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.

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

You can repeat yourself time and again, but that does not change the facts. The navigation and commerce laws favored established shipping, which was essentially all in the Northeast. No one here has said the laws prohibited shipbuilding. They did give preferential treatment to the established owners.

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

Read the article again. It says tax not tariff.

"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?"

All your answers are in the book. You can get it from Barnes and Noble. Have fun.

But we all know you are not interested in facts, but ongoing nonsensical bloviations. You seem to confuse obfuscation with rational debate. So, go ahead and enjoy yourself.

"I appreciate the research but.."

No you don't. You always ignore facts running counter to your pantsload posts.

"It is quite possible the request was turned down because there was sufficient funds remaining in the original appropriation to complete the work."

ROTFLMAO. "It is quite possible....." Nope. We aren't buying that. You are still ignoring the facts.

"Actually your source simply confirms that these projects were undertaken by the Federal Army Corp of Engineers..."

It does nothing of the kind with regard to Charleston. It factually states that certain projects were completed. It does not name Charleston.

"not State and local governments."

Coker specifically stated the opposite to your contention. Since you quoted him in your postings, then we must assume that you agree with his credibility.

"Also, there is nothing in the History of Waterways that indicates the original Federal appropriation to complete the Charleston dredging ever ran out."

What that document states is that no additional Federal spending for improvements in Charleston Harbor were spent after the 1852 bill. Didn't you read the post?

"The fact that the work was completed prior to the war, and that ACOE was still involved in 1857 would indicate the opposite."

The work was completed in 1860, funded by the City of Charleston and some funds supplied by the state.

Again:

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.

So, in summary, the Corps of Engineers report specifically does not include Charleston as being in any of its projects that it completed as a result of the 1852 bill.

Aiken's proposal for continuing funds, HR 585, was not included in any budget, and this has been shown to you from the Globe site.

So, from both the Corps of Engineers and the Globe reports, it is proved that funding for work on Charleston Harbor did not come from the federal government.

Coker confirms that there was state and city funding before and after 1854. He also points out that work was locally contracted. He also, among other sources, confirms that a dredging project was completed in 1860.

Now, if you have any factual information that runs counter to this, let's examine it. If not, refrain from playing the "its quite possible" game...that's for children.

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.