Stephen's Corner Stone Speech

[unionblue]

Dawna,

You have shown yourself to go directly to source documents, as you have done with former Vice President's Stephen's 'Cornerstone Speech.'

Here are links to two more speeches given by Alexander H. Stephens, concerning issues of secession and their causes. Read them and decide for yourself:

The first site is to a speech of Stephen's given on Nov. 14, 1860.

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/steph2.html

The second site is an extract of a speed of Stephen's given before the Secession Convention of Georgia, Jan. 1861. Please scroll down to the bottom of the page and on the left-hand side you can click on the pages you wish to read from the speech.

http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/...T5971.0001.001

Enjoy your research. From the man himself.
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on September 28, 2004)

It was the cause, not only of the Seceding States, but the cause of all the States, and in this view it became, to a great extent, the cause of Constitutional Liberty everywhere. It was the cause of the Federative principle of Government, against the principle of Empire! The cause of the Grecian type of Civilization against the Asiatic! So, at least, I viewed it, with all the earnestness of the profoundest convictions.

The matter of Slavery, so-called, which was the proximate cause of these irregular movements on both sides, and which ended in the general collision of war, as we have seen, was of infinitely less importance to the Seceding States, than the recognition of this great principle.




I repeat that this whole subject of Slavery, so-called, in any and every view of it, was, to the Seceding States, but a drop in the ocean compared with those other considerations involved in the issue. Hence, during the whole war, being thoroughly enlisted in it from these other and higher considerations, but being, at the same time, ever an earnest advocate for its speediest termination by an appeal from the arena of arms to the forum of reason, justice, and right, I was wedded to no idea as a basis of peace, but that of the recognition of the ultimate absolute Sovereignty of all the States as the essential basis of any permanent union between them, or any of them, consistent with the preservation of their ultimate existence and liberties. And I wanted, at no time, any recognition of Independence on the part of the Confederate States, but that of George III., of England. That is, the recognition of the Sovereignty and Independence of each, by name.
The Confederate States had made common cause for this great principle, as the original thirteen States had done in 1776. The recognition of this I regarded as essential to the future well-being, happiness, and prosperity of all the States, in existence and to be formed, as well as the countless millions of people who are hereafter to inhabit this half of the Western Hemisphere.

A
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW
OF THE LATE
WAR BETWEEN THE STATES;
ITS
CAUSES, CHARACTER, CONDUCT AND RESULTS
PRESENTED IN A
SERIES OF COLLOQUIES
AT LIBERTY HALL
BY
ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS



Stephens was an odd duck. I think the main things I see in him are he sided with the South. Not the North. And he was just incapable of getting along with any of the CSA government. They respected his intellect but not his methods and conclusions. Or vice versa.



(Message edited by aphillbilly on September 28, 2004)

[unionblue]

Tommy,

Ah! Here it is for Mr. Stephens, Magic time, when the war is over and one has to face the music of one's past actions, written word and former speeches. And if Stephens was an odd duck, what about all them declarations of secession from all them Southern States saying it was about slavery?

Funny how many Southerners before the war say one thing, and then after, it's (the war) about ANYTHING else other than slavery. Shame about that pesky paper trail that all those folks left behind, ain't it?

Just an observation.
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on September 28, 2004)

(Message edited by Unionblue on September 28, 2004)

Neil,
Read Zeb Vance's paper trail. Or how about Lawrence O'Brian Branch's 1858 paper trail?
What about the declaration that don't say it is about slavery?
YMOS
tommy



(Message edited by aphillbilly on September 28, 2004)

[unionblue]

Tommy,

Point me in the right direction, and I'll be happy to check them out.

Unionblue

Read them all. Fairly.


http://www.wtv-zone.com/civilwar/ordinance.html#Florida


I'm off to the land of nod. Ya'll have a great day.
Catch ya'll when the bugle sounds.

(Message edited by aphillbilly on September 28, 2004)

[johan_steele]

Dawna, I think what Bill and Aphillbilly balk at is the idea that "might makes right"... It is a tragedy that the nation that wins gets to decide what is right; but that IS what history tells us happens. The US has/had a right to exist because they won, the CSA lost... All the bickering about who was right, blame placing ad nauseum is just so much hot air. The CSA lost, the least incompetant army won and history proved itself again.

Bill, Aphillbilly and others provide an articulate and (generally) civil argument that the South was right, nothing wrong w/ that. That is their belief and opinion. Some will say that anything Union was/is obviously evil and that all the wrongs in the world are the US fault and Lincoln was the Anti-christ. My own and others research has shown me something far different. That is the beauty of this country, we are allowed to voice our opinions... Often the best weapon being to allow someone to voice their opinion.

