Michael Neibauer, Examiner (Washington, D.C.), March 25, 2009
{snip}
The fiscal 2010 Budget Support Act, which sets out the legislative changes needed to implement [D.C. Mayor Adrian] Fenty’s proposed spending plan, transforms Emancipation Day, April 16, from a legal public holiday—when schools and the government are shuttered—to an optional private holiday. That has angered some.
{snip}
D.C. Emancipation Day celebrates Lincoln’s signing of the Compensated Emancipation Act, which freed 3,100 District slaves and paid off their owners with up to $300 per slave. Lincoln would issue his Emancipation Proclamation eight and a half months later.
According to budget documents provided by the Fenty administration, Emancipation Day will revert to a “legal private holiday” in 2010, and “appropriate observances will continue.” The city, facing an $800 million shortfall next year, will save $1.3 million with the change, as all schools and government offices will open as usual. A Fenty spokeswoman declined to elaborate further.
Striking Emancipation Day to save one-tenth of 1 percent of the city’s budget is “absurd,” said at-large Councilman Michael Brown.
“The message is so important as to what that day means,” Brown said. “It’s absurd to take it out. It sends a message that we’re stepping backward, not forward, when talking about our independence.”
{snip}
Closing the door on Emancipation Day is “not acceptable,” said Anise Jenkins, president of Stand Up! for Democracy in D.C. Jenkins is one of several organizers of this year’s Emancipation Day rally for statehood at Franklin Square.
“Oh no. No,” she said. “This is our only public holiday.”
Original article
(Posted on March 25, 2009)
Comments
I fail to see how eliminating a holiday will save the city money. Will it mean reduced aggregate payroll? With salaried city workers, no. It might in theory with hourly wage workers, but I’m sure that in a lib/black city like D.C., that even their hourly workers have Emancipation Day as a paid holiday.
Also, if you make it an optional private holiday, it will be a holiday for all intents and purposes.
The Amazing Carnac predicts Obama will put an ‘earmark’ in a future stimulus plan to have the Feds pick up the tab for this. Bank on it…
“Budget woes threatening to cancel blacks’ “only public holiday.”
Budget woes and lack of money will cause much more to be dropped than some asinine black holiday.
Wait until the unemployment figures are in double digits, then see how much is dropped.
I notice that Maryland is amply represented in today’s AmRen headlines.
That has given me an idea. Rather than considering statehood for the District of Columbia, let’s just cede it back to Maryland (where it came from), give it proportional representation in the House, and allow it to participate in electing Md.’s two Senators.
Oh, I guess Maryland might have something to say about inheriting the ciy’s $800 million shortfall and myriad other “urban” problems.
BTW, $300 was a pittance of compensation to the slave-owners, but perhaps a bargain if it had included shipping the goods back to the country of origin.
Karl:
David Wheeler, a tech blogger I read often, has that proposal. The only difference is that he doesn’t propose returning D.C. to Maryland, just treating the ceded portion from a state to make a Federal Capital District as part of the state that ceded it for Federal elections (not state elections, for it wouldn’t be returned to the state). The net effect would be the same, blacks would vote in MD US Senate elections, though it will have zero long term effect as MD by itself will send two Democrats to the Senate forever anyway. MD would get one extra house seat, but phooey — it would give them their precious representation that they supposedly want. But they would oppose this plan, for they don’t want representation, they want two extra Democrats in the U.S. Senate forever.
However, the Federal government has facilities everywhere, that are within states. Why does the area around the White House and the Congress need to be in a Federal district? Why can’t they be in a state? You could give DC back to MD, the difference between your plan and Wheeler’s plan is that if DC would be given back to MD, DCers would get to vote in MD state elections, too. As Bob Ehrlich proved, Republicans do win Governor every once in awhile, with DC in MD that would be impossible.
Incidentally, the District of Columbia once included parts of Virginia. Look at the border of Fairfax County, compared to D.C., and you can see the “square” forming. One side is ten miles, hence the colloquialism “ten miles square” referring to the National Capital and its actions, even though D.C. is not 100 square miles today.
the District of Columbia, let’s just cede it back to Maryland (where it came from),
How about we have it walled off (with Congress and Senate in session) and forget it. But WAIT!! all of the Congress and Senate are NEVER THERE doing their jobs.
To Question Diversity:
City workers usually are paid time and a half (12 hours pay for an 8 hour shift) during public holidays, so turning 4/16 back to a regular workday will certainly save some $.
