Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lincoln holiday on its way out (West Virginia)
West Virginia Gazette Mail ^ | 9-8-2005 | Phil Kabler

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.


TOPICS: Government; US: West Virginia
KEYWORDS: abelincoln; lincoln; sorrydemocrats; westvirginia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 451-500501-550551-600 ... 1,401-1,437 next last
To: Grand Old Partisan
"The Lincoln administration did not destroy any presses, but some editors were arrested for...acts of sedition."

Is 'sedition' a synonym for telling the truth?

"Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity (Fort Sumter) to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor." …Providence Daily Post, April 13 1861

"We are to have civil war, if at all, because Abraham Lincoln loves a [the Republican] party better than he loves his country.... [He] clings to his party creed, and allows the nation to drift into the whirlpool of destruction."…The Providence Daily Post, April 13 1861

"If this result follows – and follow civil war it must – the memory of ABRAHAM LINCOLN and his infatuated advisors will only be preserved with that of other destroyers to the scorned and execrated.... And if the historian who preserves the record of his fatal administration needs any motto descriptive of the president who destroyed the institutions which he swore to protect, it will probably be some such as this:

Here is the record of one who feared more to have it said that he deserted his party than that he ruined the country, who had a greater solicitude for his consistency as a partisan than for his wisdom as a Statesman or his courage and virtue as a patriot, and who destroyed by his weakness the fairest experiment of man in self-government that the world ever witnessed."

…The American Standard, New Jersey, April 12, 1861, the very day the South moved to reclaim Fort Sumter.

"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy.... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished." ……The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861.

"We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.... We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding.... Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it. …The New York Evening Day-Book, April 17, 1861.
501 posted on 09/25/2005 6:59:52 AM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 496 | View Replies]

To: dljordan
Lincoln either directly closed the newspapers, or instructed the US Mail not to deliver the papers of the establishments he personally opposed.

"You will take possession by military force, of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce... and prohibit any further publication thereof... you are therefore commanded forthwith to arrest and imprison in any fort or military prison in your command, the editors, proprietors and publishers of the aforesaid newspapers... and you will hold the persons so arrested in close custody until they can be brought to trial before a military commission."

Order from Lincoln to General John A. Dix, May 18, 1864, on the establishment of his military dictatorship over the First Amendment.

There are some on this thread that will take immediate offense to the term "dictatorship". To make all of a group (editors, proprietors, publishers) criminally responsible for the constitutionally guaranteed right of free speech of a few is nothing less than dictatorial.
502 posted on 09/25/2005 7:18:50 AM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 475 | View Replies]

To: Gianni; Colonel Kangaroo
I'm curious, ... do you consider Patrick Henry a traitor as well?

Your bilious editorializing aside, the answer is no.

"The first thing I have at heart is American liberty; the second thing is American union; and I hope the people of Virginia will endeavor to preserve that union." -Patrick Henry June 5 1788

503 posted on 09/25/2005 8:57:58 AM PDT by mac_truck (Aide toi et dieu l’aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 495 | View Replies]

To: Gianni
I'm always dissapointed when your only resonse is a childish insult, but understand that it's in keeping with your character.

My responses are in keeping with the quality of your posts.

504 posted on 09/25/2005 9:05:12 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 498 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge
Thank you for your post. I've been very busy the last few days and haven't had time to look anything up. I remember reading a book on the BOR that went into it in some detail and remember specifically a passage that referred to Fed troops breaking up a printing press and hauling the editor off to military prison. We go back and forth and on and on about the unCivil war but all we know is filtered through our perceptions and those that wrote the original accounts.
505 posted on 09/25/2005 9:55:38 AM PDT by dljordan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 502 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
sadly for YOU, the book ANNALS of OLD MISSOURI, published by the State Historian's Office of MO, lists the COMMON CRIMES for which each of the RAPISTS/ROBBERS/ARSONISTS/PEDOPHILES/TORTURERS were GUILTY of committing. EACH & EVERY one of the THUGS on the "kill lists" is NAMED. NOBODY who was NOT named on the list was killed or even injured. (fwiw, i believe you KNOW that, but cannot, as the Damnyankee Minister of PROPAGANDA, admit what you KNOW is TRUTHFUL!)

as for your VULGAR language, i expected MORE of you, as you're the only one of the DAMNEDyankee coven who has the education & IQ to know/DO BETTER.

