It is important to note that following the death of Sejanus in October of 31 A.D that Pilate was most conciliatory when confronted with Jewish demands.  Prior to that time the Jews had found him inflexible.  Thus a crucifixion date after 31 A.D. is more plausible than an earlier date. An understanding of the Jewish lunisolar calendar is helpful in evaluating possible dates for the crucifixion.  In the Jewish calendar, years are based upon the movements of the sun while the moon determines the months.  Months begin the first evening that the slim crescent of the new moon becomes visible.  Days are measured from evening until the following evening.  The lunar calendar is tied to the solar calendar through the selection of the month of Nisan.  The month of Nisan, the first month of the Jewish calendar, is the first month to begin following the spring equinox, when the sun rises the closest to due east.  Thus the feast of Unleavened Bread and the Passover can never occur prior to the spring equinox.  Since twelve lunar months are about eleven days short of a solar year about every three years a thirteenth or “leap month” is added to the lunisolar year.  (In somewhat the same way February 29th is added to our calendar every fourth year.)  All the Gospel writers state that Christ was crucified on a day of preparation preceding a Sabbath.  (See Matthew 27:62, Mark 15:42, Luke 23:54 and John 19:42.)  A Sabbath could be either the weekly Sabbath (a Saturday) or a feast day.  It is important to understand that in Biblical times the Jews counted inclusively.  Thus, according to the Jewish manner of reckoning time, any part of Friday, Saturday, and any part of Sunday would be counted as three days and three nights.  John specifically states the day of preparation on which Christ was crucified was the day of preparation for the Passover.  (See John 19:14.)  All the Gospel writers are in agreement that Christ rose from the dead on the first day of week, which we call Sunday.  Furthermore, he was hurriedly laid in his tomb because of the approaching Sabbath.  The women returned on Sunday to finish the task of anointing and preparing his body for internment only to find he has risen from the dead.  Thus I am comfortable with the traditional view that Christ was crucified on a Friday and rose from the dead on a Sunday with the intervening Saturday being both the weekly Sabbath and a Passover.  Traditionally the Pascal lamb was slain on day of preparation for the Passover.  It should be noted that Christ had prophesied that he would rise from the dead within three days.  Hence it is necessary to select a three-day period that both allows Christ to have been crucified on the day of preparation for Passover—in harmony with the symbolism of his being the Pascal lamb—and well as his rising from the dead on a Sunday as many witnesses testified happened.  Thus a Saturday Passover is required to comply with the prophecy that Christ would rise from the dead in three days, the symbolism that Jesus is the Pascal lamb, and the testimony of witness that the Savior rose from the dead on a Sunday.  The symbolism of Christ as the Pascal lamb, the author feels, should be given considerable importance.  If Christ were crucified on a Friday preceding a Saturday Passover he would have been crucified at the same time the Pascal lambs were slain for the Passover meal.  This is another reason the author feels Christ was crucified on a Friday preceding a Saturday Passover. The following table lists some of the important symbolism that adds weight to the selection of this day for the crucifixion.Modern Date Jewish Date Passover Event Event in Christ’s LifeMonday, March 28, 33 10 Nisan Passover lamb chosen Triumphal entry proclaiming Jesus to be the MessiahFriday, April 1, 33 AD 14 Nisan Lamb sacrificed Christ’s Crucifixion – Lamb of God slain for sins of the worldSaturday, April 2, 33 15 Nisan Feast commemorating the liberation from bondage in Egypt Salvation preached to the captives in the sprit worldSunday, April 3, 33 AD 16 Nisan First fruits of the harvest presented to the Lord First fruits of the resurrection come forth The following table shows the day of preparation preceding Passover during the years that Pilate was governor of Judea and Caiaphas was high priest.  