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.

[Grand Old Partisan]

Please provide a link to a source for your alleged information about imports in 1860. You are the guy who thought that tariffs are charged on exports, not imports. Yes, the South exported plenty of cotton but imported almost nothing.

[stand watie]

PLEASE show me that i'm wrong about the members of the DY coven, especially after the hateFILLED, RACIST remarks of one of your "members in good standing", which was NOT disavowed by the rest of the coven.

each & every one of you in the "DY coven" should hang your collective heads in SHAME over that, instead of trying to say that i shouldn't be concerned about RACIST remarks targeting AmerIndian culture/traditions/persons as "modernman" did.

ALSO, when a former member of your side published my/ my lady's REAL NAME, address, telephone number & place of employment on the (SOCIALIST/STALINIST) A.N.S.W.E.R. website, NOT EVEN ONE of you was evidently anything but GLAD. (one of you number sent me a PM that said that he wished that HE had thought of doing it!)

and then ya'll have the temerity to wonder why we southrons are "not really pleased" with the whole group of you???

free dixie,sw

[PeaRidge]

"You are the guy who thought that tariffs are charged on exports, not imports."

No, that was someone else.

Here is one source:

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761557415/Confederate_States_of_America.html

After you read that one, I have several more.

[Grand Old Partisan]

That's ridiculous, that the industrialized, wealthy North imported only a tenth as much as the agrarian, poor South. You'll have to do better than MSN. How about a reputable source?

[Grand Old Partisan]

Bear in mind that over 90% of tariffs in 1860 were collected in just three ports -- New York, Philadelphia, and Boston -- so it looks like MSN got its numbers reversed.

[Grand Old Partisan]

Bear in mind that over 90% of tariffs in 1860 were collected in just three ports -- New York, Philadelphia, and Boston -- so it looks like MSN got its numbers reversed.

[Non-Sequitur]

how many years after 1776 was the USSC formed????

Within a year after one was required. In fact among the first pieces of legislation passed by Congress was the Judiciary Act, and among Washington's first appointments were the Supreme Court. Why couldn't the confederate congress and president do the same? Other than a complete lack of respect for their constitution, I mean?

could it be that absent the IMPERIALIST WAR fomented by "DIShonest abe" that a CSSC would have been formed by 1862????

No.

[Non-Sequitur]

If the North only imported $31 million in goods in 1860 then why were collections from import duties in in fiscal year 1861 $49,056,397.62 and $69,059,642.65 in fiscal year 1863? Where were all those imports coming from to produce that tariff reveune?

[hirn_man]

I love it when you rebs bring up Point Lookout. Point Lookout guards were mainly Black. In some cases these guards were ex slaves. It seems the prisoners thought that the guards were insolent and didn't know their place. They didn't want to take orders or be told what to do from Blacks. Needless to say, those ex-slaves didn't take to kindly to insubordination having learned well from their ex-owners.

They(the Confederates) weren't smart enough to figure out they were the insolent prisoners and not the black gaurds.

[M. Espinola]

"I love it when you rebs bring up Point Lookout. Point Lookout guards were mainly Black. In some cases these guards were ex slaves."

The reb in question knows it but is too much of a worm like coward to admit it.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

I respect Madison, and the Federalist is valuable reading. But that was not the document ratified and if we restrict ourselves to the documents actually ratified, the Union is perpetual and states are not allowed to undertake certain acts necessary for sovereignty as listed in Article I, Section 10 of the US Constitution. We cannot assume or insert words that are not there.

Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Clause 2: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

Clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

[M. Espinola]

"The Confederates were traitors to their own government?"

Naturally, when a grouping of Southern power brokers for Slavery Inc became totally frantic over losing the White House in the election of 1860's, and then conspire as a criminal enterprise to break away from the rest of the United States, invented a so-called 'government', appointed their own version of a 'president' & cabinet plus schemed coordinated sneak attacks directed at Federal military forts & naval vessels, for the sole purpose of continuing & expanding the totalitarian Slavocracy. I would term those rebellious sore losers as lawlessness traitors provoking bloody insurgency.

