Selective "States  Rights"


Map of the Confederacy



In the period before the Civil War it was accepted that yes the US government with the states could indeed abolish slavery by constitutional amendment. That was why so many in the South were so afraid of the rising number of Free states that would, they feared, eventually reach a number that would allow the abolition of Slavery by constitutional amendment.1

In fact the original 13th amendment recognized this fact by the fact it was even proposed, and further efforts were made to make it impossible to amend by other constitutional amendments further recognizing that the abolition of slavery by constitutional amendment was recognized pre Civil War as a perfectly legal possibility.2

Neo-Confederate Crap

Slave Auction

The following is a revised posting I left at the Pharyngula website.1 I have also added references.

This is the post I was replying to: I have added some supplemental commentary to this persons posting it is the non-indented material.

Hit me with your best shot !

I'm still standin yea yea yea !

Come on is that the best you folks can do?

Calling me names truly exposes who is the bigot.

How many ships flying the confederate flag imported slaves? ZERO!

That was the north's doing. Cha Ching $$$$.

The Northern blockade during the Civil War massively reduced trade into the Confederacy and prevented any revival of the slave trade including illegal. The South was heavily involved in the trade while it was legal; after all who was buying the slaves? Southerners were involved in all aspects of the operation of the slave trade.2

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

This is from the Lincoln / Douglas debates. Aside from indicating that racism and racist like beliefs were common in the North as in the South how does this indicate that slavery was not the most important cause of the Civil War? Or that Lincoln shared these beliefs how does this in anyway indicate the preserving slavery was not the most important reason why the South tried to secede. Further racist attitudes towards Blacks did not mean that someone could not be opposed to having them enslaved. Interestingly Lincoln seems to have shared these beliefs less than most people of his time.3

Also in Lincoln's first inaugural address:

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

Lincoln was still hoping for reunion with the Seceding states seven of which had seceded by the time of his inauguration. Further he did not wish to alienate the border South states. Finally he really did believe that he had no power to interfere with slavery where it existed. In this respect he was entirely correct, in terms of the normal powers of the president in a normal situation. In the future Lincoln would base his interference with slavery entirely on his emergency and war powers. I should however indicate that Lincoln was quite adamant that he and his government would NOT allow the further extension of slavery or the creation of more slave states. And Lincoln was quite adamant that he wanted to stop the expansion of slavery so that the institution would, without new places to expand into, wither and die. Many southerners felt that this was the death knell of slavery and that the institution would be in mortal danger unless the slave states left the union. Certainly the main complaints justifying secession in the Southern Conventions regarding secession was the threat to slavery posed by Lincoln and the Republicans. Finally Lincoln was trying to reassure Southerners that although he and his government would stop the extension of slavery they would not interfere with it where it currently existed. All in hope of reunion.4

So why did Lincoln invade the South if not to free the slaves? If you have an inability to think for yourself, then you stick to repeating the same government lies. But if you are interested in finding the truth, you can again examine Lincoln's very own words. Again from his first inaugural address:

"there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority [...] to collect the duties and imposts"

It seems fairly clear from the actual words of Lincoln that he was a racist (like most Americans in that day) who wanted to invade the South in order to collect the government's taxes from Southerners who no longer wished to remain in the Union. The entire war was initiated and fought by the North in order to preserve the Union, not to free the slaves. Likewise, since the North was not threatening to end slavery, the South was most certainly not fighting to preserve slavery. The South fought the war to defend their homes and to break free from a tyrannical government.

