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.
Not at all. But your larger point behind this discussion was that Lincoln's interest was primarily in collecting the tariff. I never suggested that the south didn't import anything, I did, however, have a hard time accepting the Encarta numbers which you presented to show that the south did, indeed, import a great deal--ten times the imports with a quarter the population. After much back and forth and condescension from you, some more realistic numbers were finally represented from Kettell (and I'm sorry, I neither have the time nor the committment to an internet argument to go to the library to dig for this stuff myself. Mea culpa, but thanks). Those numbers for European imports which you present in post #837 show a total for European imports in 1859 of $317 million, with $106 million consumed by the south, still a disproportionate amount on a per capita basis, but n ot as jaw-dropping as a 10/1 difference. I note, however, that you say in #837, "Referring again to the imports of 1859 of $317 million, and if they were distributed in the same proportion, then Southern consumption would be $106,000,000; for Western $63,000,000; and for the North $149,000,000. " But those aren't the same proportions. In the 1850 numbers the south consumes 26%, the west 21% and the north 52%. In the "same proportion" 1859 numbers, the south consumes 33%, the west 19%, and the north 47%.Again it appears that numbers are being massaged to make a political point.
But be all that as it may, while I'm a little annoyed by the condescension you've exhibited throughout this exchange, I'm ultimately appreciative. While I don't agree with the larger points you try to make, I've learned a great deal and for that, sir, I thank you. But I think we've reached the end of this particular road. So I'll just concede to you that, yes, the south imported stuff from overseas. They even imported a somewhat disproportionate amount per capita.
But time and again you've also tied this argument to your larger one about the evil yankee capitalists, factors, middlemen, shipping interests and the rest who were intent on economically subjugating the south. You've talked about Warehousing Acts, Navigation Acts, and more. So I go off to learn more about those subjects. But what I find doesn't support what you claim they do. It only supports that the south didn't care to spend its capital on other things (imported luxury goods, perhaps) than on ships and harbor improvements.
Finally, if the south was being so persecuted by the northern business interests, why were 60% of the "wealthiest men" in the south? And why was southern per capita income almost double that of the north and growing 30% faster?
"I never suggested that the south didn't import anything, I did, however, have a hard time accepting the Encarta numbers which you presented to show that the south did, indeed, import a great deal--ten times the imports with a quarter the population."
Why would you be surprised that the South imported large numbers of product? Some around here think that the data, showing a large value in consumable imports headed South, somehow leads to the conclusion that the data should be in doubt. Greater imports means greater demand for goods not readily available at home...nothing else.
It also reveals the arrogant bias in some that think the South did not have the money to pay for imports, which of course was not true.
"After much back and forth and condescension from you"
That is right. Do you know how arrogant your opinions were?
"some more realistic numbers were finally represented from Kettell (and I'm sorry, I neither have the time nor the commitment to an internet argument to go to the library to dig for this stuff myself. Mea culpa, but thanks)."
I don't know if you want to use the word 'realistic' in referring to the numbers. What you were given was an understanding of the origin of the data to which you could relate and verify. With that, perhaps they sounded more believable to you.
"Those numbers for European imports which you present in post #837 show a total for European imports in 1859 of $317 million, with $106 million consumed by the south, still a disproportionate amount on a per capita basis"
It is only 'disproportionate' if you believe that consumption had to be equal in all areas. The availability of shovels varied from section to section. So did turpentine, flax, coal and everything else on the list of imports.
"...but not as jaw-dropping as a 10/1 difference."
I think you fell for that post of non-sequitur's that led you to infer that. He took the Encarta data, incorrectly added it up, took and averaged it, compared it to population and threw out the bombastic post. It was designed to make the data seem fallacious when it was his misrepresentation that was so obviously fallacious...on purpose I might add.
"I note, however, that you say in #837, "Referring again to the imports of 1859 of $317 million, and if they were distributed in the same proportion, then Southern consumption would be $106,000,000; for Western $63,000,000; and for the North $149,000,000. " But those aren't the same proportions. In the 1850 numbers the south consumes 26%, the west 21% and the north 52%. In the "same proportion" 1859 numbers, the south consumes 33%, the west 19%, and the north 47%.Again it appears that numbers are being massaged to make a political point."
