Alexander Stephens and the Cornerstone Speech

Alexander Stephens

On March 21, 1861—one hundred and fifty-eight years ago today—Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens was in Savannah, in his home state of Georgia. Seven states had already declared themselves seceded from the Union, and Stephens addressed a large crowd to explain to his fellow Georgians just what this conflict—which would became a shooting war less than a month later—was all about. The primary difference between the United States and the Confederate States, according to Stephens, was slavery. In fact, he called slavery the “cornerstone” of the new southern government.

Stephens also explained that Thomas Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers had made a critical miscalculation when creating the United States: despite many of them being slave owners themselves, they believed that slavery was “wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically.” Jefferson and his contemporaries had no good solution to rid the new nation of slavery, but they believed the institution would eventually die out on its own. The human equality they believed endowed to all by their Creator would eventually triumph. This was a mistake, Stephens said, and the Confederate government had fixed it by basing its entire existence on the premise that whites were superior to blacks and that slavery was the natural condition of the inferior race.

Here, in its entirety, is the text of the famous “Cornerstone Speech” Stephens delivered on this day in 1861:

“When perfect quiet is restored, I shall proceed. I cannot speak so long as there is any noise or confusion. I shall take my time I feel quite prepared to spend the night with you if necessary. I very much regret that everyone who desires cannot hear what I have to say. Not that I have any display to make, or anything very entertaining to present, but such views as I have to give, I wish all, not only in this city, but in this State, and throughout our Confederate Republic, could hear, who have a desire to hear them.

I was remarking that we are passing through one of the greatest revolutions in the annals of the world. Seven States have within the last three months thrown off an old government and formed a new. This revolution has been signally marked, up to this time, by the fact of its having been accomplished without the loss of a single drop of blood.

This new constitution, or form of government, constitutes the subject to which your attention will be partly invited. In reference to it, I make this first general remark: it amply secures all our ancient rights, franchises, and liberties. All the great principles of Magna Charta are retained in it. No citizen is deprived of life, liberty, or property, but by the judgment of his peers under the laws of the land. The great principle of religious liberty, which was the honor and pride of the old constitution, is still maintained and secured. All the essentials of the old constitution, which have endeared it to the hearts of the American people, have been preserved and perpetuated. Some changes have been made. Some of these I should have preferred not to have seen made; but other important changes do meet my cordial approbation. They form great improvements upon the old constitution. So, taking the whole new constitution, I have no hesitancy in giving it as my judgment that it is decidedly better than the old.

Allow me briefly to allude to some of these improvements. The question of building up class interests, or fostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another under the exercise of the revenue power, which gave us so much trouble under the old constitution, is put at rest forever under the new. We allow the imposition of no duty with a view of giving advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another. All, under our system, stand upon the same broad principles of perfect equality. Honest labor and enterprise are left free and unrestricted in whatever pursuit they may be engaged. This old thorn of the tariff, which was the cause of so much irritation in the old body politic, is removed forever from the new.

Again, the subject of internal improvements, under the power of Congress to regulate commerce, is put at rest under our system. The power, claimed by construction under the old constitution, was at least a doubtful one; it rested solely upon construction. We of the South, generally apart from considerations of constitutional principles, opposed its exercise upon grounds of its inexpediency and injustice. Notwithstanding this opposition, millions of money, from the common treasury had been drawn for such purposes. Our opposition sprang from no hostility to commerce, or to all necessary aids for facilitating it. With us it was simply a question upon whom the burden should fall. In Georgia, for instance, we have done as much for the cause of internal improvements as any other portion of the country, according to population and means. We have stretched out lines of railroads from the seaboard to the mountains; dug down the hills, and filled up the valleys at a cost of not less than $25,000,000. All this was done to open an outlet for our products of the interior, and those to the west of us, to reach the marts of the world. No State was in greater need of such facilities than Georgia, but we did not ask that these works should be made by appropriations out of the common treasury. The cost of the grading, the superstructure, and the equipment of our roads was borne by those who had entered into the enterprise. Nay, more not only the cost of the iron no small item in the aggregate cost was borne in the same way, but we were compelled to pay into the common treasury several millions of dollars for the privilege of importing the iron, after the price was paid for it abroad. What justice was there in taking this money, which our people paid into the common treasury on the importation of our iron, and applying it to the improvement of rivers and harbors elsewhere? The true principle is to subject the commerce of every locality, to whatever burdens may be necessary to facilitate it. If Charleston harbor needs improvement, let the commerce of Charleston bear the burden. If the mouth of the Savannah river has to be cleared out, let the sea-going navigation which is benefited by it, bear the burden. So with the mouths of the Alabama and Mississippi river. Just as the products of the interior, our cotton, wheat, corn, and other articles, have to bear the necessary rates of freight over our railroads to reach the seas. This is again the broad principle of perfect equality and justice, and it is especially set forth and established in our new constitution.