Day of Preparation (14 Nisan) Year Day Date26 AD Sunday April 19, 1 AD27 AD Thursday April 8, 27 AD28 AD Tuesday March 28, 28 AD29 AD Monday April 16, 29 AD30 AD Friday April 5, 20 AD31 AD Tuesday March 25, 31 AD32 AD Sunday April 11, 32 AD33 AD Friday April 1, 33 AD34 AD Wednesday March 22, 34 AD35 AD Tuesday April 10, 35 AD36 AD Saturday March 29, 36 AD As can be seen, the only years in which the day of preparation for the Passover fell on a Friday were in 30 A.D. and 33 A.D.  Remember that Pilate’s conciliatory behavior favors a date after 31 A.D.  The year 33 A.D. is clearly the better candidate for Christ’s death and resurrection for additional reasons as will be explained below.  The scriptures indicate the sun was darkened for three hours at the crucifixion.  Peter’s remarks (Acts 2:20) about the sun darkening and the moon turning to blood are often thought to also refer to events accompanying the crucifixion.  Because the Jews use a lunisolar calendar, on 14 Nisan (the day of preparation preceding Passover) the moon is always full.  Solar eclipses occur when the moon is new, not full.  However, a lunar eclipse can occur at a full moon, which causes the moon to turn a dark reddish color. No known lunar eclipse or other astronomical event that would make the sun appear darkened and/or the moon turn to blood was visible in Judea during the 30 A.D. Passover.  That is not the case, however, with the 33 A.D. Passover. There was a lunar eclipse lasting at least 30 minutes visible in Jerusalem on Friday, April 1, 33 A.D.  Furthermore, because the Jews were likely to have been looking for the full moon beginning Passover it is probable the 33 A.D. lunar eclipse was widely observed.  This 33 A.D. eclipse is consistent with statements of the sun being darkened and the moon turning to blood.  Thus the best candidate for the date on which Christ was crucified is Friday, April 1, 33 A.D.If Christ were crucified on Friday, April 1, 33 AD—as seems likely—it is completely compatible with a birth date just before Passover in 1 B.C since Christ would be 33-34 years old, which is consistent with his having been baptized about age 30.  A birth date of 7-6 B.C. or even 4 B.C. does not provide this same internal consistency with either a 30 A.D. or 33 A.D. crucifixion. These conclusions are totally consistent with the work of the sixth century scholar Dionysis Exiguus who calculated that Christ was born in 1 B.C.  If Christ had actually been born in 7-6 B.C. or even 4 B.C. no satisfactory answer has ever been given to the question of how he made an error of such magnitude.  It should be remembered that in addition to the works of Josephus he probably had access to other materials that are no longer available to scholars. For the reasons cited above, this author feels that a birth date shortly before Passover in 1 B.C. combined with a crucifixion during the 33 A.D Passover fit the preponderance of the known historical and astronomical evidence regarding the life of Christ.  The author of this paper feels that if the reader carefully reviews the criteria of what is known about the life of Christ (as listed at the beginning of this paper) that the reader will also concluded these are the most probable dates for the birth and death of Jesus Christ.  Sources:Levy,  David and Wendee, Cosmic Discoveries, published by Prometheus Books.Pratt, John P.  “Yet Another Eclipse for Herod,” The Planetarian, vol. 19, no. 4, Dec. 1990, pp. 8-14.Shanks, Hershel, editor.  Ancient Israel:  From Abraham to the Roman Destruction of the Temple, BiblicalArchaeology Society:  Washington, D.C., 1999.