You just don't miss an opportunity to try to make yourself right, do you. There were two ways that the data could be extrapolated...first, by simple dollar averaging. But of course you do realize that all products do not inflate at the same rate, and that that type of averaging would be misleading.
Kettell took the US Treasury data which gave both the measured amounts of goods and their dollar value. His distribution figures were in pounds, hogsheads, bales, boxes, kegs, carriage loads, whatever.
When he made his calculations, he extrapolated measured consumption, not dollar increases. The percent consumption for the two comparisons would have been x number of pounds of sugar compared with y number of pounds of sugar...not dollars.
"But be all that as it may, while I'm a little annoyed by the condescension you've exhibited throughout this exchange, I'm ultimately appreciative. While I don't agree with the larger points you try to make, I've learned a great deal and for that, sir, I thank you."
And to you sir, thank you for your willingness to engage and discuss. But of course I have not appreciated your arrogance.
"But I think we've reached the end of this particular road. So I'll just concede to you that, yes, the south imported stuff from overseas. They even imported a somewhat disproportionate amount per capita."
As I have said, disproportionate consumption is a function of supply and demand, nothing else.
"But time and again you've also tied this argument to your larger one about the evil yankee capitalists, factors, middlemen, shipping interests and the rest who were intent on economically subjugating the south."
I don't think I used the word "evil". Competition was intense and eventually good for all. When government laws are established that favor one people or one section over the other, that is not only unfair, it was abusive.
"You've talked about Warehousing Acts, Navigation Acts, and more."
Yes, I did, in response to questions from others.
"So I go off to learn more about those subjects."
Good.
"But what I find doesn't support what you claim they do."
I do not understand that sentence?
"...the south didn't care to spend its capital on other things (imported luxury goods, perhaps) than on ships and harbor improvements."
Somehow, I knew you would come around to arrogant bashing again.
Let me give you an example again of what you don't know. In the earlier post on Charleston, you cut and pasted a quote from an author, P. C. Coker.
He wrote a book entitled "Charleston's Maritime Heritage", and you pasted a paragraph from that book.
Interestingly enough, elsewhere in the same book, he tells of the improvements in the harbor....particularly of a major dredging project that concluded in 1860.
It was massive, and designed to develop a channel in the harbor to handle the newest and largest deep draft ocean going freighters.
So, your contention:
"...the south didn't care to spend its capital on other things (imported luxury goods, perhaps) than on ships and harbor improvements."
...is not only factually incorrect, but really arrogant bashing, Sir.
"Finally, if the south was being so persecuted by the northern business interests, why were 60% of the "wealthiest men" in the south? And why was southern per capita income almost double that of the north and growing 30% faster."
I think you just made the case and gave proof to Grand Old and everybody else that the South was capable of massive import consumption.
Nowhere did Lincoln say in his first inaugural that collecting the tariff was his "primary" interest. That's your commentary and not his. In the same sentence he mentioned that he'd also hold on to US government property, so shelling a United States fort and preventing supplies have as much weight as tariff collection. He also said that he'd continue mail service, so you could just as easily infer that the war was fought to force the south to accept the U.S. mail.
Why would you be surprised that the South imported large numbers of product? Some around here think that the data, showing a large value in consumable imports headed South, somehow leads to the conclusion that the data should be in doubt.
I wasn't surprised that the south would import large amounts of goods. I was, however, surprised by the Encarta numbers you presented which appeared to show that the south imported ten times more than the north. Of course you now admit that the northern numbers are flawed.
With that, perhaps they sounded more believable to you.
No, when the south's foreign imports composed something more like a 25-30% of the US total as opposed to 90%, they sounded more believable.
When government laws are established that favor one people or one section over the other, that is not only unfair, it was abusive.