We view slavery and secession through a 21st century lens, it is a fascinating discussion.... but one we view through a modern viewpoint. Slavery was NOT an accepted norm in the "civilized" world. After all that was one of the primary arguments that kept England out of our little squabble.

Last weekend I had an "1830's era Trapper" interrupt one of my presentations w/ the comment: "You mean the War of Northern Aggression" I looked at him, I admit to being a little irritated at the interruption and agreed that some called it that and many also called it the "War of Rebellion" his next comment was that slavery had nothing to do w/ it. I again looked at him, "Of coarse not, it was about 'States Rights'; A States right to own slaves. The tarriffs is an often, and poorly used argument as the revenues from tarriffs in NYC alone were higher than in most of the South. His interruption was that the abolition of slavery would have removed 90% of the Southern workforce from circulation and destroy the Southern economy. I agreed, it would have been an absolute destruction of so many wealthy fortunes if the workforce suddenly had to be paid; and the War destroyed the Southern economy far more than some sort of legal emancipation would have; 250,000 Confederate soldiers died to try and keep a few thousand slave holders in their money. It's just my opinion and it can be argued against and is. Secession was a gamble; the CSA anteed up like men. But when they lost and it came time to pay up... the South reaped the whirlwind of a terrible thing called Civil War.

But a few facts are hard to dispute. The Union was the side of Aggression... is that why the South had called up 100,000 troops prior to the firing on of Ft Sumter? And why Lincoln failed to call up ANY troops until after FT Sumter was fired upon?

If the tarrifs or representation were the issue why on earth didn't men like Stephens make that point?

I've heard that a VP is a useless post w/ no power... really then why was Stephens sent to negotiate w/ Lincoln and if Slavery was no issue why was there so much resistance to the very idea of Black troops in the CSA. The reply to the argument is "There were 200,000 Black Confederates!" Really, where did they serve? What Regiments claimed them? Where is the notations and mention in Union records of Black Confederate POW's abd dead?

CSA history has been generally written by apologists, and those who wish the South had not lost. Others were written by Yanks who despised the South and everything it stood for; it's difficult to get an honest and balanced view of things.

One of the more intruiging "What If's" I have heard recently was: What if Stephens had been the President of the CSa and Davis the VP? An intruiging question to put it mildly.

[dawna]

Neil, Tommy & Shane:

I am most appreciative of your responses and additional information. No doubt I will have more questions once I've managed to sort through all the new links etc.

Dawna

[bill_torrens]

Tommy,

Nope, no sore legs or posterior. Cycled about 90 miles in Catalunya...it was wonderful. And then had a week in a rented house in the South of France. I'll send you a couple of pics.

Neil,

Good to talk to you again. Are you completely recovered? Your argument that the U.S.A. has a superior case for existence to the C.S.A. because it was more "progressive" seems - if you'll forgive me saying so - hopelessly subjective. Apart from anything else, are you really so sure that being progressive is necessarily a good thing? We could all be lemmings progressing over the cliff top. And who is to say how Confederate society would have blossomed and changed once free of the constant irritant of social interraction with the North. We'll never know, because that young nation never had the opportunity to pursue its destiny.

Dawna,

Tommy has answered your query on my behalf, and has done a good job of it.

Shane,

For the record, I have to tell you that I do not believe in the tooth fairy, Santa Claus or Black Confederate soldiers. I have no doubt that the occasional officer's slave was encouraged to fire a musket, but beyond that I will not go.

Bill

[dave_kelly]

The original premise of the thread was how to you say that secession was not about slavery, when primary sourced political statements of the 1860 timeframe all declare that the cause of the final schism of the Union was slavery.

The onus for this is on the Confederated states who made those very declarations. Not on the United States of America. Claiming that US history covers up the truth about the rebellion, when the historical truth is in the writings of the planters who fomented disunion, begs who is being dishonest about the issue.

The United States was here first. It established a hegemony based on a Republican system freer than anything else in the world. As a nation it felt that a democratically principled Republic deserved to be a great nation emminent among the others. Southern and Northern ambitions for the American Vision conflicted in only one way: how slavery fits in the American paradigm.

It was the lack of sympathy for slavery which spoilt the sense of harmony in the Union. It was the slaveholders insistence that slavery must be embraced as a national principle that caused alienation in the sections.

Confederate rebellion occurred for the reasons historically stated. Flatly, to protect the Cotton Empire from northern liberalism.