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 ... 701-750751-800801-850 ... 1,401-1,437 next last
To: Gianni
don't worry about "m.eSPINola"s opinion.

everyone here KNOWS he's a HATER, a moron & a BIGOT of the first rank.

free dixie,sw

751 posted on 10/03/2005 5:55:17 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 731 | View Replies]

To: M. Espinola
the "carpet" leads out the door, down the staircase & straight to DU, where you will be one more HATE-filled, DU-dummy.

over there, they don't mind DUMB cartoons, ignorant (HATE-filled) bilge & bigoted NONSENSE, provided that such NONSENSE & HATEFULNESS is anti-southern & liberal/leftist/revisionist/statist.

you'll fit right in. be gone.

free dixie,sw

752 posted on 10/03/2005 6:00:33 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 738 | View Replies]

To: M. Espinola

Amen!


753 posted on 10/03/2005 6:01:35 AM PDT by Grand Old Partisan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 742 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan
are YOU really DUMB enough and or IGNORANT enough to believe ANYTHING that "m.eSPINola" the MORON/HATER posts???

i would have thought NOT, but perhaps we all have overestimated your intelligence & knowledge of the WBTS.

btw, when are all of you members of the DY coven going to (OPENLY & very obviously) disavow the HATEfulness, meanness & BIGOTRY of "m.eSPINola"

free dixie,sw

754 posted on 10/03/2005 6:29:12 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 753 | View Replies]

To: M. Espinola
..cult like, robotic slander directed at everyone not in full agreement with the 'neo-confederate' agenda..

That describes Stand Watie to a tee...right down to the moronic cut and paste rants he has saved on his hard drive.

755 posted on 10/03/2005 7:24:54 AM PDT by mac_truck (Aide toi et dieu l’aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 742 | View Replies]

To: mac_truck
don't you WISH you were even HALF correct???

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

fwiw, i don't believe that "Mr SPIN" realizes that the BILGE he posts is from sources from the "poison ivy league" that also HATES America.

free dixie,sw

756 posted on 10/03/2005 7:51:41 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 755 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
had lincoln, the TYRANT, failed to invade MD & VA, there would have been no NEEDLESS war, which cost the lives of a MILLION citizens. instead there would now be 3 free countries in North America, living peacefully, side by side.

I think the conflict would have been deferred but there would have been no lasting peace. There were Unionist regions in the South and pockets of Confederate sympathy in the North that would have been sources of contention. But mainly it would have been impossible for two distinct social systems to coexist. One region based on the American ideals of liberty and the other based on the Assyrian ideals of slavery. It was a good thing for the South that the Confederacy was beaten when it was, because in a later conflict the Union would probably not have been as gentle with the CSA as an independent nation as they were with an internal insurrection.

757 posted on 10/03/2005 8:51:45 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 750 | View Replies]

To: M. Espinola
General Sherman may have had some of the characteristics you declare, but in relation to those you champion, however Sherman did not sell out his own country for a pack of secessionist, pro-slavery 'Confederates' with their invented régime of rebellion, but fought hard to bring about the defeat the instigators of the Civil War.

No one sold out their country. The Supreme Court had previously held UNAMIMOUSLY that the President could not simply take matters into his own hands. The Attoney General did extend his opinion on the matter as well:


Opinion of Judge Black, 20 Nov 1860
Whether Congress has the constitutional right to make war against one or more States, and require the Executive of the Federal Government to carry it on by means of force to be drawn from the other States, is a question for Congress itself to consider. It must be admitted that no such power is expressly given; nor are there any words in the Constitution which imply it. Among the powers enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 is that 'to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and to make rules concerning captures on land and water.' This certainly means nothing more than the power to commence and carry on hostilities against the foreign enemies of the nation. Another clause in the same section gives Congress the power 'to provide for calling forth the militia,' and to use them within the limits of the State. But this power is so restricted by the words which immediately follow that it can be exercised only for one of the following purposes:

To execute the laws of the Union; that is, to aid the Federal officers in the performance of their regular duties.

To suppress insurrections against the State; but this is confined by Article 4, Section 4, to cases in which the State herself shall apply for assistance against her own people.

To repel the invasion of a State by enemies who come from abroad to assail her in her own territory.

All these provisions are made to protect the States, not to authorize an attack by one part of the country upon another; to preserve the peace, and not to plunge them into civil war. Our forefathers do not seem to have thought that war was calculated 'to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.' There was undoubtedly a strong and universal conviction among the men who framed and ratified the Constitution, that military force would not only be useless, but pernicious, as a means of holding the States together.