Various dates for the birth and death of Christ have been proposed.  There is not even universal agreement regarding the length of his life.  The reason, of course, is that we have conflicting information about the dates pertaining to so many of the events in Christ’s life. This author of this paper proposes that the preponderance of the evidence supports his personal belief that Jesus was born in April of 1 B.C; died on April 1, 33 A.D.; and was resurrected on Sunday, April 3, 33 A.D.  There is general agreement regarding the following pertaining to the life of Jesus Christ:• He was born in Bethlehem of Judea.• A Roman census was in progress at the time of his birth.• He was born near the end of the reign of Herod the Great.• His birth was heralded by a “new star” in the heavens.• Shepherds were tending their flocks by night, indicating that Jesus was born during the lambing season as is consistent with a (spring) Passover birth.• He was visited by the Magi while still an infant because they had seen his star.• Herod had all male infants in Bethlehem under age two put to death.• He was about six months younger than his cousin, John the Baptist.• His baptism occurred shortly after John began his ministry during the 15th year of the reign of the Roman Emperor Tiberius.• He was baptized by John when he was about 30 years of age.• His mortal ministry lasted at least 3 years and probably not more than 4 years.• The sun was darkened at the time of the crucifixion.• He was crucified on a day of preparation preceding a Passover.• It was prophesied the he would rise from the dead within three days.• He was resurrected on the first day of the week, which today is called Sunday.• The only astronomically possible years for the resurrection, in order of likelihood, are 33 A.D and 30 A.D.Most of what we know regarding the life of Herod the Great comes from the Jewish historian Josephus who wrote approximately a century following Herod.  His 34-year reign began in 37 B.C. indicating he died in 4 or 3 B.C., with 4 B.C. being the traditionally accepted date for the death for Herod the Great.  There is much evidence supporting the traditional view that Herod died in 4 B.C.  Josephus mentions there was a lunar eclipse about a month before Herod died.  It has long been known that a lunar eclipse occurred in Judea on March 13, 4 B.C.  (There was no lunar eclipse in Judea during 3 B.C.)  In the spring of 6 B.C. there were three conjunctions of Jupiter and Saturn in Pieces (one of the Zodiac signs thought to govern Judea) while in the spring of 7 B.C. Mars joined the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn.  Many believe one of these conjunctions was the “new star” heralding the birth of Christ, indicating Jesus was born in 7 or 6 B.C.  This would be consistent with the slaying of all infants under two years of age were their deaths to have occurred in 4 B.C.  Josephus as well as coins found by archeologists indicates the successors of Herod began their reigns in 4-3 B.C. Josephus records numerous details surrounding death of Herod.  Between the lunar eclipse and Passover Josephus states the following occurred:• Herod died a lingering death; his body putrefying with part of it breading worms.• He was taken a distance of ten miles for treatment in hot baths.• He returned home when the treatment proved ineffective.• Herod ordered notables from throughout the kingdom to attend him.  The sending of the summons and arrival of the men summoned would be a time consuming event in those days.• Herod’s son Antipater was executed five days prior to his death.• Herod received a lavish funeral, with his body being carried 23 miles to its final resting place.• A funeral feast was held at the conclusion of a 7-day mourning period.• A separate period of public mourning was held for the Jewish patriots who were executed on the night following the lunar eclipse that preceded Herod’s death. All these events are stated to have occurred between the lunar eclipse and Passover.  It seems very unlikely that all this could have occurred between March 13, 4 B.C. and March 29, 4 B.C., which would be necessary if Herod died in 4 B.C.  This has created the problem that historians refer to as the “impossible month.” In addition to the problems associated with the “impossible month” there are other items recorded by Josephus that cast doubt on the traditional view that Herod died in 4 B.C.  Several of these are worth consideration. Josephus states that Varus was the governor of Syria when Herod died, replacing Saturninus who had been governor for two years prior to the death of Herod.  Coins have been found indicating that Varus was governor in both 6 and 5 B.C.  This obviously argues against Herod’s death occurring in 4 B.C. A Roman census was being conducted at the time Christ was born.  (Even in modern times a census is not conducted in a single day.  In that era it was a process requiring a year or more to complete.)  No record of a Roman census being conducted around 4 B.C has ever been found.  