Another feature to which I will allude is that the new constitution provides that cabinet ministers and heads of departments may have the privilege of seats upon the floor of the Senate and House of Representatives and may have the right to participate in the debates and discussions upon the various subjects of administration. I should have preferred that this provision should have gone further, and required the President to select his constitutional advisers from the Senate and House of Representatives. That would have conformed entirely to the practice in the British Parliament, which, in my judgment, is one of the wisest provisions in the British constitution. It is the only feature that saves that government. It is that which gives it stability in its facility to change its administration. Ours, as it is, is a great approximation to the right principle.

Under the old constitution, a secretary of the treasury for instance, had no opportunity, save by his annual reports, of presenting any scheme or plan of finance or other matter. He had no opportunity of explaining, expounding, enforcing, or defending his views of policy; his only resort was through the medium of an organ. In the British parliament, the premier brings in his budget and stands before the nation responsible for its every item. If it is indefensible, he falls before the attacks upon it, as he ought to. This will now be the case to a limited extent under our system. In the new constitution, provision has been made by which our heads of departments can speak for themselves and the administration, in behalf of its entire policy, without resorting to the indirect and highly objectionable medium of a newspaper. It is to be greatly hoped that under our system we shall never have what is known as a government organ.

Another change in the constitution relates to the length of the tenure of the presidential office. In the new constitution it is six years instead of four, and the President rendered ineligible for a re-election. This is certainly a decidedly conservative change. It will remove from the incumbent all temptation to use his office or exert the powers confided to him for any objects of personal ambition. The only incentive to that higher ambition which should move and actuate one holding such high trusts in his hands, will be the good of the people, the advancement, prosperity, happiness, safety, honor, and true glory of the confederacy.

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. 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.

Thousands of people who begin to understand these truths are not yet completely out of the shell; they do not see them in their length and breadth. We hear much of the civilization and Christianization of the barbarous tribes of Africa. In my judgment, those ends will never be attained, but by first teaching them the lesson taught to Adam, that “in the sweat of his brow he should eat his bread,” and teaching them to work, and feed, and clothe themselves.

But to pass on: Some have propounded the inquiry whether it is practicable for us to go on with the confederacy without further accessions? Have we the means and ability to maintain nationality among the powers of the earth? On this point I would barely say, that as anxiously as we all have been, and are, for the border States, with institutions similar to ours, to join us, still we are abundantly able to maintain our position, even if they should ultimately make up their minds not to cast their destiny with us.

That they ultimately will join us be compelled to do it is my confident belief; but we can get on very well without them, even if they should not.

We have all the essential elements of a high national career. The idea has been given out at the North, and even in the border States, that we are too small and too weak to maintain a separate nationality. This is a great mistake. In extent of territory we embrace five hundred and sixty-four thousand square miles and upward. This is upward of two hundred thousand square miles more than was included within the limits of the original thirteen States. It is an area of country more than double the territory of France or the Austrian empire. France, in round numbers, has but two hundred and twelve thousand square miles. Austria, in round numbers, has two hundred and forty-eight thousand square miles. Ours is greater than both combined. It is greater than all France, Spain, Portugal, and Great Britain, including England, Ireland, and Scotland, together. In population we have upward of five millions, according to the census of 1860; this includes white and black. The entire population, including white and black, of the original thirteen States, was less than four millions in 1790, and still less in 76, when the independence of our fathers was achieved. If they, with a less population, dared maintain their independence against the greatest power on earth, shall we have any apprehension of maintaining ours now?

