Lincoln holiday on its way out (West Virginia)

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.

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.

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.

Check your facts. Anything more high tech than a spatula has about a 95% probability that it contains foreign-made parts.

I'll let the pinheads [like you] worry about where the spatulas onboard these floating cities come from, secure in the knowlege that the muscle and the know-how to design, engineer, construct, maintain, and operate them, remains right here in the USA, a direct legacy of the protection given to the shipbuilding industry by the Founding Fathers.

US Navy Fact File

Aircraft Carriers - CV, CVN Updated: 20 April 2005

Description: Aircraft carriers provide a wide range of possible response for the National Command Authority.

The Carrier Mission

To provide a credible, sustainable, independent forward presence and conventional deterrence in peacetime, To operate as the cornerstone of joint/allied maritime expeditionary forces in times of crisis, and To operate and support aircraft attacks on enemies, protect friendly forces and engage in sustained independent operations in war.

Features: The aircraft carrier continues to be the centerpiece of the forces necessary for forward presence. Whenever there has been a crisis, the first question has been: "Where are the carriers?" Carriers support and operate aircraft that engage in attacks on airborne, afloat, and ashore targets that threaten free use of the sea; and engage in sustained operations in support of other forces.

Aircraft carriers are deployed worldwide in support of U.S. interests and commitments. They can respond to global crises in ways ranging from peacetime presence to full-scale war. Together with their on-board air wings, the carriers have vital roles across the full spectrum of conflict.

The Nimitz-class carriers, eight operational and two under construction, are the largest warships in the world. USS Nimitz (CVN 68) was the first to undergo its initial refueling during a 33-month Refueling Complex Overhaul at Newport News Shipbuilding in Newport News, Va., in 1998. The next generation of carrier, CVN 21, the hull number will be CVN 78, is programmed to start construction in 2007 and is slated to be placed in commission in 2014 to replace USS Enterprise (CVN 65) which will be over its 50-year mark. CVN 79 is programmed to begin construction in 2012 and to be placed in commission in 2018.

Yes, those 22 foot draft overseas transport ships left Liverpool and headed directly to New Orleans, where upon carefully navigating the shoals, sailed directly up the Mississippi past Vicksburg and on directly to Memphis.

You know that there was such a great demand and also great logic for direct shipment of the goods, that they threw all caution to the wind and did that direct shipment thing that you say could have been the only logical shipping model.

Now there may be some out there that say that the Mississippi was too shallow for this type boat as was the coast of Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia along with the ports of Wilmington, Charleston, and Savannah.

They might say that flat bottom boats made more sense. But no, let's use your logic that the demand and consumption was so great that it made much more sense to ship direct.

So, there you go. Memphis shipped 100% of her imports directly from Liverpool. I have it on good authority.

"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]."

You may want to think that appropriations means spending, but let's just see.

Your statement "I expect the City of Charleston and the State of South Carolina did not fund the project" is just flat out wrong and a function of your wishful thinking rather than fact.

After the allocation of funds in the act, according to Coker, ..."private and public agencies fought over who would control the project."

Work ceased.

"By now, Gourdin (Henry Gourdin, President Charleston Chamber of Commerce) had made deepening the harbor channel a personal cause, and refused to let the matter die. He managed to get legislative support for a new harbor commission that proposed using a new machine invented by Nathaniel H. Leeby of Charleston. Leeby's concept for dredging was based on his patented centrifugal pump that was used to drain rice fields."

And specifically here is where you are wrong:

"In 1853, the Charleston City Council pledged $45,000 to purchase a Patent Steam Dredge Machine from Jason C. Osgood of Troy, New York, who had designed the first hopper dredge in the United States....The State also chipped in, and the dredgeboat A.H. Bowman, named for the engineer in charge of the project, arrived in July 1854."

So, it is clear that Charleston and the State FUNDED the boat and began the dredging.

And now a quote from your source:

"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. Although this early hopper dredge was a considerable improvement, it did not live up to expectations."

The article here is referring to the Bowman which the State of South Carolina contracted for and owned. They may have called it a "milestone" in 1853, but since the boat did not arrive until 1854 the author of this blurb is off.

Whether or not the Corps thought they were "contracting" or leasing it is a moot point since due to "mechanical and jurisdictional problems over the next year, was never able to remove more than 450 cubic yards of material per day"...which was vastly less than the original ability to remove 100 cubic yards per hour.

Then your source makes this interesting entry:

"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."

The Corps replaced it? How would they replace it? Would the Corps have a dredge ship named the General Moultrie?

I think not. So let's revisit Coker for the answer.

"With a contract from the city (of Charleston) to dredge the channel, Charleston machinists James and Thomas Eason had the experimental dredgeboat General Moultrie built in New York, incorporating Lebby's ideas.

General Moultrie began operating in Charleston in February 1857...(it) cleared 190,000 cubic yards of silt from the channel at a price of 66cts. per cubic yard."

So, it is seen that the city of Charleston arranged for the plans, allocated the money, contracted with Charleston companies,had the ships built, and dredged the harbor. Period.

