Virginia Eye Institute Name: Fill & Download for Free

Most advanced and Latest Technology in 2020 HAS been LAUNCHED →recently by Johnson and Johnson USAknown as IDESIGN REFRACTIVE STUDIO (**** HDV2.0/HD LASIK) using ****Topograpghy Integrated Wavefront Guided technology****Johnson & Johnson Vision iDESIGN Refractive Studio Now Available* (Johnson & Johnson Vision iDESIGN Refractive Studio Now Available)*The Most Advanced and Best laser depends on the ****PRINCIPLE it uses for correction of your vision.****The Laser technology like any other is constantly IMPROVING and ADVANCING.**This is**** FIRST time a technology ****has been introducedusing ****Topograpghy Integrated Wavefront Guided technology**** which****treats both OUTER PLUS INNER IRREGULARITIES**** of the eyes providing ****High Definition Vision ( HD Vision) andthus name has been given HIGH DEFINITION VISION (HDV 2.0),**** 2.0 because it uses the New and latest 2nd version of IDESIGN which is called IDESIGN REFRACTIVE STUDIO.*the earlier version of IDESIGN i.e FIRST Version is called IDESIGN Advanced wavescan Studio was launced in 2015 , which does not measure and INtegrate TOPOGRAPHY ( Corneal Irregularities) in treatment.*The***Older CONTOURA Vision Technology**** was launched in **2015* and corrects only CORNEAL (Outer) irregularities.**whereas ****SMILE was launched in 2010,**** its a unique platform that used lenticule extraction but Biggest problem it ****does not treat any Aberrations or irregularities**** , so** vision quality achieved after procedure is much inferior **than Contoura Vision and IDesign Refractive studio.* which as been proved in many studiesIDESIGN REFRACTIVE studio is Latest, Advanced and Has more features than Contoura Vision and SMILEMUST WATCH Video→ explains details of ****IDESIGN REFRACTIVE STUDIO Technology and How it is so ADVANCED***This advanced technogy has **also been used by NASA Scientists** in capturing **distant High definition images of the space** by using it in James Web Telescope which was not possible earlier and the same is being seen in this videoJust in One year **of Launch This* IDESIGN REFRACTIVE STUDIO Technology is available in all the leading REFRACTIVE/ LASER EYE Centers of USA* and now is even available in INDIA- more information Home - Bansal Eye Hospital | LASIK EYE Treatment*Leading refractive centers where this technology is available:*i.The eye center, Virginia,US (One of the Top Eye Centers for LASIK in VA. and DC area. (One of the Top Eye Centers for LASIK in VA. and DC area.))ii.New England Vision and Vermont laser vision center, Vermont, US(LASIK Burlington | Cataracts Plattsburgh | New England Vision (LASIK Burlington | Cataracts Plattsburgh | New England Vision))iii.Laser fox clinic, new York, US (Martin L. Fox, MD, FACS (Martin L. Fox, MD, FACS))iv.The Berkeley laser center, US (Houston LASIK | Laser Eye Surgery | LASIK Surgeons in Houston Texas | Berkeley Eye Center (Houston LASIK | Laser Eye Surgery | LASIK Surgeons in Houston Texas | Berkeley Eye Center))v.Morristown ophthalmology associates, new jersey, USA (LASIK Morristown | Cataract Surgery NJ | Morristown Ophthalmology (LASIK Morristown | Cataract Surgery NJ | Morristown Ophthalmology))vi.Eye care for Nevada,LasVegas,US (Eye Care For Nevada (Eye Care For Nevada))vii.Clear View eyes center – San Daiego, U.S.viii.Williamson Eye Center, Los Angeles, Californiaix.Campbell Cunnigham Laser center, Knoxville,TNx.KATZEN eye care, Florida, U.Sxi.CS Lasik institute, Colorado, U.Sxii.Image Plus –Laser Eye Center, Winnipeg, Manitoba, U.Sxiii.Herzig eye Institute, Toronto, Canada (Laser Eye Care Centre & Ophthalmologist Toronto| Herzig Eye Institute (Laser Eye Care Centre & Ophthalmologist Toronto| Herzig Eye Institute))xiv.Geoge St eye center, Sydney, Australia (Laser Eye Surgery - Eye Clinic Sydney | George St Eye Centre (Laser Eye Surgery - Eye Clinic Sydney | George St Eye Centre))

Who was the first slave owner in America?This is an interesting question to me for a bunch of reasons. I’ve noticed a meme on the web recently where people have tried to associate Anthony Johnson as the person who started slavery.…please note this guy's mid 1800s style of dressOf course, this is stupid and only shows how ignorant some people can be. A simple understanding of history would tell you that slavery of people (Africans too) started well before 1654, in America.But I’ll get to that in a moment.First, I’m going to assume that this question is geared toward African-American slavery. After all, in America, slave is one of the words that is forever linked to Africans and African-Americans. But let’s be clear, slavery has existed in every part of the world and in every culture. It’s really not a ‘black’ thing.That being said let’s start.1. Christopher Columbus was a slave master.He was ugly too!So that gives us a known American slave master around 1498.2. Another one that comes to mind was Andrés Dorantes de Carranza, another Spaniard. He was the slave master to Estevanico, aka Esteban the Moor. As a slave he and his master arrive in Florida on 1527 on a colonization expedition only to find themselves shipwrecked. Apparently, the survivors of this crash were captured and enslaved by a