On March 21, 1861, Confederate States of American Vice President Alexander Stephens gave a speech outlining the changes to the Confederacy’s constitution. A portion of the speech is below, read the whole thing:
But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new 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. [Thomas] Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, 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. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.
In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.
As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not, therefore, look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature’s laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances, or to question them. For His own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made “one star to differ from another star in glory.” The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders “is become the chief of the corner” the real “corner-stone” in our new edifice. I have been asked, what of the future? It has been apprehended by some that we would have arrayed against us the civilized world. I care not who or how many they may be against us, when we stand upon the eternal principles of truth, if we are true to ourselves and the principles for which we contend, we are obliged to, and must triumph.
Remember this the next time that the usual suspects start talking about how the Civil War wasn’t about slavery.
The proposed sand/gravel extraction site at Black Marsh Farm and the idiocy of Gilbert Shelton and others.
Editor’s note: On March 16, 2011 the Caroline County Planning Commission had a public hearing regarding a proposed special exception permit to allow the extraction of sand and gravel at Black Marsh Farm in Skinkers Neck in northern Caroline County. Here is a guest commentary from “notgilbertshelton” since I have been too busy to write anything about the hearing:
I want to make some observations about the comments made during the March 16, 2011, meeting of the Caroline County Planning Commission.
Gilbert Shelton, who spoke for the Caroline County Countryside Alliance, stated that the reclaimed area that was previously mined at “Flintsher” [sic] (evidently referring to Flintshire Farm) was not being farmed now. He claimed that “Joe [Holloway] told me no one will farm it.” Someone is lying because James Richard Garrett and his sons are farming that land. Mr. Shelton was really absurd when he suggested that Vulcan would “move their equipment out each year before January 1 so they would not have to pay taxes” on it that year. And he stated that there is no way that the county will receive almost $100,000 in tax revenue if Vulcan is only investing $2,000,000 at Black Marsh. Did he purposely misrepresent the fact that Vulcan plans on investing $10,000,000, which Vulcan had specifically stated prior to Shelton’s diatribe? Some banker he must have been. Mr. Shelton also referred to “the Raines” as “an elderly couple”. Was he confusing Jane Raines Kizer and her cousin, Jim Raines, as a couple? Mr. Raines (who lived on the land adjacent to Black Marsh as a child) is a widower and Jane Raines Kizer (who owns the land) is married to Wade Kizer. It pays to know your allies and not call them elderly when they are ten to fifteen or more years younger than you (maybe Mr. Shelton’s advanced years are the problem.) Mr. Shelton referenced the “Kelo case” at least twice in his speech. The last thing he said before he left the podium was to tell the Planning Commission, “Remember the Kelo case.” I have no idea how he thinks that the case about “the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another to further economic development” pertains to this. Was his reference meant as some kind threat? (The situation in the “Kelo case” cannot be duplicated in Virginia. Kudos goes to Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli and also Senator Creigh Deeds for that.) Mr. Shelton has become the local bully since moving here. He uses lawsuits or the threat of lawsuits to try to intimidate the locals.
Nancy Long spoke, supposedly in the capacity of the mayor of Port Royal. (As an important note: some of the King George mines are closer to Port Royal than Black Marsh!) I understood her to say that “everyone who signed the [petition] list supporting Black Marsh Mining had something to do with gravel.” I know that there are signatures from people not having anything to do with gravel on those lists. Mrs. Long also expressed concern for the affect of the proposed mine on Haymount, which is laughable since she was an ardent protester of this development that received final approval on January 26, 1993. (And still has no houses.) But the most important thing was what Mrs. Long has not said: She has not disclosed that there is an ongoing lawsuit between her husband, Alex Long, and Albert Wachtmeister. Mr. Long filed a lawsuit against Mr. Wachtmeister for breach of contract in 2009. Mr. Long, while acting as Mr. Wachtmeister’s real estate agent, obtained a contract for the sale of some of Mr. Wachtmeister’s riverfront property near Moss Neck to Ennstone, Inc. (that is right, the sand and gravel company!). (This property is now in a conservation easement.) Could animosity from this lawsuit be fueling Mrs. Long’s zealous protests of Mr. Wachtmeister’s proposed mine? It is my understanding that she has gone to all the meetings concerning the Black Marsh Farms mining proposal including the work sessions with the county.
John Mitchell, who I think said he was from King George, was irate because he said if Black Marsh is mined then the mine might flood and he might not have access to White Marsh which he rents. White Marsh is lower in elevation than the proposed mine site so, duh, it would flood before the mine. As a side note there was some mention, I believe by Gilbert Shelton, of a “bird refuge” or “bird sanctuary” at White Marsh, which I find pathetic since Mr. Mitchell rents the land to hunt game and birds!