Well the author forget that it was the South was the one that opened fire on Fort Sumter and further since the South had no legal right to secede the National government was well within its rights to continue to collect duties and imposts. The author creates a straw man; it is well known that the war was fought to preserve the Union by the North for various reasons, including the idea that Southern secession made a mockery of Democracy and further that allowing secession would destroy the rest of the Union. Nations generally do not allow themselves to be destroyed at what appears to be a whim. In a nation state attempted secession leaves behind a massive array of interlocking disputes making civil war extremely likely. The comment that the North incited the war is simply false. After all it was the Confederacy that opened fire on Fort Sumter. None of this deals with the question of the why the South succeeded, in fact it avoids it. First the Confederacy was formed even before Lincoln and his allegedly “tyrannical” government took power. And what where the “tyrannical” acts threatened? Why the exclusion of slavery from the territories. The refusal to impose a slave code on the territories, regardless of the inhabitants feelings. The base insults to the South consisted of such things as giving fugitive slaves rights to a hearings before being sent back south in some northern states.5

Also, recall that slavery was supported by the US government, not just by the South. Moreover, most of the slave trade went through Northern ports and the North was profiting from slavery just as well as the South through cheap Southern-produced goods and tariffs. So if the media is going to attack all things Southern as racist, should they not been held to do the same for all things US government or all things yankee? The hypocrisy is truly unbelievable. I suspect the true motive for the denigration of the South is really about denouncing secession (by equating it to racism). Government is coercion and secession is the ultimate weapon against government.

The above is an outstanding example of evading the issue which is why did the South secede. It does so my changing the topic to racism in general. The South produced few goods, it manufacturing industries were comparatively weak. What the South produced was masses of cotton and other raw materials, i.e., tobacco, rice etc. The South was a mass importer of manufactured items from the North and Europe. Oh and please note that many Abolitionists knew full well that much of the Northern economy benefited from slavery directly or indirectly and bitterly denounced it. In fact those who in the north directly benefited from slavery (various commercial concerns etc.) where very likely to be pro-Southern and pro-slavery. Besides your defence of the South is to shout your racist too! That of course means that your admitting the South was and is racist. No Historian worth his salt will deny that racism permeated both North and South in the pre Civil War era, what this has to with changing the cause of the Civil War is beyond me. It is obvious that you could be racist and anti-slavery. I also note a slip slide from the past to the present. How does the fact that over a century ago racism permeated the American Republic tell us about racism today. It is a fact that neo-Confederate thinking has traditionally in the South been associated with racism. Neither does any of this change the fact that secession occurred because of Southern fears about slavery being undermined. The fact that the North benefited in many respects from slavery does not change the reasons why the South seceded was because the South feared what might happen to slavery when Lincoln took office.6

As Jefferson Davis said, "Truth crushed to the earth is truth still and like a seed will rise again." Let us hope this is true.

disclaimer: Although I think this is unnecessary, the yankees will slander me if I do not say this. While I support the South and the principle of secession, I am completely against slavery. While we are at it, I am also against murder, rape, pedophilia, and the slaughter of kittens.

Confederate Constitution:

"Section 9 - Limits on Congress, Bill of Rights

1. The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same."

I will deal with the slave trade below. After the Civil War Jefferson Davis produced an appologia7 which claimed the Civil War was not about slavery. He did so by massive messaging of the truth and out and out lying.

The evasions above of the Southern history of disenfranchisement and racism are obvious and clear. Also obvious is a deliberate ignoring of the interconnection between nostalgia for the Confederacy and racism. The re-imposition of “white” rule in the South was accompanied by much Confederate nostalgia along with terror. Further this “white” reconstruction of the South was accompanied by a Northern acceptance of the myth of the innocent South and the wicked Reconstruction and a tacit allowance of the imposition of a quasi servitude on Blacks again. Our author, although he is against slavery, seems to not be aware that it is tyrannical. Certainly he does not seem to be terribly upset by it. At least compared to the Lincoln’s unacceptable tyranny, which consisted of nothing he did because he wasn’t in office yet. The tyranny that our author finds unacceptable boils down to a government refusing to allow the further territorial expansion of the tyranny of slavery and further the perfectly legal collection of taxes etc.; also the national government resisting the illegal seizure by violence of its property.8

Below is my posting.