It is abundantly clear from the tone of your quoted article that the author is attempting to "borrow historical facts" to enhance the status of the story. Other comments from Coker indicate that the Corps of Engineers disagreed among themselves, meddled in the project, and according to your article tried to take credit for the project.

It is clear why the City of Charleston found it expedient to spend their own money and complete the project to their satisfaction. They were dealing with meddling federal authorities.

The importance of the Warehousing Act was that it sealed the dominance of the port of New York in international trade. In order to take advantage of the regulations, a seaport had to be engaged in massive export/import traffic. New Orleans did take advantage of the regulations, but essentially New York put other seaports on the eastern seaboard into the second tier.

The Act was signed into law on February 28, 1854. The monumentous importance of this was that importers could warehouse their goods for up to three years before paying the tariff.

That meant they could sell their goods to obtain the money needed to pay the tariff fees and then pay it upon removing the sold goods from the warehouse. This offered a vast savings in finance costs to the owner.

Another major advantage to the merchants was that they did not have to carry large sums of cash on hand to pay tariffs immediately after they dropped off their cargoes, which in turn made it easier to ship goods that had no immediate buyer waiting at the docks.

Congress created secure and duty-free enclaves under federal control in order to encourage merchants here and abroad to make use of American ports. It also meant that trading organizations could better deal with market fluctuations by withholding goods for sale until conditions improved.

New York became the warehousing center of the country because it had readily convertible facilities. Businessmen shipped across the Atlantic to New York, warehoused for up to three years, and then shipped out of New York warehouses up the coast and inland to all over the U.S.

With this act, New York merchants sealed their dominance over the cotton trade.

You may want to think that appropriations means spending, but let's just see.

Actually HR585 was a request for an additional Federal appropriation to lower the bar in Charleston harbor. I'd hate to think that Federal represntatives from South Carolina were trying to appropriate additional money they didn't actually need.

Your statement "I expect the City of Charleston and the State of South Carolina did not fund the project" is just flat out wrong...

No it isn't, your reading between the lines however is.

The City of Charleston was a sub-contracter to the Federal government. They spent money to buy a dredgeboat so they could bill the Federal govenement for the work the boat did. According to your own sources in 1857 the General Moultrie pumped 190,00 cubic yards of silt @ 66cents per yard. Thats roughly $125,000 dollars, more than enough to offset the cost of the dredgeboat.

-btw Federal appropriations for improvements to the Charleston Harbor have a long and illustrious history. A quick visit to Lindsey Graham's website reveals $5,000,000 appropriated for that purpose this year.

I do not think these people read at all. If they do, they do it with their eyes closed.

You are right about the challenge of the geography and your analogy.

Prior to the development of affordable, reliable ship's chronometers, longitude was guesswork and shipping tended to flow from Europe to the safety of the southerly trade winds dominated routes.

Changes in knowledge changed the routes of the trade shipping.

Benjamin Franklin published a correct outline of the Gulf Stream. Sailors discovered that while ships were moving, they could measure the temperature variations in the waters as they traveled overseas. From this they established tables that showed average temperatures by calendar for the colder northern seas and the areas affected by the Gulf Stream.

They learned to navigate more direct routes and with improvements in ships' rigging that allowed the vessels to point closer to the direction of wind, the trade routes became more straight line. Direct shipment from Liverpool to New York using the improvements in navigation and sail configuration cut the shipping time by over 50%, thus ensuring the dominance of New York over Southern seaports.

In 1816, Jeremiah Thompson established a direct packet schedule from New York to Liverpool. Gradually they and others in New York began to dominate East Coast commerce with Europe.

The success of New York packet lines ensured the regression of the Southern ports and their shipping.

The importance of the ~~Warehousing Act~~ Erie Canal was that it sealed the dominance of the port of New York in international trade.

You vastly overstate the importance of the Warehousing Act, while ignoring other factors. New York dominated because it could move goods inland and back more cheaply.

The South didn't have the capability or the consumers to compete. Heck, even their dredgeboats were built in New York.

With this act, New York merchants sealed their dominance over the cotton trade.

This may come as a surprise to some of you, but there was a whole lot more going on in the United States at that time than the production and export of..cotton. The South with its single crop economy and backward labor practices was becoming more and more irrelavant to the rest of the country.

"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."

I am not revising anything. I am quoting legislation and the people of the time.

I never said that the laws "prevented" anything. But they did heavily favor established shipping interests.

And that was region specific.

The actions of the government lawmakers favored the established business of shipping in the North by enlarging their competitive edge through legislation that grew their business by the placement of obstacles in the path of competitors.

The success of the shipping trade of New England and New York in the early 19th century was a purpose driven scheme of the federal government.

The federal government set out deliberately to encourage the commercial trades there, especially ship-building and shipping.

The July 4, 1789, tariff was the first substantive legislation passed by the new American government. But in addition to the new duties, it reduced by 10 percent or more the tariff paid for goods arriving only in American craft, which were essentially all Northern owned.

It also required domestic construction for American ship registry. Navigation acts in the same decade stipulated that foreign-built and foreign-owned vessels were taxed 50 cents per ton when entering U.S. ports, while U.S.-built and -owned ones paid only six cents per ton. Furthermore, the U.S. ones paid annually, while foreign ones paid upon every entry.