In point of material wealth and resources, we are greatly in advance of them. The taxable property of the Confederate States cannot be less than twenty-two hundred millions of dollars! This, I think I venture but little in saying, may be considered as five times more than the colonies possessed at the time they achieved their independence. Georgia, alone, possessed last year, according to the report of our comptroller-general, six hundred and seventy-two millions of taxable property. The debts of the seven confederate States sum up in the aggregate less than eighteen millions, while the existing debts of the other of the late United States sum up in the aggregate the enormous amount of one hundred and seventy-four millions of dollars. This is without taking into account the heavy city debts, corporation debts, and railroad debts, which press, and will continue to press, as a heavy incubus upon the resources of those States. These debts, added to others, make a sum total not much under five hundred millions of dollars. With such an area of territory as we have-with such an amount of population-with a climate and soil unsurpassed by any on the face of the earth-with such resources already at our command-with productions which control the commerce of the world-who can entertain any apprehensions as to our ability to succeed, whether others join us or not?

It is true, I believe I state but the common sentiment, when I declare my earnest desire that the border States should join us. The differences of opinion that existed among us anterior to secession, related more to the policy in securing that result by co-operation than from any difference upon the ultimate security we all looked to in common.

These differences of opinion were more in reference to policy than principle, and as Mr. Jefferson said in his inaugural, in 1801, after the heated contest preceding his election, that there might be differences of opinion without differences on principle, and that all, to some extent, had been Federalists and all Republicans; so it may now be said of us, that whatever differences of opinion as to the best policy in having a co-operation with our border sister slave States, if the worst came to the worst, that as we were all co-operationists, we are now all for independence, whether they come or not.

In this connection I take this occasion to state, that I was not without grave and serious apprehensions, that if the worst came to the worst, and cutting loose from the old government should be the only remedy for our safety and security, it would be attended with much more serious ills than it has been as yet. Thus far we have seen none of those incidents which usually attend revolutions. No such material as such convulsions usually throw up has been seen. Wisdom, prudence, and patriotism, have marked every step of our progress thus far. This augurs well for the future, and it is a matter of sincere gratification to me, that I am enabled to make the declaration. Of the men I met in the Congress at Montgomery, I may be pardoned for saying this, an abler, wiser, a more conservative, deliberate, determined, resolute, and patriotic body of men, I never met in my life. Their works speak for them; the provisional government speaks for them; the constitution of the permanent government will be a lasting monument of their worth, merit, and statesmanship.

But to return to the question of the future. What is to be the result of this revolution?

Will every thing, commenced so well, continue as it has begun? In reply to this anxious inquiry, I can only say it all depends upon ourselves. A young man starting out in life on his majority, with health, talent, and ability, under a favoring Providence, may be said to be the architect of his own fortunes. His destinies are in his own hands. He may make for himself a name, of honor or dishonor, according to his own acts. If he plants himself upon truth, integrity, honor and uprightness, with industry, patience and energy, he cannot fail of success. So it is with us. We are a young republic, just entering upon the arena of nations; we will be the architects of our own fortunes. Our destiny, under Providence, is in our own hands. With wisdom, prudence, and statesmanship on the part of our public men, and intelligence, virtue and patriotism on the part of the people, success, to the full measures of our most sanguine hopes, may be looked for. But if unwise counsels prevail if we become divided if schisms arise if dissentions spring up if factions are engendered if party spirit, nourished by unholy personal ambition shall rear its hydra head, I have no good to prophesy for you. Without intelligence, virtue, integrity, and patriotism on the part of the people, no republic or representative government can be durable or stable.

We have intelligence, and virtue, and patriotism. All that is required is to cultivate and perpetuate these. Intelligence will not do without virtue. France was a nation of philosophers. These philosophers become Jacobins. They lacked that virtue, that devotion to moral principle, and that patriotism which is essential to good government Organized upon principles of perfect justice and right-seeking amity and friendship with all other powers-I see no obstacle in the way of our upward and onward progress. Our growth, by accessions from other States, will depend greatly upon whether we present to the world, as I trust we shall, a better government than that to which neighboring States belong. If we do this, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas cannot hesitate long; neither can Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri. They will necessarily gravitate to us by an imperious law. We made ample provision in our constitution for the admission of other States; it is more guarded, and wisely so, I think, than the old constitution on the same subject, but not too guarded to receive them as fast as it may be proper. Looking to the distant future, and, perhaps, not very far distant either, it is not beyond the range of possibility, and even probability, that all the great States of the north-west will gravitate this way, as well as Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, etc. Should they do so, our doors are wide enough to receive them, but not until they are ready to assimilate with us in principle.