Native American tribe for several years. My assumption is that this tribe enslaved this group because they were fed up of the mistreatment they faced at the hands of the Spaniards (stuff like raping them, murdering them, and enslaving them). The remaining survivors eventually escaped and migrated to parts of Mexico as they lived with other, more friendly Native Tribes.Somewhere after 1536, Andres sold Esteban to the viceroy of Spain, Antonio de Mendoza. Under this new burden of servitude, he served as a guide and explorer to the viceroy, until his disappearance (some think he was killed, others believe he was hidden so that he could get his freedom).3. Now, if we are talking the first slave master after the American Revolution, I'd suggest picking a Founding Father and using them as your example.What I do know is that slavery in America existed well before Anthony Johnson was a twinkle in his father's eye. But, of course, this lie does help perpetuate a narrative that "Its the Negroes own fault that they were slaves, quit trying to blame white people". Oh.. and.. "That was a long time ago".The other interesting thing about the information presented on that picture is that it states that the 1654 decision that Castor couldn't break his indentured servitude contract with Johnson (in order to sign a different servitude contract to a white plantation owner whom he though would be more advantageous for him btw) was what started what we today call slavery as it was a life sentence. This not only is a slap in the face to slaves that toiled for life in America before this (just because British law allowed for indentured servitude, did not mean that the French, Dutch, and Spanish, for instance, didn’t have slaves in America).It also, totally ignores the Virginia Governor's Council decision, which served as the colony's highest court at the time. In 1640 (14 years before Johnson v Castor), the council decided that"Whereas Hugh Gwyn hath by order from this Board brought back from Maryland three servants formerly run away from the said Gwyn, the court doth therefore order that the said three servants shall receive the punishment of whipping and have thirty stripes apiece. One called Victor, a Dutchman, the other a Scotchman called James Gregory, shall first serve out their times with their master according to their Indentures, and one whole year apiece after the time of their service is expired by their said indentures in recompense of his loss sustained by their absence, and after that service to their said master is expired, to serve the colony for three whole years apiece. And that the third being a negro named John Punch shall serve his said master or his assigns for the time of his natural life here or elsewhere."Virginia Governor's CouncilJohn Punch (slave)Law Library of CongressMind you, Johnson lived in Virginia at this time. He himself was a former servant, who was captured, brought to America and had to work himself out of the institution, obtain property and eventually indenture others to work for him. But this was during a time where indentured servitude and slavery existed together as separate institutions.Also, interesting to note that all of Anthony’s money, respect in his community and prowess in business didn’t insulate him from the racial climate of his day.During the 1660s and 1670s, Maryland and Virginia adopted laws specifically designed to denigrate blacks. These laws banned interracial marriages and sexual relations and deprived blacks of property. Other laws prohibited blacks from bearing arms or traveling without written permission. In 1669, Virginia became the first colony to declare that it was not a crime to kill an unruly slave in the ordinary course of punishment. That same year, Virginia also prohibited masters from freeing slaves unless the freedmen were deported from the colony. Virginia also voted to banish any white man or woman who married a black, mulatto, or Indian.Digital HistoryAs such, he ended up leaving all he had worked for, moving to the more tolerant Maryland and re-establishing his life there, where his family was less likely to be enslaved under the new laws that some people think he was responsible for.Seems like he made the right moveIn 1665, Anthony Johnson moved to Maryland and leased a 300-acre plantation, where he died five years later. But back in Virginia that same year, a jury decided the land Johnson left behind could be seized by the government because he was a "negroe and by consequence an alien." In 1705 Virginia declared that "All servants imported and brought in this County... who were not Christians in their Native Country... shall be slaves. A Negro, mulatto and Indian slaves ... shall be held to be real estate." From Indentured Servitude to Racial SlaveryWas the First Slave Owner in America a Black Man? — Myth DebunkedAfricans in America/Part 1/Anthony JohnsonAfricans in America/Part 1/Document re. Anthony Johnson — Court document in which Johnson’s property was seized by the Virginia court because they deemed Negros had no rights that they were bound to respect.As I was writing this, I noticed that other people also, responded in a similar fashion. I just want to say thank you to all of them.