The White House of 1861 was confronted with a domestic terrorist outbreak such as this nation has never witnessed.

Any Southern elected official responsible for instigating the Insurrection should have never had the right to hold public office nor his privilege to vote restored. Rewarding via restoring citizenship rights, and or ignoring shameless acts of armed sedition against one's own country should have never been allowed or tolerated if this nation after the Civil War.

Unfortunately you, Stand & the rest of the minuscule minority of bitter malcontents are prime examples of unreconstructed & unrepentant apologists for the pro-slavery Confederate mindset, perpetually & brazenly promoting a deliberately distorted view of pre & post Civil War history all the way up the final nail in the coffin of the Old South during the early and mid-1960's.

The neo-confederate line is anti-American & racist against fellow Americans and will be exposed whenever the barrage of propaganda & out right lies are peddled.

If the same seditious stunt we attempted today as in 1861, you know precisely what course of action the White House & Congress would take in the form of being swift justice for anyone involved in such seditiousness.

"Of course I'm glad slavery ended in the ENTIRE US."

Your statement is contradiction. If the tyrannical Confederate leadership had somehow gained a victory over U.S. forces, including installing the Davis dictatorship in the White House, 'Yankee' show trails for all members of the Lincoln Administration along other leading Union & abolitionists spokesmen, caught behind Rebel lines or captured by.

All former slaves & freemen who had served honourably in the Union armed forces would be ruthlessly hunted down by bands of 'slave catchers', returned to a state of slavery in addition slaves known to have would be made examples of in using the most brutal methods in order to instill absolute fear in the greater slave populations to prevent 'slave uprising' throughout Cotton Inc, border & free states under Confederate occupation and repression.

The broad-based rampage of marauding bands of Confederate raiders would most likely extend all along border states if not well into Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, sections of Pennsylvania and portions of southern & coastal New Jersey, obviously contingent on how thoroughly vengeful Confederate occupation forces were capable of quelling the various populations of formerly free Americans.

However, freedom loving citizens of Northern states not directly scourged by Confederate wrath, nor subdued, would rally with remaining portions of the Federal troops countering the invading hordes of frenzied rednecks, eventually defeating the treasonous enemy within, pushing them back into the swamps of the South.

[Gianni]

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?

This is another true gem from you.

What if the ratification document had said, "Piss off, we don't need you." Certainly, then, it would trump the Constitution.

[Gianni]

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.

The Virginia ratification is not binding on the rest of the states. It's only binding on Virginia, and then only in accordance with the terms stated therein.

Only a document signed by ALL the parties, is binding upon them all. That document was the U.S. Constitution, NOT the Virginia ratification.

The Constitution was not 'signed' by any of the states. It was ratified by each as an individual entity.

[Gianni]

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].

No retreat here. Still waiting for you to explain Lee's incompetence as a tactical commander.

Tell me, what is the difference between a "battle planner" and a tactical commander? What the hell is a "battle planner" anyway?

[Non-Sequitur]

What if the ratification document had said, "Piss off, we don't need you." Certainly, then, it would trump the Constitution.

What passes for logic in Iowa, I suppose. But your reasoning if flawed yet again. Virginia ratified the Constitution as approved by the convention, and their document agreed that it was binding on them. Since the Constitution also states that it is the supreme law of the land, "...any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" then it doesn't matter what superfluous clause Virginia chose to include in the document. So unless Virginia had said "Piss off, we ain't ratifyin'" then they were bound to abide by the Constitution. And the Constitution contains no clause allowing a state to take back powers reserved to the federal government.

[PeaRidge]

I think your question should be........"Where did Encarta (encyclopedia) get that data?"

[PeaRidge]

"How about a reputable source?"

Would you consider the US Treasury Department a reputable source?

[PeaRidge]

What does point of collection have to do with point of consumption?

[television is just wrong]

They did that here in Ca. Now it is back to two separate holidays after years of being together.