Reasons for Revolution: The Cornerstone Speech

As compelling as Alexander Stephen's speech is to read, I find that the draw is not from the inspiration of Confederate ideas, but in the insanity in which he truly believes what he speaks is the ultimate truth. In all sense of the word, Stephen's is a fanatic for his cause. In his Cornerstone Speech, he does not believe himself as such and states:

"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...."

To him, he is not the fanatic. Instead, those in the North who strongly believe the opposite of him are the fanatics and guilty of insanity.

While reading Stephen's speech, he places emphasis on the idea that what he speaks is the ultimate truth as ordained by God himself. He believes that God intentionally made things unequal unlike those in the North who claim equality for all races. "They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal." He utilizes this as a main premise for his argument for the majority of the state. To a reader now, who has never truly known or experienced the effects slavery has upon a society, it is difficult to connect with Stephen's speech and his ideas. To say that for a 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." is illogical in consideration of the society that has since developed. 

It is curious, however, the way in which Stephen's comes upon this conclusion. It is almost as if he comes upon it through philosophical reasoning because he states (about the Union), "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." In the beginning of his speech, it can be inferred that he has considered each portion of the Union's argument and then, as the speech progress, through his own philosophical reasoning has rebutted every bit of it. 

I came to the previous conclusion based upon his breakdown of the main points that the Confederate Constitution includes which he claims the Constitution of the United States does not include. Something interesting I found within that section is what he says about the Secretary of the Treasury position. Stephen's states, "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...." I am unsure if this is still the case, but it is something to consider. Stephen's mentions that all members of the cabinets should be included as Senators and House Representatives so that they have the means to create their own policies for consideration rather than searching for a Congressman to represent them. 

As insane as his speech was for me to read since it goes against my morals, I found every once and a while he said something intelligent that really makes you stop and think and consider what he has said such as I have mentioned above. It would be interesting to investigate further into that matter (which I intend to do so) and discover what exactly the Cabinet members must do in order to get policies they develop go through Congress to be passed.

Confederate States of America. Cornerstone Speech. Alexander H. Stephens. Savannah, Georgia, March 21, 1861. From Civil War Trust, 2013. Civilwar.org http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/alexander-h-cornerstone.html