The American Civil War thing.Simple minds think it was about slavery.Superficially erudite minds think it was about states’ rights.Learned minds think it was about slavery.Why this is the case provides a wonderful exploration of the difference between history and popular memory.This is going to be long. I ask for your indulgence, patience, and forgiveness in advance. But I do think it’ll be a fun and informative read.Still with me?Good!Allons-y!I. Article IV.Historically speaking, it’s indisputable that slavery was the sine qua non of the civil war. You don’t have to take my word for it. You do, however, have to take the words of the secessionists for it.But which words, and when?You can’t trust what the secessionists said after they’d already lost the war; at that point, they were trying to argue their case before the court of history. They were making an appeal for the sympathy of future generations of Americans. Their arguments at that point were necessarily self-serving.We’re not mean and cruel people; we were kind, patriotic Americans who fought to defend our states. Slavery wasn’t a cruel institution; our negroes were happy. We didn’t want a war; this was a war of Northern aggression.What you have to do is to go back to 1860-1, to the time they were seceding, before they thought they needed any sympathetic ear but that of other people in the South who agreed with them, long before they thought they could be defeated in a military conflict.With that in mind, let’s briefly walk through what they had to say.South Carolina was the first state to secede.On December 24, 1860, it adopted a document with the rather grandiloquent title of Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union.The first part of the document discusses the theory of why the secessionist believed they had the right to secede, namely that since the sovereign states had agreed to coalesce into a greater unit under the auspices of certain promises that had been repeatedly broken by a perfidious North, the South had the right to dissolve a union it had voluntarily entered.But then the document delves into the aforementioned “immediate causes.”It does this by discussing Article 4 of the Constitution.Okay, Article 4. What of it?Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3. Also known as the Fugitive Slave Cause.No Person held to Service or Labour 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 Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.In plain English, this states that a slave (a person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof) couldn’t be freed ( discharged from such service or labour) for fleeing to another state but would be returned (delivered up) to his/her owner (party to whom such service or labour may be due).Let me quote some key passages from the Declaration: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.If it weren’t for that guarantee that our property would be protected, we wouldn’t have joined the union.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.This is the crux of the complaint.We had a constitutional deal where you were supposed to return our escaped slaves. You’ve passed a bunch of local laws that in effect nullify the constitution and some of you won’t even let us carry our slaves into your state! You broke the deal. We’re out.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 assumed 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.Northerners have:assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions. That would be slavery.denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution. They won’t let us take our slaves with us anywhere in the nation.denounced as sinful the institution of slavery. Self-explanatory.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 allow abolitionists to operate freely in their attempts to eloign—to take far away—our slaves from us.encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their home—self-explanatory—and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection. And they’re trying to get our slaves to revolt against us.…ergo, we are leaving the union.That’s the argument in a nutshell.II. Alexander H. Stephens.Stephens was the Vice President of the CSA. As the war went on, he became a shriller and shriller critic of Jeff Davis and the ever-increasing concentration of power in the executive, then as now under the strains of war.But on March 21, 1861, long before he turned into a disenchanted curmudgeon, and shortly before the attack on Fort Sumter, Stephens gave a speech famous among Civil War historians and aficionados: the Cornerstone speech.The speech features a series of contrasts between the former union and the new one, intended to be a list of reasons why the Confederacy is an improvement on the U.S. Constitution.After talking about tariffs, infrastructure, executive-legislative relations, presidential term length, it delves into the chief reason why the confederacy is vastly superior to both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.I don’t want to speak too much for the man. So let’s let him speak for himself: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.Here it is. The Vice-President of the CSA is calling African slavery, “the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.”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."Jefferson and his generation were wrong to assume that slavery was wrong and that all races were equal.