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.

[Heyworth]

Simple question, Watie, although I know you won't answer. If those steam traction engines were so practical, why weren't they adopted earlier, not just in the south but anywhere? Why was almost all plowing done by animal power until the first quarter of the 20th Century?

Oh, and as for your latest anecdote about seeing the 1851 Moline tractor, that's as much a barefaced lie as anything you've ever said. You see, the Moline Implement Company wasn't founded until 1868, as the Moline Plow Company, created by two guys who had formerly worked for John Deere. They made plows and other implements and didn't go into the tractor business until 1915, with the Moline-Universal tractor.

Really, Watie, you must try harder.

[mac_truck]

when are you going to DISAVOW the hate-FILLED, arrogant IGNORANCE & moronic parroting of the REVISIONIST, South-HATING AND freedom-HATING nonsense & propaganda (out of the most extreme LEFTIST fringe of northeastern academia...?

Stand, you're a good example of what too much peyote will do to someone's mind, even if taken as part of a religous ceremony. Have a multicolored day..

[PeaRidge]

"Where did I make that connection?

You first conjured it up and used it in 662 and continued to use it erroneously since then.

"Regardless of the source, you claimed $331 million out of $362 million total imports were destined for southern consumers. Your claim, not mine."

Get it through your head that it was your claim, and not mine. What I stated was that in 1860, the Southern states consumed $331 million in imports to show Grand Old whatever that this statement was wrong:

"Tariffs collected at southern ports were nil, because southern imports were nil."

611 posted on 09/27/2005 7:48:11 PM EDT by Grand Old Partisan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 603 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

[PeaRidge]

"I commend your patience with Pea Ridge."


Yes, and his reward will be that he will learn.

[PeaRidge]

Thanks for asking.

I like the data from the US Treasury. Each year the President included the Treasurer's report in his Message to the Congress. Those figures may not be that accurate since the report was given to Congress before the calendar year end, and does not completely agree with the Department's annual year end data. Add to that the fact that each President wanted to make a positive report, so sometimes the data was massaged.

In the Statistical History of the United States, available in your library, the data is given back to that period and is accurate Jan to Dec. US Treasury figures.

The best method of tracking down what was imported to where is by studying both the Treasury data and comparing that with US Census data, but few are going to go back to the Globe records of the President's messages or to the library and do the calculations.

If you want an accurate understanding then the point of collection tariff data thrown around has to be put aside and seen for what it is.....point of collection information but not in any way indicative of point of consumption.

As for sources the original figures of imports into the South for 1860 that I gave came from the Encarta encyclopedia.

Encarta 1860 data does not appear to be wrong. Referring to Thomas Kettell's work, his research said that in 1859, according to the trade data and the manufacturing data, that $240 million in domestic goods were sent South for consumption. He also stated that based on shipping receipts that $106 million in imported goods went South, either directly from Europe or trans-shipped from Northern ports. ("Southern Wealth and Northern Profits", Thomas P. Kettell, 1860, New York)

That gives a figure of $346 million in imported goods at the South, which is about what Encarta said about the imports in 1860.

[PeaRidge]

You were in the right place. You just didn't look hard enough. I see one of your pals found the report. Very good. Now what does it tell you?

[PeaRidge]

"Thanks, but I can't see anything about imports, broken down by region."

That is exactly right. Tariff collection data and general Treasury reports tell you virtually nothing. It has to be studied in detail.

"Pea Ridge would have us believe that while the South exported directly from New Orleans, Savannah, and other southern ports, it imported everything via ports in the North, then sent it all South by coastal steamer."

I said neither of those things. Actually it goes to show your willingness to support your fantasies

[PeaRidge]

"Thanks, but I can't see anything about imports, broken down by region."

That is exactly right. Tariff collection data and general Treasury reports tell you virtually nothing. It has to be studied in detail.

"Pea Ridge would have us believe that while the South exported directly from New Orleans, Savannah, and other southern ports, it imported everything via ports in the North, then sent it all South by coastal steamer."

I said neither of those things. Actually it goes to show your willingness to support your fantasies

[Heyworth]

Now wait a minute. On Friday you were saying that your statistics came from the Treasury report supplement to Buchanan's 1860 State of the Union address. You said, in post #692, "The information is in the US Treasury Report section of President Buchanan's Message and Documents also known as the State of the Union speech. It requires some research." Well, I pulled up that report, read it over and over, and can't find anything like the information you said it contained.

Now you're telling us that, well, those numbers are sometimes massaged and in any event you got it from Encarta article. Can you post the link to it for everyone to see?

[Heyworth]

That is exactly right. Tariff collection data and general Treasury reports tell you virtually nothing. It has to be studied in detail.

Then why did you tell us that the 1860 report was where we could find the information that you used?

[PeaRidge]

Well, thanks for begging the answer why some imports were not shipped directly.

The Warehousing Act of 1854 was passed by Congress. It said:

Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That all goods, wares, and merchandise, which may be hereafter duly entered for warehousing under bond, and likewise all merchandise [not] now remaining in warehouse under bond, may continue in warehouse, without payment of duties thereupon, for a period of three years from the date of original importation, and my be withdrawn for consumption on due entry and payment of duties and charges, or upon entry for exportation, without the payment of duties, at any time within the period aforesaid; in the latter case, the goods to be subject only to the payment of such storage and charges as may be due thereon: Provided, however, that where the duties shall have been paid upon any goods, wares, or merchandizes entered for consumption, said duties shall not be refunded on exportation of any such goods, wares, or merchandizes, without the limits of the United States: and provided further, That there shall be no abatement of the duties, or allowance made for any injury, damage, deterioration, loss or leakage sustained by any goods, wares, or merchandise, whilst deposited in any public or private bonded warehouse established or recognized by this act.