This effectively blocked off U.S. coastal trade to all but vessels built and owned in the United States. European bound Southern goods would be taxed if placed on foreign ships.

The navigation act of 1817 had made it official, providing "that no goods, wares, or merchandise shall be imported under penalty of forfeiture thereof, from one port in the United States to another port in the United States, in a vessel belonging wholly or in part to a subject of any foreign power."

The point of all this was to protect and grow the shipping industry of New England, and it worked. By 1795, the combination of foreign complication and American protection put 92 percent of all imports and 86 percent of all exports in American-flag vessels. American ship owners' annual earnings shot up between 1790 and 1807, from $5.9 million to $42.1 million.

American ship owners were of New York, Philadelphia, or New England origin.

Federal laws governing shipping did not prohibit the South from entering the shipping business as you point out, but they did effectively provide a competitive edge to the established Northern shipping interest.

The magnitude of the difference is shown in the data that in 1860, the city of Charleston had 65,000 ship tons involved in trade while the city of New York had 1,400,000 ship tons in the trade.

Therefore any law that favors shipping does not prohibit the competitor from being in shipping, but it does favor the region of the country that has the greatest shipping interest.

That would be the North.

"Actually HR585 was a request for an additional Federal appropriation to lower the bar in Charleston harbor. I'd hate to think that Federal represntatives from South Carolina were trying to appropriate additional money they didn't actually need."

It appears from the Congressional Record that this appropriation was not approved by this Congress.

It originated in the House as H.R.585, and after passage, became S. 618 in the Senate. But it looks as if it never received final approval and therefore your opinion is exposed as incorrect.

Link:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llhj&fileName=050/llhj050.db&recNum=651&itemLink=r%3Fammem%2Fhlaw%3A@field%28DOCID%2B@lit%28hj0501%29%29%3A%230500001&linkText=1

So it appears that it is you who is not only reading between the lines, but making it up as you go along.

"The City of Charleston was a sub-contracter to the Federal government. They spent money to buy a dredgeboat so they could bill the Federal govenement for the work the boat did."

Again wrong. You are just making things up as you go.

You will find in the "History of the Waterways of the Atlantic Coast of the United States" that projects remained unfunded until after the war.

Located here:

http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/usace-docs/misc/nws83-10/

"The act of 1852 failed to restore an ongoing program of
navigation improvement. The Democrats won the election, and
with the party opposed to internal improvements in power for the rest of the decade, Congress did not pass another general rivers and harbors bill until after the Civil War.

"Through special acts it authorized four works in the interior and three in the East, and passed five of these bills over the vetoes of President Pierce.

"The three eastern projects allowed the Corps to continue
work on the Savannah and Cape Fear rivers and to deepen the
Patapsco River to make Baltimore Harbor accessible to steam
frigates and other vessels of the United States Navy.

"When these appropriations and those of 1852 ran out, river and harbor improvement by the federal government again came to a halt, with many projects still uncompleted.

Except of course the dredging project in Charleston Harbor that was completed in 1860, and financed by the City of Charleston.

I never said that the laws "prevented" anything. But they did heavily favor established shipping interests. And that was region specific.

The navigation laws favored American shipping interests, North and South. Nothing prevented Southerners from building or buying American ships..including geography.

The success of the shipping trade of New England and New York in the early 19th century was a purpose driven scheme of the ~~federal government~~ hard working, industrious Yankees engaged in that endeavor.

European bound Southern goods would be taxed if placed on foreign ships.

Huh? European bound southern goods were considered domestic exports, and not subject to tariffs. Please explain.

American ship owners were of New York, Philadelphia, or New England origin.

Now, it's time to hang up your fiddle Pea. Both Charleston and New Orleans had a shipbuilding heritage that predated the Navigation laws [check in with your source Coker on that]. And as you have aptly shown us earlier, the City of Charleston purchased it's dredge boats from New York.

Were the Charleston city fathers all Yankees too?

It appears from the Congressional Record that this appropriation was not approved by this Congress. It originated in the House as H.R.585, and after passage, became S. 618 in the Senate. But it looks as if it never received final approval and therefore your opinion is exposed as incorrect.

I appreciate the research but..by definition a request for an additional appropriation is not possible unless money had already been appropriated for that purpose. It is quite possible the request was turned down because there was sufficient funds remaining in the original appropriation to complete the work.

You will find in the "History of the Waterways of the Atlantic Coast of the United States" that projects remained unfunded until after the war.

Actually your source simply confirms that these projects were undertaken by the Federal Army Corp of Engineers, not State and local governments. Also, there is nothing in the History of Waterways that indicates the original Federal appropriation to complete the Charleston dredging ever ran out. The fact that the work was completed prior to the war, and that ACOE was still involved in 1857 would indicate the opposite.

Except of course the dredging project in Charleston Harbor that was completed in 1860, and financed by the City of Charleston.

If the City of Charleston was funding the dredging project in 1857 and had purchased the General Moultrie from New York for that purpose, why was the dredgeboat charging 66cents per cubic yard for the work, and who was paying the bill?

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.