Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lincoln holiday on its way out (West Virginia)
West Virginia Gazette Mail ^ | 9-8-2005 | Phil Kabler

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.


TOPICS: Government; US: West Virginia
KEYWORDS: abelincoln; lincoln; sorrydemocrats; westvirginia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 1,421-1,437 next last
To: Heyworth
When did Dahlgren meet with Lincoln?

1 Feb 1864. Ulric arrived at the White House at 11:00, waited until 16:00 before Lincoln met with him (while Lincoln received a shave).

Go Falcons!

241 posted on 09/12/2005 9:27:34 PM PDT by 4CJ (||) OUR sins put Him on that cross. HIS love for us kept Him there.(||)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
.."ex-Confederates could not hold office nor vote - yankees came down to serve as governor/congressmen."

After losing the Presidential election of 1860 the slavocracy deliberately triggered the Civil War by various attacks on U.S. military installations.

Are you actually suggesting in 1865 ex-confederate insurrectionist politicians should have been immediately returned to public office by the United States government - like nothing happened during the four previous years?

242 posted on 09/12/2005 9:38:57 PM PDT by M. Espinola (Freedom is never free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
"yet another DUMB post from one of FR's DUMBER denizens!"

You really do represent the neo-confederates - perfectly...

243 posted on 09/12/2005 9:52:08 PM PDT by M. Espinola (Freedom is never free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
Leagalized theft is what laid waste to the Southern economy.

What laid waste to the Southern economy in the long run was that Reconstruction was not applied immediately and thoroughly enough. The Democratic slave owner class should have been politically broken forever. As it was, they were able to slither back into power and to resume their trafficking in ignorance, division and pitting one group at another.

By their fruits you shall know them and racist postwar Democratic rule succeeded in putting the South last in literacy, last in income, last in growth and first in hate and distrust among countrymen.

244 posted on 09/13/2005 4:24:56 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
1 Feb 1864. Ulric arrived at the White House at 11:00, waited until 16:00 before Lincoln met with him (while Lincoln received a shave.

Shaving often makes me want to have someone killed, too. </sarcasm>

There is no evidence that Lincoln was involved in Dahlgren's plans.

245 posted on 09/13/2005 4:28:51 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861
Slavery is and was wrong, I will never say otherwise, but I know that when I read the diary of my ancestor who owned and later freed 50 slaves (before he went to war), He treated his slaves as his own family. One, his personal servant took a bullet for him at Gettysburg, and another was hung by Union soldiers, because he was trying to protect the family property from Sherman's troops. Doesn't sound like these two were mistreated or unhappy. The reality is that most slaves were WORSE off after the war, having to fend for themselves. That doesn't mean I advocate the continuance of that system, but rather that emancipation would have been better if done in a gradual manner.

There were humanitarian and enlightened people in the South who saw the evil in the system. But the way the slavery fanatics were digging in and aiming to create a vast slave empire, I can't see any way that gradual evolution and human elevation from within Dixie would have succeeded. Emancipation was going to have to be forced from without the South and the instrument for change was largely going to be our very own Republican party.

246 posted on 09/13/2005 4:33:15 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

Comment #247 Removed by Moderator

To: 4ConservativeJustices
Go Falcons!

Yes indeed. Great job against last night against the Eagles. If Jenkins and Roddy White can continue to improve, the Birds may end the season with a pretty good down field passing attack and be a much more dangerous team than last year.

248 posted on 09/13/2005 4:50:22 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

Comment #249 Removed by Moderator

To: Colonel Kangaroo

You are missing one small point. Slavery was protected by the law of the land at the time. Lincoln had no right to do what he did, morally wrong or otherwise.

Think of the lack of animosity between the races that would have existed if gradual emancipation had been done.


250 posted on 09/13/2005 5:57:46 AM PDT by TexConfederate1861 (Lincoln......First American Dictator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: mac_truck
Their LIES are Legion. And that is ALL they have.

The Farewell Address is always painted as an Isolationist document when in fact it is almost totally directed at those who would deceive the gullible and ignorant into secession. Its Isolationist aspect was strictly limited to remaining out of the Anglo/Franco fight because the Nation was still too weak to take an active role and because the Slavers and democRAT-republicans were willing to fight FOR France and AGAINST the US should we take the side of the English. Hence, once again the argument against involvement was grounded in fear of secession destroying the Union.

Hamilton was the actual author of this document and there is no one who can legitimately claim HIM to be reluctant to take a role in world history if it is in the National Interest.
251 posted on 09/13/2005 7:59:04 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit

Since you didn't LIVE at the time of George Washington, how exactly do you KNOW what it means one way or the other?

There is plenty of documentation around to prove that many of the founding fathers believed in the right of secession, etc.


252 posted on 09/13/2005 8:40:35 AM PDT by TexConfederate1861
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861
You are missing one small point. Slavery was protected by the law of the land at the time. Lincoln had no right to do what he did, morally wrong or otherwise.

And Lincoln went out of his way before taking office that he was not going to interfere with slavery where it existed, but that did not satisfy the radical slave imperialists of the South.

Think of the lack of animosity between the races that would have existed if gradual emancipation had been done.