"If it be true that war cannot be declared, nor a system of general hostilities carried on by the Central Government against a State, then it seems to follow that an attempt to do so would be ipso facto an expulsion of such State from the Union. Being treated as an alien and an enemy, she would be compelled to act accordingly. And if Congress shall break up the present Union by unconstitutionally putting strife and enmity and armed hostility between different sections of the country, instead of the domestic tranquillity which the Constitution was meant to insure, will not all the States be absolved from their Federal obligations? Is any portion of the people bound to contribute their money or their blood to carry on a contest like that?

"The right of the General Government to preserve itself in its whole constitutional vigor by repelling a direct and positive aggression upon its property or its officers cannot by denied. But this is a totally different thing from an offensive war to punish the people for the political misdeeds of their State Government, or to enforce an acknowledgment that the Government of the United States is supreme. The States are colleagues of one another, and if some of them shall conquer the rest, and hold them as subjugated provinces, it would totally destroy the whole theory upon which they are now connected.

"If this view of the subject be correct, as I think it is, then the Union must utterly perish at the moment when Congress shall arm one part of the people against another for any purpose beyond that of merely protecting the General Government in the exercise of its proper constitutional functions.

"I am, very respectfully, yours, etc.,

"J. S. BLACK."
Melvin I Urofsky and Paul Finkelman, Documents of American Constitutional and Legal History, NY, NY: Oxford University Press (2002), p. 398.

What never you have, but nothing should surprise the limitless, disgraceful hate you really do harbour for all those who rightfully support the total eradication of the South's slaveocracy.

Wrong - the only hatred on these threads is that displayed by you. But yet again, you support the 'TOTAL ERADICATION' of Southerners - just as Osama Bin Laden is seething with hatred of innocent Americans, you share that hatred toward innocents. You revel - almost sadomasochistically - in the perverted, wanton death and destruction of all things Southern, glorify the war crimes perpetrated by Sherman [*SPIT*], Sheridan and others.

For those that ordered, condoned or carried out a war against INNOCENT southern civilians I have nothing but contempt, but for the common Union soldier that abided by the rules of war I have nothing but respect.

...yet you never stop supporting the 'Confederates' coupled with their failed goals of further enslavement for profit.

Lincoln supported continued slavery, offering his support for an Amendment making it permanent and irrevocable. If all the Confederacy desired was to continue slavery all the had to do was remain in the union. The seceding states were simply attempting to distance themselves from lunatics like you.

So when you repeatedly & dishonorably tag all those loyal Americans during the Civil War period, who served this country in defeating what was a wicked system of forced slave labour for millions, a staining curse on this land, as you sickeningly attempt to equate with some how being equal with the likes of jihadic terrorist filth such as "Bin Laden and Islamic terrorists"

Regarding the first part see above, regarding the second [from Dictionary.com]: terrorism

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Unless you can point to a section/clause of the Constitution that granted the federal government the power to wage war on innocents their actions fit the definition.

You still back the treasonous element which tore this great nation in two so they could continue spreading their empire of slavery.

Wrong. See above. Lincoln would have continued slavery. As far as empire is concerned, the Arizona/New Mexico territories had been open to slave expansion for decades - yet there were a whopping toatal of 21 slaves there. Empire was not their desire, escaping from of union of fanatical lunatics was.

How does it feel being completely devoid of any morals promoting a loathsome scourge which rallied good and honourable men to fight to remove it permanently from America's midst.

Lincoln stated he did not fight to end slavery, Congress did the same. He also stated that never would have been elected, and that the armies would desert if that were the case. Lincoln stated, '[w]e [-------->] didn't [<---------] go into the war to put down slavery, but to put the flag back, and to act differ at this moment, would, I have no doubt, not only weaken our cause but smack of bad faith; for I never should have had votes enough to send me here if the people had supposed I should try to use my power to upset slavery. Why, the first thing you'd see, would be a mutiny in the [UNION] army.'

Devoid of morals? I detest uncivilized warfare waged against innocents - you admire the terrorists that waged such. And you think I'm devoid of morals? Bwahahahahahahaha!

758 posted on 10/03/2005 8:53:31 AM PDT by 4CJ (Tu ne cede malis!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 742 | View Replies]

To: 4CJ
I make my sentiments known about Sherman [*SPIT*] every time I write his name. A racist white supremacist, that desired a union of yankees alone - without blacks, without Southerners, without Native Americans. He favoured the extermination of every single Southerer, and you APPLAUD the wanton destruction of civilians and their properties...