Vivian MacDonald who is ill and evidently cannot think clearly said that Vulcan and Mr. Wachmeister “are murdering me.” She said that she they “are basically holding a gun to my head.” She also said she “would not be able to open her windows” because of the mine. (She does not live near the proposed mine. She lives in Port Royal! And I reiterate, some of the King George mines are much closer to Port Royal than Black Marsh.)
John Lampman, president of the Portobago Homeowners’ Association, is worried about “the barges pushing silt into the channels of the river’s bays and creeks” so he proceeds to tell about the barge that went into Fredericksburg and got stuck in the sand and was fined for dredging the Rappahannock without a license. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? I was on a 16 foot outboard ski boat in Fredericksburg a few years ago and we went a little ways above the city dock (but still below the Chatham Bridge) and got the boat stuck on a sandbar. We had to get out and push the boat and turn it around. The river is entirely different at Skinkers Neck than it is at Fredericksburg. (By the way, Mr. Lampman is considering running for the Republican nominee for delegate of the 99th District. I certainly hope not. That could make me support Catherine Crabill.)
There was a man (whose name that I did not get) who claimed to be an archeologist or knowledgeable in that field. He was concerned about Indian, and I think, colonial and antebellum artifacts on Black Marsh farm. He referred to “Townfield” at least twice and the “manor house and out buildings”. There has never been a home named “Townfield” in Skinkers Neck and there was never a “manor house” or “out buildings” on Black Marsh, only a farm house and a tenant house.
Mr. Tippett from the Friends of the Rappahannock went on and on about Canada geese and their droppings causing nitrogen and phosphorous in the river after Vulcan stated that the pond will be a closed pond. It will have no outlet to the river or any other streams. (There are at least five or six ponds and a lake in Skinkers Neck which all have outlets to the river.) Does he think that the geese that are here are notifying their pesky relatives in Canada to come on down as soon as there is another pond? Or are they just already here and breeding? Maybe Mr. Tippett should petition the Virginia Game Commission to lengthen the goose season and increase the bag limits and not pick on land owners. What next, land owners being told, “No pond for you!”
The caretaker of Senator and Mrs. Mark Warner’s property in King George read a prepared statement because Senator Warner was unable to attend. I did not agree with the statement but the Planning Commission gave the King George residents permission to state their views so they had that right, but I think perhaps Senator Warner should have someone else read his statement from now on. The caretaker’s petty, snide remarks that he added after he read the statement not only put the caregiver in a bad light but also Senator Warner. There was no reason to say something about how his “wife was a pretty good photographer” and that he “should have had her take some pictures of kids like the ones that were in the PowerPoint presentation so I could have shown them to the Planning Commission.” (Vulcan had shown some pictures of their community involvement in their presentation.)
The residents of King George need to stop moaning and groaning and take care of their own mines and landfill. (We had to put up with the methane smell from the landfill for a couple of years and it just recently got better. Some years ago we had to put up with the stench of the pigs at the meat packing plant. Did we go over and complain to the King George officials?) Do you realize that the mines in King George are closer to some of the Skinkers Neck residents than the proposed Black Marsh site is to Senator Warner’s house and some of the other King George complainers?
All the protesters need to get over it. Black Marsh is not their land. The deed does not have their names on it. We are supposed to be living in the United States of America not the United Socialist States of America.
County Population: 28,545
Ideal Board of Supervisors district size (population / 5): 5,709 (districts need to be within 10% to survive Justice Department review and any possible court challenges)
Current District Population:
|Bowling Green district||4,641|
|Port Royal district||4,435|
|Reedy Church district||4,663|
Not many surprises there, Madison had obviously grown significantly over the last ten years. Only real surprise to me is that I thought Mattaponi would have grown more than it has.
The real question is where are the districts going to go to make up the necessary population. The Bowling Green District can’t go very far south otherwise Supervisor Floyd Thomas will end up in that district and I have heard no indications that he isn’t planning on running for reelection at this point.
If the Bowling Green goes north, which was the consensus among the Board from what I had heard, it still needs to add 1,000 people and I don’t know if Port Royal and the surrounding area has enough people. It would probably need to take everything east of Route 2 to the Spotsylvania County line too. Unfortunately, given the limited amount of data that the Census Bureau has released, and its complete user-unfriendliness when it comes to accessing it, it is hard to tell right now.
The “Port Royal district” would then become the “Woodford district” and cut into the current Madison district and so on for the Mattaponi and Reedy Church Districts.