It has usually been thought this referred to the taxation of 8 B.C.  However, the 8 B.C. taxation only applied to Roman citizens so it has never been adequately explained why it would require Joseph to travel to Bethlehem to be counted. The death of Herod the Great in 4 B.C. necessitates Christ being born in 7 or 6 B.C. in order for his birth to have been heralded by a new star.  The earliest possible date for his resurrection is 30 A.D. This means he would have been in his mid thirties—not about 30 as indicated by Luke—when he began his mortal ministry.  This objection is easily ignored today because such a discrepancy is consistent with our method of reckoning time.  There is, however, a reason this discrepancy should not be ignored.Christ dutifully fulfilled the Law of Moses.  His expressed purpose for being baptized was to fulfill all righteousness.  Delaying the commencement of his ministry would have been breaking the Law of Moses.  Under the Law of Moses (see Numbers 4:3) his ministry should have begun at age thirty.  For him to have delayed his ministry by a few years would be an act totally incongruous with the rest of his life.  Lunar eclipses were common in Palestine during Herod’s era, yet Josephus only mentions the one prior to the death of Herod.  The question “why” deserves consideration.  There are two parts to the probable answer.  The first is the eclipse was widely observed.  The second is that it occurred on the night following the execution of numerous Jewish patriots.  It should be noted that the eclipse in 4 B.C. occurred more than six hours after sunset making it unlikely that it was widely observed by the Jews.  In consideration of all the reasons mentioned above (and others not mentioned) many scholars doubt the 4 B.C. eclipse was the one that preceded Herod’s death.  For the same reasons they doubt Herod the Great died in 4 B.C.  Various alternatives have been proposed for the eclipse preceding Herod’s death.  Barnes proposes the eclipse of September 15, 5 B.C.  Filmer proposes the eclipse of January 10, 1 B.C.  Pratt proposes the December 29, 1 B.C. eclipse.  The September 15, 5 B.C. eclipse occurred 3 hours after sundown, while the January 10, 1 B.C. eclipse occurred 6 hours after sundown.  Both of these seem to have occurred too late at night to have been widely observed.  Additionally, they do not seem as good a fit for the historical data pertaining to both Herod and Christ.  In contrast the eclipse proposed by Pratt seems to fulfill all the appropriate requirements. During the December 29, 1 B.C. eclipse (Pratt’s proposal) the full moon was nearly half eclipsed when it would first be seen rising from the Eastern sky about 20 minutes following sundown.  Thus it was widely visible by the people for over an hour. At Herod’s death the kingdom was split between Archelaus, Antipas, and Philip.  All reckoned their reigns as commencing in 4-3 B.C.  It is likely the reason Antipater traveled to Rome prior to his death is that he anticipated the infighting and breakup of the kingdom, which would follow Herod’s death.  His trip to Rome was probably to advance his claim to the entire kingdom.  Had Antipater lived (as stated above, he died before Herod) it is possible the kingdom would not have been divided and he would have been name king of a united kingdom as was his father, Herod the Great.  When Archelaus put forth his claim to the entire kingdom he argued that he was in reality continuing the rule of his brother Antipater, who was the proper heir to the entire kingdom.  Thus he antedated the commencement of his reign to the 4 B.C. co-regency in order to have the superior claim to the entire kingdom.  To avoid being disadvantaged Antipas and Philip adopted the same practice.  Thus all of Herod’s successors claimed to have commenced their reign in 4 B.C.; whereas in reality none of them started ruling before 1 A.D.  In effect all chose to consider the appointment of a co-regent as ending Herod’s reign and all considered themselves the rightful sole king whose rightful reign commenced at the end of Herod’s reign. As noted above, almost all that is known about Herod the Great comes from Josephus—who was most self-serving and far from unbiased.  (As is well known, in addition to being a plagiarist, Josephus was the “Benedict Arnold” of the Jewish revolt—and sought forever afterward to justify his actions.)  As others have noted regarding the accuracy of this writings:The vast bulk of what we know about this period derives form the testimony of an ancient Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus.  Josephus was a complicated man, and his writings are not always easy to work with.  As one scholar notes, “Sometimes the historian working with Flavius Josephus feels like a lawyer forced to build his case in court upon the testimony of a felon.  While there may be some truth in what the witness says, the problem is always to separate it from self-serving obfuscation and outright lies.”