The Act was signed into law on February 28, 1854. The momentous importance of this was that importers could warehouse their goods for up to three years before paying the tariff.

That meant they could sell their goods to obtain the money needed to pay the tariff fees and then pay it upon removing the sold goods from the warehouse. This offered a vast savings in finance costs to the owner.

Another major advantage to the merchants was that the did not have to carry large sums of cash on hand to pay tariffs immediately after they dropped off their cargoes, which in turn made it easier to ship goods that had no immediate buyer waiting at the docks.

Congress created secure and duty-free enclaves under federal control in order to encourage merchants here and abroad to make use of American ports. It also meant that trading organizations could better deal with market fluctuations by withholding goods for sale until conditions improved.

New York became the warehousing center of the country because it had readily convertible facilities. Businessmen shipped across the Atlantic to New York, warehoused for up to three years, and then shipped out of New York warehouses up the coast and inland to all over the U.S.

With this act, Northern merchants sealed their dominance over the cotton trade.

[PeaRidge]

They were planning to make that change:

Harper's Weekly, February 9, 1861

A Southern Transatlantic Steam Line

We have reason to believe that negotiations are on foot which may lead to the establishment of a line of ocean steamers between Norfolk, Virginia, and Havre France, touching at New York going and coming.  The political troubles in the Southern States seem to have thrown obstacles in the way of the usual exports of cotton from Southern ports. 

Some of the leading planters and their financial agents have, consequently, begun to examine the facilities afforded by Northern ports for the export of the staple.

The advantages of New York as a shipping port naturally strike the eye at once.  We have the capital, the apparatus, the ships, the harbor, and the internal communications.

Cotton can be sent from points south of Memphis to Liverpool, via New York, about as cheaply as via New Orleans.  Such is the rivalry among our railroads, in fact, that if the trade became brisk perhaps this route would prove the cheapest.

But if Norfolk or Baltimore entered into the competition, they would enjoy advantages over New York,  By the Virginia and Tennessee Railroad, Norfolk is now in direct connection with Memphis.  If a line of steamers were established between Norfolk and Havre, they could rely upon a full cargo of cotton each trip eastward; and there is very reason to believe that they would come westward heavily freighted with French goods for New Orleans and St. Louis.

At present New York receives all the European freights for the Mississippi cities.  They could be imported more cheaply via Norfolk, if only a steam line were established to Norfolk.

Memphis being the distributing point for the Upper and Lower Mississippi.  We understand that arrangements have already been made with the Virginia and Tennessee Railroad, and with the Mississippi steamers, by which passengers and freight can be sent through from Havre to New Orleans or St. Louis, via the Virginia and Tennessee Railroad and the Mississipi River, at a considerable reduction from the present rate via New York.

The subject has been laid before the leading steamship men of this city and is now under consideration.  The chief difficulty in the was seems to be the doubt whether Virginia will be a member of the Federal Union at the time matters are ready for the establishment of the ocean service.  If Virginia goes out of the Union, steamship proprietors apprehend difficulties about clearances, and foreign alliances, which might seriously interfere with the success of the enterprise.  Their apprehensions may be gratuitous; but capital is proverbially timid.  If it were certain that Virginia and Tennessee were going to remain in the Union, we think it morally certain, from what we know, that the transatlantic line from Norfolk would be in operation by the 1st of April next.

[PeaRidge]

And shocking how much Chinese imports are consumed in San Diego.

[PeaRidge]

You persist in mis-stating what I said. I said that the South consumed $331 million in imports. You are assuming that $331 came from overseas. All of it did not. So get your facts right.

[PeaRidge]

"according to Pea Ridge imports by southern whites were at least 50 times per capita the imports of northerners in 1860."

That is not my statement. You bring nothing to the table when you misrepresent what is being stated.

"As is obvious, southern tariff revenue was less than 10% of total tariff revenue."

And your source for that?

"fool us into believing that a need for southern tariff revenues was one of President Lincoln's reasons for opposing the Confederacy."

Abraham Lincoln, first inaugural address:

“The power confided in me will be used to hold, occupy and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and impost but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion—no using force against or among the people anywhere”.

[stand watie]

as usual, you have zilch OF IMPORTANCE to say.

free dixie,sw

[The Sons of Liberty]

Virginia by its own choice, was not part of the United States.

Lincoln always contended that the Confederate States were "in rebellion" but still part of the United States. That's why he refused to allow the number of stars on the flag to be reduced.

[stand watie]

of course lincoln , the TYRANT & GREAT spiller of innocent blood, said that the CSA didn't exist & that the union had not been "sundered". tyrants ALWAYS have excuses for their tyranny!

he possibly convinced most of the 1/2-wits in the north & all of the morons today, who worship at the feet of ST ABRAHAM the UNjust, the clay-footed, secular, saint of DAMNyankeeland.

others are NOT that DIMWITTED & recognize DIShonest abe for what he demonstrably was: a CHEAP, SCHEMING politician, of exactly the same sort as wee willie klintoon.

free dixie,sw

[PeaRidge]

That provides the overall tariff which is important. The full report gives the imports by location such as this for Memphis:

http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moajrnl;cc=moajrnl;sid=bfa205cbea8ab087a83b03ff362bcdf6;rgn=full%20text;idno=acg1336.1-31.005;view=image;seq=0358

Adding the totals gives the imports South per year.

[PeaRidge]

That provides the overall tariff which is important. The full report gives the imports by location such as this for Memphis:

http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moajrnl;cc=moajrnl;sid=bfa205cbea8ab087a83b03ff362bcdf6;rgn=full%20text;idno=acg1336.1-31.005;view=image;seq=0358

Adding the totals gives the imports South per year.