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.
No. North Dakota has the Freedom Mine, the 11th biggest in the US and bigger than any in PA or WV.
This is from Facts on file
"A significant milestone in the history of dredging occurred in 1853, when the Corps of Engineers contracted for the first hopper dredge and used it in Charleston Harbor. The dredge employed two large dippers, one on each side of the vessel. The dippers would dig into the harbor bottom, lift up sediment and deposit it in a hopper which took up much of the hull space. At a disposal site, the dredge dumped the material through "well holes" that ran out of the hopper. Whereas earlier dredges needed another barge or lighter to haul material to disposal sites, the hopper dredge could do all the work, greatly simplifying operations.
Although this early hopper dredge was a considerable improvement, it did not live up to expectations. The Corps replaced it in 1857 with the General Moultrie, a hopper dredge that employed a centrifugal pump and suction hose to pump up the sediment from the bottom of the harbor. Thus, the world's first hydraulic hopper dredge appeared, the prototype for all future hopper dredges."
Well I appreciate the detail you added from Coker's research, I expect the City of Charleston and the State of South Carolina did not fund the project as much as they acted as general contractor. The appropriation of Federal funds for such work is well documented [see HR585 in post above].
[Pea] Have you uncovered any evidence that the New Yorkers eschewed the Federal largess that built the Erie Canal?
Hahaha. Fortunately, the Erie Canal was built without any Federal largess, one of the main reasons this feat of engineering was completed sucessfully in 1825.
-btw Here is what then President Jefferson said when asked to support a Federal appropriation for the Erie Canal
"It is a splendid project and may be executed a century hence . . . here is a canal of a few miles projected by General Washington (the Potomac Canal) which has languished for many years because of a small sum of $200,000 . . . cannot be obtained . . . think of making a canal 350 miles long through a wilderness! It is a little short of madness to think about it."
No, it was Yankee ingenuity and $7,000,000 Yankee dollars that built the Erie Canal, not any Federal largess. The Erie canal was also credited with turning New York City into a commercial powerhouse, as trade goods could now move through the canal system into the interior of the country realtively cheaply.
[Pea] Beginning in 1789 American shipping companies in the Northeast United States were protected against foreign shipping competition by laws that required domestic importers and exporters to pay a fee to the Customs department if they used foreign ships for trade. These fees were then disbursed to private shipping companies as compensation
Other protectionist laws were arranged to the advantage of Northeastern American shipping interests. To discourage competitive shipping, no person or company was permitted to purchase a fully rigged ship from foreign sources.
Face it Pea. Nothing in the Navigation Acts prevented Southern ship builders or Southern shipowner/operators from benefiting the same way the North did. The legislation was NOT region specific, your attempts to revise it notwithstanding.
False premise. Charleston and New Orleans are just two examples of Southern seaports active in international trade. Both cities had shipbuilding traditions, and both ports were hundreds of miles closer to the cotton.
If the South really did purchase most of the imported goods and by consequence pay most of the tariffs on them as your side has repeatedly asserted, then there was no good reason why the South couldn't compete for shipping as well. We all know there was no Federal law preventing them from doing so.
Another perfectly drawn analogy bites the dust [lol].
C'mon, you steaming pile. Show me where I attacked Fredrick Douglass.
I didn't. In fact, I used him as an expert authority on the feelings of abolitionists toward Union. He was also an authority on the character of Lincoln, in my opinion.
plus repeatedly attack 'Abolitionists'.
Huh? What brand are you smoking? I did not attack abolitionists as you have claimed. I demonstrated that abolitionists had no desire for empire or conquest. Those were your heroes who you exhonerated and demanded that we "Thank goodness for" them [Colonel K, #899].
Why should I thank goodness that our country was led astray by ambitious, power-hungry men who sought bloody conquest over their brethren. Why in Sam Hell would I thank goodness for any American leaders who wished to rid the continent entirely of Negroes, Mexicans, and Indians? What kind of pig would thank goodness for the leadership of such men?
I am not the one coming onto FR and defending the racial views of Stephens or Davis. I'm defending their political rights. You and Colonel K, however, want to launch into a referendum of loyalty which hinges on the racial views of the Radicals and Lincoln. I'm telling you: With respect to racial views, they were pigs, as is anyone who defends them. You're better off sticking to the political arguments for Union, which hold no legal weight; only emotional attachment.
How come you hate everyone who tired to end slavery in the South?
Who do I hate?
You've failed to support any of the accusations you've made. You've failed to respond to any of the questions I've posed. You've failed to respond to any of the factual material I've posted.
So what now, Espinola? Where will you take us next?