The process of disintegration in the old Union may be expected to go on with almost absolute certainty if we pursue the right course. We are now the nucleus of a growing power which, if we are true to ourselves, our destiny, and high mission, will become the controlling power on this continent. To what extent accessions will go on in the process of time, or where it will end, the future will determine. So far as it concerns States of the old Union, this process will be upon no such principles of reconstruction as now spoken of, but upon reorganization and new assimilation. Such are some of the glimpses of the future as I catch them.

But at first we must necessarily meet with the inconveniences and difficulties and embarrassments incident to all changes of government. These will be felt in our postal affairs and changes in the channel of trade. These inconveniences, it is to be hoped, will be but temporary, and must be borne with patience and forbearance.

As to whether we shall have war with our late confederates, or whether all matters of differences between us shall be amicably settled, I can only say that the prospect for a peaceful adjustment is better, so far as I am informed, than it has been. The prospect of war is, at least, not so threatening as it has been. The idea of coercion, shadowed forth in President Lincoln’s inaugural, seems not to be followed up thus far so vigorously as was expected. Fort Sumter, it is believed, will soon be evacuated. What course will be pursued toward Fort Pickens, and the other forts on the gulf, is not so well understood. It is to be greatly desired that all of them should be surrendered. Our object is peace, not only with the North, but with the world. All matters relating to the public property, public liabilities of the Union when we were members of it, we are ready and willing to adjust and settle upon the principles of right, equity, and good faith. War can be of no more benefit to the North than to us. Whether the intention of evacuating Fort Sumter is to be received as an evidence of a desire for a peaceful solution of our difficulties with the United States, or the result of necessity, I will not undertake to say. I would feign hope the former. Rumors are afloat, however, that it is the result of necessity. All I can say to you, therefore, on that point is, keep your armor bright and your powder dry.

The surest way to secure peace, is to show your ability to maintain your rights. The principles and position of the present administration of the United States the republican party present some puzzling questions. While it is a fixed principle with them never to allow the increase of a foot of slave territory, they seem to be equally determined not to part with an inch “of the accursed soil.” Notwithstanding their clamor against the institution, they seemed to be equally opposed to getting more, or letting go what they have got. They were ready to fight on the accession of Texas, and are equally ready to fight now on her secession. Why is this? How can this strange paradox be accounted for? There seems to be but one rational solution and that is, notwithstanding their professions of humanity, they are disinclined to give up the benefits they derive from slave labor. Their philanthropy yields to their interest. The idea of enforcing the laws, has but one object, and that is a collection of the taxes, raised by slave labor to swell the fund necessary to meet their heavy appropriations. The spoils is what they are after though they come from the labor of the slave

That as the admission of States by Congress under the constitution was an act of legislation, and in the nature of a contract or compact between the States admitted and the others admitting, why should not this contract or compact be regarded as of like character with all other civil contracts liable to be rescinded by mutual agreement of both parties? The seceding States have rescinded it on their part, they have resumed their sovereignty. Why cannot the whole question be settled, if the north desire peace, simply by the Congress, in both branches, with the concurrence of the President, giving their consent to the separation, and a recognition of our independence?”

52 Responses to Alexander Stephens and the Cornerstone Speech

  1. One of the most important documents in Confederate history—and one so conveniently overlooked by modern apologists who try to defend the Lost Cause.

    1. Chris, I frankly do not know anyone with serious pretensions toward a basic knowledge of CW history who hasn’t tripped over this speech dozens of times. And as regards apologists for the Lost Cause, in my experience, the greatest group of modern mythologists are those who delude themselves that each Union soldier marched off to war with a copy of Fred Douglass’ Autobiography tucked under their armpit.

      1. The above Stephens Speech is one of the must disgusting pieces of prose ever written, ranking with Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto. And yet, never should any of these works be “banned” and turned into forbidden fruit; because it is only when the flaws of Logic and reasoning are exposed to sunlight that the “masterful thought revealed in some dark niche” become evident as the monstrous, self-serving propaganda they are. And the Whole World can react in revulsion (instead of a select few resurrecting these Horrors in a Future just beyond the Horizon… as “good ideas.”)
        Historians Explain; they do not remove.
        Mike Maxwell

    2. Chris: Thanks for printing the full document. I had never read it in its entirety and it’s highly illuminating. .

  2. Thomas Jefferson advocated for civil disobedience and declared in the Declaration of Independence that it was the “Right of the people to alter or abolish” any government, and institute a new one that would better secure their safety and happiness.

