# Why isn't the "Cornerstone Speech" used to shut down "The Civil War was about economics" apologists?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-cornerstone-speech-used-to-shut-down-the-civil-war-was-about-economics-apologists/724060
**Category:** In My Humble Opinion
**Created:** [July 2, 2015, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-cornerstone-speech-used-to-shut-down-the-civil-war-was-about-economics-apologists/724060 "2015-07-02T17:01:27Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)
#### Post date: [July 2, 2015, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-cornerstone-speech-used-to-shut-down-the-civil-war-was-about-economics-apologists/724060/1 "2015-07-02T17:01:27Z")
In arguing with “The Civil War was really about an economic power struggle” types I rarely see the “Cornerstone Speech” cited. I [had an FYI post on this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=463968) several years back. In these conversations citing the “Cornerstone Speech” would effectively be a slam dunk argument stopper on the silliness of this assertion.
Why is it still only rarely cited? It gets to the heart of the matter and lays it out in explicit terms. It’s a rhetorical nuke that’s minimally deployed.
> [@](#):
>
> Legacy[edit]
>
> Although Stephens’ address has been ignored by many late 20th and early 21st century scholars, Harry V. Jaffa discusses the speech at length in his book, A New Birth of Freedom. He concludes that “this remarkable address conveys, more than any other contemporary document, not only the soul of the Confederacy but also of that Jim Crow South that arose from the ashes of the Confederacy.”[4]
> [@](#):
>
> The ‘Cornerstone’[edit]
>
> Stephens’ speech declared that African slavery was the “immediate cause” of secession, and that the Confederate Constitution had put to rest the “agitating questions” as to the “proper status of the negro in our form of civilization”.
> The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among 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… 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 idea of a Government built upon it—when the “storm came and the wind blew, it fell.”
> Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone 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.
> . . . look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgement 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.
---
### Author:  [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)
#### Post date: [July 2, 2015, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-cornerstone-speech-used-to-shut-down-the-civil-war-was-about-economics-apologists/724060/2 "2015-07-02T17:34:05Z")
1. It’s been obscure up until now.
2. It can easily be dismissed by saying “That’s Stephens’s views, but he’s an outlier.”
The South Carolina statement of Secession is harder to dismiss. The expected it to be read by school children for generations. It’s too bad they weren’t right.
---
### Author:  [@DinoR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DinoR)
#### Post date: [July 2, 2015, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-cornerstone-speech-used-to-shut-down-the-civil-war-was-about-economics-apologists/724060/3 "2015-07-02T19:57:41Z")
It’s the first I recall having heard of that speech. That may be one reason it’s not used. Another is that the economic factors affecting how things played out are strongly correlated with slavery that was part of the economic system. That speech is probably weakest in dealing with the economic arguments as a root cause. The wealthy, politically active landowners, had a strong economic interest in the continuation of slavery to secure the system they had been successful in.
---
### Author:  [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)
#### Post date: [July 2, 2015, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-cornerstone-speech-used-to-shut-down-the-civil-war-was-about-economics-apologists/724060/4 "2015-07-02T21:18:12Z")
Interestingly I just found this which takes direct issue with my rationale for using the speech
> **[A Word or Two](https://www.etymonline.com/columns)**
>
> Etymology is the study of the origin of words and how the meaning of words has changed over the course of history.
> [@](#):
>
> It is a common assertion nowadays that the Confederacy had no purpose or justification but perpetuating racist slavery.
>
> That argument can be made intelligently, and has been made, but the lazy debater wants to treat it as a settled proposition above discussion. Any objection to it, or any suggestion of Southern legitimacy, is automatically dismissable because it amounts to a defense of the Confederacy, and even if someone who is not an outright racist or slavery-apologist would defend the Confederacy, the debater on the other side has the option to not be bothered with that distinction. Far easier to dismiss the opposition as crypto-racist.
>
> It’s the old fallacy of arguing in a circle. Yet people choose this tactic, perhaps in part because they find it frustratingly difficult to pin down American history or any part of it to such a simplistic idea as “it was all about slavery.”