Imports to Iowa were air dropped from partially laden European swallows.
I knew Minnesota had limited mining, but was not aware that it was widespread in the NoDak. Unfortunately, as I said, I don't think that one mine really counteracts my point, since North Dakota falls in this coal production breakdown in "Other States" which total roughly that of W. Virginia.
So... hopefully now that we've established that what I said was 100% correct, and certain states are geographically predisposed to take advantage of certain laws, and certain states have established industries which allow them to do so, are there any other distractions prior to addressing how improvements to shipping and favorable trade laws were more beneficial to those with established shipping industries, geographically located in an ideal position to carry it out?
A distortion. Pea has given the info to demonstrate that imports were disproportionate, but a simple majority? No.
Seems to me that after years of investment in the shipping industry, the Northeastern merchants were poised to take advantage of the new laws. I don't know why this is so difficult, maybe the coal analogy just isn't working.
It's not just the geography, though that plays a major role in trade, but pretend that Congress passed laws favorable to OS vendors; would you expect that some peon like me could start up a company and turn it into an empire such that I could receive as much benefit from said law as an established giant such as Microsoft?
Ping to 927, dumbass.
Another perfectly smart-ass, know-nothing comment bites the dust.
If slavery was allowed to spread to the territories, he said "Negro equality will be abundant, as every White laborer will have occasion to regret when he is elbowed from his plow or his anvil by slave n-----s" Lincoln, CW 3:78 [Lincoln uses the N-word without elision]
So Lincoln didn't like the idea of free Americans economically competing with slave labor. I don't see the big deal. Don't we hear similar words today about free Americans competing with Red Chinese slave labor?
There were good men in the South who wished to end slavery. But due to the selfish shortsightedness of the powerful slave owner element, prospects for gentle change from within were dim. They would have to be forced at gunpoint to give up their so-called "property". Thanks to the foolishness of their secession, they themselves transformed their fellow Americans to external enemies and facilitated the ridding the continent of this evil. I am grateful to the Radical Republicans for their upholding of the American principles of free opportunity of all and the ideals of the Declaration of Independence. The country is much the better for men like Thaddeus Stevens, Sumner and Lincoln.
If our fellow man can be considered property to be sold and bought and done with as his "owner" sees fit, then the Confederates were right and the Radical Republicans wrong. But if we we really believe the words of the Declaration that "all men are created equal" then we should all be at heart with the Radical Republicans. The very fact that today all of us see that slavery is wrong is tribute to these early Republicans.
Oh I see, we would want to infringe on their precious political rights to be white supremacist racist 'pigs' (your term) or prevent them from starting a Civil War in this country. By all means the bad guys 'rights' must always be upheld over decent citizens. (Sarcasm)
Is it your opinion we should also protect the political rights of the likes of psycho jihadic killers if they are Americans? Nazis, KKK thugs and communists dedicated to destroying this country? Yeah must always protect the 'rights' of all those who want to either murder Americans, or blow us off the frigging map. What about our rights to protect this nation from enemies within and those overseas?
"You and Colonel K, however, want to launch into a referendum of loyalty which hinges on the racial views of the Radicals and Lincoln."
Radical what, Republicans? The founders of the party I belong to. I don't know what the hell you belong to, but nothing surprises me when it comes to neo-confederates - nada, nada, zip!
I terms of Lincoln, he was just a guy who happened to garnish more votes then your pro-slavery Confederate candidates, and Old Abe, after being pressured by his own GOP did indeed free men who your Confederates held in bondage. How do you feel now knowing the pack of criminals who invented a rouge régime, plunged this country into the worst domestic horror, ripping this land in two, for what? - the continuation of slavery and you damn well know it.
"I'm telling you: With respect to racial views, they were pigs, as is anyone who defends them."
Yet why is it then you and other neo-confederates always side with the Confederate régime over the United States government. You can't play this both ways. You're either for the Confederates 100% including all their devious goals, or you are not. There is no middle ground, no gray matter on this one. Free the slaves or keep them slaves, in bondage on the Confederate cotton plantations, one or the other. Your Confederates had every intent to increase profits via the backs of slaves, if they had overthrown the government in Washington.
Then there is another hero of the neo-confederate crowd, the murderer of President Lincoln, John Wilkes Booth. How any 'American' could cheer for a cold blooded killer of any President is beyond me and the majority of the American public.
In terms of the Republican party of the 1860's, the GOP represented freedom and liberty and does today. There is absolutely no room from those with either Nazi like, nor Klan viewpoints in today's GOP.
After you defending the 'political rights' of war criminals Davis & Stephens, not to mention their sick racial views concerning other Americans you ask me "So what now, Espinola? Where will you take us next?" Take a wild guess where you (not us) should go?