    We know how that ended the last time Americans tried to exercise their constitutional rights. Tyranny prevailed and 800,000 Americans lost their lives.

      1. To understand what the founding fathers intent was, you would have to research their writings, especially Jefferson input into the KY Resolution. In addition to their writings, 3 colonies would not sign onto the compact unless assured that should their citizens decide to leave the union, that they could. The process in leaving is that a states citizens meet in convention and either vote yay or nay.

      2. This country supports democratic independence movements around the world, the people of the south met in convention and exercised their constitutional rights….just as Jefferson intended.

      3. Also, there is plenty of evidence of Fire Eaters denouncing Jeffersonian traditions. See my post, “The Confederacy and Freedom” ….. hardly a haven of democracy.

      4. Point of fact, Monticello was Thomas Jefferson’s residence and a working slave plantation. Jefferson, unlike George Washington whose face is on the official seal of the Confederate States, didn’t manumit his slaves upon his death. Jefferson’s chattel property was his patrimony to his descendents.

        Arguably, without the likes of Thomas Jefferson and Jefferson’s forefathers there wouldn’t have ever been the likes of Jefferson Davis or Alexander Stephens.

    1. I should say George Washington’s likeness and not his face is on the official seal of the Confederate States. I must have been thinking of the Washington state flag.

    2. Thank god the North won. Our United States of America remained the United States of America. And our nation’s greatest sin – slavery – was abolished.

      1. Slavery would have died a natural death without the loss of 800,000 Americans.

      2. It didn’t die a “natural death” though. Fire Eaters were willing to fight to maintain it and violent abolitionists were willing to fight to end it. Ultimately, in late 1860 and early 1861, enough white southerners were willing to leave the Union and forge a new nation in defence of slavery, while most of the white North wasn’t willing to let that happen without a fight. Civil War was what happened “naturally”.

        If Thomas “All Men Are Created Equal” Jefferson, couldn’t find it in him and his neighbors to end their own doings, how in the world would it suddenly become easy for men like Alexander Stephens or people after him?

      3. Good points. And there were strong economic reasons why the secessionists rebelled in order to protect the institution. They weren’t stupid. The “natural death” mythology fails to give us a date or a cause. There’s good reason for that.

    3. I don’t think Stephens is in any real disagreement with Thomas Jefferson on slavery as a way of life. Stephens like Jefferson was born into a white supremacist slave society. Jefferson wrote that slavery was against nature while owning slaves and never freeing them. Jefferson was a white supremacist like Alexander Stephens who didn’t think blacks were the equal of whites, even while writing that all men are created equal. Actions speak louder than words and Thomas Jefferson’s actions place him squarely in the pro-slavery camp. What Stephens is criticizing in this speech is that Jefferson’s and Washington’s generation didn’t settle the issue of slavery once and for all, as slave owners themselves. Through the Revolution and then the Constitution they secured the institution of slavery for themselves, but not for their progeny. Thomas Jefferson lived the entirety of his life with the benefits and privileges of slavery, but left it to future slave owning Americans like Stephens to suffer the breaking up of the United States over slavery.

    4. Robert, You’ll have to forgive Sheaf-fer-brains, he’s been drinking that Righteous Cause kool-aid for so long he really thinks there is a spaceship on the other side of the moon. 🙂
      Good job making your points sir!

  3. Up until just a few years ago, no one knew of any copies of Stephens’ speech. All that was available was a badly written newspaper article from one reporter who took notes at Stephens’ Savannah speech. It was so badly written that Stephens immediately issued several corrections. In Stephens’ memoirs, he details the battle to correct the newspaper’s garbled account of his speech. Stephens also said in his memoir that when he referred to slavery being the cornerstone, he was actually quoting the words of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Henry Baldwin’s remarks in an 1833 Pennsylvania case —

    In Johnson vs. Tompkins, 1 Bald., 597, Baldwin said: “Slavery is the corner-stone of the Constitution; the foundations of the government are laid and rest on the right of property in slaves, and the whole structure must fall by disturbing the corner-stone.”