You do realize that the reason that the Confederate constitution outlawed the Slave trade was because if they legalized it it would have guaranteed European opposition to the New Confederate states. Despite this there was a significant push to re-legalize the slave trade by some Southerners at the time. This was rejected as political suicide.9 You do realize that that the U.S. had abolished the Slave trade more than 50 years earlier.10 You do realize that people continued to illegally import slaves into the south for profit. You do realize that Southerners were heavily involved in this traffic and that there were court cases in the South in which those who were tried for this were routinely acquitted.11

You do realize that the confederate constitution strengthened slavery and made it much more difficult to abolish.12 You do realize that that at the state State Conventions considering succession slavery was talked about ad nauseum and that that in the papers and other documents justifying succession slavery was the most prominently given reason for succession.13 You do realize that after the election of Lincoln large sections of the South were filled with spasms of rage and fear over what his election meant in terms of the survival of slavery.14

You do realize that even before Lincoln was inaugurated seven states had seceded from the Union and the confederacy formed.15 You do realize that the Southern states were ceasing federal property all over the place. You do realize that attacking Fort Sumter was an act of war. You do realize that the American president has emergency powers to deal with insurrection, which this was indisputably.16

You do realize that the Confederates absolutely refused to recognize the right to succeed of parts of the Southern States that didn't want to go along with succession. You do realize that mass arrests and in some places executions happened in those areas. Say parts of Texas, Eastern Tennessee, with mass arrests suspension of Habeas corpus etc.17

During the War the Confederacy in terms of centralizing the state etc, went the same way as the Union. Oh and the Confederacy invaded neutral Kentucky.18

Oh and Andrew Jackson, a Southerners said during the nullification crisis in 1832 that succession was treason and that he would hang the ringleaders as traitors.19

In 1860 most people in the United States did not think that there was a legal right to secede. Most American supported the right to revolution, which was a different thing.20 In this case the simple fact that Lincoln was elected as President was not deemed by most northerners and by a lot of Southerners sufficient excuse to secede.21 After all Lincoln had been elected by 40% of the vote and the republicans had less than half the seats in the new Congress.22 Lincoln's ability to adversely affect the South would have been severely limited. Oh and Stephen Douglas a very pro-Southern Northern politician and second in the popular vote in the election of 1860 swore up and down that succession was illegal and that he would help crush it.23

Oh and at the same time Arkansas seceded from the Union the state introduced laws that made manumission of slaves illegal and tried to re-enslave the states free black population. Much of South Carolina’s free Black population fled in the face of greatly increased persecution.24

Succession was not a legal act but a revolutionary act and has such had a high chance of causing a Civil War. The Southern politicians made a disastrous mistake. Oh and many were hoping for the election of Lincoln and helped to generate the hysteria and panic in the months preceding the election in order for succession to happen.25

And do I have to point out that during the constitutional convention Southerners lobbied for their human property to be included as part of the full population when it came to appropriating representation etc. at the same time they wanted their human property excluded from the rights of the constitution etc. A compromise was reached the infamous 3/5th clause. At the same time Southern slave owners resisted any effort to lessen their tyrannical control over their slave property. Allowing slaves to get legally married would have been a good start.26

The South fully supported coercion against slaves to keep them in that status and those who didn't want secession.

The political leaders of the South made what could only be described as an irresponsible gamble and lost completely.

1. Here

2. Thomas Hugh, The Slave Trade, Papermac, London, 1997, pp. 543-546, 566-570, 739-741., McPherson, James M., Battle Cry of Freedom, Ballantine Books, New York, 1988, pp. 378-388.

3. McPherson, pp. 184-187.

4. Stampp, Kenneth M., And the War Came, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1950, pp. 179-203.

5. IBID, pp. 1-45, 239-286, McPherson, 234-307, Potter, David M., The Impending Crisis, Harper Torchbooks, New York, 1976, pp. 485-583.

6. McPherson, 91-103, 116-144.

7. Davis Jefferson, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, 2 vols., Thomas Yoseloff, (rept.) New York, 1958. The Vice-President of the Confederacy also wrote an apologia, Stephens, Alexander Hamilton, A Constitutional View of the Late War between the States, 2 volumes, National Publishing Company, Philadelphia PA, 1868-1870.

8. See McPherson, pp.234-275.

9. McPherson, pp. 102-103, Freehling, William W., The Road to Disunion, vol. 2, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007, pp. 177-184, 502-504.

