Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Alexander Stephens' "Corner-stone" speech

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Alexander Stephens' "Corner-stone" speech

    All,

    I thought you might be interested in, Alexander Stephens' "Corner-stone" speech. He gave the speech in Savannah on March 21, 1861. In the speech, he explicitly cites slavery, specifically the right to own slaves and the fact that holding blacks in slavery is in accordance with natural laws, as the corner-stone if the Confederacy's existence. He, in fact, claims that the rest of the civilised world will eventually come to the conclusion that slavery is correct and quite the way things were meant to be. This tends to explode the usual "it wasn't about slavery, but states' rights" defense of the Confederacy. The speech is in a new book entitled "American Speeches: Political Oratory from the Revolution to the Civil War", published by The Library of America.

    Mark Maranto




    Cornerstone Speech
    Savannah; Georgia, March 21, 1861

    The Cornerstone Speech was delivered extemporaneously by Vice President Alexander H. Stephens, and no official printed version exists. The text below was taken from a newspaper article in the Savannah Republican, as reprinted in Henry Cleveland, Alexander H. Stephens, in Public and Private: With Letters and Speeches, before, during, and since the War, Philadelphia, 1886, pp. 717-729.

    ====================

    At half past seven o'clock on Thursday evening, the largest audience ever assembled at the Athenaeum was in the house, waiting most impatiently for the appearance of the orator of the evening, Hon. A. H. Stephens, Vice- President of the Confederate States of America. The committee, with invited guests, were seated on the stage, when, at the appointed hour, the Hon. C. C. Jones, Mayor, and the speaker, entered, and were greeted by the immense assemblage with deafening rounds of applause.

    The Mayor then, in a few pertinent remarks, introduced Mr. Stephens, stating that at the request of a number of the members of the convention, and citizens of Savannah and the State, now here, he had consented to address them upon the present state of public affairs.

    MR. STEPHENS rose and spoke as follows:

    Mr. Mayor, and Gentlemen of the Committee, and Fellow-Citizens:-For this reception you will please accept my most profound and sincere thanks. The compliment is doubtless intended as much, or more, perhaps, in honor of the occasion, and my public position, in connection with the great events now crowding upon us, than to me personally and individually. It is however none the less appreciated by me on that account. We are in the midst of one of the greatest epochs in our history. The last ninety days will mark one of the most memorable eras in the history of modern civilization.

    [There was a general call from the outside of the building for the speaker to go out, that there were more outside than in.]

    The Mayor rose and requested silence at the doors, that Mr. Stephens' health would not permit him to speak in the open air.

    MR. STEPHENS said he would leave it to the audience whether he should proceed indoors or out. There was a general cry indoors, as the ladies, a large number of whom were present, could not hear outside.

    MR. STEPHENS said that the accommodation of the ladies would determine the question, and he would proceed where he was.

    [At this point the uproar and clamor outside was greater still for the speaker to go out on the steps. This was quieted by Col. Lawton, Col. Freeman, Judge Jackson, and Mr. J. W. Owens going out and stating the facts of the case to the dense mass of men, women, and children who were outside, and entertaining them in brief speeches -- Mr. Stephens all this while quietly sitting down until the furor subsided.]

    MR. STEPHENS rose and said: 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. [Loud applause.] I very much regret that every one who desires cannot hear what I have to say. Not that I have any display to make, or any thing 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. [Applause.]

    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. [Applause.] Some changes have been made. Of these I shall speak presently. Some of these I should have preferred not to have seen made; but these, perhaps, meet the cordial approbation of a majority of this audience, if not an overwhelming majority of the people of the Confederacy. Of them, therefore, I will not speak. 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. [Applause.]

    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 subject came well nigh causing a rupture of the old Union, under the lead of the gallant Palmetto State, which lies on our border, in 1833. 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. [Applause.]

    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 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 twenty-five millions of dollars. 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 equipments of our roads, was borne by those who entered on 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 benefitted 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. [Applause.] 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-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, inforcing, 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. [Rapturous applause.]

    [A noise again arose from the clamor of the crowd outside, who wished to hear Mr. Stephens, and for some moments interrupted him. The mayor rose and called on the police to preserve order. Quiet being restored, Mr. S. proceeded.]

    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. [Applause.]

    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. [Applause.] 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. [Applause.]

    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. [Immense applause.]

    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," [applause,] 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, 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-co-operationists, we are now all for independence, whether they come or not. [Continued applause.]

    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. [Great applause.] 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. [Applause.]

    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 dissensions 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. [Loud applause.] 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 fain 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. [Enthusiastic cheering.]

    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. [Continued applause.]

    Mr. Stephens reviewed at some length, the extravagance and profligacy of appropriations by the Congress of the United States for several years past, and in this connection took occasion to allude to another one of the great improvements in our new constitution, which is a clause prohibiting Congress from appropriating any money from the treasury, except by a two-third vote, unless it be for some object which the executive may say is necessary to carry on the government.

    When it is thus asked for, and estimated for, he continued, the majority may appropriate. This was a new feature.

    Our fathers had guarded the assessment of taxes by insisting that representation and taxation should go together. This was inherited from the mother country, England. It was one of the principles upon which the revolution had been fought. Our fathers also provided in the old constitution, that all appropriation bills should originate in the representative branch of Congress, but our new constitution went a step further, and guarded not only the pockets of the people, but also the public money, after it was taken from their pockets.

    He alluded to the difficulties and embarrassments which seemed to surround the question of a peaceful solution of the controversy with the old government. How can it be done? is perplexing many minds. The President seems to think that he cannot recognize our independence, nor can he, with and by the advice of the Senate, do so. The constitution makes no such provision. A general convention of all the States has been suggested by some.

    Without proposing to solve the difficulty, he barely made the following suggestion:

    "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?" This he merely offered as a suggestion, as one of the ways in which it might be done with much less violence by constructions to the constitution than many other acts of that government. [Applause.] The difficulty has to be solved in some way or other -- this may be regarded as a fixed fact.

    Several other points were alluded to by Mr. Stephens, particularly as to the policy of the new government toward foreign nations, and our commercial relations with them. Free trade, as far as practicable, would be the policy of this government. NO higher duties would be imposed on foreign importations than would be necessary to support the government upon the strictest economy.

    In olden times the olive branch was considered the emblem of peace; we will send to the nations of the earth another and far more potential emblem of the same, the cotton plant. The present duties were levied with a view of meeting the present necessities and exigencies, in preparation for war, if need be; but if we have peace, and he hoped we might, and trade should resume its proper course, a duty of ten per cent. upon foreign importations it was thought might be sufficient to meet the expenditures of the government. If some articles should be left on the free list, as they now are, such as breadstuffs, etc., then, of course, duties upon others would have to be higher -- but in no event to an extent to embarrass trade and commerce. He concluded in an earnest appeal for union and harmony, on part of all the people in support of the common cause, in which we were all enlisted, and upon the issues of which such great consequences depend.

    If, said he, we are true to ourselves, true to our cause, true to our destiny, true to our high mission, in presenting to the world the highest type of civilization ever exhibited by man -- there will be found in our lexicon no such word as fail.

    Mr. Stephens took his seat, amid a burst of enthusiasm and applause, such as the Athenaeum has never had displayed within its walls, within "the recollection of the oldest inhabitant."

    [REPORTER'S NOTE. -- Your reporter begs to state that the above is not a perfect report, but only such a sketch of the address of Mr. Stephens as embraces, in his judgment, the most important points presented by the orator. -- G.]
    [FONT=Courier New]Mark Maranto[/FONT]

  • #2
    Re: Alexander Stephens' "Corner-stone" speech

    Originally posted by hendrickms24 View Post
    [COLOR="RoyalBlue"]This tends to explode the usual "it wasn't about slavery, but states' rights" defense of the Confederacy.
    I'm curious if that defense was common in the 1861-1865 period, or if it's more of a post-war thing.

    It's not something I've run into often in the rhetoric of the 1860s (except in northern speeches, where there was often the argument, it's not about slavery, it's about the union). So I'd be interested in knowing more about a period viewpoint that contended slavery wasn't the key right that the south felt was being threatened. Did any southerners respond to Stephens' speech, for example, trying to do "spin control" to minimize his emphasis on slavery? What sort of southern orators or writers would have downplayed slavery as a reason for the Confederacy to come into existence or been embarrassed by the emphasis on it?

    Hank Trent
    hanktrent@voyager.net
    Hank Trent

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Alexander Stephens' "Corner-stone" speech

      In a similar vein from the April 1909 issue of Confederate Veteran, Vol. XVII, p. 170.

      SECESSION IN PUTNAM COUNTY, TENN.
      BY J. M. MORGAN, GAINESBORO
      At a public meeting of the citizens of Putnam County, Tenn., held in Cookeville April 22, 1861, Hon. E. L. Gardenhire was unanimously chosen chairman and William J. Reagan and B. B. Washburn secretaries of the meeting. Enthusiastic speeches were made by Hon. John H. Savage, Hon. S. S. Stanton, Hon. E. L. Gardenhire, Col. S. H. Combs, Col. T. B. Murray, Judge James T. Quarles, W. H. Botts, and others to a large and eagerly listening audience. The subject discussed was about the crisis in our government and the course to be assumed by the slave States.
      The chairman appointed H. H. Dillard, Col. John P. Murray, Benton Marchbanks, W. Q. Hughes, Holland Denton, Tim H. Williams, and J. C. Apple a committee on resolutions. It was perhaps the largest meeting ever held in Putnam County, and there was great enthusiasm. Only three persons in the assembly voted against the resolutions. The preamble stated:
      "The antislavery party is the enemy of the Union and the Constitution, advocating the equality of the negro and the white races and the abolition of slavery. To accomplish this the antislavery party has been organized and now constitutes the dominant party in all the free States. And now, having possession of the Federal government in all its departments, it is attempting by conquest and coercion to carry out its damnable heresies entertained for many vears toward the South and its institutions. The North has turned a listless ear to all supplication of the South in behalf of their cherished constitutional rights and treated with contempt every proposition for the honorable pacification of our difficulties. A civil war, with its untold horrors and consequences, is now commenced by the sending of an armed fleet by the Federal government to enforce its will upon the Southern Confederacy. Counsel and reason having been in vain exhausted in an honorable effort to secure our rights under the Constitution, we are now driven to the deplorable necessity of appealirig for the defense of our homes and. our institutions to the stern arbitrament of the sword and that God who rules the battles; therefore
      "Resolved: 1.That we indorse every effort that has been made by convention and otherwise to bring about a peaceable settlement of our existing difficulties, and thereby preserve the Union intact but having failed and all reasonable hopes of pacification being extinct, we do now deem it the wisest policy in Tennesee to unite her future destiny with theSouthern Confederacy.
      "2. That we regard the war now waged upon the Southern Confederacy by the administration as unnational, unwise, and unholy, without authority under the Constitution, that we look upon this act of the President of the United States in calling out troops and making war without the sanction of Congress as an unjustifiable assumptionof power.
      3. That the position assumed by our Representatives in the State Legislature to use all means to speedily get Tennessee from under the tyrannical rule of Abraham Lincoln meets our unqualified approbation, and they are hereby directed to use all means in their power to dissolve the connection of this State with the general government and unite her fortunes with the Confederate States, and that we will ratify their action when submitted to us for approval.
      "4. That the duplicity of Lincoln has our contempt; we detest his tyranny and: defy his power.
      5. That we will resist his usurpation unto death; that, we have no compromise with tyranny or with the tyrant who has trampled our Constitution and now seeks to enslave us.
      "6. That we are opposed to Andrew Johnson for, any place or position, and think him unworthy the position he now occupies, and we hereby request our Senators in Washington to no longer attempt to represent us in the Lincoln Congress."
      The foregoing is a copy of the preamble and resolutions read at Cookeville April 22, 1861, copied then by me.
      Lee White
      Researcher and Historian
      "Delenda Est Carthago"
      "My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings, Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!"

      http://bullyforbragg.blogspot.com/

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Alexander Stephens' "Corner-stone" speech

        This is Tennessee Governor, Isham Harris's first message to the Tennessee Assembly in advocating the secession of the state.

        EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, NASHVILLE, January 7, 1861
        Gentlemen of the Senate and House of Representatives:
        THE ninth section of the third article of the Constitution, provides that, on extraordinary occasions, the Governor may convene the General Assembly. Believing the emergency contemplated, to exist at this time I have called you together. In welcoming you to the capitol of the State, I can but regret the gloomy auspices under which we meet. Grave and momentous issues have arisen, which, to an unprecedented degree, agitate the public mind and imperil the perpetuity of the Government.
        The systematic, wanton, and long continued agitation of the slavery question, with the actual and threatened aggressions of the Northern States and a portion of their people, upon the well-defined constitutional rights of the Southern citizen; the rapid growth and increase, in all the elements of power, of a purely sectional party, whose bond of union is uncompromising hostility to the rights and institutions of the fifteen Southern States, have produced a crisis in the affairs of the country, unparalleled in the history of the past, resulting already in the withdrawal from the Confederacy of one of the sovereignties which composed it, while others are rapidly preparing to move in the same direction. Fully appreciating the imortance of the duties which devolve upon you, fraught, as your action must be, with consequences of the highest possible importance to the people of Tennessee; knowing that, as a great Commonwealth, our own beloved State is alike interested with her sisters, who have resorted, and are preparing to resort, to this fearful alternative, I have called you together for the purpose of calm and dispassionate deliberation, earnestly trusting, as the chosen representatives of a free and enlightened people, that you will, at this critical juncture of our affairs, prove yourselves equal to the occasion which has called for the exercise of your talent and patriotism.
        A brief review of the history of the past is necessary to a proper understanding of the issues presented for your consideration.
        Previous to the adoption of the Federal Constitution, each State was a separate and independent Government-a conplete sovereignty within itself --and in the compact of union, each reserved all the rights and powers incident to sovereignty, except such as were expressly delegated by the Constitution to the General Government, or such as were clearly incident, and necessary, to the exercise of some expressly delegated power. The Constitution distinctly recognizes property in slaves -- makes it the duty of the States to deliver the fugitive to his owner, but contains no grant of power to the Federal Government to interfere with this species of property, except "the power coupled with the duty," common to all civil Governments, to protect the rights of property, as well as those of life and liberty, of the citizen, which clearly appears from the exposition given to that instrument by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Dred Scott vs. Sandford. In delivering the opinion of the Court, Chief Justice Taney said:
        "Now, as we have already said in an earlier part of this opinion upon a different point, the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution."
        "And no word can be found in the Constitution which gives Congress a greater power over slave property, or which entitles property of that kind to less protection than property of any other description. The only power conferred, is the power coupled with the duty, of guarding and protecting the owner in his rights."
        This decision of the highest judicial tribunal, known to our Government, settles the question, beyond the possibility of doubt, that slave property rests upon the same basis, and is entitled to the same protection, as every other description of property; that the General Government has no power to circumscribe or confine it within any given boundary; to determine where it shall, or shall not exist, or in any manner to impair its value. And certainly it will not be contended, in this enlightened age, that any member of the Confederacy can exercise higher powers, in this respect, beyond the limits of its own boundary, than those delegated to the General Government.
        The States entered the Union upon terms of perfect political equality, each delegating certain powers to the General Government, but neither deterring any power to the other to interfere with its reserved rights or domestic affairs; hence, there is no power on earth which can rightfully determine whether slavery shall or shall not exist within the limits of any State, except the people thereof acting in their highest sovereign capacity.
        The attempt of the Northern people, through the instrumentality of the Federal Govermuent -- their State governments, and emigrant aid societies--to confine this species of property within the limits of the present Southern States--to impair its value by constant agitation and refusal to deliver up the fugitive--to appropriate the whole of the Territories, which are the common property all the people of all the States, to the Southern man who is unwilling to live under a government which, may by law recognize the free negroe as his equal; "and in fine, to put the question where the Northern mind will rest in the belief of its ultimate extinction" is justly regarded by the people of the Southern States as a gross and palpable violation of the spirit and obvious meaning of the compact of Union--an impertinent intermeddling with their domestic affairs, destructive of fraternal feeling, ordinary comity, and well defined rights.
        As slavery receded from the North, it was followed by the most violent and fanatical opposition. At first the anti-slavery cloud, which now overshadows the nation, was no larger than a man's hand. Most of you can remember, with vivid distinctness, those days of brotlierhood,.when throughout the whole North, the abolitionist was justly regarded as an enemy of his country. Weak, diminutive and contemptible as was this part in the purer days of the Republic, it has now grown to collossal proportions, and its recent rapid strides to power, have given it possession of the.present House of Representatives, and elected one of its leaders to the Presidency of the United States; and in the progress of events, the Senate and Supreme Court must also soon pass into the hands of this party -- a party upon whose revolutionary banner is inscribed, "No more slave States, no more slave Territory, no return of the fugitive to his master" -- an "irrepressible conflict" between the Free and Slave States; "and whether it, be long or short, peaceful or bloody, the struggle shall go on, until the sun shall not rise upon a master or set upon a slave."
        Nor is this all; it seeks to appropriate to itself, and to exclude the slaveholder from the territory acquired by the common blood and treasure of all the States.
        It has, through the instrumentality of Emigrant Aid Societies, under State patronage, flooded the Territories with its minions, armed with Sharp's rifles and bowie knives, seeking thus to accomplish, by intimidation, violence and murder what it could not do by constitutional legislation.
        It demanded, and from our love of peace and devotion to the Union, unfortunately extorted in 1819-'20, a concession which excluded the South from about half the territory acquired from France.
        It demanded, and again received, as a peace offering in 1845, all of that part of Texas, North of 36 deg. 30' North latitude, if at any time the interest of the people thereof shall require a division of her territory.
        It would submit to nothing less than a compromise in 1850, by which it dismembered that State, and remanded to territorial condition a considerable portion of its territory South of 36 30.
        It excluded, by the same Compromise, the Southern people from California, whose mineral wealth, fertility of soil, and salubrity of climate, is not surpassed on earth, by prematurely forcing her into the Union under a Constitution, conceived in fraud by a set of adventurers, in the total absence of any law authorizing the formation of a Constitution, fixing the qualification of voters, regulating the time, place, or manner of electing delegates, or the time or place of the meeting of such Convention. Yet all these irregular and unauthorized proceedings were.sanctified by the fact that the Constitution prohibited slavery, and forever closed the doors of that rich and desirable territory against the Southern people. And while the Southern mind was still burning under a humiliating sense of this wrong, it refused to admit Kansas into the Union upon a Constitution, framed by authority of Congress, and by delegates elected in conforinity to law, upon the ground that slavery was recognized and protected.
        It claims the constitutional right to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, the forts, arsenals, dock-yards and other places ceded to the United States, within the limits of slaveholding States.
        It proposes a prohibition of the slave trade between the States, thereby crowding the slaves together and preventing their exit South, until they become unprofitable to an extent that will force the owner finally to abandon them in self-defence.
        It has, by the deliberate Legislative enactments of a large majority of the Northern States, openly and flagrantly nullified that clause of the Constitution which provides that --
        "No person held to service or labor in one State under the laws thereof, escaping into service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such labor may be due."
        This provision of the Constitution has been spurned and trampled under foot by these "higher law " nullifiers. It is utterly powerless for good, since all attempts to enforce the fugitive slave law under it are made a felony in some of these States, a high misdemeanor in others, and punishable in all by heavy fines and imprisonment. The distempered public opinion of these localities having risen above the Constitution and all other law, planting itself upon the anarchical doctrines of the "higher law," with impunity defies the Government, tramples upon our rights, and plunders the Southern citizen.
        It has, through the Governor of Ohio, openly nullified that part of the Constitution which provides that-"A person charged in any State.with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from jistice and be found in another State, shall, on demand of the executive authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having jurisdiction of the crime."
        In discharge of official duty, I had occasion, within the past year, to demand of the Governor of Ohio "a person charged in the State (of Tennessee) with the crime" of slave stealing, who had fled from justice, and was found in the State of Ohio. The Governor refused to issue his warrant for the arrest and delivery of the fugitive, and in answer to a letter of inquiry which I addressed to him, said: 'The crime of negro stealing not being known to either the common law or the criminal code of Ohio, it is not of that class of crimes contemplated by the Federal Constitution, for the commission of which I am authorized, as the executive of Ohio, to surrender a fugitive from the justice of a sister State, and hence I declined to issue a warrant," &c.; thus deliberately nullifying and setting at defiance the clause of the Constitution above quoted, as well as the act of Congress of February 12th, 1793, and grossly violating the ordinary comity existing between separate and independent nations, much less the comity which should exist between sister States of the same great Confederacy; the correspondence connected with which is herewith transmitted.
        It has, through the executive authority of other States, denied extradition of murderers and marauders.
        It obtained its own compromise in the Constitution to continue the importation of slaves, and now sets up a law, higher than the Constitution, to destroy this property imported and sold to us by their fathers.
        It has caused the murder of owners in pursuit of their fugitive slaves, and shielded the murderers from punishment.
        It has, upon many occasions, sent its emissaries into the Southerri States to corrupt our slaves; induce them to run off, or excite them to insurrection.
        It has run off slave property by means of the "underground railroad," amounting in value to millions of dollars, and thus made the tenure by which slaves are held in the border States so precarious as to materially impair their value.
        It has, by its John Brown and Montgomery raids, invaded sovereign States and murdered peaceable citizens.
        It has justified and "exalted to the highest honors of admiration, the horrid murders, arsons, and rapine of the John Brown raid, and has canonized the felons as saints and martyrs."
        It has burned the towns, poisoned the cattle, and conspired with the slaves to depopulate Northern Texas.
        It has, through certain leaders, proclaimed to the slaves the terrible motto, "Alarm to the sleep, fire to the dwellings, poison to the food and water of slaveholders."
        It has repudiated and denounced the decision of the Supreme Court.
        It has assailed our rights as guarantied by the plainest provisions of the Constitution, from the floor of each house of Congress, the pulpit, the hustings, the school-room, their State Legislatures, and through the public press, dividing and disrupting churches, political parties, and civil governments.
        It has, in the person of the President elect, asserted the equality of the black with the white race.
        These are some of the wrongs against which we have remonstrated for more than a quarter of a century, hoping, but in vain, for their redress, until some of our sister States, in utter despair of obtaining justice at the hands of these lawless confederates, have resolved to sever the ties which have bound them together, and maintain those rights out of the Union, which have been the object of constant attack and encroachment within it.
        No one will assert that the Southern States or people have, at any time, failed to perform, fully and in good faith, all of the duties which the Constitution devolves upon them.
        Nor will it be pretended that they have, at any time, encroached or attempted aggression upon the rights of a Northern sister State. The Government was for many years under the control of Southern statesmen, but in originating and perfecting measures of policy, be it said to the perpetual bonor of the South, she has never attempted to encroach upon a single constitutional right of the North. The journals of Congress will not show even the introduction of a single proposition, by any Southern Representative, calculated to impair her rights in property, injure her trade, or wound her sensibilities. Nor have they at any time demanded at the hands of the Federal Government, or Northern States, more than their well-defined rights under the Constitution. So far from it, they have tolerated these wrongs, from a feeling of loyalty and devotion to the Union, with a degree of patience and forbearance uparalleled in the history of a brave and free people. Moreover, they have quietly submitted to a revenue system which indirectly, but certainly, taxes the products of slave labor some fifty or sixty millions of dollars annually, to increase the manufacturing profits of those who have thus presistently and wickedly assailed them.
        To evade the issue thus forced upon us at this time, without the fullest security for our rights, is, in my opinion, fatal to the institution of slavery forever. The time has arrived when the people of the South must prepare either to abandon or to fortify and maintain it. Abandon it, we cannot, interwoven as it is with our wealth, prosperity, and domestic happiness. We owe it to the mechanic whose shop is closed, to the multiplied thousands of laborers thrown out of employment, to the trader made bankrupt by this agitation. We owe it to ourselves, our children, our self- respect and equality in the Government, to have this question settled permanently and forever upon terms consistent with justice and honor, and which will give us peace and perfect securiity for the present and future.
        Palliatives and opiates, in the character of legislative compromises, may be applied, afording momentary relief; but there will be no permanent safety, security, or peace, until Northern prejudice has been eradicated, and the public sentiment of that section radically changed and nationalized. To attempt the application of effective remedies before this great object has been accomplished, is like cleansing the stream while the fountain itself is poisoned.
        The consequences and immense interests which are involved in the proper solution of the difficulties that surround us, the deep, lasting, and vital importance of settling them upon principles of justice and equality, demand the most serious consideration of the whole people, as well as that of the public functionaries of the State. Whilst I cheerfully submit to your discretion the whole question of our federal relations, having no doubt myself as to the necessity and propriety of calling a State Convention, yet I respectfully recommend that you provide by law for submitting to the people of the State the question of Convention or No Convention, and also for the election of delegates by the people, in the ratio of legislative representation, to meet in State Convention, at the Capitol, at Nashville, at the earliest day practicable, to take into consideration our federal relations, and determine what action shall be taken by the State of Tennessee for the security of the rights and the peace of her citizens.