    Stephens used Baldwin’s words to show that the US had been defending slavery in court for many years and could therefore not criticize anyone else for the same thing. Slavery was legal in the entire US until the ratification of the 13th Amendment in December 1865.

    So the big question now is – – where did this supposed “copy” of Stephens’ speech come from? It has to be authenticated and vetted. Anyone could sit down and write a “lost” speech. we must have verified sources for this supposed speech or it must be dismissed as a hoax.

    1. In that Pennsylvania case, the opinion of the other learned judges was not less emphatic as to the importance to this provision and the unquestionable right of the South under it. Judge Baldwin, in charging the jury, said:*[The case of Johnson vs. Tompkins and others] “If there are any rights of property which can be enforced, if one citizen have any rights of property which are inviolable under the protection of the supreme law of the State, and the Union, they are those which have been set at nought by some of these defendants. As the owner of property, which he had a perfect right to possess, protect, and take away–as a citizen of a sister State, entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of any other States–Mr. Johnson stands before you on ground which cannot be taken from under him–it is the same ground on which the Government itself is based. If the defendants can be justified, we have no longer law or government.” Again, after referring more particularly to the provision for delivering up fugitive slaves, he said: “Thus you see, that the foundations of the Government are laid, and rest on the right of property in slaves. The whole structure must fall by disturbing the corner-stone.”
      To attribute the “cornerstone” remark to Stephens is a grave error of history. Those who try to use that small excerpt of Stephens’ speech as some kind of “proof” against the CSA are in castles of sand. Time to lay that old urban legend to rest.

  4. Here is what Stephens wrote of the speech post-war on July 15, 1865, in his diary when he was imprisoned:

    “The “Corner-stone” speech, which I made in Savannah, appears in the “Record.” The report was taken from the Savannah Republican; how it was made I have before stated; I see in this report several errors; for instance, in the estimate of the property of the Southern States. But in the main it is correct.”

    Recollections of Alexander H. Stephens: his diary kept when a prisoner at Fort Warren, Boston Harbour, 1865

    1. Prior to that, on June 5th, 1865, he wrote, regarding the Cornerstone Speech:

      “As for my Cornerstone Speech, about which so much has been said and in regard to which I am represented as setting forth “slavery” as the “corner-stone” of the Confederacy, it is proper for me to state that that speech was extemporaneous. The reporter’s notes, which were very imperfect, were hastily corrected by me; and were published without further revision and with several glaring errors. The substance of what I said on slavery was, that on the points under the old Constitution out of which so much discussion, agitation, and strife between the States had arisen, no future contention could arise, as these had been put to rest by clear language. I did not say, nor do I think the reporter represented me as saying, that there was the slightest change in the new Constitution from the old regarding the status of the African race amongst us. (Slavery was without doubt the occasion of secession; out of it rose the breach of compact, for instance, on the part of several Northern States in refusing to comply with Constitutional obligations as to rendition of fugitives from service, a course betraying total disregard for all constitutional barriers and guarantees.)”

  5. The references to the Johnson v. Tomkins trial are interesting but in fact the judge in that case used the idea of “slavery as the cornerstone” in a completely different sense than Stephens did in his Savannah speech.

    Put into context, the judge stated that “The Supreme Court declares that the Constitution of the United States would never have been formed or assented to by the southern States without some provision for securing their property in slaves.” So, the judges definition of cornerstone had to do with the rights of states in relation to each other.

    Stephens use of cornerstone, on the other hand, had to do with the proper relationship of Blacks to Whites in society.

    1. I’m not saying the court’s usage comports with, or provides precedence for Stephens’s usage, but the ruling had nothing to do with “the rights of states in relation to each other” – this was a question of Federal law that pre-empty state law and no State was a party to the litigation. This was a suit between individuals from two different states and involved the application of the Fugitive Slave Act. The judge was stating that there would be no Constitution without the consent of the South and that the South, in exchange for mutual compromises (two Senators per State, even for small states, the 3/5 rule), agreed to the Constitution based on assurances that slavery would be protected. Accordingly, as he viewed it, those provisions protecting slavery and slaveholder rights were a “Cornerstone” of the Constitution – this was a Fugitive Slave Act case which required the return of a slave from free-state Pennsylvania, to slave-state New Jersey.

