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.
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!
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?
You really do represent the neo-confederates - perfectly...
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.
Shaving often makes me want to have someone killed, too. </sarcasm>
There is no evidence that Lincoln was involved in Dahlgren's plans.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Please provide one statement, just one, from a Founding Father stating that the Constitution permits secession.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
SECESSION is just ONE of those RETAINED rights. if it were NOT so , it would be ENUMERATED!
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.