Question Diversity:
Yes, initially Virginia contributed a chunk of real estate to be incorporated into the District. But I think the Federal Government returned it because it didn’t require that large an area (even though the Constitution provided for it).
I think it was intended to be a sort of neutral, non-partisan zone, but the influx of liberated slaves sealed its fate to the contrary.
You and David Wheeler are exactly right about the undesirable consequences of having the existing District ceded back to Maryland (e.g., its detrimental effect in state elections and, of course, the further intrenchment of its legislative black caucus).
Still, if Md. wants to court diversity by changing the lyrics to its historical state song, maybe it deserves to have D.C. refunded to it.
Then we might remove the nation’s Capital to a more hospitable location.
Only black holiday? How about MLK’s birthday? Juneteenth? And the holiday one principal declared for his school district when Obama won?
But they would oppose this plan, for they don’t want representation, they want two extra Democrats in the U.S. Senate forever.
Two extrs BLACK Democrats!
““Oh no. No,” she said. “This is our only public holiday.””
What about MLK day? That sure as hell isn’t MY holiday.
Karl:
Speaking of “a more hospitable location,” after the War of 1812, and the British sacking of D.C., either James Madison or James Monroe wanted to move the Federal capital inland, as in those days having the seat of government not too near an ocean was an advantage. Scouts were sent to St. Louis, at the time before Missouri became a state, the Federal government owned land south of the city which would eventually become Jefferson Barracks.
But moving the capital to St. Louis was rejected because it was so far west of what was then the American center of population. Ironically, that mathematical center has been near St. Louis since 1970.
I’m glad they didn’t. If it would have, St. Louis would be far more liberal than it already is. And if it would have become the Federal capital after the War of 1812, then the city would have been too important not to run railroads through it after the War Between the States. The reason that St. Louis didn’t get their railroad hub and Chicagograd did is because after the WBTS, there was an implicit understanding among the northeastern industrial elite that happened to become all powerful thanks to the enemy victory in the WBTS (that they were behind) that Missouri should be punished because it was essentially a southern state. Even though St. Louis was a Union city, it was still in a quasi-Confederate state. Ergo, they punished MO by routing the railroads through Chicagograd. Therefore it became a big city, a magnet for black migration from the South between the World Wars, and therefore as liberal as Hades.
A St. Louis that would have had both the National Capitol and the railroad hub would be intolerably left wing. Think D.C. plus Chicago.
First of all as a Marylander I’d like to say “HELL NO” to the idea of having to pay for the giant slum we call our capital. Baltimore costs us enough as it is. Second of all MLK is the only individual who has his own day. Lincoln and Washington’s birthdays used to be holidays until we decided dead white mean don’t matter, now we have “presidents day.”
““Oh no. No,” she said. “This is our only public holiday.””
And let us not forget the entire MONTH of what?? February
The trouble is that the Founders never meant for anyone to permanently live in DC. It was supposed to be a place for government offices, foreign embassies, and one temporary family (the president’s). That’s why the Constitution gives Congress exclusive jurisdiction over DC. Congress was foolish to grant it any kind of autonomy, and the 23rd Amendment was even worse.
The solution — short of expelling everyone not living in the White House — is to not allow anyone to be a legal DC resident. Persons living there should remain domiciled in their home state. They would then pay taxes to that state and vote absentee in its elections, just as most military personnel have done for decades.
I can’t claim credit for the above idea — it was from a fellow Southern patriot. I liked it so much I incorporated it into my blueprint for a free post-breakup Dixie .
Incidentally, the District of Columbia once included parts of Virginia. Look at the border of Fairfax County, compared to D.C., and you can see the “square” forming. One side is ten miles, hence the colloquialism “ten miles square” referring to the National Capital and its actions, even though D.C. is not 100 square miles today.
It was actually Arlington County, not Fairfax County, that was a part of D.C. But you’re right about the rest.
Since HOLIDAYS involve Not Going to Work, just lying around, drinking beer and watching TV AREN’T MOST DAYS HOLIDAYS, FOR MOST blacks? So what is the big deal?
This evening on FOX News “Glenn Beck” a CT attorney general said he had no jurisdiction over a Congressman as he (the congressman) is a federal employee!!! I rather thought a congressman was a representative of the people of CT e.g. an employee of the voters of CT AND!! I would think, subject to the authority of the attorney general. I could be wrong though, it has happened before.
