work as a HUNDRED & FIFTY LABORERS, working with hand tools" AND "the machine was retired from ACTIVE USE & placed on fixed display in October, 1948". (emphasis: MINE)
so much for the OUTRIGHT LIES of the LEFTIST/REVISIONISTS, who claimed on several threads that the "Steam Traction Machines" either did not work and/or they were "Primitive & UNusable"!
i guess the "bottom line" is that certain of the damnyankee coven's "sources" which claimed otherwise either do NOT exist and/or the "poster" wasn't intelligent enough to understand his/her "source" to the contrary.
rotflol AT THEM!
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.