Cross-posted at Virginia Virtucon.
I started off the new semester of Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) by marveling at the outright government waste that makes up their spending decisions.
The university, in its infinite wisdom, decided to replace a large number of desks that were used for student seating. Now, while a modest number of seats were broken and in need of replacement, what did the university decide to replace the traditional style of desks with?
An alternative that costs over twice the price.
How do I know this? Because, I, as an enterprising young hate-blogger, know that state agencies are required to purchase their supplies, especially their furniture, through the Virginia Department of Corrections’ Correctional Enterprises.
Now, if you go to the website for the VADCOC’s Correctional Enterprises, you can look through their inventory and see how much stuff costs. What does a traditional desk cost? $140 at the cheapest.
Meanwhile, the university decided that instead of choosing that frugal option, it would instead purchase “general purpose office table[s]” and put two chairs under them.
How much does the table, which seats two, cost? $200.
How much do the chairs cost? $210 a piece.
Now, we need a table and two chairs for two students, which would cost $620, or $310 for seating space for one student, or over twice the price for a single desk.
And how much does it cost if you multiple the cost difference out over multiple rooms, floors, and buildings? For the sake of simplicity, assume ten rooms seating 30 students a piece over four floors. It would be $168,000 for the regular old desks while the table/chairs setup would be $372,000, or a waste of $204,000 to seat only 1,200 students.
And the university is wasting this level of money after they raised tuition 24% in the last academic year and the state has already threaten to reduce its share of the university’s funding?
And it isn’t just the cost, the table/chairs setup just doesn’t work in a majority of the rooms. The chairs don’t fit under the tables correctly, and since the seats closest (to the often times single) aisle are the first to go it, you end up with an inch or two of space for someone to squeeze through to get to the other seats.
All around, it’s a Charlie-Foxtrot and a massive waste of limited money the college has.
Cross-posted at Virginia Virtucon.
But it’s almost over:
And if you were wondering, yes, that’s Courteney Cox in the video.
This video is originally from the Snowpocalypse of earlier this year but I thought it would be appropriate given some of the predictions of snowfall this weekend:
Bob Marshall, wannabe 2012 Senate candidate, is proposing a bill that would ban homosexuals from serving in the National Guard. How does he plan on doing this? He claims that the United States Constitution ensues that the states are responsible for disciplining the “militia” (the National Guard).
Except for, you know, that provision that states the exact opposite:
Congress shall have power […] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. (United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1 and 16).
What is the “discipline prescribed by Congress”? That would be the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), containing, or not containing, the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ provision.
And what did the founders have to say about this? Well, let’s turn to the Federalist Papers:
One Government can collect and avail itself of the talents and experience of the ablest men, in whatever part of the Union they may be found. It can move on uniform principles of policy. It can harmonize, assimilate, and protect the several parts and members, and extend the benefit of its foresight and precautions to each. In the formation of treaties it will regard the interest of the whole, and the particular interests of the parts as connected with that of the whole. It can apply the resources and power of the whole to the defence of any particular part, and that more easily and expeditiously than State Governments, or separate confederacies can possibly do, for want of concert and unity of system. It can place the militia under one plan of discipline, and, by putting their officers in a proper line of subordination to the Chief Magistrate, will, as it were, consolidate them into one corps, and thereby render them more efficient than if divided into thirteen or into three or four distinct independent bodies.
But whatever may be our situation, whether firmly united under one national Government, or split into a number of confederacies, certain it is, that foreign nations will know and view it exactly as it is; and they will act towards us accordingly. If they see that our national Government is efficient and well administered — our trade prudently regulated — our militia properly organized and disciplined — our resources and finances discreetly managed — our credit re-established — our people free, contented, and united, they will be much more disposed to cultivate our friendship than provoke our resentment. If, on the other hand, they find us either destitute of an effectual Government, (each State doing right or wrong, as to its rulers may seem convenient,) or split into three or four independent and probably discordant republics or confederacies, one inclining to Britain, another to France, and a third to Spain, and perhaps played off against each other by the three, what a poor, pitiful figure will America make in their eyes! How liable would she become not only to their contempt, but to their outrage; and how soon would dear-bought experience proclaim that when a people or family so divide, it never fails to be against themselves. (John Jay, Federalist No. 4.)
It requires no skill in the science of war to discern, that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defence. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field, with mutual intelligence and concert — an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army: and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions, which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the National authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the Convention proposes to empower the Union “to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.” [emphasis in italics in original] (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 29.)