>
> Naturally, some people do want to regard all this as settled before they plow into their opponents. The easy expedient is to go in search of one zinger of a quote that will seem to prove the case. In Internet debates, those willing to be convinced will look no further, and those who disagree will be required to build up the cathedral of context, a tedious process. By the time they finish, the audience will have wandered off with the zinger lodged in their heads.
>
> So they pick through the sources. Any quote will do, by anyone remotely prominent in the Confederacy, saying, more or less, “it was all about slavery.” Jeff. Davis’s inaugural speech? No, it makes nary a mention of slaves or slavery. Robert Toombs’ report to the Georgia legislature in 1860? No, that outlines how anti-slavery agitation in the North was exploited by political powers there to disguise economic motives.
>
> The “Cornerstone Speech” by Alexander Stephens is the usual bludgeon of choice. Stephens, a Georgian who had served in Congress, was the new vice president of the CSA in the spring of 1861, and in this speech he explained the new Confederate constitution and the prospects
---
### Author:  [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)
#### Post date: [July 2, 2015, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-cornerstone-speech-used-to-shut-down-the-civil-war-was-about-economics-apologists/724060/5 "2015-07-02T21:31:56Z")
Then again, you’ll search in vain for any leading Confederate voices who publicly objected to the Cornerstone Speech.
Jefferson Davis doesn’t seem to have told Stephens, “I’m afraid you’re wrong- our nation is built on states’ rights, not slavery,” nor did Robert E. Lee’s correspondence say “That idiot Stephens totally misrepresented what we’re fighting for.”
---
### Author:  [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)
#### Post date: [July 2, 2015, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-cornerstone-speech-used-to-shut-down-the-civil-war-was-about-economics-apologists/724060/6 "2015-07-02T21:40:32Z")
> [@astro](#):
>
> Why is it still only rarely cited?
People have been [citing it for years](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=145132&highlight=cornerstone), you just haven’t been paying attention.
> [@astro](#):
>
> Interestingly I just found this which takes direct issue with my rationale for using the speech
That argument might hold some water if the Cornerstone Speech was the _only_ prominent Southern source to say “It’s slavery! It’s slavery!” Southern apologists might say, “Oh well, that’s just Alexander Stephens–he was real eccentric.” (And after all, Stephens was _Vice_ President of the C.S.A., and Americans North and South have been making jokes about the _vice_ presidency for a long, long time.)
But of course that one speech is far from the only piece of evidence. There are the “declarations of independence” published by several of the states: The [_Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union_](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp); and [_A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union_](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp) (“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery…”); and [_A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union_](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_texsec.asp).
[People have been pointing out all of these documents and many more for years.](http://www.mebuckner.com/civwarquiz.htm) Ta-Nehisi Coates just had [an article on this in _The Atlantic_](http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/what-this-cruel-war-was-over/396482/) last month, in which he takes it beyond the days of the Civil War itself and links Confederate apologism during Reconstruction and Jim Crow and the Civil Rights era to–surprise, surprise!–support of white supremacy.
---
### Author:  [@Grotonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grotonian)
#### Post date: [July 2, 2015, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-cornerstone-speech-used-to-shut-down-the-civil-war-was-about-economics-apologists/724060/7 "2015-07-02T21:53:20Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#):
>
> People have been [citing it for years](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=145132&highlight=cornerstone), you just haven’t been paying attention.
>
> That argument might hold some water if the Cornerstone Speech was the _only_ prominent Southern source to say “It’s slavery! It’s slavery!” Southern apologists might say, “Oh well, that’s just Alexander Stephens–he was real eccentric.” (And after all, Stephens was _Vice_ President of the C.S.A., and Americans North and South have been making jokes about the _vice_ presidency for a long, long time.)
>
> But of course that one speech is far from the only piece of evidence. There are the “declarations of independence” published by several of the states: The [_Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union_](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp); and [_A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union_](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp) (“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery…”); and [_A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union_](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_texsec.asp).
>
> [People have been pointing out all of these documents and many more for years.](http://www.mebuckner.com/civwarquiz.htm) Ta-Nehisi Coates just had [an article on this in _The Atlantic_](http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/what-this-cruel-war-was-over/396482/) last month, in which he takes it beyond the days of the Civil War itself and links Confederate apologism during Reconstruction and Jim Crow and the Civil Rights era to–surprise, surprise!–support of white supremacy.