I agree 1000%. But that was not in the cards anymore with all the militant slave proponents getting more obsessed with building a society based upon slavery. I know there were people like your ancestor who were personally honorable with regards to slavery. They were just powerless to change the system from within. While people like your ancestor and many people in the North were getting more enlightened to the evil of slavery, the radicals in the South got more virulent in trying to permanently establish it.

253 posted on 09/13/2005 8:55:08 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861

Please provide one statement, just one, from a Founding Father stating that the Constitution permits secession.


254 posted on 09/13/2005 8:56:06 AM PDT by Grand Old Partisan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
1 Feb 1864. Ulric arrived at the White House at 11:00, waited until 16:00 before Lincoln met with him (while Lincoln received a shave).

But this is even before the abortive Butler raid. The usual chronology has is that it was after the failure of that raid, on Feb. 7, that Kilipatrick pitched his idea (which didn't include killing Davis et. al.) on the 12th.

255 posted on 09/13/2005 9:10:05 AM PDT by Heyworth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: M. Espinola
perhaps.

just as you represent the ARROGANT,terminally ignorant, STUPID, hate-FILLED & (i fear RACIST) worst, that (SADLY) resides in most of us.

you'd be MUCH more welcome on DU as a DU-dummy. be gone!

free dixie,sw

256 posted on 09/13/2005 9:43:05 AM PDT by stand watie (being a damnyankee is no better than being a racist. it is a LEARNED prejudice against dixie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: Heyworth
But this is even before the abortive Butler raid. The usual chronology has is that it was after the failure of that raid, on Feb. 7, that Kilipatrick pitched his idea (which didn't include killing Davis et. al.) on the 12th.

Ulric met with Lincoln officially on 1 Feb, but remained in Washington until 18 Feb - well after Butler's failure and Kilpatrick's meeting. He then proceeded to Brady Station, received his mount, and then met with Kilpatrick at Stevensburg. The next 10 days were spent organizing the plan. On 26 Feb he wrote his father about the 'grand raid' and his potential death.

When the route across the James proved to be to deep, Dahlgren had their negro guide Martin hung. A severe punishment for a simple raid. It's asserted that the orders were to capture Davis - certainly if Dahlgren killed Davis he would face the wrath of Lincoln, as such would incite Confederates if capture was Lincoln's design. Dahlgren would only have attempted assassination if it were sanctioned by Lincoln.

257 posted on 09/13/2005 10:14:44 AM PDT by 4CJ (||) OUR sins put Him on that cross. HIS love for us kept Him there.(||)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
Ulric met with Lincoln officially on 1 Feb, but remained in Washington until 18 Feb - well after Butler's failure and Kilpatrick's meeting. He then proceeded to Brady Station, received his mount, and then met with Kilpatrick at Stevensburg. The next 10 days were spent organizing the plan. On 26 Feb he wrote his father about the 'grand raid' and his potential death.

So what's your contention here, that Ulric met with Lincoln (BTW, more likely a social than a military call since Lincoln and Dahlgren's father were close friends and the wounded Dahlgren had been recuperating at his father's DC house), then got "secret orders" from Lincoln to go to Kilpatrick and join him in his raid to kill Davis? I'm sorry, but you need a lot better evidence than that they met before the raid had even been proposed and were in the same city for six days after it had been proposed. You're a long, long way from producing a smoking gun.

When the route across the James proved to be to deep, Dahlgren had their negro guide Martin hung. A severe punishment for a simple raid.

Well, it wasn't a simple raid. Even sans an order to kill Davis and his cabinet on the spot, the raid was an elaborate plan which Ulric told his father would make him a hero or leave him dead. And Dahlgren's murder of the guide doesn't reinforce the notion of explicit assassination orders as much as reinforce the evidence that Dahlgren was a glory-seeking nut to the obliteration of all else.

It's asserted that the orders were to capture Davis - certainly if Dahlgren killed Davis he would face the wrath of Lincoln, as such would incite Confederates if capture was Lincoln's design. Dahlgren would only have attempted assassination if it were sanctioned by Lincoln.

You make no sense here. Are you saying that if Dahlgren killed Davis, it would infuriate the Confederates, therefore it's evidence that Lincoln ordered him to kill Davis? Why would the Confederates be any less outraged if Davis was killed while trying to capture him than if he was just killed on sight? You're making a very weak circumstantial case.

258 posted on 09/13/2005 12:06:00 PM PDT by Heyworth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan

None: In the Constitution
Show me anything in the Constitution where secession is prohibited. You can't because it doesn't exist. However, Virginia's State Constitution, which was written largely by Thomas Jefferson, stated that Virginia retained that right, as well as the document ratifying the Constitution of the US. Other states, such as New Jersey, also stated that they retained said right.


259 posted on 09/13/2005 12:35:25 PM PDT by TexConfederate1861
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861
EXACTLY, also the TENTH (10th) AMENDMENT to the BOR states that "those powers NOT ceded" to the federal government REMAIN with the STATES and/or with the PEOPLE.

SECESSION is just ONE of those RETAINED rights. if it were NOT so , it would be ENUMERATED!

free dixie,sw

260 posted on 09/13/2005 2:36:10 PM PDT by stand watie (being a damnyankee is no better than being a racist. it is a LEARNED prejudice against dixie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 1,421-1,437 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson