Should have posted this link yesterday, it is what this thread refers to ---http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2011/nov/27/dw_pro_con_112811_con_159719/#c168700
Williams you claim to have a higher education that the rest of us in fact you are so proud of your station in life you openly post it. Me, well let’s just say I am not as educated as you, and perhaps my station in life is a bit below yours. Now with that being said let’s look at a fact you may not know.
You promote Stephen's speech as proof positive that the "war" was fought over slavery and slavery was the cornerstone of the Confederacy. That is your argument. It is an argument very few people use because of the doubtful accuracy of the speech.
The fact is no original copy of Stephen's exists today.* What we have is a reporter’s transcription of Stephen's speech taken during the speech taken amid all of the cheering and whistling that would accompany a speech. How accurate it is, we will never know.
*(http://www.academicamerican.com/expansioncw/docs/StephensCornerstoneExcerpt.htm The following speech helps define what secession and Civil War were all about. It was delivered by Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens in Savannah, Georgia, on March 21, 1861. Although Stephens did not provide a written version, this version was published in a newspaper at the time. The origin of this version (full) is the Encyclopedia of the Confederacy.)
Later in life when asked about the speech Stephens said this --
What I Really Said in the Cornerstone Speech Alexander Hamilton Stephens
As for my Savanna speech, about which so much has been said and in regrd 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 guarnateeing 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 noraml 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 Louisana State University Press, Baton Rouge, 1998, pages 173-175.
So now we have a bit more of the story. Was Stephen's lying, who knows? At any rate you now have a bit more of the whole story.
I checked this document twice. I never found the word "war" mentioned. If you would be so kind as to point it out to me I would appreciate it. The speech was about SECESSION. If the reporters transcription of this Cornerstone Speech is absolute accurate word for word, so what? Slavery was legal at the time of the speech. Big deal he was a man of the times. Convince me that there was no racism in the North.
Williams and Vet43 refer to the Cornerstone as being racist. Vet43 also like to refer to the KKK use of the CBF as more proof positive of racism. He also like to share his experience of drinking out of a Black Only water fountain in the 1960s just to prove the Civil war is over. When you figure that out let me know!! Anyway just to show Vet43 Lincoln didn't care about Blacks I am posting this Lincoln quote.
I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man.
Lincoln in his speech to Charleston, Illinois, 1858
Regarding the statement the war was fought to end/preserve slavery. let's look at a few examples why that is not true.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. A. Lincoln
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Resolved by the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States, That the present deplorable civil war has been forced upon the country by the disunionists of the Southern States now in revolt against the constitutional Government and in arms around the capital; that in this national emergency Congress, banishing all feelings of mere passion or resentment, will recollect only its duty to the whole country; that this war is not waged upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease.
FROM James D. Richardson; A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol. 6 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1907), p. 430.
Well neither Williams nor Vert43 want to come here and engage in a serious factual debate. They have quit responding to me on the other message boards also. I have invited more people but because they lack the knowledge they will not show up.
'tis a shame with so many people out there ignorant of true historical fact.
