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 ... 551-600601-650651-700 ... 1,401-1,437 next last
To: Grand Old Partisan
4CJ will endlessly twist the facts and ignore logic in order to justify his obvious contempt for black people and a wish that patriotic Americans had never abolished slavery.

Wrong on both counts sir. From my 549: '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.'

From my 458: I did reply - 'we all all of one blood, descendants of Adam and Eve - all brothers and sisters in the eyes of God and myself.' I have never, and will never judge or hate anyone based on he color of their skin. I moved next [door] to several black families, I have black friends, they eat at our table, and swim in our pool with us and my children. As I wrote before, you're 'attempting to pass off YOUR beliefs as mine.'

601 posted on 09/27/2005 1:07:08 PM PDT by 4CJ (Tu ne cede malis!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 599 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan
IF you REALLY believe that BILGE, you are as big a DUMB-bunny as "m.eSPINola" the moron, HATER & presumed racist.

the TRULY insane FOOLS & HATERS on FR are "members in good standing" of the DAMNyankee coven of idiots, liars, fools, racists & wierdos. were they NOT so busy hating dixie, they'd be some other sort of hate-FILLED bigot.

BUT frankly, i believe you're just being a LITTLE TROLL.

free dixie,sw

602 posted on 09/27/2005 2:11:30 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 599 | View Replies]

To: Heyworth
So just what is it that you're arguing here? That the protection of slavery had nothing to do with southern secession? There is far too much documentation--secession declarations, editorials, speeches--that says otherwise.

As I pointed out, not even the north - with the exception of a few abolitionists - advocated for an end to slavery - there was too much money to be made, and a Lincoln himself noted, such a platform would not have won him the election.

But not so important that the states made more than passing mention of them in their secession declarations, while slavery and the associated issues are mentioned over and over again.

Southern states had protested high tariff rates for DECADES. Newspapers across the republic, and around the world spoke of the monetary concerns:

So the case stands, and under all the passion of the parties and the cries of battle lie the two chief moving causes of the struggle. Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils.
Additionally, Lincoln made it perfectly clear that his sole object was collect the revenues from tariff houses - it was refusal to allow this that incensed Lincoln.

If you're arguing that only the federal government had the ability and, indeed, the responsibility to end slavery throughout the United States, your position would seem much closer to that of the Radical Republicans than Lincoln, much less the Confederate leadership.

Nope. I'm saying to not portray Lincoln as an abolitionist when he was not, or that the war was waged to end slavery - it was to restore the union as it WAS. W could attempt to have the courts set aside Roe v Wade, returning the issue to the states - in essence the Lincolnian position. The Reagan position was to support an amendment ENDING abortion - which is the only way (in a union absent judicial activism or legislative coup [radical republican position]) that a people of several states may Constitutionally override the people of a another state.

There was a strong determination in the Republicans to find a way to overturn Dred Scott, since the logical extension of its legal reasoning was that slavery couldn't be outlawed anywhere in the north.

Nonsense, it was a state decision. No state could force slavery on another absent a constitutional amendment. The courts had already held that the territories were property in common for ALL the states of the union. Any territory could abolish slavery once it was a state, the federal government had no delegated authority to do so. All states agreed to those terms upon ratification, and as no constitutional amendment had been passed, it was illegal for a state, the federal Congress, or the President to do so.

Nor did they want to compete with slaves in their own states.

I'll agree - most small landowners, including my ancestor, saw the use of slaves as economically unfair.

So why was it that the Republicans won the election so handily? Why did Lincoln carry the agricultural western states by as large of margins as the industrialized New England states? Minnesota was carried by the same margin as Massachusetts.

Democrats split their vote between two candidates. Maybe Lincoln knew he had it in the bag, he didn't even campaign IIRC. Maybe northern voters wanted to continue their socialist wealth redistribution schemes, or supported a massive land grant to railroads and the route west, or simply favoured protection from black competition? Maybe it was because Lincoln promised continue the the Whig platform of high tariffs and internal improvements (PORK)? Much as todays Dims promise job security, higher wages, more social income redistribution, protection of shipping interests etc. Most politicians campaign on the platform to giving you someone else's monies (including that of your children).