These sources all cite slavery, among other things, which we all already knew. Show me the other sources, like Stephens, who say it’s ONLY slavery (or white supremacy.)
---
### Author:  [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)
#### Post date: [July 2, 2015, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-cornerstone-speech-used-to-shut-down-the-civil-war-was-about-economics-apologists/724060/8 "2015-07-02T22:09:49Z")
> [@Grotonian](#):
>
> These sources all cite slavery, among other things, which we all already knew. Show me the other sources, like Stephens, who say it’s ONLY slavery (or white supremacy.)
Did you read them? The SC pretty much only has variations of the one reason, slavery: the failure of the “non-slave holding states” to return fugitive slaves, their encouraging abolition societies, electing a President who is “hostile to slavery” and making free blacks into citizens.
And if that was too subtle, it frames the whole argument as between the “slave holding states” and “non-slave holding states”.
There are no other reasons given that don’t have to do with slavery.
One can argue about why exactly the North went to war, but I don’t think there’s really and way to argue the other side. The evidence is overwhelming that the Southern legislatures Succeeded to preserve slavery.
ETA: The MIssissippi one is even more blatent. The give a list of reasons, but the list is explicitly presented as different ways the North has attacked the institution of slavery. No reasons for Succession is given outside that list.
---
### Author:  [@Grotonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grotonian)
#### Post date: [July 2, 2015, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-cornerstone-speech-used-to-shut-down-the-civil-war-was-about-economics-apologists/724060/9 "2015-07-02T22:12:28Z")
I don’t even know why people obsess over the Confederacy. Was it full of racist, white supremacists? Of course it was; it was just like the North.
[http://slavenorth.com/exclusion.htm](http://slavenorth.com/exclusion.htm)
---
### Author:  [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)
#### Post date: [July 2, 2015, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-cornerstone-speech-used-to-shut-down-the-civil-war-was-about-economics-apologists/724060/10 "2015-07-02T22:12:49Z")
> [@Grotonian](#):
>
> These sources all cite slavery, among other things, which we all already knew. Show me the other sources, like Stephens, who say it’s ONLY slavery (or white supremacy.)
It was the overwhelmingly important cause. If someone calls something the “cornerstone” of an institution, then, yes, there may be pediments and gables and gargoyles, but the cornerstone–slavery–underpins and supports everything else.
Yes, sometimes the secessionists would throw in other reasons–for example, [my own state](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_geosec.asp) accused the Republican Party of being the party of “exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government”, but they went on to say that it was “anti-slavery” that was the Republican Party’s “mission and its purpose” and that “\*\*y anti-slavery it is made a power in the state”.
And if you actually read it through carefully, you’ll see that the _Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union_ talks solely about slavery.
---
### Author:  [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)
#### Post date: [July 2, 2015, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-cornerstone-speech-used-to-shut-down-the-civil-war-was-about-economics-apologists/724060/11 "2015-07-02T22:14:15Z")
> [@Grotonian](#):
>
> I don’t even know why people obsess over the Confederacy.
Yeah, me neither. I really wish my fellow Southerners would quit glorifying the damned Confederacy and dragging out its symbols as _the_ symbols of the entire South, from Jamestown to the present day.
---
### Author:  [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)
#### Post date: [July 2, 2015, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-cornerstone-speech-used-to-shut-down-the-civil-war-was-about-economics-apologists/724060/12 "2015-07-02T22:33:15Z")
How is slavery not about economics, though? If you say “The south seceded over slavery”, you’re saying “the south seceded for economic reasons.”
---
### Author:  [@Grotonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grotonian)
#### Post date: [July 2, 2015, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-cornerstone-speech-used-to-shut-down-the-civil-war-was-about-economics-apologists/724060/13 "2015-07-02T22:36:05Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#):
>
> How is slavery not about economics, though? If you say “The south seceded over slavery”, you’re saying “the south seceded for economic reasons.”
Because the reason to own a slave is white supremacy, not agricultural labor.