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.Here, the reported noted that there was applause.The VP of the Confederate States was being applauded for saying that the cornerstone of the foundation of his nation is the “truth” of negro inferiority.Why, then, when this is so clear and as close to a slam-dunk case as you’ll find in the historical record, are so many people, even today, so convinced that the war was about some principle grander than racism and venality?3. The court of history.It’s often said that history is written by the victors. That’s a truism. It would be more accurate to say that history is the final battlefield on which a war is waged. Often, it is the side that won the physical war that gets to enshrine its version of events into the pages of history. This is the scenario we’re all familiar with. Sometimes, it’s a draw, as in many modern conflicts where there is an abundance of sources from both sides of a conflict. But sometimes, it is through the eyes of the losers that we get to observe the conflict: it is through Thucydides, an Athenian general, that we get to learn about the Peloponnesian War, since the Spartans left us no sources. In the case of the American Civil War, it is not that the North left no sources; rather, the North, thoroughly satisfied that it had held the moral high ground, had no sense of urgency about making its case before the court of history. The South, on the contrary, had just such an incentive and just such a sense of urgency.They had tried and failed to found an entire society predicated on the enslavement of one race by another. Their worldview had fallen out of favor with Western Civilization. Without a vigorous effort on their part to rehabilitate their image, they were in danger of going down in history as a hateful bunch of despicable rebels who loved their heinous ideology so much that they were willing to shed the blood of their countrymen over it.So, fueled by a zeal that only despair can provide, they poured their energies into manufacturing a new history of war. They were so successful that it is still the version that millions of American children learn each year. It is still part of what many, and perhaps most, Americans think they know:It had never been about Slavery. Slavery was incidental to the whole thing. It was a conflict about whether states had the right to decide their own laws for themselves.R. E. Lee was a knight from a bygone age, a true hero, personally against slavery, but fighting only because he loved Virginia so much.Grant was nothing but an untalented butcher, who only defeated Lee because, cold-hearted as he was, he was willing to just throw his numbers at Lee and let his superior resources in men and materiel deliver victory to him.Slavery wasn’t bad and the slaves were happy.The South never stood a chance to win but fought anyway because the cause was so noble that it needed to be defended. The advantage enjoyed by the North in men and materiel was simply too great and the ultimate defeat of the South was a foregone conclusion before it started.This last point gave its name to this school of thought: the Lost Cause. It’s a rhetorically-effective, though academically unrigorous line of argument. In actuality:It was definitely about slavery, as I demonstrated earlier.R. E. Lee was very comfortable with slavery.Grant may not have been as great a tactician as Lee, but he was the greatest grand strategist the war produced on either side. What’s more, Lee was by far the greater butcher, demanding far more of his troops and exposing them to much greater dangers on a regular basis.The fact that the South was so deathly afraid of slave rebellions gives the lie to the notion that slaves were happy in bondage. After all, has anyone ever been known to revolt out of an excess of euphoria?The war’s conclusion was not preordained. Had the South held on for just a few months without a major defeat, Lincoln would have been defeated and McClelland would have signed a negotiated peace. But Philip Sheridan triumphed in the Shenandoah Valley and Sherman took Atlanta and the demoralized North, its spirits revived, decided to push on for total victory. It was a very close thing. It is those campaigns, long after Gettysburg, that determined the fate of the war. The South, on the whole, had a much better chance of victory than the 13 colonies had during the Revolutionary war.But intellectual rigor is not what counts. The South had a compelling narrative that it wanted to believe, so it embraced it. The North, 20 or so years after the Civil War, got tired of fighting for Black civil rights, and embracing the Lost Cause narrative provided a good starting point to patch things up with the South. After all, if everyone on both sides had been valiant and negroes had been content before Northern agitators came to put ideas in their head, what was there to fight about? Couldn’t we just agree that the white man on both sides of the conflict was manly and valiant and patriotic?So, this narrative, full of flaws as it was, was what passed into the popular memory of the war. It is not, however, grounded in fact. And next time you hear someone talk about how the war was not about slavery, you can be sure of at least one thing: they are completely unfamiliar with primary sources; they are only superficially erudite.