(Shaye J.D. Cohen, Ancient Isreal, p. 267 quoting Michael Wise, Thunder in Gemini, p. 51.) At Herod’s death, Josephus states that Herod ruled 34 years, but then adds he ruled 37 years from the time he was named king in 40 B.C.  All other dates used by Josephus are reckoned from 37 B.C. when Herod took control of Jerusalem.  Why the change in dating methodology?  Again, the answer is interesting. The probable answer is that Josephus was using source material that stated Herod the Great ruled 37 years.  (His principle source--who he plagiarized--is Nicolaus of Damascus, Herod’s “official” historian.  Which partly explains why Josephus is able to cover the reign of Herod in great detail, in contrast to Herod’s successors.)  This would be consistent with an A.D. 1 death if the beginning of his reign was measured from the time Herod took control of Jerusalem—the practice Josephus, like his source, followed.  However, if Josephus did not know that Herod’s successors antedated the dates on which they claimed their reigns commenced it is easy to see how Josephus would conclude that his source obtained the 37 years for the length of Herod’s reign by counting from 40 B.C. instead of 37 B.C.

Who really thinks a GOP Congress will stop Romney when he goes Left?

Perhaps.  But I don't see Romney as going a far left has Obama has gone...and definitely not as far left as Obama will go in his second term.  (For example, I don't see Romney as ever favoring same sex marriage.)Romney was not my choice in the primaries.  But I'd rather see him become president than see Obama have a second term. 

Georgia – part2The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers.The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization.For forty years this question has been considered and debated in the halls of Congress, before the people, by the press, and before the tribunals of justice. The majority of the people of the North in 1860 decided it in their own favor. We refuse to submit to that judgment, and in vindication of our refusal we offer the Constitution of our country and point to the total absence of any express power to exclude us. We offer the practice of our Government for the first thirty years of its existence in complete refutation of the position that any such power is either necessary or proper to the execution of any other power in relation to the Territories. We offer the judgment of a large minority of the people of the North, amounting to more than one-third, who united with the unanimous voice of the South against this usurpation; and, finally, we offer the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest judicial tribunal of our country, in our favor. This evidence ought to be conclusive that we have never surrendered this right. The conduct of our adversaries admonishes us that if we had surrendered it, it is time to resume it.The faithless conduct of our adversaries is not confined to such acts as might aggrandize themselves or their section of the Union. They are content if they can only injure us. The Constitution declares that persons charged with crimes in one State and fleeing to another shall be delivered up on the demand of the executive authority of the State from which they may flee, to be tried in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed. It would appear difficult to employ language freer from ambiguity, yet for above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property. Our confederates, with punic faith, shield and give sanctuary to all criminals who seek to deprive us of this property or who use it to destroy us. This clause of the Constitution has no other sanction than their good faith; that is withheld from us; we are remediless in the Union; out of it we are remitted to the laws of nations.A similar provision of the Constitution requires them to surrender fugitives from labor. This provision and the one last referred to were our main inducements for confederating with the Northern States. Without them it is historically true that we would have rejected the Constitution. In the fourth year of the Republic Congress passed a law to give full vigor and efficiency to this important provision. This act depended to a considerable degree upon the local magistrates in the several States for its efficiency. The non-slave-holding States generally repealed all laws intended to aid the execution of that act, and imposed penalties upon those citizens whose loyalty to the Constitution and their oaths might induce them to discharge their duty. Congress then passed the act of 1850, providing for the complete execution of this duty by Federal officers. This law, which their own bad faith rendered absolutely indispensible for the protection of constitutional rights, was instantly met with ferocious revilings and all conceivable modes of hostility. The Supreme Court unanimously, and their own local courts with equal unanimity (with the single and temporary exception of the supreme court of Wisconsin), sustained its constitutionality in all of its provisions. Yet it stands to-day a dead letter for all practicable purposes in every non-slave-holding State in the Union. We have