603 posted on 09/27/2005 2:13:02 PM PDT by 4CJ (Tu ne cede malis!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 598 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan
posting STUPIDITY twice does NOT magically change it to intelligent discussion.

it simply remains, easily refuted, NONSENSE.

free dixie,sw

604 posted on 09/27/2005 2:13:10 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 600 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan
btw,the reason that several of the DAMNYankee coven likes "4CJ" better than the rest of us "good 'ole rebs" is that he doesn't tell you so OPENLY that "the coven" is a no more than a collection of idiots, REVISIONISTS, lunatics, haters & BIGOTS, who hate the southland, our sacred battleflags, our HEROES, our MARTYRS, our memorials & our southern PEOPLE.

FACT!

free dixie,sw

605 posted on 09/27/2005 2:27:20 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 600 | View Replies]

To: stand watie

Please tell me that your post #605 is a parody.


606 posted on 09/27/2005 2:49:08 PM PDT by Grand Old Partisan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 605 | View Replies]

To: 4CJ
As I pointed out, not even the north - with the exception of a few abolitionists - advocated for an end to slavery

That's absurd. The Republican party was founded on abolitionist principles, out of the Free Soil party. It's true that immediate emancipation was on the agendas of relatively few. The first step was to contain it, then move on to a gradual emancipation scheme. To conflate that gradualism with a desire to make slavery somehow permanent is without merit.

Southern states had protested high tariff rates for DECADES.

But none thought enough of it to mention it in their secession declarations?

Additionally, Lincoln made it perfectly clear that his sole object was collect the revenues from tariff houses - it was refusal to allow this that incensed Lincoln.

Oh, give me a break. What Lincoln was saying in the first inaugural was that he was going to ignore secession and carry on as if it was meaningless. He was also going to keep delivering the mail.

I'm saying to not portray Lincoln as an abolitionist when he was not, or that the war was waged to end slavery - it was to restore the union as it WAS.

No argument on the latter, at least in for the first year and half of the war, but you cannot deny that the war did, in fact, end slavery even if that wasn't its aim at the beginning. The aim in fighting WW2 wasn't to stop the holocaust, either, but it had that happy effect. But as to whether Lincoln was an abolitionist, it's a fuzzier picture. Again to cite Douglass, Lincoln may not have been as hardcore as he'd have liked, but he was way ahead of most, and he did lead the way to abolition.

Nonsense, it was a state decision. No state could force slavery on another absent a constitutional amendment.

The entire reasoning in the relevant part of Dred Scott is that the constitution protects slave property in the territories. And since it guarantees that right throughout the territories, why is is any kind of stretch to imagine that a subsequent decision would have found that slaves brought from one state to another would stay slaves? Certainly many at the time thought so. Lincoln mentions it in the House Divided speech, "We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri. are on the verge of making their State free, and we shall awake to the reality instead, that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave State, " and I've found one passing reference to a slave-stater crowing that Dred Scott meant slave auctions on Boston Common before long.

607 posted on 09/27/2005 4:12:51 PM PDT by Heyworth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 603 | View Replies]

To: 4CJ
The Reagan position was to support an amendment ENDING abortion - which is the only way (in a union absent judicial activism or legislative coup [radical republican position]) that a people of several states may Constitutionally override the people of a another state.

I missed this part, and simply point out that the 13th amendment was actively supported by Lincoln in the 1864 campaign.

It's really quite simple: Pre-Lincoln, slavery. Post-Lincoln, no slavery.

608 posted on 09/27/2005 4:17:47 PM PDT by Heyworth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 603 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime
The only person's birthday we celebrate as a national holiday is Martin Luther King's. The others we share.

You forgot Columbus Day.

What's that tell you?

That Nixon should have predicted King Day when he combined Washington and Lincoln's Birthdays into President's Day?

609 posted on 09/27/2005 4:23:27 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 4CJ
Before war began, the seceded states could have rejoined the union, and enjoyed slavery constitutionally protected in every state where it existed, and per the Supreme Court, could carry it to any territory, IF that was their sole desire.

But why would they want to? They had already split off and formed their country, they had implemented a constitution that guaranteed the protection of slavery everywhere in the confederacy and any future territory they may acquire, and also took steps to protect slave imports. All that and they didn't have to share power with Yankees. Why would they want to return?

Lastly, tariffs were very important, enough that the Confederate Constitution prohibited tariffs designed to 'promote or foster any branch of industry', and also prohibited appropriations for 'any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce' other than navigation (buoys, lighthouses etc).

One of the first acts of the confederate congress was to implement a tariff which protected tobacco and naval stores. But then who was going to uphold the constitution, a supreme court?

610 posted on 09/27/2005 4:29:09 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 597 | View Replies]

To: 4CJ

"Additionally, Lincoln made it perfectly clear that his sole object was collect the revenues from tariff houses - it was refusal to allow this that incensed Lincoln."