10. Cooper, William J., Liberty and Slavery, Alfred AQ. Knopf, New York, 1983, pp. 50-52, 70-72, 98-99.

11. McPherson, pp. 102-103.

12. See Avalon Project, Here, for the Confederate Constitution. The following sections massively strengthened and defended slavery.

Article 1 Sec. 9 (4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

…

Article 4 Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

…

(3) No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs,. or to whom such service or labor may be due.

…

Sec. 3 (3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

The American Constitution by comparison goes to strenuous lengths to avoid the words slave, and slavery.

13. See Dew, Charles B., Apostles of Disunion, University Press of Virginia, London, 2001.

14. McPherson, pp. 234-275, Channing, Steven A., Crisis of Fear, W.W. Norton and Company, New York, 1974, pp. 229-293, Freehling, 2007, pp. 323-444, Potter, David M., The Impending Crisis, Harper and Row, London, 1976, pp. 485-514.

15. McPherson, pp. 257-259.

16. McPherson, pp. 267-275, Potter, pp. 555-583.

17. McPherson, pp. 305-306, Lowen, James W., Lies Across America, The New Press, New York, 1999, pp. 177-179.

18. McPherson, p. 296, pp. 428-437.

19. Freehling, William W., The Road to Disunion, vol. 1, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1990, p. 278.

20, See Stampp, Kenneth M., The Imperiled Union, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1980, pp. 3-36, (Essay The Concept of a Perpetual Union).

21. McPherson, pp. 257-275, Stampp, 1980.

22, Stampp, 1980, pp. 238-239.

23. McPherson, pp. 231-232.

24. Freehling, 2007, pp. 199-200.

25. Channing, pp. 229-293, Freehling, pp. 323-341, Potter, 448-484.

26. Stampp, pp. 232-234.

Pierre Cloutier.

Stephens’ “Cornerstone”

Alexander Hamilton Stephens

Alexander Hamilton Stephens, (1812-1883), Vice President of the Confederacy and all round politician was basically a moderate. His political record indicates on many matters that he was in no way a Southern extremist or a pro-slavery fanatic. In fact his moderation is abundantly indicated in much, if not all of his political record.1 It is that well attested and correct perception of Stephens as a moderate that makes his infamous Cornerstone speech both interesting and illuminating.

The Cornerstone speech was given by Stephens in a hall in the city of Savannah on March 21, 1861 and in it he discusses the principles and prospects of the new Confederate government and state.

Stephens mentions that although the new Confederate constitution is almost exactly the same as the older American constitution it as some changes that as you read Stephen’s states are for the better.

Some changes have been made. Some of these I should have preferred not to have seen made; but other important changes do meet my cordial approbation. They form great improvements upon the old constitution. So, taking the whole new constitution, I have no hesitancy in giving it as my judgment that it is decidedly better than the old.2

After this introduction Stephen’s then outlines the improvements all of which are those that were subject to sectional disputes. For example:

We allow the imposition of no duty with a view of giving advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another. All, under our system, stand upon the same broad principles of perfect equality. Honest labor and enterprise are left free and unrestricted in whatever pursuit they may be engaged. This old thorn of the tariff, which was the cause of so much irritation in the old body politic, is removed forever from the new.3

Thus the tariffs which sought by taxation to improve the prospects of American Business but which were considered an imposition by many Southerners, including cotton growers are deemed unconstitutional. This was of course largely opposed not simply because it was perceived to be against the interests of planters but because it was perceived to be interference in the day to day activities of planters and their economic prospects.

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.4

Here is another restriction upon the central government. It was believed that the power to finance and carry out internal improvements was unjust; in that monies collected at A should not go to pay improvements in B. further lurking behind this was the idea that the central government could use such leverage to interfere in “domestic institutions”, (slavery), and therefore the central government should be kept out. Only states should do internal improvements. Of course Stephens never explains how state taxation used to pay for improvements in county A as against county B were any different from a central government using tax money from state A to pay for improvements in state B.

Another feature to which I will allude is that the new constitution provides that cabinet ministers and heads of departments may have the privilege of seats upon the floor of the Senate and House of Representatives and may have the right to participate in the debates and discussions upon the various subjects of administration.5

This change is of course the adoption of a feature of the British system which has Cabinet Ministers defending their policies in Parliament and their seats. Stephens however feels that Cabinet Ministers should be only selected from the elected representatives of the Confederate Congress or Senate. So that the system is even more similar to the British system.

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.6

Another indication of Confederate fear that central authority could lead to the creation of system by which the central government is used for purposes that reward “spoils” men and ambition. It is of course interesting that there seems to be little concern that state central authority could be used in the same way. Of course it is mainly just another way of protecting the “local” authority from the central government’s power.

Stephens then comes to the central focus of the improvements in the new Confederate constitution.

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."7

Now Stephens out of his own mouth utters the great central truth about Succession and the establishment of the Confederacy and the central “principle” on which it is based. He casts aside the Declaration of Independence’s statement “All men are created equal”, that they are endowed with certain “inalienable” rights. Stephens even admits that Jefferson and the founding fathers hoped Slavery would wither away eventually. Stephens further admits that slavery and the agitation around slavery were the cause of succession and hence the civil war that might come. Stephens further declares that the founders were wrong to think that slavery was wrong and should hopefully disappear. Thus in some respect the creation of the Confederacy was a revolution against the Declaration of Independence and the hopes of the Founders. All of this especially in light of what Stephens would say later and the established “correct” version created in the late 19th century, is most revealing. Here right at the beginning of the Civil War a prominent Southern Statesman, and a moderate to boot, was emphatically saying it was about slavery. Stephens is not finished however.

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the
equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.8

Thus Stephens emphatically says that the “cornerstone” of the Confederacy is human inequality and the slavery that arises from such inequality. Further that slavery was natural, good and proper for Black people. That the notion of basic human equality was false and wrong and that inequality was the great principle of the Confederacy which would one day be recognized world wide.

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.9

Stephens again reiterates that inequality and hence slavery is the basis of the Confederate social system. I wonder what Jefferson would have thought?

May we not, therefore, look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances, or to question them. For His own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made "one star to differ from another star in glory." The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders "is become the chief of the corner" the real "corner-stone" in our new edifice. I have been asked, what of the future? It has been apprehended by some that we would have arrayed against us the civilized world. I care not who or how many they may be against us, when we stand upon the eternal principles of truth, if we are true to ourselves and the principles for which we contend, we are obliged to, and must triumph.10

So Black people are created to be subordinate; to be the foundation of the Confederate system. It is a “principle” that Blacks being inferior should be subordinate, indeed enslaved, and that the Confederate government is founded on this “natural” inferiority and subordination, which of course is “best” for Black people. The Confederate government is carrying out, according to Stephens, in practice the divinely ordained principle of the “natural” subordination of the “inferior” and further this is the foundation of the Confederate government and society. What Stephens said latter about this speech is most revealing but more of that later.

The rest of Stephens’ speech is an optimistic look at the prospects of the new Confederacy and how given its wealth, size, population the prospects were very bright for both survival and expansion.

Well we all now how the story turned out; the Confederacy was crushed in a 4 year civil war by the far more powerful Union. Slavery both collapsed and was destroyed. Blacks in the former Confederacy gained certain political rights which they exercised and then came the backlash in which, so-called, “Bourbon” governments regained power and instituted mass disenfranchisement, “Jim Crow” laws, massive violence against Blacks etc., etc. During all of this a re-writing of the Civil War and the conflicts that preceded it was done. Characterized by demonizing Abolitionists, down playing or in fact ignoring slavery, disregarding black people and any perspectives they might have, combined with a romantic nostalgic idea of the “Lost Cause” and the Confederacy. A prime example of that was the novel Gone with the Wind. In this atmosphere that emerged after the Civil War many former Confederate politicians had ample scope to get a sympathetic hearing for what the war and conflict was “really” about. In other words they either lied a lot or exercised extraordinary self deception. What was said before and after the Civil War could and did differ. It was simply unacceptable to state bluntly that the Confederacy was mainly created to safeguard slavery from real and perceived threats against it so history in hindsight was rewritten to say, over and over again, ad-nauseaum that succession and the Civil War was not about slavery at all that it was a mere incident to real causes that were more honourable and not disagreeable causes like retaining and safeguarding slavery. Added to this was a copious literature stating again ad-nauseaum that slavery was nothing much to get upset about anyway. So in this conducive atmosphere of self-deception and revisionism Stephens could toss out his “explanation” of his speech. Said speech stood out like a drunken groom at a wedding it had to be ignored as much as possible, and when impossible to ignore explained away.11

As for my Savanna speech, [The Cornerstone Speech] about which so much has been said and in regard to which I am represented as setting forth "slavery" as the "corner-stone" of the Confederacy, it is proper for me to state that that speech was extemporaneous, the reporter's notes, which were very imperfect, were hastily corrected by me; and were published without further revision and with several glaring errors.12

First we hear that the Reporters notes were “inaccurate” a common tactic when a politician says something that turns out to be embarrassing later on. Of course it is rather interesting that Stephens was saying similar things at other meetings at the same time so I think it rather likely the reporter got the speech right.13

The order of subordination was nature's great law; philosophy taught that order as the normal condition of the African amongst European races. Upon this recognized principle of a proper subordination, let it be called slavery or what not, our State institutions were formed and rested. The new Confederation was entered into with this distinct understanding. This principle of the subordination of the inferior to the superior was the "corner-stone" on which it was formed. I used this metaphor merely to illustrate the firm convictions of the framers of the new Constitution that this relation of the black to the white race, which existed in 1787, was not wrong in itself, either morally or politically; that it was in conformity to nature and best for both races. I alluded not to the principles of the new Government on this subject, but to public sentiment in regard to these principles. The status of the African race in the new Constitution was left just where it was in the old; I affirmed and meant to affirm nothing else in this Savannah speech.14

This is hemming and hawing it in my opinion amounts to I said something almost exactly like I was reported saying but I didn’t say exactly that. Finally it is very easy to demonstrate that Stephens’ view of the relationship that existed between Blacks and Whites in 1787 is simply wrong. Not only were all Blacks not subordinate to all Whites in 1787 some could vote and were recognized has state citizens by some states. Further it is easy to demonstrate that some free Blacks who lived in the Confederacy were not a subordinate class to all Whites. As for the rest of it that he was merely repeating that the “African race” was in the same position under the new constitution of the Confederacy as under the old U.S.A. constitution, a reading of the speech reveals this to be, shall we say “bogus”. Stephens in the recorded speech calls the subordination, slavery, of the Black person as a clear founding principle of the new Confederate government, and admits clearly that the founders, including Jefferson, thought all men were basically equal and looked forward to the eventual disappearance of slavery. Further he states that the Founders believed as a principle in essential human equality whereas the new Confederate government was founded on the principle of inequality and that this was a great truth which would soon be recognized world wide. In other words Stephens is lying. Whether or not he was consciously lying when he wrote the above is unknown but even if he believed his own lies he was still lying.15

How can I be so sure that Stephen’s was lying? It is easy. On March 13, 1861 in Atlanta Stephens gave a speech in which he said the following concerning the Confederate Constitution and aims of its creators; that they:

…solemnly discarded the pestilent heresy of fancy politicians, that all men, of all races, were equal, and we had made African inequality and subordination, and the equality of white men, the chief corner stone of the Southern Republic.16