        The question of Convention or No Convention, can and should be determined, and the delegates chosen at the same election, which can be very easily accomplished by heading one set of tickets CONVENTION, and another set NO CONVENTION. If a majority of the people vote for Convention, then the persons receiving the largest number of votes in their respective counties and districts, to be commissioned as delegates.
        This will place the whole matter in the hands of the people, for them, in their sovereignty, to determine how far their rights have been violated, the character of redress or guaranty they will demand, or the action they will take for their present and future security.
        If there be a remedy for the evils which afflict the country, consistent with the perpetuity of the Union, it will, in my opinion, be found in such constitutional amendments as will deprive the fanatical majorities of the North of the power to invade our rights, or impair the security or value of our property.
        Clear and well defined as our rights are, under the present Constitution, to participate equally with the citizens of all other States in the settlement of the common Territories, and to hold our slaves there until excluded by the formation of a State Constitution, yet every organized Territory will become a field of angry, if not bloody, strife between the Southern man and the Abolitionist, and we shall see the tragedies of Kansas reenacted in each of them, as they approach the period of forming their State Constitutions.
        Plain and unmistakable as is the duty of each State to deliver up the fugitive slave to his owner, yet the attempt to reclaim is at the peril of the master's life. These evils can be obviated to a great extent, if not entirely, by the following amendments to the Constitution:
        1st. Establish a line upon the northern boundary of the present Slave States, and extend it through the Territories to the Pacific Ocean, upon such parallel of latitude as will divide them equitably between the North- and South, expressly providing that all the territory now owned, or that may be hereafter acquired North of that line, shall be forever free, and all South of it forever slave. This will remove the question of existence or nonexistence of slavery in our States and Territories entirely and forever from the arena of politics. The question being settled by the Constitution, is no longer open for the politician to ride into position by appealing to fanatical prejudices, or assailing the rights of his neighbors.
        2d. In addition to the fugitive slave clause provide, that when slave has been demanded of the executive authority of the State to which he has fled, if lie is not delivered, and the owner permitted to carry him out of the State in peace, that the State so failing to deliver, shall pay to the owner double the value of such slave, and secure his right of action in the Supreme Court of the United States. This will secure the return of the slave to his owner, or his value, with a sufficient sum to indemnify him for the expenses necessarily incident to the recovery.
        3d. Provide for the protection of the owner in the peaceable possession of his slave while in transitoin, or temporarily sojourning in any of the States of the Confederacy; and in the event of the slave's escape or being taken from the owner, require the State to return, or account for him as in case of the fugitive.
        4th. Expressly prohibit Congress from abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia, in any dock yard, navy yard, arsenal, or district of any character whatever, within the limits of any slave State.
        5th. That these provisions shall never be changed, except by the consent of all the slave States.
        With these amendments to the Constitution, I should feel that our rights were reasonably secure, not only in theory, but in fact, and should indulge the hope of living in the Union in peace. Without these, or some other amendments, which promise an equal amount and certainty of security, there is no hope of peace or security in the government.
        If the non-slaveholding States refuse to comply with a demand so just and reasonable ; refuse to abandon at once and forever their unjust war upon us, our institutions, and our rights ; refuse, as they have heretofore done, to perform, in good faith, the obligations of the compact of union, much as we may appreciate the power, prosperity, greatness and glory of this government; deeply as we deplore the existence of causes which have already driven one State from the Union ; much as we may regret the imperative necessity which they have wantonly and wickedly forced upon us, every consideration of self-respect require that we should assert and maintain our "equality in the Union, or independence out of it."
        In my opinion, the only mode left us of perpetuating the Union upon the principles of justice and equality, upon which it was originally established, is by the Southern States, identified as they are in interest, sentiment, and feeling, and must, in the natural course of events, share a common destiny, uniting in the expression of a fixed and unalterable resolve, that the rights guaranteed by the Constitution must be respected, and fully and perfectly secured in the present government, or asserted and maintained in a homogeneous Confederacy of Southern States.
        Mere questions of policy may be very often properly compromised, but there can be no compromise of cardinal and vital principles; no compromise between right and wrong. Principle must be vindicated, and right triumphant, be the consequences what they may. To compromise the one, or abandon the other, is not only unmanly and humiliating in the extreme, but always disastrous in its final results.
        The South has no power to reunite the scattered fragments of a violated Constitution and a once glorious government. She is acting on the defensive. She has been driven to the wall, and can submit to no further aggression. The North, however, can restore the Constitutional Union of our fathers, by undoing their work of alienation and hate, engendered by thirty years of constant aggression, and by unlearning the lessons of malignant hostility to the South and her institutions, with which their press, pulpit, and schools have persistently infected the public mind.
        Let them do this, and peace will again establish her court in the midst of this once happy country, and the union of these States be restored to that spirit of fraternity, equality, and justice, which gave it birth.
        Let them do this, and the vitality which has been crushed out of the Constitution may be restored, giving renewed strength and vigor to the body politic.
        But can we hope for such results? Two months have already passed, since the development of facts which make the perpetuity of the Union depend, alone, upon their giving to the South satisfactory guarantees for her chartered rights. Yet, there has been no proposition at all satisfactory, made by any member of the dominant and aggressive party of that section. So far from it, their Senators and Representatives in Congress have voted down and spurned every proposition that looked to the accomplishment of this object, no matter whence emanating ; and the fact that their constituents have, in no authoritative manner, issued words of rebuke or warning to them, must be taken as conclusive proof of their acquiescence in the policy.
        In view of these facts, I cannot close my eyes to the conclusion that Tennessee will be powerless in any efforts she may make to quell the storm that pervades the country. The work of alienation and disruption has gone so far, that it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to arrest it; and before our adjournment, in all human probability, the only practical question for the State to determine will be whether she will unite her fortunes with a Northern or Southern Confederacy; upon which question, when- presented, I am certain there can be little or no division in sentiment, identified as we are in every respect with the South.
        If this calamity shall befall the country, the South will have the consolation of knowing that she is in no manner responsible for the disaster. The responsibility rests alone upon the Northern people, who have wilfully broken the bond of union, repudiated the obligations and duties which it imposes, and only cling to its benefits. Yet even in this dark hour of responsibility and peril, let no man countenance the idea for a moment, that the dissolution of the Federal Union reduces the country to anarchy, or proves the theory of self government to be a failure. Such conclusions would be not only erroneous but unworthy of ourselves, and our revolutionary ancestry, while our State governments exist, possessing all the machinery, perfect and complete, which is necessary to the purposes of civil government, just as they existed before the Union was formed.
        The sages and patriots of the revolution, when in the act of severing their connection with the mother country, and establishing the great cardinal principles of free government, solemnly declared that governments were instituted among men to secure their rights "to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same obiect, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."
        Recognizing these great principles, the people of Tennessee incorporated in their declaration of rights, as a fundamental article of the Constitution of the State, "That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind."
        Whatever line of policy may be adopted by the people of Tennessee, with regard to the present Federal relations of the State, I am sure that the swords of her brave and gallant sons will never be drawn for the purpose of coercing, subjugating, or holding as a conquered province, any one of her sister States, whose people may declare their independence of the Federal Government, for the purpose of being relieved from "a long train of abuses and usurpations." To admit the right or policy of coercion, would be untrue to the example of our fathers and the glorious memories of the past, destructive of those great and fundamental principles of civil liberty, purchased with their blood ; destructive of State soveriegnty and equality; tending to centralization, and thus subject the rights of the minority to the despotism of an unrestrained majority.
        Widely as we may differ with some of our sister Southern States as to the wisdom of their policy; desirous as we may be that whatever action taken in this emergency, should be taken by the South as a unit; hopeful as we may be of finding some remedy for onr grievances consistent with the perpetuity of the present Confederacy, the question, at last, is one which each member of the Confederacy must determine for itself, and any attempt on the part of the others to hold, by means of military force, an unwilling sovereignty as a member of a common Union, must inevitably lead to the worst form of internecine war, and if successful, result in the establishment of a new and totally different government from the one established by the Constitution-the Constitutional Union being a Union of consent, and not of force, of peace, and not of blood-composed of sovereignties, free, and politically equal. But the new and coercive government, while it would "derive its powers" to govern a portion of the States "from the consent of the governed" would derive the power by which it governed the remainder from the cannon and the sword, and not from their consent -- a Union, not of equals, but of the victors and the vanquished, pinned together by the bayonet and congealed in blood.
        I devoutly trust that a merciful Povidence may avert such a calamity, and believe that there is no respectable portion of our people, whatever may be their differences of opinion upon other questions, who are so blind to reason, or so lost to patriotism and every sentiment of civil liberty, as to give countenance to a policy so fatal in its results, and so revolting to every sentiment of humanity.
        While I sincerely trust that Tennessee may never be driven to the desperate alternative of appealing to arms in defence of the rights of her people, I nevertheless deem it proper, in view of the present excited state of the public mind and unsettled condition of the country, to call your attention to the fact that, with the exception of a small number of volunteer companies, we have no military organization in the State, the militia havig disorganized immediately after the repeal of the law which required drills and public parades. Independent of the impending crisis, I regard a thorough re-organization of the militia as imperatively demanded by every considerition of prudence and safety. I therefore submit the question to your consideration, with the earnest hope that you will adopt such plan of organization as will secure to the State at all times, and under all circumstances, an efficient and reliable military force.
        I am unable, in the absence of full reports from the clerks of the several counties, to inform you as to the military strength of the State. Such reports as have been made to this department sliall be laid before you. I do not doubt, however, that the milita strength of the State may be safely estimated at one hundred and twenty thousand men.
        It is proper, in this connection, that I call your attention to the report of John Heriges, Keeper of Public Arms, herewith transmitted, showing the number, character, and condition of the public arms of the State, and respectfully recommend that you provide for the purchase of such number and character of arms, for the use of the State, as may be necessary to thoroughly arm an efficient military force.
        I regret that I cannot close this communication with the foregoing recital of facts pertaining to the all important political crisis of the day.
        But a comparative failure of crops for two successive years, with the destruction of commercial confidence, resulting in the suspension of commercial transactions, general stagnation of trade, and financial embarrassment which pervade the whole country, with its ever attendant evil of general pecuniary distress, at the beginning of which many of the banks in the State suspended specie payment, thereby incurring the penalties prescribed by the banking code of the last session.
        It is asserted, and I suppose truly, that the condition of the banks was such as not to make suspension necessary on their own account; that by the adoption of a purely selfish policy, they could have weathered the storm and sustained themselves, but to have done so they must have cut off all discounts, and enforced the collection of their debts from the people, which would have increased the general distress. It is also argued, with great earnestness, by a very large number of the people, that you should pass laws for relief, and in order to enable the banks to afford the greatest possible assistance to the people until another crop can be made, that the penalties incurred by the suspension of the banks should be released.
        While I am confident in the opinion that the suspension of specie payment by the banks is wrong in principle, and tends to depreciate the currency and unsettle the standard of value, I am equally confiderit that the policy of relief laws, to which this general pecuniary distress has driven the public mind, is, to say the least of it, of doubtful policy, and generally injurious in their ultimate effects upon the community. The idea of freeing a people from pecuniary distress by legislation, is, to my mind, an impossibility. Yet so universal is the anxiety expressed, and so confident the hope of relief from the adoption of the policy suggested, that while I cannot concur in the truth of the argument, or recommend the adoption of the policy, I do not feel at liberty obstinately to stand between the people of the State and their chosen Representatives, to prevent the adoption of such legislation connected with these questions as they may think will promote their interest and general welfare.
        I therefore submit to your consideration these questions for such action as you in your discretion, may see proper to take with regard to them.
        I am aware that there are many questions of a general character with regard to which the constituents of many of you desire legislation, but having convened you in extraordinary session, upon what I conceived to be an extraordinary occasion in the history of the country, and feeling the necessity of prompt and immediate action upon the absorbing questions connected with the political crisis of the day, I have intentionally avoided submitting any others than those to which I have especially called attention, trusting that no material interest will suffer by being postponed until the next regular session of the General Assembly.
        With the earnest hope that your session may be short and agreeable, and devoutly trusting that an All Wise Providence may watch over your deliberations, and guide and direct you in the adoption of such measures as will redound to the general welfare, peace, prosperity, and glory of our State and country, the questions, fraught as they are with weighty responsibilities and fearfully important consequences, are respectfully committed to your hands.
        ISHAM G. HARRIS.
        Lee White
        Researcher and Historian
        "Delenda Est Carthago"
        "My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings, Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!"

        http://bullyforbragg.blogspot.com/

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Alexander Stephens' "Corner-stone" speech

          One last one, this one is from Judge and future Confederate General Henry "Rock" Benning, he was one of the Secession commisioners sent from Georgia to Virginia in an attempt to convince Virginia to leave the Union in February of 1861, the following is his speech made on February 18th:

          I have been appointed by the Convention of the State of Georgia, to present to this Convention, the ordinance of secession of Georgia, and further, to invite Virginia, through this Convention ' to join Georgia and the other seceded States in the formation of a Southern Confederacy. This, sir, is the whole extent of my mission. 1 have no power to make promises, none to receive promises; no power to bind at all in any respect. But still, sir, it has seemed to me that a proper respect for this Convention requires that I should with some fulness and particularity, exhibit before the Convention the reasons which have induced Georgia to take that important step of secession, and then to lay before the Convention some facts and considerations in favor of the acceptance of the invitation by Virginia. With your permission then, sit, I will pursue this course.
          What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? This reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North-was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery. This conviction, sir, was the main cause. It is true, sir, that the effect of this conviction was strengthened by a further conviction that such a separation would be the best remedy for the fugitive slave evil, and also the best, if not the only remedy, for the territorial evil. But, doubtless, if it had not been for the first conviction this step would never have been taken. It therefore becomes important to inquire whether this conviction was well founded.
          Is it true, then, that unless there had been a separation from the North, slavery would be abolished in Georgia? I address myself to the proofs of that case.
          In the first place, I say that the North hates slavery, and, in using that expression I speak wittingly. In saying that the Black Republican party of the North hates slavery, I speak intentionally. If there is a doubt upon that question in the mind of any one who listens to me, a few of the multitude of proofs which could fill this room, would, I think, be sufficient to satisfy him. I beg to refer to a few of the proofs that are so abundant; and the first that I shall adduce consists in two extracts from a speech of Lincoln's, made in October, 1858. They are as follows: "I have always hated slavery as much as any abolitionist; I have always been an old line Whig; I have always hated it and I always believed it in the course of ultimate extinction, and if I were in Congress and a vote should come up on the question, whether slavery should be excluded from the territory, in spite of the Dred Scott decision, I would vote that it should."
          These are pregnant statements; they avow a sentiment, a political principle of action, a sentiment of hatred to slavery as extreme as hatred can exist. The political principle here avowed is, that his action against slavery is not to be restrained by the Constitution of the United States, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States. I say, if you can find any degree of hatred greater than that, I should like to see it. This is the sentiment of the chosen leader of the Black Republican party; and can you doubt that it is not entertained by every solitary member of that same party? You cannot, I think. He is a representative man; his sentiments are the sentiments of his party; his principles of political action are the principles of political action of his party. I say, then; it is true, at least, that the Republican party of the North hates slavery.
          My next proposition is, that the Republican party of the North is in a permanent majority. It is true that in a government organized like the government of the Northern States, and like our own government, a majority, where it is permanent, is equivalent to the whole. The minority is powerless if the majority be permanent. Now, is this majority of the Republican party permanent? I say it is. That party is so deeply seated at the North that you cannot overthrow it. It has the press, it has the pulpit, it has the school-house, it has the organizations-the Governors, Legislatures, the judiciary, county officers, magistrates, constables, mayors, in fact all official life. Now, it has the General Government in addition. It has that inexhaustible reserve to fall back upon and to recruit from, the universal feeling at the North that slavery is a moral, social and political evil. With this to fall back upon, recruiting is easy. This is not all. The Republican party is now in league with the tariff, in league with internal improvements, in league with three Pacific Railroads. Sir, you cannot overthrow such a party as that. As well might you attempt to lift a mountain out of its bed and throw it into the sea.
          But, suppose, sir, that by the aid of Providence and the intensest human exertion, you were enabled to overthrow it, how long would your victory last? But a very short time. The same ascendancy which that party has gained now, would be gained again before long. If it has come to this vast majority in the course of twenty-five years, from nothing, how long would it take the fragments of that party to get again into a majority? Sir, in two or three Presidential elections your labor would be worse than the labor of Sisyphus, and every time you rolled the rock up the hill it would roll back again growing larger and larger each time until at last it would roll back like an avalanche crushing you beneath it.
          The Republican party is the permanent, dominant party at the North, and it is vain to think that you can put it down. It is true that the Republican party hates slavery, and that it is to be the permanent, dominant party at the North; and the majority being equivalent to the whole, as I have already stated, we cannot doubt the result. What is the feeling of the rest of the Northern people upon this subject? Can you trust them? They all say that slavery is a moral, social and political evil. Then the result of that feeling must be hatred to the institution; and if that is not entertained, it must be the consequence of something artificial or temporary-some interest, some thirst for office, or some confidence in immediate advancement. And we know that these considerations cannot be depended upon, and we may expect that, ultimately, the whole North will pass from this inactive state of hatred into the active state which animates the Black Republican party.
          Is it true that the North hates slavery? My next proposition is that in the past the North has invariably exerted against slavery, all the power which it had at the time. The question merely was what was the amount of power it had to exert against it. They abolished slavery in that magnificent empire which you presented to the North; they abolished slavery in every Northern State, one after another; they abolished slavery in all the territory above the line of 36 30, which comprised about one million square miles. They have endeavored to put the Wilmot Proviso upon all the other territories of the Union, and they succeeded in putting it upon the territories of Oregon and Washington. They have taken from slavery all the conquests of the Mexican war, and appropriated it all to anti-slavery purposes; and if one of our fugitives escapes into the territories, they do all they can to make a free man of him; they maltreat his pursuers, and sometimes murder them. They make raids into your territory with a view to raise insurrection, with a view to destroy and murder indiscriminately all classes, ages and sexes, and when the base perpetrators are caught and brought to punishment, condign punishment, half the north go into mourning. If some of the perpetrators escape, they are shielded by the authorities of these Northern States-not by an irresponsible mob, but ,by the regularly organized authorities of the States.
          My next proposition is, that we have a right to argue from the past to the future and to say, that if in the past the North has done this, in the-future, if it shall acquire the power to abolish slavery, it will do it.
          My next proposition is that the North is in the course of acquiring this power to abolish slavery. Is that true? I say, gentlemen, the North is acquiring that power by two processes, one of which is operating with great rapidity-that is by the admission of new States. The public territory is capable of forming from twenty to thirty States of larger size than the average of the States now in the Union. The public territory is peculiarly Northern territory, and every State that comes into the Union will be a free State. We may rest assured, sit, that that is a fixed fact. The events in Kansas should satisfy every one of the truth of that. If causes now in operation are allowed to continue, the admission of new States will go on until a sufficient number shall have been secured to give the necessary preponderance to change the Constitution. There is a process going on by which some of our own slave States are becoming free States already. It is true, that in some of the slave States the slave population is actually on the decrease, and, I believe it is true of all of them that it is relatively to the white population on the decrease. The census shows that slaves are decreasing in Delaware and Maryland; and it shows that in the other States in the same parallel, the relative state of the decrease and increase is against the slave population. It is not wonderful that this should be so. The anti-slavery feeling has got to be so great at the North that the owners of slave property in these States have a presentiment that it is a doomed institution, and the instincts of self-interest impels them to get rid of that property which is doomed. The consequence is, that it will go down lower and. lower, until it all gets to the Cotton States-until it gets to the bottom. There is the weight of a continent upon it forcing it down. Now, I say, sir, that under this weight it is bound to go down unto the Cotton States, one of which I have the honor to represent here. When that time comes, sir, the free States in consequence of the manifest decrease, will urge the process with additional vigor, and I fear that the day is not distant when the Cotton States, as they are called, will be the only slave States. When that time comes, the time will have arrived when the North will have the power to amend the Constitution, and say that slavery shall be abolished, and if the master refuses to yield to this policy, he shall doubtless be hung for his disobedience.
          My proposition, then, I insist, is true, that the North is acquiring this power. That being so, the only question is will she exercise it? Of course she will, for her whole course shows that she will. If things are allowed to go on as they are, it is certain that slavery is to be abolished except in Georgia and the other cotton States, and I doubt, ultimately in these States also. By the time the North shall have attained the power, the black race will be in a large majority, and then we will have black governors, black legislatures, black juries, black everything. [Laughter.] The majority according to the Northern idea, which will then be the all-pervading, all powerful one, have the right to control. It will be in keeping particularly with the principles of the abolitionists that the majority, no matter of what, shall rule. Is it to be supposed that the white race will stand that? It is not a supposable case. Although not half so numerous, we may readily assume that war will break out everywhere like hidden fire from the earth, and it is probable that the white race, being superior in every respect, may push the other back. They will then call upon the authorities at Washington, to aid them in putting down servile insurrection, and they will send a standing armv down upon us, and the volunteers and Wide-Awakes will come in thousands, and we will be overpowered and our men will be compelled to wander like vagabonds all over the earth; and as for our women, the horrors of their state we cannot contemplate in imagination. That is the fate which Abolition will bring upon the white race.
          But that is not all of the Abolition war. We will be completely exterminated, and the land will be left in the possession of the blacks, and then it will go back into a wilderness and become another Africa or St. Domingo. The North will then say that the Lord made this earth for his Saints and not for Heathens, and we are his Saints, and the Yankees will come down and drive out the negro.
          Sir, this is Abolition to the cotton States. Would you blame us if we sought a remedy to avert that condition of things? What must be the requisites of any remedy that can do it? It must be one which will have one of two qualities. It must be something that will change the unanimity of the North on the slavery question, or something that shall take from them the power over the subject. Any thing that does not contain one of these two requisites is not a remedy for the case; it does not come to the root of the disease.
          What remedy is it that contains these requisites? Is there any in the Union that does? Let us take the strongest that we have heard suggested, which is an amendment of the Constitution guaranteeing the power of self-preservation, of dividing the public territory at the line of 36 deg. 30 min., giving the South all below that line. I know that remedy has not been thought of as in any degree practicable. But, let us look at it. Suppose they grant us the power of self-preservation suppose they give to each Senator and member the veto power over any bill relating to slavery. That is putting it strong enough. Would that be sufficient now, to make it protective? I say it would not, and for two reasons. The first is that the North regards every such stipulation as void under the higher law. The North entertains the opinion that slavery is a sin and a crime. I mean, when I say the North, the Republican party, and that is the North; and they say that any stipulation in the Constitution or laws in favor of slavery, is an agreement with death and a covenant with hell; and that it is absolutely a religious merit to violate it. They think it as much a merit to violate a provision of that sort, as a mere stipulation in favor of murder or treason.
          Well, sir, a people entertaining this opinion of a covenant of that sort, is beyond the pale of contract-making. You cannot make a contract with a people of that kind, because it is a bond not as they regard it, binding upon them. That being so, how will it be any protection to us, that our senators and representatives shall have the power of saying this bill shall not pass. Suppose the bill to pass giving protection to slavery, they would say hereafter, we proclaimed from the mountain tops, from the hustings, from the forum, and wherever our voice could be heard, that we did not regard stipulations in matters relating to slavery as binding upon us. We recognize a higher law, and will not obey these stipulations-you might have so expected from our proclaimed opinions beforehand.
          The next reason is this, the North entertains upon the subject of the Constitution the idea that this a consolidated Government, that the people are one nation, not a Confederation of States, and that being a consolidated Government the numerical majority is sovereign. The necessary result of that doctrine when pushed to its natural result is, that the Constitution of the United States is, at any time, subject to amendment by a bare majority of the whole people; and that being so, it becomes no matter what protection the Constitution may contain, it would be changed by a majority of the people, because a stipulation in the Constitution can no more be binding upon those who may choose subsequently to alter it, than the act of a legislature upon a sub-sequent legislature. Thus it is they will have the power to change the Constitution, alter it as you will. The President elect has proclaimed from the house tops in Indiana that a State is no more than a county. This is an abandonment in the concrete of the whole doctrine. How, then, can we accept any stipulation from a people holding the opinions that they do upon the question of slavery, and the obligations of government. The proposition which I have already adduced for argument sake, is infinitely beyond anything that we have a hope of obtaining. Then I assume that if this be true, it must be true that you can get no remedy for this disease in the Cotton States of the Union.
          The question then is, would a separation from the North be a remedy? I say it would be a complete remedy; a remedy that would reach the disease in all its parts. If we were separated from the North. the will of the North on the subject of slavery would be changed. Why is it now that the North hates slavery? For the reason that they are, to some extent, responsible for the institution because of the Union, and for the reason that by hating slavery they get office. Let there be a separation, and this feeling will no longer exist, because slavery will no longer enter into the politics of the North. Does slavery in the South enter into the politics of England or France? Does slavery in Brazil or Cuba enter into the politics of the North? Not at all; and if we were separated, the subject of slavery would not enter into the politics of the North. I say, therefore, that this remedy would be sufficient for this disease in the worst aspect of it. Once out of the Union, we would be beyond the influence of the yeas and nays of the North. Get us out, and we are safe.
          I think, then, that this conviction in the mind of Georgia-namely, that the only remedy for this evil is separation-was well-founded. She also was convinced that separation would be the best, if not the only remedy for the fugitive slave evil and for the territorial evil. It may be asked, sir, if the personal liberty bills, if the election of Lincoln by a sectional majority, had nothing to do with the action of Georgia? Sir, they had much to do with it. These were most important facts. They indicated a deliberate purpose on the part of the North, in every case in which there was a stipulation in favor of slavery, to obliterate it if it had the power to do so. They are valuable in another respect. These personal liberty bills were unconstitutional; they were deliberate infractions of the Constitution of the United States; and being so, they give to us a right to say that we would no longer be bound by the Constitution of the United States, if we choose. The language of Webster, in his speech at Capon Springs, in your own State, was, that a bargain broken on one side, is broken on all sides. And in this opinion many others have coincided. And these Northern States having broken the Constitutional compact gives us cause to violate it also if we choose to do it. The election of Lincoln in itself is not a violation of the letter of the Constitution, though it violates it in spirit. The Constitution was formed with a view to ensure domestic peace and to establish Justice among all, and this act of Lincoln's election by a sectional majority, was calculated to disregard all these obligations, and inasmuch as the act utterly ignores our rights in the government, and in fact disfranchises us, we had a full right to take the steps that we have taken.
          Now, I ask the question, Georgia feeling this conviction, what could she have done but to separate from this Union? Was she to stay and wait for Abolition? Sir, that was not to be expected of her? She did the only thing that could have been done to ensure her rights.
          The second branch of my case is to lay before the Convention some facts to influence them, if possible, to accept the invitation of Georgia to join her in the formation of a Southern Confederacy.
          What ought to influence a nation to enter into a treaty with another nation? It ought not be, I am free to say, any higher consideration than interest-material, social, political, religious interests. I am free to say that unless it could be made to appear that it was to her interest, she ought not to enter into it. And it shall be my endeavor now, to show that it will be to the interest of Virginia materially, socially, politically and religiously, to accept the invitation of Georgia to join the Southern Confederacy-and, first, will it be to her material interests?
          Georgia and the other cotton States produce four millions of bales of cotton, annually. Every one of these bales is worth $50. The whole crop therefore, is worth $200,000,000. This crop goes on growing rapidly from year to year. The increase in the last decade was nearly 50 per cent. If the same increase should continue for the next decade we should have, in 1870, six million bales; in 1890,1 nine million of bales, and so on. And, supposing that this rate will not continue, yet we have a right to assume that the increase, in after years, will be very great, because consumption outruns production, and so long as that is the case, production will try to overtake it.
          You perceive, then, that out of one article we have two hundred millions of dollars. This is surplus, and a prospect of an indefinite increase in the future. Then, we have sugar worth from fifteen to twenty millions of dollars, increasing every year at a pretty rapid rate. Then, we have rice, and naval stores, and plank, and live oak and various other articles which make a few more millions. You may set down that these States yield a surplus of $270,000,000 with a prospect of increase. These we turn into money and with that we buy manufactured goods, iron, cotton and woolen manufactures ready made and many other descriptions of goods necessary for consumption. Then we buy flour, and wheat, and bacon, and pork, and we buy mules and negroes; very little of this money is consumed at home; we lay it out this way.
          Now I say, why will not Virginia furnish us these goods? Why will not she take the place now held by New England and New York, and furnish to the South these goods? Bear in mind that the manufactures consumed by the South are manufactures of the United States. They have now got the whole market by virtue of the tariff which we have laid on foreign importation. Will not Virginia take this place? I ask, is it not to the interest of Virginia and the border States to take this place? Most assuredly it is. Now I say it is at her own option whether she will take it or not. I dare say she can have the same sort of protection against the north that she has against Europe. That being so, and inasmuch as the same cause must produce the same effect, the same cause that built up manufactures at the north, will operate similarly in Virginia.
          Then the question is, will you have protection necessary to accomplish this result? I say I think you will. I do not come here, as I said at the outset, to make promises; but I will give my opinion, and that is that the South will support itself by duties on imports. It has certainly begun to do that. We have merely adopted the revenue system of the United States so far, and are now collecting the revenue under an old law. Our Constitution has said that Congress should have the power to lay duties for revenue, to pay debts and to carry on the government, and therefore there is a limit to the extent that this protection can go, and within that the South can give protection that will be sufficient to enable you to compete with the North. We have got to have a navy, and an army, and we have got to make up that army speedily. It must be a much larger army than we have been accustomed to have in the late Union-it must be large in proportion to the armv that it will have to meet. These things will require a revenue of about 10 per cent, which will yield an aggregate of about $20,000,000, and with this per cent, it would be in the power of Virginia to compete, in a short time, with all the nations of the earth in all the important branches of manufacture. Why? Because manufacturing has now been brought to such perfection by the invention of new machinery. The result will be the immigration of the best men of the North; skilled artizans and men of capital will come here and establish works among you. You have the advantage of longer days and shorter winters, and of being nearer to the raw material of a very important article of manufacture. I have no idea that the duties will be as low as 10 per cent. My own opinion is that we shall have as high duty as is now charged by the General Government at Washington. If that matter is regarded as important by this Convention, why the door is open for negotiation with us. We have but a provisional and temporary government so far. If it be found that Virginia requires more protection than this upon any particular article of manufacture let her come in the spirit of a sister, to our Congress and say, we want more protection upon this or that article, and she will, I have no doubt, receive it. She will be met in the most fraternal and complying spirit.
          What is the state of the cotton trade? The North by virtue of their manufactures buy our cotton. They then take our cotton to Europe; they buy for it European manufactures; they take these manufactures and carry them to Boston, New York or Philadelphia, whence they distribute to us and all over the continent. But this all depends on the fact that they have manufactures to buy the cotton with. New York, Boston and Philadelphia, in fact, fatten upon the handling of cotton, and I ask why it is you do not avail yourselves of the advantages which these possess; why do you not take the place of New York, engage in manufactures, sell us your goods, take our cotton and send it to Europe for goods, and thus make this city the centre of the earth? I know that in the outset foreign imports would come direct to our ports, because you have not the manufactured goods to buy the cotton with, and we would have to send the cotton direct to Europe. But after a while you would have a monopoly of our trade having all the facilities to build up a manufacturing business extensive enough for the requirements of the whole country.
          What would be the effect of this? Your villages would grow into towns, and your towns would grow into cities. Your mines would begin to be developed, and would throw their riches over the whole land; and you would see those lands enhanced, which you have now to give away, almost, for nothing.
          I say, then, it is in your power, by joining our Southern Confederacy, to become a great manufacturing empire. If you do not consider our organization as it is now made good enough, go down to Montgomery, and say, change this in such and such a form, and I venture to assert that they will meet you in the spirit in which you go. As things now stand, there is a great drain of wealth from the South to the North. The operation of the tariff, which at present averages about 20 per cent, is to enhance the prices of foreign goods upon us to that extent; and not only foreign goods, but domestic goods, as they will always preserve a strict ratio with the price charged for foreign imports. The South is thus heavily taxed. What the amount of tribute is which she pays to the North in this form, I have not accurately ascertained. It is difficult to find out how much tribute she pays in this form, but, from a rough estimate which I have made out myself, putting the amount of goods consumed by the South at $250,000,000 annually, though a Northern gentleman puts it at $300,000,000; but putting it at $250,000,000, the tribute which the South pays to the North annually, according to the present tariff [20 per cent] amounts to $50,000,000. Then there are the navigation laws which give the North a monopoly of the coasting trade. The consequence of this monopoly is that it raises freights, and to that extent enhances the price of goods upon us. There is the indirect carrying trade, in which they also have a monopoly. Instead of our goods coming to us direct, they now come by New York, Philadelphia or Boston. Last year the amount of goods that came to the South by this indirect route was about $72,000,000 which were not carried at a less cost than $5,000,000, which, of course, had to be paid by us. In the matter of expenditures we have not more than one fifth allotted to us, whereas we ought to have one-third. In 1860 the expenditures were $80,000,000, and the proportion of this which is lost to us by an unjust system of discrimination amounts to nearly $20,000,000. This is a perpetual drain upon us.
          Mr. BFNNING then referred to the drain in the matter of fugitive slaves, and proceeded to ask what would Virginia gain by joining the Southern Confederacy? What, said he, is the state of things now on the border? Is it such as to prevent the escape of slaves? It is not. There is a remedy for this. The state of things on the other side of the line should be such that slaves would not be induced voluntarily to run off, and if they did, that they would again soon gladly return. If you were with us, it would become necessary, in order to collect our revenue, to station police officers all along the border, and have there bodies of troops. It could be easily made part of the duty of these officers to keep strict watch along there and intercept every slave, and keep proper surveillance on all who may come within the line of particular localities. Is not that arrangement better than any fugitive slave law that you could get? Most assuredly it is. If we were separated from the North, the escape of a fugitive slave into their territory would be but the addition of one savage to the number they have already. [Laughter.]
          Separate us from the North, and the North will be no attraction to the black man-no attraction to the slaves. It is not from a love for the black man that they receive him now; but it is from a hatred to slavery. and from a hatred to the owners of slaves.
          Is not this a better remedy than anything that you can get out o Congress or in any form of legislation?
          As regards the Territorial evil, I will show that the remedy for that too, is in separation. We want land, and have a right to it. How are we to get our share of it? Can we get it in the Union? Never. Put what you please in the Constitution, you never can get one foot of that land to which you have so just a claim. Why Kansas tells the reason. The policy of the Black Republican party is to have this land settled up by those who do not own slaves. Their policy is the Homestead bill. You can enjoy all these things if you join us; and not only that, but you can enjoy them in peace. Cotton is peace. It is an article of indispensable necessity to the nations of the world, and they cannot obtain it without peace. Whenever there is war they cannot have it, and will therefore have peace. join us, therefore, and you will have the advantage of enjoying all those benefits in peace.
          Suppose you join the North, what can they give you? Nothing. They will maintain, in the matter of manufactures, a competition that will destroy you. You cannot go into any market in the world and compete with them. They have the start of you, and you cannot catch up. How will it be with agricultural enterprise? Manufactures give the most active stimulant to agriculture, and when you cannot build up manufactures, you must suffer in your agricultural pursuits. Then there is the social and religious aspect of the question. Go with us, and the irrepressible conflict is at an end. We are the same in our social and religious attributes. We have a common Bible; we kneel at the game altar, break bread together, and there can be no difficulty between us on this score.
          Then there is the political question. Suppose you join us, and also the other border States, which they will, if you come in. We shall have a territory possessing an area of 850 or 900,000 square miles, with more advantages than any similar extent of territory on the face of the earth, lying as it is between the right parallels of latitude and longitude, having the right sort of coast facilities, and abounding in every production that can form the basis of prosperity and power.
          Mr. BENNING referred to the probability of the Pacific States forming a distinct Confederacy after a separation shall once occur, and then discanted briefly on the general corruption which seems to exist at the North, where men make politics a profession, requiring property to be taxed for their support. He instanced the enormous burdens amounting to nearly $2,000,000 a year, to which the city of New York is subjected through the corrupting influences of politicians, and deduced from this state of things the decay and ultimate disintegration of the North after she shall have been cut off from the rest of the Union, and circumscribed with the narrow limits of her own unproductive inhospitable area.
          If, said he, you join in the Southern Confederacy, you will become the leader of it as you are now. You will have the Presidency and Vice Presidency and other advantages which it is unnecessary here to mention.
          Join the North, and what will become of you? In that, I say, you will find yourself much lower than you stand now. No doubt the North will now make fine promises, but when you are once in, they will give you but little quarter. They will hate you and your institutions as much as they do now, and treat you accordingly. Suppose they elevated Sumner to the Presidency? Suppose they elevated Fred. Douglas, your escaped slave, to the Presidency? And there are hundreds of thousands at the North who would do this for the purpose of humiliating and insulting the South. What would be your position in such an event? I say give me pestilence and famine sooner that that.
          As regards the African slave trade, we have done what we could to expel the illusion which is said to deter some timid persons from uniting with us. Our State has given her voice against it, and so has Alabama, and finally the Convention at Montgomery has placed the ban upon it by a Constitutional provision. Suppose we re-open the African slave trade, what would be the result? Why, we would be soon drowned in a black pool, we would be literally overwhelmed with a black population. If you open it, where are you going to stop? There is no barrier to it but that of interest, and that will never be a barrier until there will be more slaves than we want. But go down to Montgomery and we will stipulate with you, and satisfy you, I have no doubt, upon that, as upon all other questions. What danger is there in your going with this Confederacy? You will have, with the other border States, a population of eight millions, while we will have only five. What danger is there then with such a preponderance in your favor?
          I heard another objection urged to your joining us, and that is, that we held out a threat in the way of a provision in our Constitution that Congress shall have power to stop the inter-State slave trade. I do not hesitate to say to you, that in my opinion, if you do not join us but join the North, that provision would be put in force. I think that these States would do all in their power to keep the border States slave States. It would be a mere instinct of self-preservation to do that, and I think that it would be done. But is this to he regarded as a threat held out to deter you from joining the North? You might as well say that a provision in respect to a tax is a threat against you.
          Lee White
          Researcher and Historian
          "Delenda Est Carthago"
          "My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings, Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!"