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


611 posted on 09/27/2005 4:48:11 PM PDT by Grand Old Partisan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 603 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur; 4CJ

Jefferson Davis never appointed a Confederate Supreme Court.


612 posted on 09/27/2005 4:52:30 PM PDT by Grand Old Partisan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 610 | View Replies]

To: 4CJ
The Confederacy did not fire on the US unprovoked...

Bwaahaha! Your nose is growing [again] Pinocchio.

613 posted on 09/27/2005 5:23:49 PM PDT by mac_truck (Aide toi et dieu l’aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 592 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan

Never even nominated one, so far as I know. The confederate congress didn't get around to organizing a court. And they complain about Lincoln's alleged Constitutional abuses. Lincoln never did away with a third of the government.


614 posted on 09/27/2005 5:33:18 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 612 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur; 4CJ

There not being a Confederate judiciary, Jefferson Davis told any rebel state governors to address any complaints about the Confederate Government to the Confederate Attorney General! The Confederate "President" did not give a damn about the Confederate Constitution or the rights of the rebel states.


615 posted on 09/27/2005 5:58:03 PM PDT by Grand Old Partisan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 614 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan
NOPE. he didn't. but almost everyone, with the exception of N-S, believes that a CSSC would have been formed, absent the WBTS.

tell me how many YEARS was it before the fledgling USA got around to forming a USSC???

was it over 15 years after 7/4/76 perhaps???

free dixie,sw

616 posted on 09/28/2005 2:21:35 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 612 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan

It appears that Lincoln was a lot smarter than you, despite your notable hindsight.

He knew that during 1860 the imports of the South were valued at $331 million. The portion of that amount that came from Europe, via New York, would now come to the South through Charleston, Mobile, and New Orleans. There goes the Federal tariff revenue.

The portion of imports into the South from northern sources would now have to compete with European manufacturers. They would not be successful unless the tariffs were repealed.

The northern states imported $31 million in goods. Tariffs on that amount would never pay the US Treasury enough to run the government for a month.

In his inaugural, he said he would collect the tariffs, and he meant what he said. Only problem is that it cost 620,000 lives.


617 posted on 09/28/2005 2:22:27 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 611 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
how many years after 1776 was the USSC formed????

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

free dixie,sw

618 posted on 09/28/2005 2:23:21 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 614 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
how many years after 1776 was the USSC formed????

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

free dixie,sw

619 posted on 09/28/2005 2:23:25 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 614 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
how many years after 1776 was the USSC formed????

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

free dixie,sw

620 posted on 09/28/2005 2:23:30 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 614 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge

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.


621 posted on 09/28/2005 2:32:31 PM PDT by Grand Old Partisan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 617 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan
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

622 posted on 09/28/2005 2:35:08 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 606 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan

"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.


623 posted on 09/28/2005 2:40:14 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 621 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge

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?


624 posted on 09/28/2005 2:44:19 PM PDT by Grand Old Partisan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 623 | View Replies]

To: 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.


625 posted on 09/28/2005 2:46:42 PM PDT by Grand Old Partisan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 624 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge

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.


626 posted on 09/28/2005 2:48:41 PM PDT by Grand Old Partisan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 623 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
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.

627 posted on 09/28/2005 3:00:55 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 618 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge; Grand Old Partisan

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?


628 posted on 09/28/2005 3:11:46 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 623 | View Replies]

To: stand watie

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.


629 posted on 09/28/2005 3:25:00 PM PDT by hirn_man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 507 | View Replies]

To: 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."

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

630 posted on 09/28/2005 5:54:14 PM PDT by M. Espinola (Freedom is never free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 629 | View Replies]

To: 4CJ
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.

631 posted on 09/28/2005 9:06:56 PM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 584 | View Replies]

To: 4CJ; Colonel Kangaroo; mac_truck; Heyworth; Grand Old Partisan; justshutupandtakeit; ...
"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.

632 posted on 09/28/2005 9:51:26 PM PDT by M. Espinola (Freedom is never free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 591 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
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.

633 posted on 09/29/2005 3:14:39 AM PDT by Gianni
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 518 | View Replies]

To: mac_truck
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.

634 posted on 09/29/2005 3:17:18 AM PDT by Gianni
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 523 | View Replies]

To: mac_truck
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?

635 posted on 09/29/2005 3:20:57 AM PDT by Gianni
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 523 | View Replies]

To: Gianni
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.