That being said, Congress, under the UCMJ, has left it up to the states on how National Guard troops will be disciplined when not under federal active duty (UCMJ, Title 32), but that is a purely statutory arrangement, and Congress would be more than in its right to change. Furthermore, Virginia fully incorporates the provisions of the UCMJ to apply to National Guard troops (Va. Code § 44-40).
Maybe Bob Marshall should dust off his copy of the United States Constitution and Federalist Papers and take a turn rereading them, that’s if he has ever bothered reading them in the first place.
Maybe he can take time off from gay-bashing and do that.
Cross-posted at Virginia Virtucon.
Today is the 150th anniversary of the secession of South Carolina from the United States of America.
There is a simple reason that South Carolina, a state where you had to be a wealthy land-owning white male to hold elected office, choose to secede: slavery.
Do not believe me? Read the South Carolina Declaration of the Causes of Secession (December 24, 1860):
The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.
And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act.
In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, “that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.”
They further solemnly declared that whenever any “form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government.” Deeming the Government of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonies “are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.”
In pursuance of this Declaration of Independence, each of the thirteen States proceeded to exercise its separate sovereignty; adopted for itself a Constitution, and appointed officers for the administration of government in all its departments– Legislative, Executive and Judicial. For purposes of defense, they united their arms and their counsels; and, in 1778, they entered into a League known as the Articles of Confederation, whereby they agreed to entrust the administration of their external relations to a common agent, known as the Congress of the United States, expressly declaring, in the first Article “that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.”
Under this Confederation the war of the Revolution was carried on, and on the 3rd of September, 1783, the contest ended, and a definite Treaty was signed by Great Britain, in which she acknowledged the independence of the Colonies in the following terms: “ARTICLE 1– His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.”
Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE.
In 1787, Deputies were appointed by the States to revise the Articles of Confederation, and on 17th September, 1787, these Deputies recommended for the adoption of the States, the Articles of Union, known as the Constitution of the United States.
The parties to whom this Constitution was submitted, were the several sovereign States; they were to agree or disagree, and when nine of them agreed the compact was to take effect among those concurring; and the General Government, as the common agent, was then invested with their authority.
If only nine of the thirteen States had concurred, the other four would have remained as they then were– separate, sovereign States, independent of any of the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, two of the States did not accede to the Constitution until long after it had gone into operation among the other eleven; and during that interval, they each exercised the functions of an independent nation.
By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers was restrained, which necessarily implied their continued existence as sovereign States. But to remove all doubt, an amendment was added, which declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. On the 23d May , 1788, South Carolina, by a Convention of her People, passed an Ordinance assenting to this Constitution, and afterwards altered her own Constitution, to conform herself to the obligations she had undertaken.
Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with definite objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.
We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.
In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.
The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: “No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”
This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.
The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.
The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.
The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be “to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”
These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.
We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. `Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the *forms* [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.
On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.
The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.
Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.
We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.
Adopted December 24, 1860 [Committee signatures]
The Confederacy rebelled and fought to retain their ability to hold human beings as chattel. Anyone that disputes this is ignorant of history and is doing nothing more than romanticizing one of the most disgusting acts in this country’s history.
And the sad thing is for the next five years, that is exactly what anyone that has a brain will be forced to put up with: People talking about how great the South was for fighting for “states’ rights” (“states’ rights” meaning the ability for states to allow people to be held as slaves).
Delegate Chris Peace (R-97th), who represents the southern portions of Caroline County, including Ladysmith, has a brilliant idea: he’s going to run those damn Hispanics illegals out of state colleges and universities.
When did he turn to promote his bill to keep Hispanics illegals out of college? “World Net Daily” (WND).
What is “World Net Daily”, you may be asking? Well, it is the clearing house of hundreds of different crazy conspiracy theories, including being one of the main sites responsible for the “Birthers” who allege, despite the voluminous evidence to the contrary, that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States. In all, it is a bunch of crazies that write a bunch of nonsensical drivel.
Did he solicit an interview from WND or did they contact him? In any case, why did he agree to have an interview with them? Is he a Birther? If I was a politician and WND contacted me to do a story about a bill that I had sponsored, it was force me to do a little rethinking about my position. But for Chris Peace? He is more than glad to do an interview with a bunch of nuts.
Illegal aliens are already not eligible for in-state tuition (see Va. Code § 23-7.4), but now Chris Peace wants colleges and universities to conduct full background checks on applicants to see if they are in the country legally.
How about we just call this the “Bureaucrat Full Employment Act”? I thought Republicans were supposed to be for limited government or something?
Here is to hoping that someone runs against him this year. Chris Peace should not be in any position of elected office in this state.