Posted on 08/28/2019 7:21:47 PM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
In his 1861 "Cornerstone Speech", Vice President of the Confederacy Alexander H. Stephens said the following:
But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other — though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution — African slavery as it exists amongst us — the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition.
Now you know that if the VICE PRESIDENT of the Confederacy was saying this about the Founding Fathers rejection of slavery, he had plenty of agreement on it. In other more detailed(line by line) words, Abraham Lincoln agreed that the Founders rejected slavery. In his Peoria Speech, Lincoln said the following:
AT the framing and adoption of the constitution, they forbore to so much as mention the word "slave" or "slavery" in the whole instrument. In the provision for the recovery of fugitives, the slave is spoken of as a "PERSON HELD TO SERVICE OR LABOR." In that prohibiting the abolition of the African slave trade for twenty years, that trade is spoken of as "The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States NOW EXISTING, shall think proper to admit," &c. These are the only provisions alluding to slavery. Thus, the thing is hid away, in the constitution, just as an afflicted man hides away a wen or a cancer, which he dares not cut out at once, lest he bleed to death; with the promise, nevertheless, that the cutting may begin at the end of a given time. Less than this our fathers COULD not do; and NOW [MORE?] they WOULD not do. Necessity drove them so far, and farther, they would not go. But this is not all. The earliest Congress, under the constitution, took the same view of slavery. They hedged and hemmed it in to the narrowest limits of necessity.
In 1794, they prohibited an out-going slave-trade---that is, the taking of slaves FROM the United States to sell.
In 1798, they prohibited the bringing of slaves from Africa, INTO the Mississippi Territory---this territory then comprising what are now the States of Mississippi and Alabama. This was TEN YEARS before they had the authority to do the same thing as to the States existing at the adoption of the constitution.
In 1800 they prohibited AMERICAN CITIZENS from trading in slaves between foreign countries---as, for instance, from Africa to Brazil.
In 1803 they passed a law in aid of one or two State laws, in restraint of the internal slave trade.
In 1807, in apparent hot haste, they passed the law, nearly a year in advance to take effect the first day of 1808---the very first day the constitution would permit---prohibiting the African slave trade by heavy pecuniary and corporal penalties.
In 1820, finding these provisions ineffectual, they declared the trade piracy, and annexed to it, the extreme penalty of death. While all this was passing in the general government, five or six of the original slave States had adopted systems of gradual emancipation; and by which the institution was rapidly becoming extinct within these limits.
Thus we see, the plain unmistakable spirit of that age, towards slavery, was hostility to the PRINCIPLE, and toleration, ONLY BY NECESSITY.
Now isn't it interesting that the New York Times in its 1619 project disagrees with both the Confederates and Lincoln? What must it be like to have such a low quantity of shame?
This "Cornerstone Speech" does many things, but most importantly, it shows quite distinctly that there is a lineage break from the Constitution to the Confederacy. Not that the New York Times cares for facts, anyways. But I know that you do.
Bookmark.
I’m sorry. I couldn’t read past “agree on with”.
“AT the framing and adoption of the constitution, they forbore to so much as mention the word “slave” or “slavery” in the whole instrument. In the provision for the recovery of fugitives, the slave is spoken of as a “PERSON HELD TO SERVICE OR LABOR.” In that prohibiting the abolition of the African slave trade for twenty years, that trade is spoken of as “The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States NOW EXISTING, shall think proper to admit,” &c. These are the only provisions alluding to slavery.”
“Only provisions”?
Had Lincoln never read Article I of the U.S. Constitution?
*There were exceptions for some Parasish in Lousinana and for now W Virginia.
I’m southern and I have the family Bible from the 1823 where handwritten notes from then through the war stated distaste of slavery. For one, the slaves were cheap labor, taking jobs the poor southerners desired.
Bump
P4l
There are the occasional disagreements about whether slavery was the cause or was it purely economic.
My standard go to (I admit a futile attempt most times) is to ask if there would have been a Civil War if there had been no slavery from the beginning of America.
This will start an argument every time.
On another note, we are seeing the influx of a culture and religion that has engaged in slavery for more that a thousand years; even to this day in Africa. I shudder to think what will happen in the future if this ideology wins out here. We may yet see the results in Europe first.
Amen! Slavery was in contradiction to the principles of the Declaration of Independence and that was the subject of the Lincoln-Douglas debates.
Then how do you explain the Confederate Constitution?
This is very hard to read. Translation, anyone?
This is going to be fun to watch.
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.
Since you are posting this from your own blog, do you agree or disagree with this part of what you have cited?
Since the Cornerstone Speech shows the Confederacy unambiguously disagreed with the Framers of the Constitution over the issue of race, how does correctly citing the Founding Fathers in any way deny the Confederacy's support for slavery?
Is it or is it not a fact that the Cornerstone Speech was used by the Confederacy as a justification for secession and later, the Civil War, and by extension slavery?
Probably no Civil War had there been no slavery, but there’s always the possibility it might’ve arose over another issue, perhaps economics or other issues where there were vehement factional disagreements.
We’re bound to have another (long overdue) with respect to the forces of good vs. evil that are readily apparent today (with the substantial difference that it isn’t entirely geographically factional, but more urban vs. rural with the suburbs caught in the middle, some sadly trending towards urban depravity).
Ah yes here we trot out the tired old “Cornerstone” speech by the powerless Vice President of the Confederacy while completely ignoring the fact that the actual president of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis said the exact opposite of Stephens. Not only was there not a lineage break from the Constitution to the Confederacy, the truth is exactly the opposite. It was the Confederates who wanted to essentially preserve the balance between the states and the federal government the states delegated some of their sovereign powers to that the Founding Fathers had created. It was Lincoln and the Radical Republicans of the time who wanted to overthrow the balanced system the Founding Fathers created in favor of a much more centralized system of government that we have now....to our cost.
There was indeed hostility to slave trading at the outset though it must be noted that the slave trade and slavery though related are two different things. A 20 year sunset provision to allow the slave trade to continue was added to the constitution at the insistence of the numerous and powerful New England slave traders. Illicit slave trading was carried out by Northern slave traders right up until the mid 19th century. It was in fact one of the largest industries in the Northern states. An estimated two slave ships per month were being built and outfitted in NYC well into the 19th century.
The whole 1619 project of the Old Grey Lady is of course pure historical fallacy. Slavery existed before 1619 in what is now the United States. It was far from only Whites who participated in it and it is far from only Blacks who were enslaved. Slavery was the norm the world over at that time. Not unusual. Not unique to North America. The Norm. Everywhere. It was a simple fact of life, not the basis of everything in North America from that date on as the Racist New York Times would have it.
“while completely ignoring the fact that the actual president of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis said the exact opposite of Stephens”
What did Jefferson Davis have to say about it?
“An estimated two slave ships per month were being built and outfitted in NYC well into the 19th century”
Who estimated this?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.