PITY that you just don't care which LADY or CHILD you offend.(fwiw, i'd look for a note from the admin. mod. if i were you. i warned you before that "duckie", for just ONE decent lady, was offended. she is NOT alone.)

free dixie,sw

506 posted on 09/25/2005 11:44:39 AM PDT by stand watie (being a damnyankee is no better than being a racist. it is a LEARNED prejudice against dixie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 484 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
actually, i NEVER said that, LIAR!

what i said was that the State Historian's Office of MARYLAND says that "drowning was the MOST COMMON means of MURDERING helpless rebel POWs at Point Lookout Prisoner of War Camp" (emphasis: MINE).

POWs were also:

1.shot without cause

2.bludgeoned with rifle butts & clubs

3.bayoneted (sometimes "just for fun")

4.intentionally exposed to the elements until they died of exposure

5.intentionally starved to death

6. denied clothing & needed medical care, that would have preserved their lives.

in short, PLPOWC was DACHAU IN AMERICA, though it was NO WORSE than HELLmira (Elmira), NY or Camp Douglas, IL.

SADLY, for you & the rest of the coven of LIARS,fools, idiots, racists & wierdos "who defend the INDEFENSIBLE", the ACTUAL RECORDS still exist of over 15,000 persons who were admitted to PLPOWC, who were neither transferred, escaped,released on parole, died of natural causes/wounds or "administratively dealt with" (one wonders what THAT PHRASE means???).

FACTS, as RWR used to say, are FACTS!

free dixie,sw

507 posted on 09/25/2005 11:57:05 AM PDT by stand watie (being a damnyankee is no better than being a racist. it is a LEARNED prejudice against dixie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 485 | View Replies]

To: M. Espinola
you are NOT, evidently, smart enough to KNOW what the TRUTH IS.

perhaps Leeza is correct & you are so "mentally challenged" that i shouldn't pick on you. (she says it's NOT NICE to pick on mentally challenged people.)

free dixie,sw

508 posted on 09/25/2005 11:59:35 AM PDT by stand watie (being a damnyankee is no better than being a racist. it is a LEARNED prejudice against dixie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 488 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo
are you REALLY DUMB ENOUGH to believe that ignorant BILGE??

OR, are you just being a little TROLL?

free dixie,sw

509 posted on 09/25/2005 12:01:35 PM PDT by stand watie (being a damnyankee is no better than being a racist. it is a LEARNED prejudice against dixie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 492 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo
SORRY, but the AOC expired with the adoption of the Constitution. even if the AOC did make the union "permanent", such a prohibition expired with the Articles.

PITY that you don't know that.

free dixie,sw

510 posted on 09/25/2005 12:03:22 PM PDT by stand watie (being a damnyankee is no better than being a racist. it is a LEARNED prejudice against dixie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 493 | View Replies]

To: M. Espinola
you aren't (JUST based on just post # 494) smart enough to be a FReeper. be gone to DU & be one of the brighter DU-dummies.

you will be warmly welcomed over there. they will even cheer you RACIST posts about AmerIndians & our culture.

free dixie,sw

511 posted on 09/25/2005 12:05:50 PM PDT by stand watie (being a damnyankee is no better than being a racist. it is a LEARNED prejudice against dixie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 494 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan
can you PROVE ANY of that BILGE & DAMNyankee PROPAGANDA???

i think NOT!

free dixie,sw

512 posted on 09/25/2005 12:07:05 PM PDT by stand watie (being a damnyankee is no better than being a racist. it is a LEARNED prejudice against dixie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 496 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
sadly for YOU, the book ANNALS of OLD MISSOURI, published by the State Historian's Office of MO, lists the COMMON CRIMES for which each of the RAPISTS/ROBBERS/ARSONISTS/PEDOPHILES/TORTURERS were GUILTY of committing. EACH & EVERY one of the THUGS on the "kill lists" is NAMED. NOBODY who was NOT named on the list was killed or even injured. (fwiw, i believe you KNOW that, but cannot, as the Damnyankee Minister of PROPAGANDA, admit what you KNOW is TRUTHFUL!