Let's see how long it takes before you pull your stoolie act again. Where I come from the lowest of the low is a rat.
That's not what he said:
"Negro equality will be abundant,"--Abraham Lincoln
I don't see the big deal.
I do.
Don't we hear similar words today about free Americans competing with Red Chinese slave labor?
From modern American communists (labor democrats), we hear that they don't want to compete with Chinese labor, but we don't hear (or at least I have not heard) that they espouse anti-Chinese racism (Chinese equality to be an unbearable horror).
There were good men in the South who wished to end slavery. But due to the selfish shortsightedness of the powerful slave owner element, prospects for gentle change from within were dim. They would have to be forced at gunpoint to give up their so-called "property".
The first sentence is great and agreeable. The second two are conclusions not easily drawn, and I'd be interested in your supporting data and thought process. Most of what I have seen on the subject points to the exact opposite - that the rhetoric surrounding slavery was getting more fierce in its defense because it was dying a slow death.
Thanks to the foolishness of their secession, they themselves transformed their fellow Americans to external enemies and facilitated the ridding the continent of this evil.
Agreed, however this has no bearing on their right to seceed, and by your reasoning secession was necessary to bring about that end.
I am grateful to the Radical Republicans for their upholding of the American principles of free opportunity of all and the ideals of the Declaration of Independence.
As I pointed out, that's not what they were doing.
If our fellow man can be considered property to be sold and bought and done with as his "owner" sees fit, then the Confederates were right and the Radical Republicans wrong.
This is a "heaven and hell" argument, not a "Government of the United States" argument. As I said, if you would like to state that slavery is morally wrong such that God would not tolerate it, and Lincoln acted in that capacity as an agent of such, that is a different argument (one that I'm pretty sure supporting data will show to be wrong).
But if we we really believe the words of the Declaration that "all men are created equal" then we should all be at heart with the Radical Republicans. The very fact that today all of us see that slavery is wrong is tribute to these early Republicans.
As I already stated, the Radicals did not believe in equality any more than they believed in the Easter Bunny. That better principles ultimately prevailed is the triumph of America. The Radicals collected power for the purpose of abuse and subjugation of the South; better men have since seen fit to use it instead in defense of liberty.
Imports to Iowa were air dropped from partially laden European swallows.
BWahahahahahahahaha!
be gone to DU!
free dixie,sw
that's ALL you are.
be gone to DU.
free dixie,sw
And the Preamble plainly states it's to be used to 'establish Justice [yet rr promoted injustice], insure domestic Tranquility [they advocated just the opposite inciting insurrection], provide for the common defence [attacking states is not "defense"], promote the general Welfare [maybe a yankee welfare state, but not the qaulity of life in all the several states], and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity [just the opposite - radical republicans waged war to deprive millions of their God-given right to self-government who were only seeking liberty from opressive, rabid traitors to the Constitution]'.
PERHAPS as much as ONE PERCENT of the citizens North & South felt that way.
for the other 99%, "southern LIBERTY" or "preserving the union" was the MAIN issue.
no matter how much you may WISH slavery was THE ISSUE or ONE of the MAIN ISSUES, the FACTS do NOT support your wishes. to quote RWR, "FACTS are IMPORTANT".
free dixie,sw
otoh, for the rest of the country, it simply was NOT a major issue, no matter how much you may WISH it was.to quote a former professor at Grambling University, "less than 10,000 people, north or south, cared enough about slavery to fight even one skirmish, much less a major war, over "the plight of the slaves". they SHOULD have cared;they did NOT." (emphasis: MINE)
in point of fact, about 95% of the CSA's military forces had GROSS ASSETS of 25.oo USD per person. ours was a PEASANT ARMY/PEASANT UPRISING, led by a handful of professionals like LEE,JACKSON & a FEW others.(fwiw, the "Planter Aristocracy" all too often COLLOBORATED with the enemy. had we won our war for LIBERTY, the collaborators would have been NEXT on the "list of enemies of dixie freedom")
that is the UNvarnished TRUTH. (that is the MAIN reason our ancestors lost the war. peasant uprisings SELDOM succeed. the only one i can think off offhand that DID succeed was the uprising against the French/Japanese in Indochina 1940-54.)
free dixie,sw
don't you get tired of being ridiculed as a FOOL, IDIOT,HATER & BIGOT???
everyone here, who has a functioning brain, knows you are the BUTT of jokes about "DUMBbunnies from the north".
be gone to DU, where you obviously belong. they LIKE fools & REVISIONIST "useful idiots".
free dixie,sw
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.