Sherman was not against Southerners, he was very generous in his surrender terms to Joe Johnston. He liked Southerners. Sherman's army took pains to treat Southerners according to their loyalty. My great great grandfather in Georgia was in the path of Sherman's army and after the war he even received compensation from the Southern Claims Commission for two mules Sherman's boys had to use in the cause. He also made wagons for the Union army to use deeper in their march into Georgia. He was just one of many Southerners in Walker, Whitfield and Catoosa counties in Georgia that instead of being exterminated actually aided the Union Army in their mission of ending the war.

759 posted on 10/03/2005 9:01:47 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 740 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo
since slavery was DYING an UNlamented natural death, due to advances in agriculture, your argument falls of it's own small weight.

the coming of animal & steam drawn devices DOOMED chattel slavery, as mules/oxen/horses & tractors work CHEAPER than people. (kill the PROFIT & every commercial institution DIES!)

fwiw, this weekend i went to a southside VA town (on a religious retreat)& actually stood next to a 1851 MOLINE Steam Traction engine (located in the City park), which according to the placard from the Virginia Historical Commission, "would do the same or greater amount of work as a HUNDRED & FIFTY LABORERS, working with hand tools" AND "the machine was retired from ACTIVE USE & placed on fixed display in October, 1948". (emphasis: MINE)

so much for the OUTRIGHT LIES of the LEFTIST/REVISIONISTS, who claimed on several threads that the "Steam Traction Machines" either did not work and/or they were "Primitive & UNusable"!

i guess the "bottom line" is that certain of the damnyankee coven's "sources" which claimed otherwise either do NOT exist and/or the "poster" wasn't intelligent enough to understand his/her "source" to the contrary.

rotflol AT THEM!

free dixie,sw .

760 posted on 10/03/2005 9:26:35 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 757 | View Replies]

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

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

Really, Watie, you must try harder.

761 posted on 10/03/2005 10:08:13 AM PDT by Heyworth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 760 | View Replies]

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

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

762 posted on 10/03/2005 12:07:11 PM PDT by mac_truck (Aide toi et dieu l’aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 756 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
"Where did I make that connection?

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

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

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

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

611 posted on 09/27/2005 7:48:11 PM EDT by Grand Old Partisan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 603 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
763 posted on 10/03/2005 12:12:19 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 689 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan

"I commend your patience with Pea Ridge."


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


764 posted on 10/03/2005 12:14:09 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 690 | View Replies]

To: Heyworth
Thanks for asking.

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

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

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

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

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

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

That gives a figure of $346 million in imported goods at the South, which is about what Encarta said about the imports in 1860.
765 posted on 10/03/2005 1:26:17 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 697 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan

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


766 posted on 10/03/2005 1:40:41 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 698 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan

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

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

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

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


767 posted on 10/03/2005 1:47:11 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 701 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan

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

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

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

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


768 posted on 10/03/2005 1:47:13 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 701 | View Replies]

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

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

769 posted on 10/03/2005 1:48:38 PM PDT by Heyworth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 765 | View Replies]

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

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

770 posted on 10/03/2005 1:50:42 PM PDT by Heyworth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 767 | View Replies]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With this act, Northern merchants sealed their dominance over the cotton trade.
771 posted on 10/03/2005 1:55:33 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 702 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
They were planning to make that change:

Harper's Weekly, February 9, 1861

A Southern Transatlantic Steam Line

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

772 posted on 10/03/2005 2:09:28 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 703 | View Replies]

To: Gianni

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


773 posted on 10/03/2005 2:11:24 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 709 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

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


774 posted on 10/03/2005 2:13:21 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 711 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan

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

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

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

And your source for that?

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

Abraham Lincoln, first inaugural address:

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



775 posted on 10/03/2005 2:18:38 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 714 | View Replies]

To: mac_truck
as usual, you have zilch OF IMPORTANCE to say.

free dixie,sw

776 posted on 10/03/2005 2:23:34 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 762 | View Replies]

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

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

777 posted on 10/03/2005 2:28:41 PM PDT by The Sons of Liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

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

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

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

free dixie,sw

778 posted on 10/03/2005 2:38:33 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 777 | View Replies]

To: Heyworth

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

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

Adding the totals gives the imports South per year.


779 posted on 10/03/2005 2:48:37 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 719 | View Replies]

To: Heyworth

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

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

Adding the totals gives the imports South per year.


