Lincoln holiday on its way out (West Virginia)

West Virginia Gazette Mail ^ | 9-8-2005 | Phil Kabler

[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.

[M. Espinola]

Get wise to yourself chum, you & the rest of the whacked out neo-confederate cultists are only an insignificant collection of raving crackpots, nothing more than a negligible nuisance & total embarrassment relegated to the far fringes of the American backwater.

[stand watie]

another pitiful & fact-FREE response from one of FR's most virulent & arrogantly ignorant south-HATERS.

btw, when are you going to re-post your notorious post #645 & be permanently banned for it's OBVIOUS racism??

inquiring minds want to know what your excuse will be for that post THIS time. (fwiw, 2 members of "the coven" have told me in PMs that they were ASHAMED of what you said in that post & apologized FOR you.)

free dixie,sw

[mac_truck]

The majority of states seceded with the overwhelming approval of it's population

That is not even close to being true.

[TexConfederate1861]

Prove it.....
I know my own state passed secession by popular vote, overwhelmingly!

[Grand Old Partisan]

Not even a majority of white men could vote in the pre-Civil War South. It was the Reconstruction-era state governments which extended the suffrage to all men in the South, white and black.

[Grand Old Partisan]

In those days, balloting was done in public, so it took a VERY brave man to vote against secession, at a time when the state governments, the militias, and the police were already controlled by rebels. Generally, the poorer a southerner was, the more likely he was a Unionist and less likely he had the right to vote. Also, a third of southern men, the blacks, could not vote in the pre-Civil War South -- and they would have been solidly against secession -- so it is just wrong to claim that a majority of southerners favored secession.

[TexConfederate1861]

OK...the majority of ELIGIBLE voters voted FOR secession.

[mac_truck]

Generally, the poorer a southerner was, the more likely he was a Unionist and less likely he had the right to vote.

Very well said.

[M. Espinola]

"OK...the majority of ELIGIBLE voters voted FOR secession."

I am wondering based on an overall percentile, what percent of the population in Southern states were really eligible to actually vote in 1860-1861?

The real question should be did the general public cast their vote for secession from the United States of America - or the hand pick political hacks from the South's economic slave empire?

Some relevant cases in point.

The Red Strings

They favored peace, reunion, and the defeat of the Confederacy. They began early in the war as a group of Unionists and Quakers in the piedmont regions of North Carolina and Virginia where few slaves were.

Some estimate that by the war's end, as many as 10,000 people belonged to the Red Strings. They were comparably as disruptive to the Southern war effort as the treasonous Copperheads were to the Union.

After the war, they actively opposed the terrorist ex-Confederate group, the Ku Klux Klan.

The War Within the Confederacy: White Unionist of North Carolina

The South Vs. the South: How Anti-Confederate Southerners Shaped the Course of the Civil War

the thought of "not to fight the rich man's war for slavery" led to the ever-growing mass desertion of Confederate soldiers.

In retrospect the logical conclusion is the more vested interest in a slave based economy (profits) the demand for a separate slave empire was greater, therefore succession was the despicable seditionist order of the day.

In Southern state districts with negligible slavery, the general population resisted the Confederates, some very forcefully, such as in East Tennessee - and paid a very high price for attempting to remain loyal American citizens.

When today's 'neo-confederates' claim slavery had nothing to do with the origins of the Civil War the claim is nothing but a brazen lie, and they bloody well know it.

Abe Lincoln won the election of 1860 and the slaveocracy responded by triggering wholesale civil war by attacking U.S. military installations and U.S. Navy ships.

[Gianni]

Granny Lee sucked as a tactical commander ok? You want to tell me why you think I'm wrong [and hopefully provide some specific examples] fine,

Examples? How's about this: A great tactical commander inflicts a large body count and executes a specific battle with great efficiency. He lures his opponent into an untenable situation in which they are slaughtered. He inflicts loss of life to the tune of 50,000 men in a single campaign while suffering a relatively low casualty count within his own ranks.

A great strategic commander, like Grant, remains firm in will and doggedly pursues in light of his tactical shortcomings knowing that's what it's going to take to win the war. A great strategic commander takes the body count, at times retiring to his tent and sobbing uncontrollably while listening to the wailing of his troops as they're burned alive; but doesn't give up. Don't get me wrong, I think it's natural for a man to be a little over-emotional when he's drunk.

You can always hang your hat on the fact that he went on to preside over what many historians agree was the most corrupt administration in US history, I suppose.

but stop acting like you possess some superior intellect,

Parse our prior conversations, and look at who's hurling insults like a three-year-old. It's not an act.

[Gianni]

[mac] Fessacchione whose opinion smells like a baby's used diaper.

[Non] And you're proof that "Iowa" is an acronym.

A few little facts and a quote from a document can really push Ralph and Potsy beyond the realm of rational discussion.

[Gianni]

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.