          http://bullyforbragg.blogspot.com/

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Alexander Stephens' "Corner-stone" speech

            This cornerstone speech has been posted before and I just want to make sure that all know we moderators support scholarly discussion (as the thread is to date). However, in the past this discussion always has to get shut down because people get hot-headed. Keep it on topic and scholarly.

            So back to the topic at hand...

            Several planters threatened to leave Virginia if things did not go their way. Two happened to be from the same county, Edmund Ruffin wrote that if Virginia did not secede he would move to South Carolina and cut his ties with his native state.

            Richard Eppes wrote in 1860 that if Virginia should get rid of slavery in the next 25 years then he would have to cut his ties and move south and become the owner of cotton plantations. He was no advocate for secession until spring 1861, but was for slavery.

            A Democratic meeting held in this same county of Prince George published their resolutions on Feb. 11, 1860:

            [snip information about ships carrying off slaves]

            "Resolved, That we are still devoted to the union of these States, but it must be a Union such as our forefathers formed--a Union of equal rights, privelges and immunities. We clain an equal right to settled with our property in the public domain with the same protection for ourselves and property as that ejoyed by our Northern confederates. We claim the right to pass in transit with our property through the Northern States as their citizens have to pass through ours. [See Lemmon case to see what is probably implied here http://www.abcny.org/Library/Trials.htm-Ed.] We require that all laws nullifying the fugitive slave act be forthwith repealed, and that the North shall cease to interferewith slavery in the States.

            "Resolved, That the election of a Black Republican or Abolitionist to the Presidency would forever preclude all hope of the reestablishment of these rights in the Union, and, therefore, would furnish just and proper grounds of secession on the part of the Southern States.

            "Resolved, That in the creed of the Brown Republican party, Abolition of slavery and preservation of hte Union, and in their doctrine of an 'irrepressible conflict,' unless successfully resisted, we see nothing but destruction to our dearest interests and honor--nothing but ruin to ourselves and our posterity.

            [snip some of this]

            "Resolved, That is becomes a prudent and considerate people to take forethought for the things of the morrow; to look danger, wher eit exists, manfully in the face, and to prepare for hte worst that may happen; that, therefore, while hte Legislature has done well in taking steps to arm the State, it is highly expedient and proper that it should send commissioners to meet the Southern States in conference, so that some concerted plan of action may be adopted; and thus, in the event of the election of a Black Republican, we may be saved from anarchy and confusion amongst ourselves, and from any serious invasion from without."

            Fifty one people voted in agreement with the resolutions passed, one voted no because he opposed immediate secession just because of an election of a Republican president. Richard Eppes commented on the subject also believing it not wise to secede on those grounds alone. (By spring 1861, he had changed his mind.)
            Sincerely,
            Emmanuel Dabney
            Atlantic Guard Soldiers' Aid Society
            http://www.agsas.org

            "God hasten the day when war shall cease, when slavery shall be blotted from the face of the earth, and when, instead of destruction and desolation, peace, prosperity, liberty, and virtue shall rule the earth!"--John C. Brock, Commissary Sergeant, 43d United States Colored Troops

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Alexander Stephens' "Corner-stone" speech

              Another Virginian's opinion on slavery's importance to the South's anger, secession, and election of Republican president. John Floyd served as Secretary of War in the Buchanan administration. The following was printed in the December 7, 1860 edition of the Richmond Daily Dispatch:

              Letter from Secretary Floyd.
              Hon. John B. Floyd writes a letter to the Richmond Enquirer, in reply to one from the editors of that paper. He thinks the time has passed when "the counsels of any one can arrest the precipitate currents of events or avert the result which an exasperated and excited public feeling has rendered inevitable."

              The agitation of the slavery question, which has been so long and wantonly persisted in by Northern men has produced the sectional alienation which is about to find its natural result in the destruction of a Confederacy that was voluntary in its origin, and can only be perpetuated by the voluntary assent of its members. When that amity, which is generally found to exist even between nations foreign to each other, ceases to exist between confederated States; when those comities, which enlightened nations delight to extend to each other, are refused to sister States by members of a fraternal Confederacy; when sectional strife and crimination usurp the place of charity and kindness in the hearts of a confederated people; when hatred and defamation mark all the relations between neighbors and partners, then separation becomes not only the natural and rightful, but the inevitable resort. The States of the South, having the right to secede, not only from the very nature of a federal compact, but by express reservation on the part of some of them at the time of entering the Confederacy, are, in five or six instances, preparing to secede from their Union with partner States which have converted the legislative branch of the Federal Government into a more theatre for agitating the slavery question — into a rostrum from which to pour forth over the world denunciations and calumnies against their social institutions. Patrick Henry, one of the wisest amongst the founders of free institutions in this country, feared and predicted their overthrow by the agency of the Federal Government. If he could have foreseen the use which one section of the Confederacy would make of the House of Congress, for assailing the other — employing entire sessions, to the neglect of nearly all other business, in the work of agitation — expending large sums of the public money in the publication of incendiary debates, and burdening the public mails in distributing thousands of inflammatory speeches over the land, until the mere fact of the meeting of Congress is felt by a whole section as a public calamity — he would not only have resisted the establishment of the Federal Government as he did, but he would have defeated it at the cost of precipitating the country into a second revolution, before the echoes of the first had died away.

              There is no doubt that Mr. Lincoln was elected by his party as "an extreme antislavery man, and bitter opponent of the South." The North has set the example of doing without the South in the election of a common President. The South is about answering this by allowing them to do also without her in the Union. The people acting in mass will not stop in crisis to draw distinctions and split hairs, but rush headlong to extreme conclusions. The Southern peoples' answer to the North will be as demonstrative and defiant, in one direction, as the election of Mr. Lincoln, on the part of the North, was in the other. If all the Southern States shall put it to popular vote, to say what shall be done in the present crisis, the position of probably every one of them will be extreme. If a few secede and all efforts at reconciliation fall, all must sooner of later secede. Virginia would not, other border States could not, stand neutral between North and South.

              For one, I am not for secession as long as any honorable effort can be made to preserve the Union on a constitutional basis, guaranteeing equality, justice and protection to the negro property of the South. I shall not undertake, in this place, to particularize all the measures or reform and policy which should be incorporated into a settlement of the present differences between the North and the South. I cannot conceive how harmony can be permanently secured as long as Congress continues to be made a mere debating club for agitation and incendiary appeal. The acts of the several Northern States, nullifying the fugitive slave law, being subversive of the Constitution, violative of the plighted faith of confederates, and in conflict with the comity of States, ought to be repealed; and an amendment to the Constitution must forever prevent their re-enactment.

              But even though the principles of a settlement of the present troubles could be agreed upon, there would be very great difficulty in procuring their early ratification by the people of the two sections. The Northern masses cannot be brought at once to recede from the extreme, and aggressive positions they have assumed towards the South; while the South, tired of broken compromises, and smarting from repeated and never-ending insult, will be slow and both to accede to new compacts.--Moreover, every manifestation by the South of a willingness to accept terms of reconciliation, is at once construed by the North into a proof of timidity, and made the occasion of new insult and injury.

              I believe, however, that the great material interests of the country demand a reconciliation of the sections, and the preservation of the Union; and I rely much upon the slow, but certain, the silent, but potential influence of this great agency to bring about a settlement of our present troubles. The main study of all should be to prevent any collision between the sections, and most especially the shedding of the first drop of blood. If we can but succeed in averting these calamities, the great, practical business interests of the country may, perchance, sooner or later, bring about a re-construction of the Union and a restoration of harmony between the sections.

              It is earnestly to be hoped that these great interests, aided by the disinterested promptings of a sincere patriotism, may rise in their power and with potential authority require of the fanaticism of the North to abandon an agitation which must lead to certain and swift destruction. If this shall be done, who can doubt that a returning sense of confidence will be felt by the injured and exasperated South, and that peace and the Union will be restored.

              The American people are eminently practical in their temper and judgment, and also in their action, when they can be brought to deliberate. They must see that no interest — not one in the whole extent of the American continent — can fail to be materially injured, and some of them utterly annihilated, by a dissolution of the Union. If there is nothing in the majestic power of our great Confederacy that can excite a feeling of just pride in the hearts of our people — if our self-interests have ceased to value the solid advantages which accrue to all from the respect and protection that follow our flag over the surface of the whole globe — surely the desolation and misery which the dullest apprehension must see will follow in the track of civil war, and the contempt which such an event will be certain to excite for us in the mind of all Europe, ought at least to prompt to a careful and wise deliberation before a fend is commenced which shall become irreconcilable.

              The South should remember, that in dissolving the Union she annihilates a mighty army of true, unselfish and devoted friends at the North, who battle forever for the constitutional rights of the slave States. Without this great and efficient aid, the power of abolition fanaticism would be unbroken and unchecked — would indeed "surround the South with a wall of fire. " It would do more. New England would consort with Old England in devising means by which the cruel and inhuman philanthropy practiced by the latter in the West India islands should be repeated here. That religious zeal which turned away from all rational hope of progress in Christian faith half a million of Africans to the savageism of fetish worship, and converted the fairest islands of the sea into a desert and waste — that English justice which seized upon a thousand millions of her subjects' property and vaunted herself before the world for having paid one-tenth of its value — would find surely and speedily ample room, in conjunction with New England abolitionism, for the practice of her pharisaical virtues amidst the fields of Virginia and Louisiana. If the hate of New England abolitionists to the South is sleepless and malignant — if they hope by fraud and indirection, by agitation and theft, to harass the South and to impair the security and value of her slave property — all combined would, in my belief, be justice, honesty and fair dealing compared with the inexorable hate and majestic fanaticism of England directed against the slavery of a dismembered Union and a feared and hated commercial rival.

              Twenty-five years more of Union and harmony will concentrate the controlling commercial power of the world in the waters of New York. Then, the decline of England becomes as certain as was that of Alexandria and Venice, and for the same cause. Instead of the first, she becomes a third rate European power. But let disunion take place — let civil war and discord distract this country, and England well knows that the ships of the North must rot at their wharves, and the busy hum of their manufactories must cease forever. Then, indeed, would England feel again that she was mistress of the seas, without a rival, secure in a commerce that no power could ever shake.

              It is a fatal error to suppose that the interest of England would prompt her to foster the planting interests of the South. From the Prince Consort, who sat silently by and witnessed the deliberate insult of an American minister by a British peer, before the congregated intelligence of all Christendom simply because slavery existed in the United States, down to the wretched cockney himself, forty times the slave to suffering and circumstances beyond what any negro is to law, there is not an Englishman who does not in his heart abhor slavery, if he does not also abhor the country where it exists. England will have margin enough to supply her wants for cotton, even with a large diminution of our present production — if the demand of the North for it is out off, as it would be by disunion and civil war. But England, safe in her commercial ascendancy, does not always follow that line of policy which others might think conducive to her interest. She sacrifices much and largely to gratify a hatred, to vindicate a blunder, or cater to a sentiment. Without caring much about the opinions of others, she values very highly her own, and with a laudable desire to appear righteous in her own eyes, perpetrates any act of cruelty or oppression, under the pious pretence of evangelizing and civilizing the heathen, or reforming the heresies of the Christian. She ravages Chief because they unwittingly brutalize their nation by eating opium. She desolates India because that benighted people are averse to rendering up their independence and their rupees in exchange for Bibles and a crushing military despotism. But it is not the Mongol or Tartar race alone that experience the tender mercies of England in enforcing the blessings of liberty and the saving grace of the Thirty-Nine Articles. It is in vain that Ireland points to the illustrious pages of history--English history — enacted by her sons. It is in vain that the most renowned periods of her senatorial fame have drawn their peculiar lustre from the genius of Ireland, or that the topmost rounds of her military celebrity have been reached under the leadership of the same race; neither of these considerations, nor all combined, have been able to save that unfortunate nation from a perpetual impalement, compared with which the worst forms of African slavery are mercy and a blessing. A few years ago, only a few years ago, England, with her mighty resources, with that empire upon which the sun in his daily course, it is boasted, never ceases to shine stood a calm spectator from her own happy shores and looked with Christian complacency across the Irish Channel at the torture of their people writhing in the agony of starvation; a million of whom, it is computed, died from famine, and its accompanying diseases. During this period, English philanthropy found emissaries and means enough to dispatch to America for the purpose of stirring up the spirit of abolitionism, to overthrow the Union, and incite the negro to insurrection. The shrieks of famishing multitudes of her own subjects have never pierced the heart of England like the fancied wrongs of the African race in the cotton fields of the South--though it may be truly asserted that no ← slave has ever died of starvation on our continent.