      The apposite dicta states as follows:

      “You thus see that in protecting the rights of a master in the property of a slave, the con- stitution guarantees the highest rights of the respective states, of which each has a right to avail itself, and which each enjoys in proportion to the number of slaves within its bound- aries. This was a concession to the southern states; but it was not without its equivalent to the other states, especially the small ones—the basis of representation in the senate of the United States was perfect equality, each being entitled to two senators—Delaware had the same weight in the senate as Virginia. Thus you see that the foundations of the govern- ment are laid, and rest on the rights of property in slaves—the whole structure must fall by disturbing the corner stones—if federal numbers cease to be respected or held sacred in questions of property or government, the rights of the states must disappear and the government and union dissolve by the prostration of its laws before the usurped authority
      of individuals.”

  6. Rainey, like all historically challenged Lost Causers, attempts to perpetuate the myth about slavery dying of natural causes. Sure it would have. Just like Jim Crow would have died out naturally, if only those trouble-making African-Americans who marched in the streets and their Northern allies had stayed at home and minded their own business.

    1. Bobby, if you were a serious historian, you would know that it was dying out in the civilized world and would have followed suit in the CSA. I would hope that you are not one of those fanatics that believe that slavery would still exist today in the CSA should she have achieved her independence.

      1. Maybe we can narrow this down to an approximate date. The places in the “civilized world” that abolished it were able to do so by governmental directive of one kind or another – not by simply waking up one morning and discovering that it was miraculously gone. When would those who seceded to protect it in 1860-61 have peaceably reconciled themselves to legislation abolishing the United States?

      2. You are asking a speculative question which would be pointless to answer.

      3. Nice dodge. If you’ve got nothing, critique the question. You’re the one who raised the “natural death” bogeyman. Here’s a tip – if I’m living in slave quarters on a plantation, working seven days a week, and subject to being flogged or sold down the river at any time, I’d be looking for some sage counsel estimating when that situation dies a “natural death”. So would you.

      4. Rainey: Although you claim to know history, you obviously have never heard of Jim Crow. Let me educate you.

        Basically, these racist laws were the South’s answer to the abolition of slavery and to the voiding by Congress of Black Codes (a post-Civil War attempt to reimpose slavery in the South)

        Jim Crow laws were repealed only through enactment of civil rights legislation by Congress in the mid-1960s – 100 years after the end of the Civil War. By the way, Southern congressmen fought enactment of these anti-discrimination laws tooth and nail.

        So, please, explain how the white supremacists who dominated politics in the South – the same ones who kept African-Americans downtrodden through Jim Crow laws – would have ever voluntarily abolished slavery.

  7. “The Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history…the highest emotion reduced to a few poetical phrases. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous. But let us not forget that it is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination – that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves.” – H. L. Mencken

    1. So very true. The victors write history and of course will not find any fault with themselves. Had Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe had any idea that the north would invade their beloved Virginia, tear a 3rd of the State away, kill her citizens, their kin, burn her towns and cities to the ground, burn women, children and old men out of their homes, I’m certain they would have formed two countries since there were 2 distinct cultures. Lincoln even stated that he wasn’t going to let a piece of paper, the Constitution, to keep him from maintaining the union.

    2. Mencken was an apologist for the south. The CSA tried to scrap the previous system of self-determination (the democratic republic embodied in the US Constitution) for a new separate system that claimed Black chattel slavery as it’s cornerstone.

    3. You need to do a lot more research on Washington and his views about the union. A lot more. Being from Virginia didn’t automatically turn somebody into a secessionist. See, just for example, Winfield Scott and George Thomas, who stayed loyal to the United States.

      1. Mine was actually intended for Mr. Rainey. And Mr. Mencken was a pretty sharp guy who foresaw where we’ve ended up today.

  8. Many thanks for posting the entire text…i have only read portions prior to your post…i often wonder how the Lost Cause crowd covered their tracks on this one — but they did.

    1. Mark, a good analogy to your comment on the lost causers would be to compare those that always dismiss believers as such to those, such as yourself, to the radical left of today, you know, the never Trumpers, he’s not my president.

  9. No matter what the Lost Causers say, the South left the Union because of slavery.

Please leave a comment and join the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: