Here follows a paragraph-by-paragraph examination of the Cornerstone Speech, one of the most famous speeches of the American Civil War. Delivered by Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens, it served the purpose of articulating the differences in government and ideology between the infant CSA and the USA, delivered in the attempt to convince others of the CSA’s cause.

Background: The speech was delivered March 21, 1861, nearly a full month before the firing on Fort Sumter signaled a massed commencement of hostilities. The hope of peaceful resolution was heavily trumpeted by both sides at this time, to naturally opposing ends. The Lincoln administration unrealistically hoped a pro-Union majority would assert itself in the South, while the Confederate government (with a similar lack of realism) anticipated the Federals would passively accept secession. None were perhaps more hopeful of the latter than Alexander Stephens – a Georgia congressman who counted Lincoln and Stephen Douglas as friends, and who argued with equal fervor for the expansion of slavery and preservation of the Union. He voted against disunion in the Georgia Secession Convention, but maintained loyalty to the state and became vice president of the Confederacy on February 11, 1861. His wartime role would become characterized by frequent clashes with CSA President Davis, as well as a number of futile schemes to broker a negotiated peace.

My background: I have studied American history across several university classes that are largely lost to memory. I have read in total roughly 25 nonfiction books concerning varied aspects of the war, and have toured three Civil War battlefields in my adult life. The review of each paragraph reflects my opinions based on the facts as I understand them, and a keen effort will be made to remind myself that it is easy to be a genius in hindsight.

The first paragraph is skipped, as it is only introduction. The source is here: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/cornerstone-speech/

The Cornerstone Speech

Delivered March 21, 1861

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.

At the time, the secession had been almost entirely bloodless, and most were of the opinion it would remain so. The moderate, reluctant Alexander Stephens was doubtless quite pleased of this fact.

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. 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.

It is worth noting that few state governments actually polled their own peoples’ opinion on secession. Georgia (and all the Southern states) had a number of pro-Union or pro-compromise citizens and statesmen who were understandably worried at the direction their new nation would go. This paragraph seems aimed at assuring them they had not been volunteered to join a nation of anarchy or despotism.

Also noteworthy seems the distinct moderate tone struck by the author. In openly acknowledging he does not view the result as perfect, Stephens strikes a chord in the fellow moderates he is speaking to pacify.

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 old thorn of the tariff, which was the cause of so much irritation in the old body politic, is removed forever from the new.

Economic protectionism against cheaper, European-manufactured goods was a decades-long source of contention for the South. While ire over it had largely cooled by 1861, again, we must remember our speaker and audience. Stephens had to sell the Confederacy to an uncertain populace, and having the new government settle an old perceived injustice would be a fine place to start.

The Confederate Constitution (HERE, with a side-by-side comparison of the USA constitution) would back his words, expressly prohibiting tariffs on foreign imports. Interestingly, it also expressly permits tariffs on trade between states (prohibited by the USA constitution), a thing Stephens declined to mention.

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 to 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 $25,000,000. 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 the equipment of our roads was borne by those who had entered into 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 benefited 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, and it is especially set forth and established in our new constitution.

Tl;dr version: States should spend their own money, for their own improvements.

I don’t know what expenditures Stephens is speaking of, or if his appraisal of the costs is accurate. The basics, however, are familiar to the modern era: the Federal government taxes its citizens, amasses a fund allegedly for the common wealth, and does not distribute said wealth proportionally to the benefit of all who were taxed. Sometimes because there is a greater need elsewhere, often because corruption and mismanagement creates waste and embezzlement.

Essentially, it is an appeal to sectionalism. “It’s our money, we should spend it on ourselves.” The opinion does not stand up to a modern perspective – few would argue the massive federal aid Louisiana received following Hurricane Katrina was unjust. The speech also ignores the need to support poorer territories (say, Nevada at the time could hardly foot the bill for railroads crucial for its development), as well as the broad benefits received by national spending on infrastructure.

But such is hindsight. And the speech was addressed to Georgians, not Nevadans.

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. 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, enforcing, 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.

Tl;dr version: Confederate cabinet members could participate directly in congressional proceedings.

The change allowed greater accountability and visibility for cabinet members, which I cannot help but view as a double-edged sword. While American cabinet members are in some need of greater accountability, to mire them in the modern congress seems to ensure yet another section of government be rendered hostage to base partisanship.

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.

A one, six-year term versus multiple four-year terms. Definitely worth considering – I do appreciate the idea of the American president not spending their first four years running for reelection. Thus said, the current law effectively gives us an eight-year term with a halftime chance for a change of heart. The Confederate system would liberate the president to act more freely against the will of the people (and the mob), with all the good and bad that entails.

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.”

It is the preferred tactic of modern-day Confederate patriots to minimize the emphasis of slavery on the CSA’s motivations, and/or to claim “they would have ended slavery soon anyway.” If inclined to form a lazy rebuttal, their detractors might post the above paragraph, highlight the word “forever” and drop the metaphorical mic. Here, the CSA vice president announces in no uncertain terms it was the cause of the “present revolution,” the founding fathers were wrong to view it as evil, and they were also wrong in assuming an equality among races.

It gets better.

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.

The aforementioned lazy antagonist might cite this second paragraph as well with little added effort. Stephens digs his posterity’s grave further in laying white supremacy and slavery as the “corner-stone” of the CSA. He declares it a product of moral and scientific truth, and labels abolitionists as reality-denying fanatics.

It is curious that such talk is couched in terms of progress vs. regression, but only in hindsight. Wars and revolutions are invariably marked by propaganda, always oddly similar in nature. “God, science, and progress are on our side, and our enemies are mindless barbarians.”

Little comment or rebuttal is needed for the bulk of the paragraph. The equality of races and evils of slavery are both now considered self-evident truths, beyond reasonable debate.

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.

“Not only do we believe in slavery, but the rest of the world will see it our way eventually.”

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. 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.

“Slavery is awesome. God wills it. Some people don’t like it, but that’s because they hate science.”

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,” and teaching them to work, and feed, and clothe themselves.

“Africans can’t even be properly Christianized without slavery...”

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.

As noted at the beginning, seven states had joined the CSA at the start of the speech. The “border states” referred to in the speech included the obvious Kentucky and Missouri, but also Virginia and Tennessee, who would secede in the following months. Those two possessed industrial and economic strength the other seceding states lacked, and until they did, it was not an unreasonable fear that the agrarian, infrastructure-poor South could cut it as a nation.

After waxing poetic on the divine order of the universe for five paragraphs, Stephens veers sharply back to reality with another appeal to nervous moderates: “Don’t worry, we can totally make this CSA thing work.”

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?

Mr. Stephens cites population and territory as examples that the CSA can remain solvent. He needn’t have bothered. Nations with far smaller size, population, and resources have endured on all ends of the globe, often in defiance of larger neighbors.

He does note to potential for a “high national career,” though, indicating ambitions to be a power on-par with the abandoned USA. This is another part of the CSA sales-pitch, as few would follow the promise of a puny rump of a nation.

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?

Marrying the solvency argument to his earlier grief on federal spending, Stephens compares the CSA’s economy favorably against the USA, citing the latter’s substantial debt. It is perhaps noteworthy that he declines to mention the USA’s debt in relation to its overall economic strength, as he does with the CSA’s. It is also noteworthy that only Georgia’s taxable property was cited, it being (at the time) easily the most powerful of the seceding states.

He was a politician making a speech: only convenient facts were cited. I was unable to easily find the USA’s “taxable property” in 1861 for comparison, and have no way of verifying what Stephens included. Suffice to say, his ultimate point – that the CSA could endure financially – is not incorrect in the short term. Whether it could fulfill the ambition for a “high national career” is more disputable. With so much of the South’s wealth in cash crops and, um, slaves (estimated to total $4 billion here: https://eh.net/encyclopedia/slavery-in-the-united-states/ ), changes in markets and social views would put such aspirations in tremendous long-term doubt.

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.

The more states joined, the stronger the CSA would be – particularly in the case of industrially-powerful Virginia and Tennessee. Stephens wants them on his side and is aiming the speech to them as well as Georgians.

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, that 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-operationists, we are now all for independence, whether they come or not.

“Please, please, please come. Without Tennessee and Virginia we’ll get absolutely crushed if there’s a war.”

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. 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.

This essentially rehashes earlier points. Stephens plays his moderate card, trumpets the statesmanship of the seceding politicians, and again emphasizes the bloodlessness of the struggle thus far.

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 dissentions 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.

Stephens appeals to patriotism, traditional virtues, and unity (of the South). One wonders if he returned to the speech after the war and considered his own words: “If unwise counsels prevail, if we become divided… I have no good to prophesy for you.”

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.

Grandstanding, and more wishlisting of border states. The meat of the speech is over.

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. Such are some of the glimpses of the future as I catch them.

Here he dreams the Union will continue to break up to the point of total dissolution, and the CSA will become the preeminent power on the continent. Hindsight be damned, I want what he’s smoking.

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.

Political insurance by couching expectations, and a practical statesman’s eye for trouble. Behind the jingoism, Stephens is acutely aware it’s not all going to be blackjack, hookers, and state rights.

