History

Alexander Stephens on the Confederacy’s Corner-Stone Alexander Stephens began his political career in the 1840s as a Georgia Whig in the House of Representatives before the Civil War. When the South seceded in 1860-1861, Stephens had become prominent enough to serve as Vice-President of the Confederacy. After the war, he would again serve in the House of Representatives as well as governor of Georgia. Stephens also spent the post-war years developing an interpretation of the coming of the Civil War as a conflict over states’-rights rather than slavery. That effort stood in stark contrast with what he argued on the eve of the war. The selection here comes from what historians call Stephens’s “Corner-Stone” speech. His speech provided a description of the constitution for the newly created Confederate States of America, but our interest rests in what he believed to be the foundation (or “corner-stone”) of the new government. As you read this selection, keep the following questions in mind. What did Stephens claim to be the corner-stone of the Confederacy? What was the truth (so-called) that the Confederate Constitution acknowledge that the framers of the original constitution had missed? Finally ask yourself, does Stephens’s description of the original constitution square with depictions made by other documents you have read (or with the textbook for that matter)?

Extracts from Alexander Stephens, “Corner Stone” Speech.

Savanah, GA March 21, 1861

EXTRACTED FROM http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/cornerstone-speech/

This new constitution [for the Confederate States of America] 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.

….Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this [Slavery], 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.