780 posted on 10/03/2005 2:48:44 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 719 | View Replies]

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

I suggest you get your terminology straight. Imports, by definition, come from outside of the country. If not from overseas then what was the south importing from Mexico?

781 posted on 10/03/2005 2:52:41 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 774 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge
We have reason to believe that negotiations are on foot which may lead to the establishment of a line of ocean steamers between Norfolk, Virginia, and Havre France, touching at New York going and coming.

What took them?

Cotton can be sent from points south of Memphis to Liverpool, via New York, about as cheaply as via New Orleans.

Then why wasn't it? In the year prior to the rebellion, 274,400 bales of cotton were exported from Nortern ports of New York, Boston, and Philadelphia. Over 10 times as much, 2,840,000 bales, were exported from southern ports. Of that 1,784,000 was exported from New Orleans alone.

But if Norfolk or Baltimore entered into the competition, they would enjoy advantages over New York...

Norfolk and Baltimore were in the competition. Only 810 bales of cotton were exported from Virginia ports, about 3,500 from Baltimore.

782 posted on 10/03/2005 3:00:23 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 772 | View Replies]

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

You did not, Pea. The quote from the source you gave reads as follows: "During 1860 the imports of the South were valued at $331 million; those of the North at $31 million."

783 posted on 10/03/2005 3:02:32 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 763 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge

Interesting. So why did Memphis import over 18 million dollars worth of cotton, by far the largest item on the list?


784 posted on 10/03/2005 3:12:13 PM PDT by Heyworth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 780 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo; 4CJ

Sherman's personal escort on his March to the Sea was the 1st U.S. Alabama Cavalry, a regiment made up from some of the 100,000 southern whites who fought for the United States Government during the Civil War.


785 posted on 10/03/2005 3:28:04 PM PDT by Grand Old Partisan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 759 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge
The Warehousing Act of 1854 was passed by Congress.

New York became the warehousing center of the country because it had readily convertible facilities.

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

Nothing in this act said that goods, wares and merchandise couildn't be stored in Southern locations also. Why couldn't Southerners build their own warehouses to compete with the mighty Yankees?

About all you've shown here is that depsite several natural advantages and some real opportunities Southerners weren't very good businessmen.

786 posted on 10/03/2005 6:04:12 PM PDT by mac_truck (Aide toi et dieu l’aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 771 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Nowhere have i used that figure. That is one you are making up and then asking someone else to defend.

Bad tactics and disinformation do not make a debate...it makes propaganda, and your side uses that constantly.


787 posted on 10/04/2005 5:33:50 AM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 730 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge; All
N-S is the DAMNyankee Minister of Propaganda.

please understand that EVERYTHING that he posts are evasions, distortions & KNOWINGLY UNtruthful. BUT at least he has the IQ, education & wit to do so well. UNtruthfulness is the JOB of the PROPAGANDIST!

most of the rest of the DAMNyankee coven has NONE of those things. ALL they do is personally attack every southron FReeper, post STUPID, off-point bilge & cartoons, parrot REVISIONIST propaganda & tell DUMB jokes.

furthermore, MOST of the coven aren't smart enough to KNOW that the bilge they post is straight out of the most extreme LEFTIST/MARXIST/SOCIALIST fringe of northeastern REVISIONIST academia.

my favorite criticism of the coven is: if they can't find it on the WorldWideWierd,if the union motives are revealed as NOT perfect, if it makes "the unionist cause" look LESS THAN SAINTLY, it didn't exist AND if it makes the lincoln administration look STUPID, hateFILLED, ignorant, mean-spirited and/or CRIMINAL, "it just couldn't have happened".

MOST of the DAMNyankee coven are WILLFULLY blind to the TRUTH. the rest HOPE everyone else is blind.

free dixie,sw

788 posted on 10/04/2005 6:16:35 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 787 | View Replies]

To: 4CJ

"What they are looking for is a simple one line statement, analysis is beyod them."

It is going to take a lot of information to educate these people, and they are going to be unwilling to do their own research and learn a little.


789 posted on 10/04/2005 7:46:30 AM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 741 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
And if it proves that there isn't a privateer-captured U-Boat on display in Galveston, or that the Moline Implement Company wasn't founded until 16 years after you said they were making tractors, it's a damned Yankee lie, huh?

I thought it was pretty funny yesterday when I ran across this line by you on another thread: "i've had TOO MANY experiences where such "sources" turned out to be NONexistent! frequently, such "sources"/"quotes" turn out to be LIES, made up out of whole cloth!"

