"As for my Savannah speech, about which so much has been said and in

regard to which I am represented as setting forth "slavery" as the

"cornerstone" 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

futher 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 North and South, who framed the old

Constitution, while recognizing exsisting 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 among 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; philsophy 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 affrim

nothing else in this Savannah speech."

— Recollections of Alexander H. Stephens: His Diary kept when a

prisoner at Fort Warren, New York: Doubleday, Page & Co., 1910., pp

172-174. Entry for 5 June 1866