It is easy to demonstrate how during the various Succession crises how central the survival of slavery was to believers in Succession, how concerned so many were with securing the survival of slavery. How during the actual crisis of the succession winter of 1860-61, how central was slavery to their demands for succession. The contemporary documents, newspaper accounts talk all about what a grave threat to slavery was the election of Abraham Lincoln. About how only succession would secure slavery from attack. After the war the contemporary documentary record was ignored and the losers spent enormous time and resources rewriting i.e., falsifying history and their own deeds and words.17 Stephens’ efforts resulted in his multi-volume book A Constitutional View of the Late War between the States. The book alleged that the war was over the principle of constitutional liberty and the centralization and tyranny. That slavery was a mere question over which these two principles fought and that to call those who fought the efforts of those in the north to centralize and impose tyranny a pro-slavery party or group was utterly false.18 To describe this as untrue is to be evasive it is quite simply bold-face lies. Stephen’s cornerstone speech damns his post war apologia as simply false. In early 1861 Stephens’ could publicly state what the conflict was really about just as could other Southern politicians, Newspapers etc. After the war it was recognized that such honesty was unacceptable and it was too painful to accept in retrospect what the conflict had been mainly about so memory and history had to be “corrected” and a new improved version of reality banded about. Thus regarding the American Civil War what former Confederate politicians said about the causes of the conflict after the war should be discounted as self-serving and efforts concentrated on what they said and or did at the time. Stephens is an excellent example of this.

This last comment by Stephens illustrates to perfection the self serving nature of the post-war flood of ex-Confederate memoirs and apologia.

My own opinion of slavery, as often expressed, was that if the institution was not the best, or could not be made the best, for both races, looking to the advancement and progress of both, physically and morally, it ought to be abolished. It was far from being what it might and ought to have been. Education was denied. This was wrong. I ever condemned the wrong. Marriage was not recognized. This was a wrong that I condemned. Many things connected with it did not meet my approval but excited my disgust, abhorrence, and detestation. The same I may say of things connected with the best institutions in the best communities in which my lot has been cast. Great improvements were, however, going on in the condition of blacks in the South. Their general physical condition not only as to necessaries but as to comforts was better in my own neighbourhood in 1860, than was that of the whites when I can first recollect, say 1820. Much greater would have been made, I verily believe, but for outside agitation. I have but small doubt that education would have been allowed long ago in Georgia, except for outside pressure which stopped internal reform.19

Interestingly it is not difficult to find that yes indeed Stephens is telling the truth when he indicates that prior to the war he had problems with certain aspects of slavery. However he does not mention that he expressed his doubts privately and even then only intermittently. As for his comment about slavery should be abolished if it wasn’t for the best for both Black and White. Well considering that he said repeatedly before the war, in public, that slavery was for the best for Black and White I doubt that this post war comment is entirely to be trusted. Also he became a wealthy slave owner which would certainly indicate that his doubts about the system were not very deep when combined with his public silence of the systems problems.

It is revealing that Stephens mentions that even the best institutions and communities have problems, rather indicating that slavery wasn’t so bad after all; it just needed to be twicked. This is made clear by Stephen’s assertion that “great improvements” were being made in the conditions of Blacks, that they were becoming comfortable and even getting “comforts” i.e., luxuries. This is self serving and not to be taken seriously. It is an established fact that the life expectancy of Black slaves was significantly worst than the White life expectancy in the south. The actual exact figure is unknown but it appears to have been as little as one half White life expectancy. In other words slavery produced conditions of life has bad as the worst city slum. I frankly doubt that conditions much improved between 1820-1860 for slaves.20

Then comes the required denunciation of the Abolitionists accusing them, by their “agitation” of retarding efforts to ameliorate the conditions of slaves. This is nonsense. Stephens is trying to excuse his own and other’s silence on the matter of slave conditions. The bottom line is that the improvement of slave conditions such as recognizing slave marriage, limiting the break up of families by sale, and allowing for slave education, would have limited the power of slave owners over their human chattels and so were opposed by the great majority of slave owners. After all the slave owner owned slaves for their own profit not to benefit their slaves and limits on the ownership of their slaves would potentially limit their profits. Certainly education had in the mind of most slave owners the potential of encouraging slaves to want to be free and questioning their subordination. Stephens should have read some Frederick Douglas.