790 posted on 10/04/2005 9:34:50 AM PDT by Heyworth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 788 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge
Nowhere have i used that figure.

No, you didn't use the 91% number, but you repeatedly cited the $331 million-south/$31 million-north import numbers. Arriving at 91% is just math.

Then, when it's considered that the north had four times the population, the per capita consumption of imported goods in the south, becomes roughly 40x that of the north.

You also cited the 1860 Treasury report from the State of the Union address as the source for the numbers, giving a general link and telling us to go find it ourselves. Well, we did find it, only to discover that those numbers were nowhere in that document. Nor could they be extrapolated through any amount of interpretation and study, as you suggest. No, the closest that document comes is in giving the total collected tariffs for each quarter of the preceding year. So why did you tell us all that was the place we could find the numbers?

791 posted on 10/04/2005 9:44:20 AM PDT by Heyworth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 787 | View Replies]

To: 4CJ
Here's what someone you support, Alexander Stephens in his "Cornerstone Speech" of March 21st, 1861 had to say. Stephens was the hand picked "Vice-President of the new Confederate States of America."

"The new [Confederate] constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.

What was that? "present revolution"

Wild stuff eh? On one hand Stephens states the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution..what was what? Slavery? But you and the neo-confederate cultists always issues 'other reasons' for the start of the Civil War? Now why would you be contradicting Confederate big shot #2?

Stephens further noted in his speech to fellow 'Confederates', to resounding applause, that his values were in direct contradiction to those of the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated [race slavery] as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right....Our new government is founded upon ... "the great truth, that the Negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition."

Well, well Slick, how would your Black neighbours like to discover (as if they don't already know) you support ardent, vicious white supremacist views like that?

Mmmmmm, spill the beans Col Sanders, lay your cards on the table, not the neo-confederate con job you are so famous for.

"No one sold out their country."

LOL

If that's not the height of extreme DiLorenzoism. I suppose the Civil War was started by people invading America from Iceland in longboats.

"The Supreme Court had previously held UNAMIMOUSLY that the President could not simply take matters into his own hands. The Attorney General did extend his opinion on the matter as well:"

Naturally you mean the same pro-slavery, pre-1860 Supreme Court which gave America the infamous, later overturned Dred Scott case?

Slavery was the cause of the Civil War. It was the issue that made America ungovernable by the late 1850s. It was the issue that saw open warfare in "Bleeding" Kansas in 1856, in Virginia in 1859. All of American politics in the decade before 1860 was about slavery, in one form or another.

The Southern Plantation rulers would never have attempted carving out their out separate Slave Empire from the United States of America, nor would the pro-slavery traitors have fired on Fort Sumter if they did not believe the North would actually try to eliminate their precious slavery.

You try and spin it as "Empire was not their desire, escaping from of union of fanatical lunatics was."

What a delusional sick comment.

"Devoid of morals? I detest uncivilized warfare waged against innocents - you admire the terrorists that waged such."

You are the one vehemently supporting the 'slavery forever' Confederates, not I.

In the grand scope of monumental issues confronting America in 2005, the 'cause' of the neo-rebel malcontents is Neo-Redneckery, a backward joke from a failed & regrettable portion of America's tragic past.

792 posted on 10/04/2005 11:32:17 AM PDT by M. Espinola (Freedom is never free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 758 | View Replies]

To: Heyworth
"..it's a damned Yankee lie, huh?"

With old Stand it can't be any other way :)

793 posted on 10/04/2005 11:34:16 AM PDT by M. Espinola (Freedom is never free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 790 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan
"Sherman's personal escort on his March to the Sea was the 1st U.S. Alabama Cavalry, a regiment made up from some of the 100,000 southern whites who fought for the United States Government during the Civil War."

Today's marching neo-confederates will somehow twist and reverse that fact by somehow stating those 100.000 white southerners fighting as loyal Americans, were really 'Confederate spies' operating as an entire regiment - behind Union lines...:)

794 posted on 10/04/2005 11:41:23 AM PDT by M. Espinola (Freedom is never free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 785 | View Replies]

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

I did quote treasury figures. See import dollar value. If you have studied that data then what figure did the Treasury Report give for general imports for that year?

I should have been more specific. First of all, the data on consumption came from Encarta. I have not verified the source Encarta but did give you the figures from Kettell which were similar and verified the magnitude of the consumption.

Now that data was on value of goods consumed. The Treasury data was on value of imports..........two completely separate categories.