636 posted on 09/29/2005 3:26:44 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 633 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan
I think your question should be........"Where did Encarta (encyclopedia) get that data?"
637 posted on 09/29/2005 6:36:52 AM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 624 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan

"How about a reputable source?"

Would you consider the US Treasury Department a reputable source?


638 posted on 09/29/2005 6:39:16 AM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 624 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan

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


639 posted on 09/29/2005 6:40:39 AM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 625 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo

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


640 posted on 09/29/2005 6:41:20 AM PDT by television is just wrong (http://hehttp://print.google.com/print/doc?articleidisblogs.blogspot.com/ (visit blogs, visit ads).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime

hmmm, a lot. My parents always told me MLK was a communist. I just am stating, not accusing.


641 posted on 09/29/2005 6:43:00 AM PDT by television is just wrong (http://hehttp://print.google.com/print/doc?articleidisblogs.blogspot.com/ (visit blogs, visit ads).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge

Yes, the U.S. Treasury Department would be a reputable source, much better than MSN. Do you have a link?


642 posted on 09/29/2005 6:48:23 AM PDT by Grand Old Partisan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 638 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge

Tariffs were collected where the imports entered the country. Since at least 90% of imports in 1860 entered through the North, it stands to reason that at least 90% of imports went to the North. Southern exports went out through southern ports, so imports to the South would have arrived at southern ports as well.


643 posted on 09/29/2005 6:52:11 AM PDT by Grand Old Partisan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 639 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
You are having the same problem as your other little pal. You are misunderstanding or just simply deceptively asking the wrong question.

The data is that the North consumed $31 million in imported goods. What does that have to do with point of collection of tariffs?
644 posted on 09/29/2005 6:59:44 AM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 628 | View Replies]

To: Gianni
The Virginia ratification is not binding on the rest of the states.

Nonsense. Virgina's ratification of the USC is binding on the other States. Just like their ratification of the USC is binding on Virginia. All of the States are entitled to equal treatment and protection under the US Constitution, as are their citizens. Nothing Virginia added beyond their ratification of the US Constitution is relevant.

645 posted on 09/29/2005 7:16:12 AM PDT by mac_truck (Aide toi et dieu l’aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 634 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge

If you believe that the United States imported only $31 million to the North in 1860, then the total tariffs collected in the three largest ports -- New York, Philadelphia, and Boston -- would have totalled not more than a few millions dollars.

You just are not making any sense at all. I look forward to that U.S. Treasury link for your alleged data.


646 posted on 09/29/2005 8:22:02 AM PDT by Grand Old Partisan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 644 | View Replies]

To: M. Espinola
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.

"Slavery is founded on the selfishness of man's nature-opposition to it on his love of justice. These principles are in eternal antagonism; and when brought into collision so fiercely as slavery extension brings them, shocks and throes and convulsions must ceaselessly follow."

Abraham Lincoln, 1854

There are a lot of the things about the rebellion that are offensive to the ideals of America, but the motivation for the secession is particularly grotesque. They'd speak noble words about the liberty of man, but their whole motivation was their own selfish aims which were based on the non-liberty of their fellow man. Our American Revolution showed that moral right will endure and triumph over material superiority. Conversely, the quick demise of the rebellion shows that morally flawed causes cannot endure.

647 posted on 09/29/2005 8:51:25 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 632 | View Replies]

To: television is just wrong

I really think both great presidents equally deserve a day to themselves. If it wasn't for both Washington and Lincoln, we would not have this great republic we are blessed with.


648 posted on 09/29/2005 8:53:46 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 640 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo

I agree. Unfortunately, unless we elect officials who feel the same way, we are not in control.


649 posted on 09/29/2005 9:05:24 AM PDT by television is just wrong (http://hehttp://print.google.com/print/doc?articleidisblogs.blogspot.com/ (visit blogs, visit ads).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 648 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo
I wholeheartedly agree with your overview. "Conversely, the quick demise of the rebellion shows that morally flawed causes cannot endure."

The short lived timeframe of the 'Confederate' rebellion demonstrates a foundation constructed on evil can not stand, nor shall be resurrected in any respect in today's America.

"Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally."

Abraham Lincoln, March 17th, 1865, Speech to 140th Indiana Regiment. Lincoln, Abraham, 1809-1865. Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 8.


650 posted on 09/29/2005 9:57:32 AM PDT by M. Espinola (Freedom is never free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 647 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 551-600601-650651-700 ... 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