Also it is quite clear that the movement to reform slavery in the south, manumission societies etc., had almost entirely died before the advent of Abolitionism simply because the institution had become very profitable and quite dynamic. There had emerged in the South a powerful constituency interested in perpetuating the institution and getting rid of by fair means or foul any effort to attack the system and this included efforts to reform it, which was seen, rightly in my opinion, as steps towards its eventual abolition.21

Abolitionism emerged as a response to the vitality and strength of the institution and the disappearance of efforts to reform it, along with the flat out disappointment of the founder’s hope that the institution would gradually wither away.22

As I said earlier Stephens was a moderate, even during the Succession winter of 1860-61 he suggested that Abraham Lincoln could be worked with, that his election was nothing to succeed over. He had strong Unionist beliefs and became a secessionist reluctantly. In fact he voted against succession at the Georgia Succession convention. Also he supported candidates like Stephen Douglas who were considered anathema in the South. And as indicated above he had doubts about slavery.23 So it is entirely illuminating to see that this moderate said emphatically that the main cause of all this turmoil was slavery and that the foundation of the new state was the enshrining of this “subordination”. Further he stated that the idea of basic human equality was wrong and that one of the principles of the new Confederate government was human inequality. Finally that He, Stephens, agreed with all the above. If this was the opinion of a moderate and a rather extreme moderate at that for the South at the time; it doesn’t take much to guess what the less moderate, let alone the extremists must have thought. It is ironic that after the war Stephens pictured the conflict as one of liberty against tyranny considering that what the new Confederate government wanted to make safe was the domestic tyranny / despotism of slavery and that is what ultimately Stephens when he threw his lot in with the Confederate government was fighting for and although he would candidly admit it before the war afterwards it became unmentionable and was denied.

In the end this counter revolution against the American Revolution failed but its poisonous fruit continue to mar politics right to the present day.

1. See Wikipedia, Alexander Stephens, Here

2. Cornerstone Speech from Teaching American History Here

3. IBID.

4. IBID.

5. IBID.

6. IBID.

7. IBID.

8. IBID.

9. IBID.

10. IBID.

11. Stampp, Kenneth M., The Irrepressible Conflict, The Imperiled Union, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1980, pp. 191-245. For a look at the causes of the Civil War that puts slavery front and cener see, Ransom, Roger L., Conflict and Compromise, Cambridge University Press, 1989.

12. Stephens, Alexander Hamilton, Recollections of Alexander H. Stephens, Sunny South Publishing Co., New York, 1910, pp. 172-175, the full work can be located at Internet Archive, Here, Just the actual apologia analyzed can be found at Adena Here.

13. Dew, Charles B., Apostles of Disunion, University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, 2001, pp. 15-16.

14. See Footnote 12.

15. For the position of free Blacks and the constitutional position of same see Fehrenbacher, Don E., The Dred Scott Case, Oxford University Press, New York, 1978, pp. 335-364. For the position of free Blacks in the South see Berlin, Ira, Slaves without Masters, The New Press, New York, 1974.

16. Quoted in Dew p. 16.

17. IBID. pp. 15-21, Stampp, pp. 191-245. For an account of the coming of the war that uses contemporary sources and emphasizes slavery see Klein, Maury, Days of Defiance, Vintage Books, New York, 1997.

18. Stephens, Alexander Hamilton, A Constitutional View of the Late War between the States, 2 volumes, National Publishing Company, Philadelphia PA, 1868-1870, pp. vol. I 9-12, vol. II 534-537.

19. See Footnote 12.

20. See David, Paul A. et al, Reckoning with Slavery, Oxford University Press, New York, 1976 for a collection of essays on the living / working conditions of slaves. See especially Sutch, Richard, The Care and Feeding of Slaves, pp. 231-301. See also Stampp, Kenneth M., The Peculiar Institution, Vintage Books, New York, 1956, pp. 237-278, Blassingame, John W., The Slave Community, Revised Edition, Oxford University Press, New York, 1979, pp. 249-283. For a look on how slaves were controlled that is clear eyed and shocking see Jones, Norrece T., Born a Child of Freedom Yet a Slave, Wesleyan University Press, London, 1990.

21, See Stampp, 1980, Dew, Oakes, James, The Ruling Race, Vintage Books, New York, 1982, and Slavery and Freedom, Vintage Books, New York, 1991, Channing Steven A., Crisis of Fear, W.W. Norton and Co., New York, 1974.

22. Stampp. 1980.

23. See Footnote 1.

Pierre Cloutier