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 feign 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.

As stated in the provided background, peaceful separation/reunion were dreams widely bought into by both sides. Like Lincoln on the other side, Stephen’s optimism was guarded: “hope for peace, prepare for war.”

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.

After a dozen paragraphs, Stephens finally takes political aim at the Republican party: “If you’re so against slavery, why would you fight to keep it in?” He continues to identify the Confederacy with slavery, and accuses the Lincoln administration of formulating reconquest for the goal of collecting taxes from slave labor. That Northern greed had trumped abolitionist morals.

(It is an amusing display of the horseshoe effect that such sentiments held much in common with those of radical abolitionists such as William Garrison, who at times demanded Northern disunion from the ‘slaveholders.’)

Had a representative of Lincoln been allowed to form a rebuttal to Stephens’ words, it would have been simple and obvious. Lincoln was not the president of the abolitionists, or of the Republicans. He was president of the Union, and interpreted his oaths and laws as binding him to its preservation.

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?

The last paragraph. Bit odd to end the speech with a question, but such is a good trick to keep people talking about your words after you’re done saying them.

Another good trick when war looms is to couch yourselves as the defender, and this Stephens does. “We want peace, if Lincoln wants peace he’ll let us go.” The Lincoln administration, naturally, cast a different spin: “We literally took oaths to preserve the Union, and are bound by them to do so.”

Stephens’ choice to compare the union to a civil contract is an opportunistic one. His question as to why they could not be rescinded by “mutual agreement” dismisses the fact secession had already occurred in Georgia, emphatically without the federal government’s consent. The time for secession by “mutual agreement” had passed. It’s a ploy to use words to evoke sympathy in spite of facts – such is not to the man’s discredit, as all politicians do the same.

In Review:

Many ideological stump speeches blotted the Civil War era – The Cornerstone Speech is not just one more. It is not a fist-shaking condemnation against perceived injustices made to other fist-shakers, but a considered and careful effort to sell the CSA to those they urgently needed to buy: the border states (to bring in much-needed industry and population) and the Southern moderates (who could and did launch Unionist counter-revolutions). As such, it provides views on a mix of topics one cannot usually get in one place: He effectively gives a “beginners course” highlighting the CSA’s infant constitution, talks of its viability as a nation, and provides rationale for the secession in an intelligent, unemotional manner. It provides an excellent view of the early CSA as viewed by its second highest officer, without the usual fire-breathing of the day. There is no talk of Lincoln’s alleged tyranny, nor of the need to protect wives and daughters from Negro rapists. Southern Honor doesn’t even get a mention. State rights are only alluded to. Stephens never caught “Secession Fever,” and he didn’t feel the need to be a vector. He was a veteran statesman, and bent the full weight of that experience in providing a clear and rational case for faith in the CSA with facts and propaganda.

Only in two cases do the facts and propaganda break down into seemingly irrational preaching more stereotypical of secessionist fire-breathers. The notion the Confederacy would herald the ongoing breakup of the Union, to the point where the Confederacy would become the premier power of the continent, is ridiculous in hindsight but bears similarity to lingo in other revolutions. Lenin made no secret of his desire for Soviet Communism to sweep the world. American revolutionaries noted the hope their nation would be a beacon of progress for the oppressed of Europe, and the French vainly attempted to export Republicanism to these lands. Ideological revolutions often see themselves as the bringer of some new truth to the globe, and dream accordingly.

Stephens was clear on what “new truth” the Confederacy would bring. Five paragraphs of the speech wax poetic of the rightness and glory of slavery, phrasing it as a subject of unassailable moral rightness, social progression, scientific truth, and inevitable global acceptance. No other subject sees this depth of discussion and revolutionary devotion in the speech. Southern moderates such as Stevens had lingering sympathies to the Union, but no such affection was shown for abolitionism.

His discussion of legal reforms is duller to read, but interesting in the context of a man essentially trying to sell a more perfect union. Cabinet responsibility to congress and six-year presidential terms are notions worth debating, without a clear right or wrong answer.

The era was filled with grandiose speeches, but several unique features of the Cornerstone Speech render it worthy of study. It was the first true voice given to the Confederate States, allowing a picture of its ideals before war and governance forced practicality to the fore. And this first voice gave clarification to its intents and ideals, allowing perhaps the most honest and untainted view of how the Confederate government saw itself: an improved democracy without the corruption and mismanagement of the old, with racial inequality as its central, focused ideal.

(As with any historical commentary, no single source should formulate the entirety of one’s opinion. Like many men of the era, Alexander Stephens had a colorful wartime career which is definitely worth additional reading to the interested.)