---
### Author:  [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)
#### Post date: [July 2, 2015, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-cornerstone-speech-used-to-shut-down-the-civil-war-was-about-economics-apologists/724060/14 "2015-07-02T22:40:51Z")
> [@Grotonian](#):
>
> I don’t even know why people obsess over the Confederacy. Was it full of racist, white supremacists? Of course it was; it was just like the North.
> [Northern Exclusion of Blacks](http://slavenorth.com/exclusion.htm)
You left out _treasonous_. “_Treasonous_ racist white supremacists, just like the North.”
Except for the Northern racist white supremacists weren’t treasonous.
---
### Author:  [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)
#### Post date: [July 2, 2015, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-cornerstone-speech-used-to-shut-down-the-civil-war-was-about-economics-apologists/724060/15 "2015-07-02T22:44:48Z")
Because from the failure of Reconstruction (the real end of the war) until at least the 1920s, the South and its apologists got to write the story. And they did - in movies, monuments, books, klans, and more. There was no organized “Northerners” or truthers to oppose them, and by the time they were done, an entire generation of genuine sons of CW veterans had been sold a fantasy version of the war and its causes.
It’s taken us close to 100 years to undo that Soviet-grade disinformation campaign.
---
### Author:  [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)
#### Post date: [July 2, 2015, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-cornerstone-speech-used-to-shut-down-the-civil-war-was-about-economics-apologists/724060/16 "2015-07-02T22:46:53Z")
Because people who want to believe it was about state’s rights are going to believe it was about state’s rights no matter what you show them. You could raise Robert E. Lee from the dead, reanimate him, and have him dance a samba while singing “The Confederacy existed to keep slavery legal/or else I’m a little spayed stray dachshund-beagle” and they would say “that’s one man’s opinions”. Show them the Mississippi Declaration of Secession which was just as blunt, that was just the opinion of whoever wrote that.
Trust me, I’ve been through this many many times, they will not listen and have no problem keeping their views in face of evidence. Many of these are the children and grandchildren of people who laughed and screamed racial slurs when the water hoses were turned on black marchers and then went to church. No region holds the patent on doublespeak, but I daresay we do it exceptionally well down heah.
---
### Author:  [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)
#### Post date: [July 2, 2015, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-cornerstone-speech-used-to-shut-down-the-civil-war-was-about-economics-apologists/724060/17 "2015-07-02T22:46:58Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#):
>
> How is slavery not about economics, though? If you say “The south seceded over slavery”, you’re saying “the south seceded for economic reasons.”
That the south’s economy was almost 100% slave-based is both true, and zero justification for allowing the institution to continue. They had the same 100 years to phase it out that the other states did.
---
### Author:  [@Grotonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grotonian)
#### Post date: [July 2, 2015, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-cornerstone-speech-used-to-shut-down-the-civil-war-was-about-economics-apologists/724060/18 "2015-07-02T23:11:06Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#):
>
> You left out _treasonous_. “_Treasonous_ racist white supremacists, just like the North.”
>
> Except for the Northern racist white supremacists weren’t treasonous.
I think this is where it shows what a bad American I am–I don’t care about secession. They tried it; we put a boot up their asses; problem solved. They’ve hardly given us any trouble since, like Germany after 1918.
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [July 2, 2015, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-cornerstone-speech-used-to-shut-down-the-civil-war-was-about-economics-apologists/724060/19 "2015-07-02T23:13:20Z")
> [@Grotonian](#):
>
> I think this is where it shows what a bad American I am–I don’t care about secession. They tried it; we put a boot up their asses; problem solved. They’ve hardly given us any trouble since, like Germany after 1918.
If “us” includes black people, they’ve given us tons and tons of trouble up to (and probably beyond) the mid-20th century (along with other states to a significantly lesser degree).
---
### Author:  [@Grotonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grotonian)
#### Post date: [July 2, 2015, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-cornerstone-speech-used-to-shut-down-the-civil-war-was-about-economics-apologists/724060/20 "2015-07-02T23:19:36Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#):
>
> If “us” includes black people, they’ve given us tons and tons of trouble up to (and probably beyond) the mid-20th century (along with other states to a significantly lesser degree).
Please tell me you got the joke (1918 = World War I) and you’re just pretending to have been whooshed.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-the-cornerstone-speech-used-to-shut-down-the-civil-war-was-about-economics-apologists/724060.md?page=2)