Next time he gets a traffic ticket, he should simply explain that the Constitution does not allow states to implement or enforce such laws.

[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.

Sorry, this got lost in all the trash from Non & Mac.

I, of course, don't have to point to the abuse which was so egregious that it was equivalent to the dissolution of the entire constitution. The states themselves did that. Was it hinged on slavery? For the most part, yes. I won't disagree with that. Of course, that's not the point.

It is not my place to determine the level of abuse which is tolerable to someone else. Just because someone, somewhere, might enjoy being strapped to a chair and having their toes smashed with a hammer doesn't mean that I wouldn't find that to be intolerable abuse. Lincoln campaigned as the quintissential(sp?) sectional candidate - he was going to use a tarrif scheme to protect Northern interests and make the South pay. He was going to keep them out of the shared territory. The list goes on.

Be it for better or worse, bad people are protected by the law just as good people are. The Unionists on this thread would like to make it out that Southerners got everything they deserved because they were bad people, and so Lincoln & the republicans were justified in acting outside the bounds of the law.

Maybe they deserved their fate in a sort of "heaven and hell" big-picture scheme, but that's not how the law works here on planet Earth, at least not outside Cuba.

[Gianni]

If not for partial quotes, misquotes, and quotes out of context you southron types would have no quotes at all. The passage reads, "We the said Delegates in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia do by these presents assent to and ratify the Constitution recommended on the seventeenth day of September one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven by the Federal Convention for the Government of the United States hereby announcing to all those whom it may concern that the said Constitution is binding upon the said People according to an authentic Copy hereto annexed..."

They assent to and ratify the Constitution recommended by the convention, period.

What was that first line about partial quotes or misquotes? How can you follow that immediately with a partial quote, out of context? You call me an idiot?

BTW: Without the ratification of Virginia, the Constitution was not binding on her people. There would be no delegated powers to resume. So the only question is, did Virginia, by these presents assent to and ratify the Constitution?

[mac_truck]

A great tactical commander inflicts a large body count and executes a specific battle with great efficiency. He lures his opponent into an untenable situation in which they are slaughtered. He inflicts loss of life to the tune of 50,000 men in a single campaign while suffering a relatively low casualty count within his own ranks.

Hey Professor Cacasodo , I asked for some specifc examples and you provide a skewed and poorly drawn definition. Whatsa matter saputo, can't you provide an example of Granny Lee's tactical greatness? How about the Seven Days Battles in early 1862? [lol].

[stand watie]

actually that is PATENTLY FALSE!

please PROVE your assertion, if you can. fwiw, you CANNOT as it is COMPLETELY UNTRUE (aren't you well-read enough to know that that assertion is a LEFTIST/REVISIONIST apology for the DAMNyankees?)!

over 90% of dixie's forces had FAMILY GROSS ASSETS of LESS than (US) $25.00 in 1860.

ours was a PEASANT REVOLT (led by a handful of professional warriors like Lee & Jackson) against the northeastern elites. (THAT is the MAIN reason our side lost. PEASANT REVOLTS seldom if ever succeed. the ONLY one i can think of offhand that DID succeed was the REVOLT in ALGERIA, against the French.

free dixie,sw

[4CJ]

From your 348: Hey Stugots..Granny Lee sucked as a tactical commander ok? You want to tell me why you think I'm wrong [and hopefully provide some specific examples] fine, but stop acting like you possess some superior intellect, when all you really are is just another neo-confederate Fessacchione whose opinion smells like a baby's used diaper. Capisci?

I replied in 350: "from http://italian.about.com/library/slang: 'fessacchione/a n. a f*****g idiot; (lit.): big idiot.'"

I missed the Stugots which means 'testicles', or in the vernacular, 'numb-n**s'.

From your 396: "Hey Professor Cacasodo, I asked for some specifc examples and you provide a skewed and poorly drawn definition. Whatsa matter saputo, can't you provide an example of Granny Lee's tactical greatness?"

from http://italian.about.com/library/slang: 'cacasodo m./f. inv. an arrogant person, someone who thinks his/her s**t doesn't stink; (lit.): one who takes a hard s**t (from the verb cacare, meaning "to s**t" and the adjective sodo, meaning "tough" or "hard."

And 'saputo/a n. a know-it-all, a smart-a**"

Please continue, it demonstrates your IQ and hate quotient thoroughly. I'm curoius though, would you call Jim Robinson "chief", Tonto", or "fessacchione"?

[Colonel Kangaroo]

My traitor comment wasn't directed to the soldiers. It was directed to the Confederate government whose greatest wish would have a foreign army intervene and attack fellow Americans.

[Non-Sequitur]

A few little facts and a quote from a document can really push Ralph and Potsy beyond the realm of rational discussion.

But all you manage to do is ramble and wander and show little promise of ever being able to string two thoughts together, much less produce facts. But hey, "IOWA".