The import dollar value figures are produced by the Treasury department. They are from July 1 to June 30 each year. They are accurate but you should be careful you understand the data before you quote it. For example, I quoted the import dollar value for 1860 as $354,000,000.

That data is correct. But $336,000,000 was marked on the goods in the warehouse (according to the treasury department)as being for immediate consumption, and tariffs were charged. The balance went into storage, as was permitted by the warehousing act I listed above.

Now, the treasury reports I have do not say what happened to the $18,000,000 difference. Only 5% variance but it could matter to some.

"Now you're telling us that, well, those numbers are sometimes massaged..."

The data that was sometimes "massaged" was tariff revenue data, different that what we are discussing. I should have made that distinction.

"and in any event you got it from Encarta article. Can you post the link to it for everyone to see?"

I have already posted the Encarta article. See #623.
795 posted on 10/04/2005 11:46:15 AM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 769 | View Replies]

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

First off, the original warehousing act was passed in 1846. The 1854 act only changed the place of storing imports for up to three years before the tariff was paid from government customs houses to private bonded warehouses. Second, the bill was heartily approved of by the southern agricultural interests, as reported by DeBow:

"We were at Memphis, Tennessee, when a large portion of the Southern States were present, and the whole of the Western ones. Mr. Minor, from Virginia, reported favorably on the system; and had the vote of the Convention been taken. upon the merits of the question, from everything we saw and heard there, little doubt can exist that the report would have been almost unanimously adopted. Unfortunately, however, a gentleman, Mr. Trescott, of Charleston, presented a minority report, signed by himself and three others, which disposed of the question, as we conceived, on grounds scarcely tenable. The minority were not opposed to the warehousing system, but did not think it a proper subject to come before the Convention, partaking, as it did of a party complexion, and relating more to the mercantile than to the agricultural interests."(...)""It is a high and strong recommendation in favor of it, (the warehousing system,) that it was adopted on the most liberal and extensive footing in all those nations most celebrated for their commercial wisdom and experience. The want of it has already driven from New Orleans nearly the whole of the Mexican trade, as the merchants of that country can no longer procure here those large and varied assortments of foreign manufactures, which were always to be obtained in this city, and this lucrative want of commerce has been transferred to Havana, where a liberal warehouse system exists."

http://www.earlyrepublic.net/jm990907.htm

796 posted on 10/04/2005 11:56:25 AM PDT by Heyworth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 771 | View Replies]

To: Heyworth; Gianni; GOPcapitalist; 4CJ

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

That is where you can find the data on imports that the government used to compile its statistics.

But I told you that it would take some work. I gave you the beginning point, the US Treasury Report that annually gives the value of the imports into the country. You are going to need some more data to arrive at the results that the government had available back then.

Here is your next step: http://www2.census.gov/prod2/statcomp/documents/CT1970p1-01.pdf

If you research the sections on commerce and particularly the Dept. of Commerce data, you will find the next data you need.

You have annual import value........now you need where the imports were sent (I said this above and each shipping point customs house kept the data). You also need the value of domestic manufactures and where they were sent.

From that you can determine where foreign imports were consumed, and where domestic manufactures originated and were consumed.

Unless you do this or find the research, you have very little understanding of the big picture and specifics of production and consumption, which is the problem with most of your fellow posters.


797 posted on 10/04/2005 12:04:30 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 770 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
"I suggest you get your terminology straight"

Why don't you write the Treasury department and complain. That is their terminology and was used in their record keeping.

For each custom house, inbound goods were labeled "imports". Some were non-dutible by law, some were non-dutible because they came from another part of the country.

The reason you are so confused is that you have been assuming that the inflow of products that were labeled imports were from overseas sources only.

In fact the vast majority of inbound goods for the consumption of the South were northern manufactures.

They were labeled imports, but were not dutiable.

Now do you understand why that $362 was so outlandishly wrong, and your completely wrong conclusion stood out like a sore thumb?
798 posted on 10/04/2005 12:15:05 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 781 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

You are asking questions of an article that came from the period. They are also the same inane questions you have been asking for more than four years, despite massive information to your rebuttal.

I do not expect you to change...you persist quite irrationally in your myths.

But here is another article explaining how the coastal packet trade developed out of New York.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:1HTF3maH7dUJ:post.economics.harvard.edu/hier/2005papers/HIER2073.pdf+1860+%22southern+imports%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

It is produce by Harvard University and answers your questions.


799 posted on 10/04/2005 12:21:38 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 782 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

And the difference is?


800 posted on 10/04/2005 12:28:38 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 783 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 701-750751-800801-850 ... 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