Then post your proof. And you might want to quote from a book that actually exists.

as for your VULGAR language, i expected MORE of you, as you're the only one of the DAMNEDyankee coven who has the education & IQ to know/DO BETTER.

My lapse in language is a direct result of the outrageous nature of your damned lies and slander. Not a single thing you have said about any of the innocent victims of Quantrill's horde bears any remote resemblance to the truth. Not a bit.

PITY that you just don't care which LADY or CHILD you offend.(fwiw, i'd look for a note from the admin. mod. if i were you. i warned you before that "duckie", for just ONE decent lady, was offended. she is NOT alone.)

The pity is that you're total lack of respect for, or understanding of the truth. No lie is too big for you to throw out there so long as it supports your moronic southron agenda.

513 posted on 09/25/2005 1:41:00 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 506 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
what i said was that the State Historian's Office of MARYLAND says that "drowning was the MOST COMMON means of MURDERING helpless rebel POWs at Point Lookout Prisoner of War Camp" (emphasis: MINE).

Have you no shame whatsoever? Do you ever look back at the sheer nonsense you post and cringe? You build one lie on top of another, one outrageous tale on top of another outrageous tale, and you expect any of us to take you seriously? My God, man! What ever are you thinking?

514 posted on 09/25/2005 1:43:01 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 507 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
"you aren't (JUST based on just post # 494) smart enough to be a FReeper. be gone to DU & be one of the brighter DU-dummies."

"Things wouldn't be the same without Stand's daily words of wisdom" :)

515 posted on 09/25/2005 2:05:37 PM PDT by M. Espinola (Freedom is never free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 511 | View Replies]

To: mac_truck
Your bilious editorializing aside, the answer is no.

Your interruption aside, I didn't ask you... psycho.

I figured you were busy enough, still trying to develop some period refutation of the Virginia ratification or evidence of Lee's incompetence in planning the 7 Days battle.

516 posted on 09/26/2005 3:28:34 AM PDT by Gianni
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 503 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
My responses are in keeping with the quality of your posts.

that, and oh - there's no way to really keep on with the assertion that Virginia did not have the right to leave the Union.

WE the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected, in pursuance of a recommendation of the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and fairly investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation will enable us to decide thereon,DO, in the name and on behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known, that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby, remains with them, and at their will: That therefore no right, of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by the Congress, by the Senate, or House of Representatives, acting in any capacity, by the President, or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances where power is given by the Constitution for those purposes:

Accepted by Hamilton, Madison, the Conteninental Congress, et al as "unconditional," meaning, "Yeah, that's what the Constitution says."

Always a party with you and little_mac. What are you two gonna call me next?

517 posted on 09/26/2005 3:32:13 AM PDT by Gianni
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 504 | View Replies]

To: Gianni
Why not continue? The ratification document went on to say:

"With these impressions with a solemn appeal to the Searcher of hearts for the purity of our intentions and under the conviction that whatsoever imperfections may exist in the Constitution ought rather to be examined in the mode prescribed therein than to bring the Union into danger by a delay with a hope of obtaining Amendments previous to the Ratification, 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 in the Words following..."

Nowhere in the Constitution does it allow a state to resume powers granted to the federal government. The people who wrote the ratification document may have thought so, but they were mistaken in their belief. Unless, of course, you're maintaining that the ratification document trumps the Constitution?

What are you two gonna call me next?

Oh the possibilities are endless, and will depend on what you post next.

518 posted on 09/26/2005 4:21:02 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 517 | View Replies]

To: M. Espinola
Any 'real' American in 2005 would never seek to destroy the Union of the United States. Anyone who would should been seen a doctor or the FBI.

Secession did not destroy the union - the remaining members carried on as before. But, forgetting about 2005, what about 1788 or 1789? If a founder stood an announced to all present in convention, that 'if we are unsatisfied with the proposed [national] government, we can renounce it, this is an additional safeguard to our state', would you consider them to be a crackpot? What if they stated that 'a power remains with the state until it is delegated'? Is that gentleman a lunatic? Are they insane?