their convenants, we have their oaths to keep and observe it, but the unfortunate claimant, even accompanied by a Federal officer with the mandate of the highest judicial authority in his hands, is everywhere met with fraud, with force, and with legislative enactments to elude, to resist, and defeat him. Claimants are murdered with impunity; officers of the law are beaten by frantic mobs instigated by inflammatory appeals from persons holding the highest public employment in these States, and supported by legislation in conflict with the clearest provisions of the Constitution, and even the ordinary principles of humanity. In several of our confederate States a citizen cannot travel the highway with his servant who may voluntarily accompany him, without being declared by law a felon and being subjected to infamous punishments. It is difficult to perceive how we could suffer more by the hostility than by the fraternity of such brethren.The public law of civilized nations requires every State to restrain its citizens or subjects from committing acts injurious to the peace and security of any other State and from attempting to excite insurrection, or to lessen the security, or to disturb the tranquillity of their neighbors, and our Constitution wisely gives Congress the power to punish all offenses against the laws of nations.These are sound and just principles which have received the approbation of just men in all countries and all centuries; but they are wholly disregarded by the people of the Northern States, and the Federal Government is impotent to maintain them. For twenty years past the abolitionists and their allies in the Northern States have been engaged in constant efforts to subvert our institutions and to excite insurrection and servile war among us. They have sent emissaries among us for the accomplishment of these purposes. Some of these efforts have received the public sanction of a majority of the leading men of the Republican party in the national councils, the same men who are now proposed as our rulers. These efforts have in one instance led to the actual invasion of one of the slave-holding States, and those of the murderers and incendiaries who escaped public justice by flight have found fraternal protection among our Northern confederates.These are the same men who say the Union shall be preserved.Such are the opinions and such are the practices of the Republican party, who have been called by their own votes to administer the Federal Government under the Constitution of the United States. We know their treachery; we know the shallow pretenses under which they daily disregard its plainest obligations. If we submit to them it will be our fault and not theirs. The people of Georgia have ever been willing to stand by this bargain, this contract; they have never sought to evade any of its obligations; they have never hitherto sought to establish any new government; they have struggled to maintain the ancient right of themselves and the human race through and by that Constitution. But they know the value of parchment rights in treacherous hands, and therefore they refuse to commit their own to the rulers whom the North offers us. Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere; because they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquillity.

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.

Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal UnionThe 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.

A source for free e-books that I use is the Gutenberg project.  http://www.gutenberg.org.

I have the (black and white ink) Kindle with the keyboard pictured above.  It was a gift and it was a long  time before I got around to using it as I didn't think I'd like it.I know use it.  I put a cover on it which gives it even more of a book-like feel.  I especially enjoy it while traveling as I can take a lot of books with me.The battery life is very good.  It goes days without needing a recharge.  Great if traveling on a plane and you lack time to charge a battery.The downside is I can't use mine to surf the Internet.  Plus, of course, it lacks color, which for me isn't that important as I've been reading books for decades that are only in black and white.I would, however, perfer the e-pub format.  Unlike the Mobipocket format used by the Kendle the E-pub format is open source code, making it easier to create your own books.  Also, I suspect there are readers available for E-pub books that are more feature rich.  Mobipocket isn't helpful for doing searches, underling, and things of that  sort.  (Sadly the best program I know of for those features died with the Palm Pilot.)I don't use the cloud.  That requires Internet access and drains the battery quicker.Using Windows Explorer I move books back and forth between my Kindle and Desktop computer.  I never lose a book when I buy one.If you don't know about the Guttenberg project at http://www.gutenberg.org/ I suggest you take a look.  It offers old classic free e-books.  (Those with an expired copyright.)