« “So this is the Little Lady Who Started this Great War” | Main | Lincoln Studies Book of the Month: Gettysburg Gospel »
Alexander Stephens & His “Cornerstone Speech”
By Samuel P. Wheeler | March 21, 2007
Though it is one of the most fundamental question of the Civil War era, it may also be the most loaded question in all of American History: Why did the South secede?
For nearly a century and a half, historians have offered various answers; however, the participants themselves told us why they did it. Certainly the Confederate states laid out their reasons in their various Declaration of Causes. However, today also marks the anniversary of an eye-opening speech.
On March 21, 1861, Alexander Stephens delivered his famous “Cornerstone Speech” in Savannah, Georgia. Though he was an early opponent of the secessionist movement, when his home state of Georgia seceded, Stephens sided with them and became the Vice President of the Confederacy. He hoped his “Cornerstone Speech” would convince other Southern states to join the revolution.
Stephens told the crowd that the new Confederate constitution secured “all our ancient rights, franchises, and liberties.” However, it was far superior to the constitution of 1787 in one important area:
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.
Stephens summed up the Confederate cause:
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.
When the Vice President of the Confederacy tells me why the South seceded, I can only take him at his word.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on this subject on the DISCUSSION BOARD
Topics: Confederacy, Secession | 6 Comments »
June 16th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
One select paragraph from the “Cornerstone” speech of Alexander Stephens is a poor choice as a source for determining the cause for Southern independence. First of all, it was an extemporaneous political stump speech by a political opportunist to an audience which rightfully held his devotion to slavery, secession and the Confederacy suspect. This was not an official pronouncement by any of the authors or signers of the actual Confederate Constitution, nor of the President or Congress of the Confederacy, nor even an official, studied thesis by Stephens himself. In fact, we do not even know if this record of his speech is accurate since there was no actual draft made by him, and all we have is a reporter’s admitted “sketch” of what he thought were the prominent points. Although Stephen’s expostulation of the political and economic improvements in the Confederate Constitution can be backed up by reading the document itself and the debates over their creation, no such evidence can be found anywhere to prove that document supported a racist theory of incorrigible negro inferiority. If Stephens actually said that, then the Conffederate Constitution proves him either mistaken or a liar. What’s more, Stephen’s own official writings, well-documented and published, both before and after the “Cornerstone” anomaly, strongly indicate he didn’t believe his own reputed racist rhetoric himself! He opposed the expansion of slavery for decades before the war, never mentioned racism or slavery as a motive for secession in his official books and writings after the war, and never made an official racist pronouncement from his office during the war. Nor did ANY official of the Confederate government make such racist pronouncements as regards the official causes for secession and the war for independence. The South no more fought for racist slavery than did our slave-holding Founding Fathers (like Washington, Jefferson, and Madison!) in their secession from Great Britain. Like them, Southerners fought for freedom and independence from tyranny, simple as that! Frankly, it is inexcusable to ignore all that evdence and look to an obscure sketch of an extemporaneous speech of wihch we have no official draft, that runs counter to the life-long behavior of its alledged speaker as well as to the documents it purports to explain, for the “official” reason as to why the South seceded! I mean, COME ON!
– Arnie
June 16th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
What happened to my previous comment?
July 25th, 2009 at 8:54 am
Arnie,
Alexander Stephens was a racist…pure and simple. If he did, as you say he did…used a stump speach to gain support of an audience of slave owners…that’s makes it even worse….I mean come on….that’s like saying “I’m not racist, unless I need the support of a bunch of racists, then I’ll just act racist for a little while to get what I want.” Also, Stephen’s thinly vailed “States Rights” arguement for succession…is a smoke and mirrors tactic as well……it was about one right….the right to own slaves! Don’t be so ignorant by defending ignorance.
August 4th, 2009 at 11:09 am
Sorry, I’ve been away for a while. Thanks for re-posting my comment.
Cory, I cannot speak to the character of historical figures whom I’ve never met. Alexander Stephens may have in fact been a racist, maybe not. From his life-history of DEEDS I cannot conclude he was. Perhaps from a single paragraph of a reporter’s “sketch” of a single political oppurtunistic speech one might be tempted to conclude he was (but then, that same foolish standard would force one to conclude that Sonia Sotomayer is also a racist! Think about that!!).
But you miss the point! Whether Stephens was racist or not is irrelevant. Stephens didn’t write, sign or ratify the Confederate Constitution. His alledged remarks were not the official pronouncement of the Confederate government. He was neither President nor an esteemed member of the Confederate Congress (he was picked as Davis’ running mate soley as a “ticket balancer”). His stump speech no more represented official government policy than Vice President Joe Biden’s off-the-cuff statements about restricting mass transit due to the swine flu represented the official policy of the Obama administration (again, think about that!).
Bottom line, to take a heresay sketch of a politically motivated speech from an out-of-the-loop V.P. (again, think Joe Biden) and conclude that it represented the sole and official motivation behind the Confederate cause is irresponsibly ludicrous, espcially in light of all the justifiable grievances the seceding States officially presented in their call for freedom and independence.
I am not trying to be rude here, but please, fellow commenters, let’s give benefit to the fact that there are two sides to every argument and that some mighty great and moral Statesmen threw their support, indeed their very lives, behind the Confederate cause. To conclude they were blind to the evils of our “peculiar institution” would be disingenuous. There must have been, and indeed there were, greater, more vital and urgent issues that caused them (just exactly as it did our slaveholding Founding Fathers) to fight for separation from a tyrannical government while condoning slavery at home. States’ rights (or better, States’ sovereignty) was THE issue! Slavery was just the hot-button dominoe in a long line of matters of local sovereignty that were at stake. Once the first dominoe falls, i.e., once the constitutional limit on federal interferrence in State affairs was breached, starting with the States’ authority to determine the legality of slavery within their own borders (a sovereign right/power utilized by every northern State prior to 1866) the floodgates of federal tyranny would fling wide open to all manner of usurpations, the grievous consequences of which we today are justly suffering! Consider that!
Gentlemen, I know could be wrong, and I welcome reproof, but please consider the evidence. Doesn’t it deserve fair and full contemplation before we chalk up the entire Confederate motivation to a simple case of racism?
Thank you for your patience.
Arnie
August 6th, 2009 at 10:10 am
May I be so bold as to ask why my response to Cory was removed? It was still posted as of yesterday, 5 August 09. Now today I find it erased. I thought it to be both courteous and factual. Was there something the site-master found offensive or inaccurate in it? I’d appreciate knowing just for the sake of improving upon my research and delivery, if nothing else. Thank you for your consideration.
Arnie
August 6th, 2009 at 10:29 am
O thank you for reposting my response to Cory.
And if I may add another note for Cory:
I realize my credentials are weak and suspect. I am an amateur historian. There ia website with essays from professionals whose credentials you may find infinitely more trusworthy who address this very issue. I found it most illuminating:
http://www.etymonline.com/cw/cornerstone.htm.
Scroll down through their contents till you reach “the Cornerstone Speech.” I think you will enjoy his comments more than my feeble attempts to mimic them.
Hope this helps.
Arnie