519 posted on 09/26/2005 6:57:51 AM PDT by 4CJ (Tu ne cede malis!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 494 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan
The Lincoln administration did not destroy any presses, but some editors were arrested for conspiring with the Confederates, appealing for desertions from the U.S. Army and for draft-evasion, and other acts of sedition. President Bush would today deal the same way with traitors.

Yes, our jails are full of the likes of Cindy Sheehan, Senators Kennedy and Boxer, Jesse Jackson, the editors of the New York Times etc. </sarcarm>

520 posted on 09/26/2005 7:01:23 AM PDT by 4CJ (Tu ne cede malis!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 496 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge

Bump. Excellent post.


521 posted on 09/26/2005 7:04:34 AM PDT by 4CJ (Tu ne cede malis!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 501 | View Replies]

To: mac_truck
"The first thing I have at heart is American liberty; the second thing is American union; and I hope the people of Virginia will endeavor to preserve that union." -Patrick Henry June 5 1788

'Nay, sir, there is another alternative to which I would consent; even that they should strike us out of the Union' - Patrick Henry, 5 Jun 1788. The very same DAY.

522 posted on 09/26/2005 7:10:38 AM PDT by 4CJ (Tu ne cede malis!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 503 | View Replies]

To: Gianni
I figured you were busy enough, still trying to develop some period refutation of the Virginia ratification

No refutation is needed, period or otherwise. The Virginia ratification could have included an assertion that the moon was made of green cheese for all the binding effect it would have on the rest of the States. Only a document signed by ALL the parties, is binding upon them all. That document was the U.S. Constitution, NOT the Virginia ratification.

..or evidence of Lee's incompetence in planning the 7 Days battle.

No, I was waiting for you to describe Lee's brilliance as a tactician during those battles, perhaps informing us in which battle you felt Lee particularly excelled. Instead I find you're shifting your position on Lee from brilliant tactical commander to competent battle planner without too much input from my side. Why you retreat almost as well as ol Granny himself [lol].


523 posted on 09/26/2005 7:45:27 AM PDT by mac_truck (Aide toi et dieu l’aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 516 | View Replies]

To: 4CJ
'Nay, sir, there is another alternative to which I would consent; even that they should strike us out of the Union' - Patrick Henry, 5 Jun 1788. The very same DAY.

Same day, same speech, same paragraph therein. [Anti Federalist 34]

The only difference being the intellectual dishonesty with which you cherry-picked his words. I would expect nothing less from a neo-secessionist, or a scoundrel.

524 posted on 09/26/2005 8:22:57 AM PDT by mac_truck (Aide toi et dieu l’aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 522 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur; All
don't you WISH that anyone (with the exception of the most DIM-witted members of the damnyankee coven of FOOLS,wierdos, revisionists,racists & lunatics) believes you???

the book cited exists. as you KNOW from a previous communication almost a year ago between you & me on this forum.

face it, N-S, everyone here is on to your game. all you do is post PROPAGANDA that ATTEMPTS to cover-up the ABUSES & WAR CRIMES of the lincoln administration & blame EVERYTHING that ever went wrong since the beginning of time on the CSA.

free dixie,sw

525 posted on 09/26/2005 8:29:21 AM PDT by stand watie (being a damnyankee is no better than being a racist. it is a LEARNED prejudice against dixie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 513 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
in other words you admit you LIED about what i said & are trying UNSUCESSFULLY to change the subject???

freee dixie,sw

526 posted on 09/26/2005 8:30:29 AM PDT by stand watie (being a damnyankee is no better than being a racist. it is a LEARNED prejudice against dixie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 514 | View Replies]

To: M. Espinola; All
once more, your posting of SILLY cartoons & NON-relevant BILGE exposes you as a DUNCE.

be gone to DU.

free dixie,sw

527 posted on 09/26/2005 9:03:28 AM PDT by stand watie (being a damnyankee is no better than being a racist. it is a LEARNED prejudice against dixie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 515 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
if we are to believe the outrageous wartime PROPAGANDA that you spout, EVERYTHING ever done since the beginning of the republic was the fault of the CSA & everything done by the coven of thugs & cheap, scheming CRIMINALS of the "lincoln MIS-adminstration" was PERFECT in every way.

UNfortunately for you the FACTS do not support your version of the events at Lawrence. the PUNITIVE RAID on Lawrence was caused ONLY by the documented fact that MANY redlegs, jayhawkers & "Kansas volunteer cavalry" PREYED ON the peaceful citizens of IT, AR, MO AND upon many citizens of Kansas as well. they were just gangs of COMMON CRIMINALS, who were intentionally NOT PROSECUTED by the KS state government.

WELL-settled international laws of war allow PUNITIVE EXPEDITIONS to punish criminals, when the area where they reside CANNOT or WILL NOT punish those violators. there is nothing more or less to the situation at Lawrence than that.

btw,on the day of the punitive raid on Lawrence, COL James Lane was off raiding farms in KANSAS with his "5th KS volunteers" (COL Lane was a sitting US SENATOR from KS at that time!). COL "Doc" Jennison was in Missouri, with his band of thugs, raiding farms. BOTH of those "redleg leaders" were engaged in "war for fun & profit". that, too, is FACT.

also,the TRUTH is that the lincoln coven INTENTIONALLY attempted to HIDE the MANY THOUSANDS of murders, robberies,arsons of otherwise innocent civilians & helpless CSA POWs, as well as ABUSES of citizens rights by the unionist THUGS before, during & all throughout lincoln's reign.

fwiw, there is no enough soap & water in all creation to wash the innocent blood of THOUSANDS of the DEFENSELESS from the hands of lincoln, the TYRANT & WAR CRIMINAL.

free dixie,sw

528 posted on 09/26/2005 9:29:44 AM PDT by stand watie (being a damnyankee is no better than being a racist. it is a LEARNED prejudice against dixie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 513 | View Replies]

To: M. Espinola
What a lot of bullocks! lol.. you are so full of it. Fema's hacks offer you a fat check for the taking and Saint Dixie will tell them "No, I shalt not recover a few federal taxes paid over a lifetime in my time of need, eventhough the insuence only covers 60% of my losses."

I'd rather side with Madison, Jefferson and Cleveland:

I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and the duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevailing tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that though the people support the Government the Government should not support the people.

The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.
President Grover Cleveland, 16 Feb 1887

And by Franklin Pierce:

The question presented, therefore, clearly is upon the constitutionality and propriety of the federal government assuming to enter into a novel and vast field of legislation, namely--that of providing for the care and support of all those, among the people of the United States, who by any form of calamity become fit objects of public philanthrophy.

I readily, and, I trust, feelingly acknowledge the duty incumbent on us all, as men and citizens, and as among the highest and holiest of our duties, to provide for those who, in the mysterious order of Providence, are subject to want, and to disease of body or mind; but I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for making the federal government the great almoner of public charity throughout the United States. To do so would, in my judgment, be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution, and subversive of the whole theory upon which the union of these States is founded. And if it were admissible to contemplate the exercise of this power for any object whatever, I cannot avoid the belief that it would in the end be prejudicial, rather than beneficial, in the noble offices of charity to have the charge of them transferred from the States to the federal government. Are we not too prone to forget that the federal Union is the creature of the States, not they of the federal Union? We were the inhabitants of colonies, distinct in local government one from the other, before the revolution. By that revolution, the colonies each became an independent State. They achieved that independence, and secured its recognition by the agency of a consulting body, which, from being an assembly of the ministers of distinct sovereignties, instructed to agree to no form of government which did not leave the domestic concerns of each State to itself, was appropriately denominated a Congress. When having tried the experiment of the confederation, they resolved to change that for the present federal Union, and thus to confer on the federal government more ample authority, they scrupulously measured such of the functions of their cherished sovereignty as they chose to delegate to the general government. With this aim, and to this end, the fathers of the republic framed the Constitution, in and by which the independent and sovereign States united themselves for certain specified objects and purposes, and for those only, leaving all powers not therein set forth as conferred on one or another of the three great departments--the legislative, the executive and the judicial-indubitably with the States. And when the people of the several States had, in their State conventions, and thus alone, given effect and force to the Constitution, not content that any doubt should in future arise as to the scope and character of this act, they engrafted thereon the explicit declaration that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," can it be controverted that the great mass of the business of government, that involved in the social relations the internal arrangements of the body politic, the mental and moral culture of men, the development of local resources of wealth, the punishment of crimes in general, the preservation of order, the relief of the needy or otherwise unfortunate members of society, did, in practice, remain with the States; that none of these objects of local concern are by the Constitution expressly or impliedly prohibited to the States; and that none of them are, by any express language of the Constitution, transferred to the United States? Can it be claimed that any of these functions of local administration and legislation are vested in the federal government by any implication? I have never found anything in the Constitution which is susceptible of such a construction. No one of the enumerated powers touches the subject, or has even a remote analogy to it. The powers conferred upon the United States have reference to federal relations, or to the means of accomplishing or executing things of federal relation. So, also, of the same character are the powers taken away from the States by enumeration. In either case, the powers granted, and the powers restricted, were so granted or so restricted only where it was requisite for the maintenance of peace and harmony between the States, or for the purpose of protecting their common interests, and defending their common sovereignty against aggression from abroad or insurrection at home.
President Franklin Pierce, 3 May 1854

You might embrace socialism - I reject it.

529 posted on 09/26/2005 9:41:15 AM PDT by 4CJ (Tu ne cede malis!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 494 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge

You might mention that the New York World had, that day, published a fraudulent story claiming that the President had just called for 400,000 more troops, a story that was likely to cause renewed riots in New York like those that had devastated the city 10 months earlier. Within 48 hours, the reporter who had concocted the phony story (with supporting documentation on stolen letterhead paper) had confessed. The newspaper editors were immediately released.


530 posted on 09/26/2005 9:41:52 AM PDT by Heyworth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 502 | View Replies]

To: stand watie

The Articles of Confederation spoke of a perpetual union. The Constitution later made the perpetual union more perfect, not weaker. The Preamble of the Constitution presupposes a preexisting union which in this case was perpetual.


531 posted on 09/26/2005 9:54:01 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 510 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo
nice try, but NO cigar.

the Constitution REPLACED the AOC.

free dixie,sw

532 posted on 09/26/2005 10:00:18 AM PDT by stand watie (being a damnyankee is no better than being a racist. it is a LEARNED prejudice against dixie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 531 | View Replies]

To: stand watie; Non-Sequitur
the book cited exists. as you KNOW from a previous communication almost a year ago between you & me on this forum.

Then surely you'd be able to point to at least one library which has it listed in their online catalog. Perhaps one of the University of Missouri campuses? Nope, not there. What about the Missouri State Library? Surely they'd have a copy. Hmm, I guess not. What about the Library of Congress? That would also be a no.

Maybe it's shelved with the Lincoln letters and "Yachts Against Subs" in that secret library that only you're allowed to visit.

533 posted on 09/26/2005 10:01:44 AM PDT by Heyworth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 525 | View Replies]

To: 4CJ

If, say, the al-Jazeera newspaper had offices in the United States urging U.S. troops to desert, plotting with al-Queda, etc., you can bet that President Bush would have them closed down.


534 posted on 09/26/2005 10:02:22 AM PDT by Grand Old Partisan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 520 | View Replies]

To: mac_truck
The pro-Confederate people from the 1860s to today like to point out the equivalence of the Revolution and the secession of the 1860s. It seems to me that the Revolution was undertaken reluctantly in defense of liberties only after long provocation, while the secession was anxiously jumped at on account of a flimsy pretext in the defense of the wealth and "property" of a privileged elite. "Give me liberty or give me death" reflects a stronger cause than "give me slaves or give or give my poor neighbor who can't get out of the draft death".
535 posted on 09/26/2005 10:03:16 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 503 | View Replies]

To: stand watie

I'd see your point better if the Preamble said "to make a weaker union". But if you start with something perpetual and only make it stronger, it is still perpetual.


536 posted on 09/26/2005 10:05:59 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 532 | View Replies]

To: Kozak
Why not really get creative and combine Mlk's birthday with Robert( Sheets) Byrd's birthday?

Why don't they get rid of the stupid holiday's altogether?

When was the last time you saw someone read a book about Columbus, or Lincoln, or Washington.

People go shopping to get merchandise on sale. Nobody honors any of these people. These holidays are all a complete and utter waste and serve zero purpose toward which they were supposedly intended.

537 posted on 09/26/2005 10:06:16 AM PDT by Stu Cohen (Press '1' for English)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Gianni

Who do you think better upheld the ideals of Patrick Henry and the Declaration of Independence-the Radical Republicans or Cornerstone Stephens and the rest of the pro-slavery crowd?

Unless the Declaration didn't really mean what it said, the Radical Republicans were the true heirs of the Revolution and it's goal of liberty for ALL men.


538 posted on 09/26/2005 10:18:16 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 495 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Nowhere in the Constitution does it allow a state to resume powers granted to the federal government.

Sigh, it must be PROHIBITED to the states. Even Hamilton admits that powers may be resummed by those delegating them:

[T]he confederacy may be dissolved, and the confederates preserve their sovereignty. ... The definition of a CONFEDERATE REPUBLIC seems simply to be ''an assemblage of societies,'' or an association of two or more states into one state. The extent, modifications, and objects of the federal authority are mere matters of discretion. So long as the separate organization of the members be not abolished; so long as it exists, by a constitutional necessity, for local purposes; though it should be in perfect subordination to the general authority of the union, it would still be, in fact and in theory, an association of states, or a confederacy. The proposed Constitution, so far from implying an abolition of the State governments, makes them constituent parts of the national sovereignty, by allowing them a direct representation in the Senate, and leaves in their possession certain exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power. This fully corresponds, in every rational import of the terms, with the idea of a federal government.
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 9, 'The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection'

'I trust the friends of the proposed Constitution will never concur with its enemies, in questioning that fundamental principle of republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness.'
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78, 'The Judiciary Department'

539 posted on 09/26/2005 10:19:56 AM PDT by 4CJ (Tu ne cede malis!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 518 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo
I'd see your point better if the Preamble said "to make a weaker union". But if you start with something perpetual and only make it stronger, it is still perpetual.

What union did VA, NY, NC and RI belong after 21 Jun 1788, until each ratified the Constitution?

540 posted on 09/26/2005 10:23:34 AM PDT by 4CJ (Tu ne cede malis!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 536 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
"once more, your posting of SILLY cartoons & NON-relevant BILGE exposes you as a DUNCE."

Mr. Stand...


541 posted on 09/26/2005 11:05:09 AM PDT by M. Espinola (Freedom is never free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 527 | View Replies]

To: 4CJ
"Secession did not destroy the union - the remaining members carried on as before."

It would not have anything to do with the fact the 'Confederate' traitors were resoundingly defeated, thereby preventing a separate, expanded slave empire? Who needs little factoids such as that - right?

542 posted on 09/26/2005 11:10:04 AM PDT by M. Espinola (Freedom is never free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 519 | View Replies]

To: 4CJ
"And by Franklin Pierce:"(??)

Are you serious quoting Franklin "doughface" Pierce, once again exposing your pro-slavery sentiments?

Pierce's popularity in the North nose dived sharply after he came out in favor of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, repealing the Missouri Compromise and reopening the question of the expansion of slavery in the West. This is a real hero of yours.

Jefferson Davis, the arch sellout, served as President Pierce's Secretary of War. (nuff said)

Pierce was a notorious alcoholic. After losing the Democratic nomination, Pierce reportedly quipped "there's nothing left to do but get drunk" (quoted also as "after the White House what is there to do but drink?")

His hitting the bottle resulted in ruining his marriage to Jane Means Appleton Pierce. He completely destroyed his reputation by declaring support for the 'Confederacy' during the Civil War, dying shortly afterwards of cirrhosis of the liver brought on by years of drinking.

Neo-confederates really know how to pick them....The bar is now open.

"I'll drink to that!"

543 posted on 09/26/2005 11:33:20 AM PDT by M. Espinola (Freedom is never free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 529 | View Replies]

To: M. Espinola
... resoundingly defeated ...

