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.
The History Channel, which I watch often, also had a show praising Jay Winik's ridiculous book "1865", which goes to show that you cannot believe everything you see on television.
True. Even if he were Wlat, at least he has manners, which is more than can be said for many with his positions.
CK: My sincerest apologies.
But to them, Butler, Sherman [*SPIT*], Grant, Kilpatrick, Dahlgren were all loose cannons - doing what they pleased without regard to Lincolns orders. To them, Lincoln sat in the White House reading while Dahlgren et al planned and conducted the war.
THE YANKEES ARE IN CHATTANOOGA!
How dare you quote the principal author of the Constitution to explain its meaning to the neo-Confederates!
Do you mean, April, 1865, the Month that Saved America, by Winik?
Please, educate us on its flaws. This should be interesting from someone who considers The Reward of Patriotism historically accurate, and Lucy Stewart an authority.
No, no, no... it's always Stanton and Seward who ran the country. For some reason, they believe incompetence a viable defense.
Excellent quote, unfortunately, it does not support your position. You and Partisan need to learn the language before you sit at the grown-up table.
A major (and ridiculous) theme of the book is that in April 1865 guerrilla warfare was a viable option for the Confederates, to whom we should all be grateful for surrendering instead.
What Madison is saying, and what a good book on Madison or the Constitution would explain, is that the "violation or abuse" of the compact he is writing about is the secession of a state or states. In other words, a state could be kicked out of the Union by all other states seceding and setting up their own country without that state -- such an action would be a "violation or abuse" of that state.
Here you show yourself to be seriously out of your depth, and not worth any more of my time to debate. Ciao, Gianni!
Uh huh. So then you can point to the actual abuse which was so egregious that it was equivalent to the dissolution of the entire constitution.
"It is the nature & essence of a compact that it is equally obligatory on the parties to it, and of course that no one of them can be liberated therefrom without the consent of the others, or such a violation or abuse of it by the others, as will amount to a dissolution of the compact."
The quote cited is from a letter to Nicholas P. Trist under date of 15 Feb 1830. This is what he wrote decades earlier: 'Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.' No chains to hold it, no military force to prevent it leaving.
Dang, you beat me to it. I guess that what I get for preparing to reply, and then waiting before I actually hit post.
I like your style
;o)
That you would disagree is astonishing. The most capable tactical commanders were clearly allied with the confederacy, while the Union had the upper hand on the larger strategy that would later win the war. Given the results of other civil conflicts around the world, there is adequate evidence that our country could have just as easily gone down that path.
Of course, your viewpoint on this provides a nice example of your snobbish & sneering attitude.
No. Read the sentence. That's not what he is saying. It could not be more clear.
I can't speak for them, but if they believed that they could legally resume powers granted to the government any time that they wanted then they were wrong. The Constitution doesn't allow for that, and they accepted the Constitution as passed by the convention. That part's in their ratification document, too.
I can't prove a negative, or show something that isn't there. So you'll have to show the clause that does allow them to resume powers granted to the government whenever they want to.
Now you're just being a boob. There was nothing two sided about it. States ratified the Constitution or they didn't, nothing was negotiated. The Constitutional Convention wasn't going to accept changes, go back and make them, and then present them again. The Constitution was there, accept it or not was the state's choice. And Virginia accepted it. Viginia ratified it, in toto, as passed by the convention. And in doing so they made the mistaken claim that they could resume powers granted to the government any time that they wanted to. And in that they were wrong. The Constitution does not allow for that, in any clause, in any section. Virginia, or any other state for that matter, could pad their ratification document with any misconception that they cared to, and some did. But the ratification documents do not trump the Constitution.
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.