So please explain to me how these laws favored the north in ways that they couldn't have equally favored southern interests, had the south bothered to build ships and warehouses. I think Coker makes a valid point that the south chose to expend their capital on expanding their agricultural production instead of on ships. So why do they then complain that they're being taken advantage of by northern shippers? Frankly it seems very akin to the sorts of complaints lodged against Jews, the same sort of economic conspiracy theory to make someone feel better about their lack of business acumen.
It was massive, and designed to develop a channel in the harbor to handle the newest and largest deep draft ocean going freighters.
So that southern complaint, presumably, had been addressed. Now if they'd taken the responsibility of building their own ships and warehouses, the rest of these complaints you enumerate would have been equally addressed.
As Lincoln also said in the first inaugural, "Will you hazard so desperate a step while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence?"
Spare us the condescending Tommy DiLorenzo "Economics for Dummies" school of theory. I've taken economics courses and the graduate and undergraduate levels, I'm just as conversent in it as you are, but I don't make the same stretch that you do. I know what economies of scale are, and about the only application it might have to your arguement is to explain why it made no financial sense to send imports directly to southern consumers since there was so little demand for them. I've read the Warehousing Acts and I laugh every time you guys trot it out because your twisting it to suit your agenda makes no sense at all. I know that, theoretically, open markets benefit everyone but I also know that tariffs fall equally on those who purchase the taxed goods regardless of location. And I also know that there was no mechanization that would help the southern farmers, and wouldn't be for another 100 years. So back off.
Your problem is that we all recognize the diffence between information and BS. That's why we question your posts.
Maintenance of slavery was not the main issue dividing North and South in 1860, expansion of slavery was. There was a big difference.
Jefferson Davis, the top 'Confederate' shared the same despotic beliefs as his number two man Alexander Stephens, even though both of them bickered with each other over issues of intero-'Confederate' power. If you honestly stated Stephens belief's were misguided, how then can you declare any support for the 'Confederate cause'
Sort of.
The ability for slaveowners to expand their empire (as Messpinola/et al keep insisting) had been there for some time, yet what happened? Nothing of significance. Slaves in the west were a rarity. Allmost all of the reasons for war seem to be driven more by fiery rhetoric than by a desire to actually carry slavery westward.
Now, understand that there's a huge difference between "not wanting" to do something, and "being prevented from" doing something. The latter makes you a second-class citizen in your own country. Once you've achieved that status, it's probably easy to start looking for other abuses (tariff, infrastructure investment, etc) and convince yourself that you've had enough.
Regardless, motivation for doing something has no bearing on whether or not the right to do so exists.
Motivation for doing something has no bearing on whether or not the right to do so exists.
You are changing the subject again. Have you conceded the points that a. the South was a heavy importer, b. that point of entry tells us nothing about who pays tariffs and c. and that consumption data is based on supply and demand?
It's called "Acute Neo-Confederate-Cultitis" (ANCC). Treatable with heavy doses of facts & truth.
The problems is those in the advanced stages of self inflicted (ANCC) have built up immunities regarding the known cure of obvious truth & historical facts.
No, I haven't. I've seen you say that navigation laws and warehousing acts had the effect of benefiting the north, and I'll agree, but only because the north had ships and warehouses. There's nothing in the text of the laws that wouldn't have equally benefitted southern shippers and warehouses, had they existed in comparable numbers. You can't show me an actual sectional favoritism in the text of the laws.
Coker was commenting on Charleston. Picture was quite different elsewhere.
What does that mean, that the south had plenty of ships and facilities? Then what was the problem?
And you miss the really important point that now Charleston would be able to handle the deep draft ocean going ships that would open direct trade to that port. This was a threat to New York and Philly.
So why was New York so sympathetic to southern secession? I'd think Fernando Wood would have been calling for the immediate invasion of the south if that had been the case.
It was the unfair treatment under the laws that was the problem
Please show me what was unfair to the south in the laws that couldn't have been solved by the south building their own ships and port facilities.
