As for my Savanna 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. The substance of what I said on slavery was, that on the points under the old Constitution out of which so much discussion, agitation, and strife between the States had arisen, no future contention could arise, as these had been put to rest by clear language. I did not say, nor do I think the reporter represented me as saying, that there was the slightest change in the new Constitution from the old regarding the status of the African race amongst us. (Slavery was without doubt the occasion of secession; out of it rose the breach of compact, for instance, on the part of several Northern States in refusing to comply with Constitutional obligations as to rendition of fugitives from service, a course betraying total disregard for all constitutional barriers and guarantees.)
I admitted that the fathers, both of the North and the South, who framed the old Constitution, while recognizing existing slavery and guaranteeing its continuance under the Constitution so long as the States should severally see fit to tolerate it in their respective limits, were perhaps all opposed to the principle. Jefferson, Madison, Washington, all looked for its early extinction throughout the United States. But on the subject of slavery - so called - (which was with us, or should be, nothing but the proper subordination of the inferior African race to the superior white) great and radical changes had taken place in the realm of thought; many eminent latter-day statesmen, philosophers, and philanthropists held different views from the fathers.
The patriotism of the fathers was not questioned, nor their ability and wisdom, but it devolved on the public men and statesmen of each generation to grapple with and solve the problems of their own times.
The relation of the black to the white race, or the proper status of the coloured population amongst us, was a question now of vastly more importance than when the old Constitution was formed. 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.
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.
"Recollections of Alexander H. Stephens", edited by Myrta Lockett Avary.
Originally published by Sunny South Publishing Company and Doubleday, Page &
Company, 1910
Reprinted by Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, 1998. pages 173-175.
.........................................................
As far as
"corner-stone" goes, it's amazing that they ignore Associate Justice of
the Supreme Court Henry Baldwin's remarks in one of his cases --
Judge Baldwin has used stronger language. In Johnson vs.
Tompkins, 1 Bald., 597, he says: "Slavery is the corner-stone of the
Constitution; the foundations of the government are laid and rest on the right
of property in slaves, and the whole structure must fall by disturbing the
corner-stone."
I think it is time those that drag Stephens's "corner-stone" remarks out, that
it applies to the good ol' US also.
Again: "The clause manifestly contemplates the existence of a positive unqualified right on the part of the owner of the slave, which no State law or regulation can in any way regulate, control, qualify, or restrain."
The opinion of the other learned judges was not less emphatic as to the importance to this provision and the unquestionable right of the South under it. Judge Baldwin, in charging the jury, said:*[The case of Johnson vs. Tompkins and others] "If there are any rights of property which can be enforced, if one citizen have any rights of property which are inviolable under the protection of the supreme law of the State, and the Union, they are those which have been set at nought by some of these defendants. As the owner of property, which he had a perfect right to possess, protect, and take away--as a citizen of a sister State, entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of any other States--Mr. Johnson stands before you on ground which cannot be taken from under him--it is the same ground on which the Government itself is based. If the defendants can be justified, we have no longer law or government." Again, after referring more particularly to the provision for delivering up fugitive slaves, he said: "Thus you see, that the foundations of the Government are laid, and rest on the right of property in slaves. The whole structure must fall by disturbing the corner-stone."
I don't think it was actually a case
before the Supreme Court, but rather Baldwin serving as federal district
judge of Pennsylvania. At the time, all Supreme Court justices presided over
high courts of appointed districts ,
1833 Johnson v. Tompkins, 13 F.Cas. 840, Baldw. 571, No. 7416 (C.C.E.D.Pa.,1833)(
On questions of slavery or freedom, the same rules of evidence prevail as in
other cases concerning the right of property. A citizen of another state,
whose slave absconds from him into Pennsylvania, may pursue and take him
without warrant, using as much force as is necessary to carry him back to his
residence. And such proceeding is no offense against the laws of the state of
Pennsylvania. If such opposition is made, or such order attempted to be
executed, the master may use force in repelling it, and the officer who gives
such order, and all concerned in its execution, are trespassers. No person has
a right to oppose the master in reclaiming his slave, or to demand proof of
his property. This right of the master to reclaim his fugitive slave results
from his ownership, and right to the custody and service of his slave by the
common law and by the laws of the state; and the constitution of the United
States does not confer but secures this right.)
http://academic.udayton.edu/Race/03justice/aalaws01.htm