              The South can never count upon the friendship of England, or upon her toleration of evils not her own. Once within the reach of her power, she will fix upon us forever the very badge of inferiority which we are now ready to destroy the Union to escape; and will foster our products so far, and so far only, as may be absolutely necessary to supply her wants. England would insist upon making good her record upon the slavery question.--To sacrifice the interests of a class, or even to starve to death a few hundred thousands of her subjects in the laudable task, would constitute a very small obstacle to her policy.

              But with all these consequences attending the measure of disunion, and multitudinous others, which readily occur to every mind, no option is left now but, either to choose to encounter them or to secure those guarantees which must stop at once and forever the aggressions and agitation to which the North has been so long addicted, on the subject of slavery. With proper guarantees of this sort, which could be given by amendments to the Constitution, we may go on in a happy and cordial Union, made so from a mutuality of pecuniary interests, and a consciousness which union will give us of power to maintain all our rights and command the respect of the world.

              I am of opinion that the Legislature of Virginia should immediately call a convention of the people of the State, with a view of referring all these momentous questions to the arbitrament of a convention of all the States, such as is provided for in the Federal Constitution, and that, in the meantime, Virginia should use all her influence to calm the exasperated feelings of the country, and to prevent, if possible, a hostile collision in any quarter or from any cause.

              With high regard, I am, very truly, your obedient servant, John B. Floyd.

              Nat. Tyler, Esq.,Richmond, Va.
              Sincerely,
              Emmanuel Dabney
              Atlantic Guard Soldiers' Aid Society
              http://www.agsas.org

              "God hasten the day when war shall cease, when slavery shall be blotted from the face of the earth, and when, instead of destruction and desolation, peace, prosperity, liberty, and virtue shall rule the earth!"--John C. Brock, Commissary Sergeant, 43d United States Colored Troops

              Comment


              • #8
                That's some fast writing...

                Maybe this is off topic, but I see the text of speeches all the time, and I am wondering...

                Who wrote this down?
                How fast could they write?
                What method of shorthand did they use (Gregg's wasn't invented yet)?
                Obviously they used pencil because they would have fallen behind re-inking a pen.

                Who did this, and how did they do it?

                I mean, we see the text of the Lincoln Douglas debates, so obviously someone isn't getting their hands on prepared text all the time.

                This is one of those mysteries to me.

                Moderators, please move this post if you think it will garner an answer somewhere else.
                Cordially,

                Bob Sullivan
                Elverson, PA

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Alexander Stephens' "Corner-stone" speech

                  "Phonographic reporter" seems to be a common phrase for those who could write down speeches in shorthand. A search at Google Books for the word phonographic in publications between 1800 and 1865 will bring up quite a few period how-to manuals for various shorthand methods. This might work as a direct link to the search results. http://books.google.com/books?q=phon...Books&as_brr=0

                  Joseph L. Gilbert took down Lincoln's Gettysburg address by shorthand. Can't find an original image of his shorthand version online, if it still exists, but here's an annotated version of the address mentioning the differences in his version vs. the usual ones: http://www.bartleby.com/268/9/26.html#txt2

                  And a much longer discussion of the transcriptions of the Lincoln-Douglas debates:



                  which includes the following passage:

                  All parties responsible for generating the text of the debates as they were presented to the public, from the speakers themselves to the stenographers and editors who rendered them into print, have testified about the less-than-favorable conditions that prevailed for producing an accurate account of what was said. The speakers were often interrupted by hecklers or other voices from the crowd, as well as by the noise of general crowd reactions. These crowd reactions had to be characterized by the reporters at the same time they were attempting to determine what was being said by the speakers and by the voices in the crowd. The wind occasionally made it hard for the reporters to hear, and it sometimes disturbed the paper on which they were writing. There were times when the noise and disruption were such that the reporters stated frankly that they could not hear what was said.
                  Stenographers' shorthand notes had to be transcribed, and this was not always done by the same person who made the notations. The principal stenographer for the Chicago Times is reported to have used a system of his own device, which meant that he had to do his own transcriptions. The transcriptions themselves had to be done at white heat, for time was of the essence in this enterprise, and newspaper deadlines had to be met at all costs. Once the transcriptions reached the editors' desks, they had to be edited for such things as spelling, punctuation, continuity, and coherence. And then the edited transcriptions had to be set into type.
                  Hank Trent
                  hanktrent@voyager.net
                  Hank Trent

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Alexander Stephens' "Corner-stone" speech

                    The cornerstone speech is often quoted as a direct refutation of the idea that "slavery had nothing to do with it." On the face of it that seems logical: it's proof of the idea that slavery was indeed the foundation and mainstay of Confederate nationalism. That is, here we have the Veep of the new nation explaining that the CSA was founded on the idea of human property.

                    I think, though, that both sides of that argument have been oversimplified. On the one hand, surely it's clear that the institution of slavery had a great deal to do with the outbreak of hostilities. It's inconceivable to me that a new nation could tear itself apart, and that nearly 700,000 young Americans could sacrifice their lives -- over a tariff. On the other hand, it's impossible to say that a man of the intellectual caliber of A. Stephens would argue that the war was being fought only to protect the institution of slavery. There's clearly more to the argument -- if you read him carefully, you'll see that he's basing his ideas on (a) the constitutional protection of private property rights and (b) the notion that the South can't survive without the tight control of black persons. Slavery was an economically viable labor system (even if it was inhuman, un-Christian, and morally repugnant) and it also represented several billion dollars in capital investments. Moreover, it's important to recall, no matter how unpleasant the thought may be, that slavery also represented a crucial form of social & racial control.

                    All that said, I think today we miss the fact that slave labor, and the fruits of slave labor, supported the economy and the balance of trade of the entire American nation. By the "fruits," I'm referring not only to cash crops, I'm also referring to other subsidiary benefits, such as financial investments, agricultural tools and supplies, trade and shipping (including transportation -- i.e., ship building, railroads, road construction, etc etc.) Slavery was deeply tied into the entire American economy. If you read 19th century sources carefully, you'll see that this fact wasn't lost on Americans. It's only today that we somehow compartmentalize slavery to the southern states and to a few decades of the 19th century.

                    I remember reading a letter Maj. Robt Anderson wrote from Ft. Sumter, a day or two before the firing commenced, in which he commented that slavery was a national sin, and had to be expiated by the entire country. As you probably recall Pres. Lincoln made much the same observation in his second Inaugural Address.

                    I do think that we have to face the unpleasant truth about slavery when we remember our past. Slavery was a national problem and had to be dealt with on a national scale. Stephens's speech describes a much larger idea than simply the notion that slavery was the cornerstone of the South. He's referring to the fact that the institution was deeply woven into all of American society and history.
                    [FONT="Book Antiqua"][SIZE="3"]Silvana R. Siddali[/SIZE][/FONT]
                    [URL="http://starofthewestsociety.googlepages.com/home"][FONT="Book Antiqua"][SIZE="3"]Star of the West Society[/SIZE][/FONT][/URL][B]
                    [COLOR="DarkRed"]Cherry Bounce G'hal[/B][/COLOR]:wink_smil

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Alexander Stephens' "Corner-stone" speech

                      All,

                      Thanks for posting the other speeches. I have not read all of them but the ones I have read have been a very interesting.


                      Thanks,
                      [FONT=Courier New]Mark Maranto[/FONT]

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Alexander Stephens' "Corner-stone" speech

                        Some historians have interpreted Stephens' views as having changed slightly with time.

                        In his "cornerstone speech," he stated:

                        "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."

                        Seven years later, Stephens wrote the following in his A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States :

                        "The War had its origin in opposing principles...the organic Structure of the Government...It was a strife between the principles of Federalism, on the one side, and Centralism, on the other...Slavery, so called, was but the question on which these antagonistic principles...were finally brought into...collision with each other on the field of battle."

                        Eric
                        Eric J. Mink
                        Co. A, 4th Va Inf
                        Stonewall Brigade

                        Help Preserve the Slaughter Pen Farm - Fredericksburg, Va.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Alexander Stephens' "Corner-stone" speech

                          Stephens was viewed as a moderate not calling for immediate secession as those like Ruffin or Yancey had for years prior to the actual dates of secession.
                          Sincerely,
                          Emmanuel Dabney
                          Atlantic Guard Soldiers' Aid Society
                          http://www.agsas.org

                          "God hasten the day when war shall cease, when slavery shall be blotted from the face of the earth, and when, instead of destruction and desolation, peace, prosperity, liberty, and virtue shall rule the earth!"--John C. Brock, Commissary Sergeant, 43d United States Colored Troops

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Alexander Stephens' "Corner-stone" speech

                            Rev. Robert L. Dabney, who served on Stonewall Jackson's staff during the war, made no bones about slavery having an important place in the history of the South and the lead up to war.

                            His 1867 work is a defense of slavery more so than of Virginia as he calls it. http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/b/bib/bibperm?q1=ABT6096

                            As a minister he directs a lot of attention to the Bible but does tackle the role of slavery in America and the effects of it on its people.
                            Sincerely,
                            Emmanuel Dabney
                            Atlantic Guard Soldiers' Aid Society
                            http://www.agsas.org

                            "God hasten the day when war shall cease, when slavery shall be blotted from the face of the earth, and when, instead of destruction and desolation, peace, prosperity, liberty, and virtue shall rule the earth!"--John C. Brock, Commissary Sergeant, 43d United States Colored Troops

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Alexander Stephens' "Corner-stone" speech

                              I fall into the "It was over Slavery" school; one really can't refute the proximate cause. But as Dr. S. pointed out the foundations for secession were deeper than that and I try not to yield to the impulse to oversimplify. Born and bred a Yankee, I find it intriguing that the concept of a unique southen identity could be directed into a movement for southern nationalism. While there was interaction between the sections of the United States, can someone describe the limitations, either through circumstance or imposed, on this interaction? Could the south be descibed as isolated? What worked to create a mindset among the majority of southerners for secession? It would also be good to hear an elaboration from those southerners who objected to secession.

                              Another question to ask would be: "Why was everyone so angry in the '50s and '60s?"
                              [FONT=Times New Roman]-steve tyler-[/FONT]

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X