And finally, is there a single Declaration of Secession that mentions tariffs or warehousing acts or navigation acts? South Carolina's doesn't, although it mentions slavery over and over.
Cherry picked quotes don't prove your thesis that tariff collection was Lincoln's primary interest. They only show it was one of them. How many quotes do you suppose I could find showing that Lincoln's interest was in maintaining the Union, or holding on to forts like Sumter and which never mention tariff collection?
Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles later writes, "There would seem to have been a deliberate purpose to render the Sumter expedition -- the first of the war -- abortive; to prevent the garrison from receiving supplies; to compel Major Anderson to surrender and evacuate the fort; for every step taken, every measure adopted, was met and thwarted by counteracting measures, most of them secret, emanating from or sanctioned by the President, who was unsuspectingly made to defeat his own orders and purposes."
To some, it's obvious who started the war.
The first figure he gives is export data from 7/1860 to 6/1861. Does he bother to admit the obvious that no Southern goods were departing from US Customs houses as of the middle of that period, thus rendering any comparative analysis invalid? No.
Next thing he says is that the data is from "incomplete returns".
The Hell it was not "incomplete" data at all. He pulled it right out of the US Treasury Report.
Then he wants to compare that data to tallies he says come from the states. He throws out a total for the Confederacy but adds that no figures were available from some states and uses the incomplete data phrase again.
This guy is not only using the wrong data, he knows he is.
His Export number of $249 million is in the first column of a table in section U, page 207, of the Historical Statistics of the United States.
Right above it, it makes it ABUNDANTLY clear to the reader that this number is total exports of merchandise that includes the value of the specie that was being sent to Europe. It also says plainly that this number also includes goods from Central and South America that are being re-exported to Europe via American ports.
And right beside the number he chose is the number without the specie and re-exports...RIGHT IN FRONT OF HIS EYES Any experienced historian would know that...any clod would know the same.
He is comparing apples with oranges. The real number for merchandise exports that year, less specie and re-exports was $205 million, a number 20% lower than the number he quoted, but obviously good for making a favorable point.
It is again unreliable for comparison because it only includes about half a year's data on Southern production.
So the "historian" is being very deceitful.
He wanted to use the data to show that the productions of the South were "far behind their Northern bordeer-state brethren."
Well, let's look at a full year's data on exports using the merchandise figures only and see how far behind the South was. This data is from the exact same document he was using:
U. S. Department of Commerce, International Transactions and Foreign Commerce.
Agricultural Production of the South for calendar year 1859.
Cotton: .....................$161,434,000
Tobacco: .....................$21,074,000
Rice:.......................... 2,207,000
Naval stores ...................3,694,000
Sugar ............................196,000
Molasses ..........................75,699
Hemp ...............................9,227
Other ..........................8,108,000
................................___________
.......................Total $196,797,926
Value of Southern manufactured Cotton exports
............................$4,989,000
Value of cotton component of Northern Manufactured cotton exports(assuming a 60%value) .........................$3,669,000
..................................___________
..................................$205,455,926
This is the total of Southern produced products for export as well as the value of Southern produced raw materials used in Northern exports.
Percentage of Southern Production to the total US exports for 1859 of
$278,392,000 was 74%.
Thus it is seen that from the US Treasury tables that the Southern states contribution to the value of exports for that year is 74%.
That is a vastly greater number than our "historian" comes up with.
It really demonstrates how totally biased some of these people are.
i IGNORE him totally, unless i'm pinged (the FIRST TIME only) by someone else with/about him, who doesn't know he's shunned.
since i SHUNNED him months ago, i DO NOT & HAVE NOT read ANYTHING he posted to me & do NOT plan to. (with the singular exception noted above, he does NOT exist.)
everyone makes certain decisions in this life. mine in this case is FINAL & IRREVOCABLE. i have a LIFE & i do NOT have time for or suffer fools/haters gladly.
free dixie,sw
How dare you suggest that Southern gentlemen actually take responsibility for this sort of enterprise. Why that would require...hard work, sweat, and mingling with mud-sills. Not to mention, skill and ingenuity...
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.