Resoundingly? As in it took the Union over 4 years to defeat a foe with less than 1/4 it's population, a fraction of the industry and weaponry, and only then by resorting to waging war on innocent women and children?

If a founder stood an announced to all present in convention, that 'if we are unsatisfied with the proposed [national] government, we can renounce it, this is an additional safeguard to our state', would you consider them to be a crackpot? What if they stated that 'a power remains with the state until it is delegated'? Is that gentleman a lunatic? Are they insane?

544 posted on 09/26/2005 11:40:39 AM PDT by 4CJ (Tu ne cede malis!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 542 | View Replies]

To: M. Espinola
"I'll drink to that!"

Just curious, but do you drink Coca Cola?

545 posted on 09/26/2005 11:41:29 AM PDT by 4CJ (Tu ne cede malis!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 543 | View Replies]

To: M. Espinola
Are you serious quoting Franklin "doughface" Pierce, once again exposing your pro-slavery sentiments?

Wrong. No one here is expressing an PRO-slavery sentiments - Abraham Lincoln was pro-slavery, as he supported a constitutional Amendment making slavery PERMANENT.

546 posted on 09/26/2005 11:43:59 AM PDT by 4CJ (Tu ne cede malis!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 543 | View Replies]

To: 4CJ
"Wrong. No one here is expressing an PRO-slavery sentiments - Abraham Lincoln was pro-slavery, as he supported a constitutional Amendment making slavery PERMANENT."

Your continued support for the 'neo-confederate' movement by way of always defending the likes of Jefferson Davis, pro-slavery sellouts such as Franklin Pierce, coupled with condemnation of anyone who worked for the end of slavery clearly indicates which side you wanted to win the Civil War.

A 'Confederate' (victory) would have reinforces existing slavery and expanding the Old South westward, not to mention wholesale slaughter for all Americans opposed no matter where they resided.

Attempting to spin it anyway you like and never being up front is very typical of your type. The comments you print repeatedly exemplify your positions to anyone who reviews them.

547 posted on 09/26/2005 12:00:27 PM PDT by M. Espinola (Freedom is never free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 546 | View Replies]

To: 4CJ
Wrong. No one here is expressing an PRO-slavery sentiments - Abraham Lincoln was pro-slavery, as he supported a constitutional Amendment making slavery PERMANENT.

See, now here you're just out and out lying. I usually have more respect for you, even if I don't agree with your positions or interpretations. Nothing Lincoln ever said can be remotely construed as "pro-slavery." What he did offer the south was an amendment forbidding the federal government from outlawing the institution. And he'd already said many times that he didn't think he had the constitutional authority to outlaw it. That's why the Emancipation Proclamation didn't actually free the slaves. It took the 13th amendment to do that. There was, however, nothing in the proposed amendment that would have stopped the states from eliminating it on their own, as all of the northern states had already done.

You guys are good at miscontruing intentions. If the north didn't hang all the confederate leaders for treason, it's because they were anxious to repair the union and move on, not because the south was legally in the right. If Lincoln offered to prevent the federal government from outlawing slavery, it's because he was trying to save the union, not because he was somehow pro-slavery.

548 posted on 09/26/2005 12:03:12 PM PDT by Heyworth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 546 | View Replies]

To: M. Espinola
A 'Confederate' (victory) would have reinforces existing slavery and expanding the Old South westward, not to mention wholesale slaughter for all Americans opposed no matter where they resided.

Please you post any proof that Confederate administration advocated the wholesale slaughter of Americans in disagreement with them.

Again, I have no problem with anyone ending slavery, yet defending President Davis et al is not expressing a desire for slavery. A support for the constitutional legality of secession yes.

549 posted on 09/26/2005 12:17:08 PM PDT by 4CJ (Tu ne cede malis!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 547 | View Replies]

To: Heyworth
With due deference sir, I have yet to meet anyone that condemns abortion as favouring an Amendment to make it permanent. Would anyone consider W to be anti-abortion if he worked for passage of an amendment making it permanent?

I do agree that Lincoln's sole aim was to repair the union and move on.

550 posted on 09/26/2005 12:24:52 PM PDT by 4CJ (Tu ne cede malis!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 548 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 451-500501-550551-600 ... 1,401-1,437 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson