Objects for Comparison – Part 1

Doing some reading.

Came across the “Corner Stone” Speech given by Alexander H. Stephens in Savannah, Georgia on March 21, 1961.  Alexander Stephens was the vice president of the Confederacy throughout the Civil War.  In this speech, he lays out a number of differences between the “new constitution” of the Confederacy and the old constitution of the Union.  These differences were improvements, “great improvements” in fact.

Working through the speech, Stephens finally cuts to the chase and puts the question of African slavery to rest once and for all.

And this is where things start to get nuts. Unless you are Richard Spencer. Or David Bannon. Or, I’d venture, Jeff Sessions.

The old constitution, in Stephens’ opinion, was composed by the “leading statesmen” of the time who saw slavery as a “violation of the laws of nature.” Jefferson, he states, I’m assuming Thomas, predicted that slavery would be the “rock upon which the old Union would split,” and in this, Stevens admits, Thomas Jefferson was right.  BUT, the reason Jefferson got it right was wrong, fundamentally so. It was wrong because it rested upon the assumption of “equality of the races.”


The new government, Stephens states, is founded upon the exactly opposite idea, the idea that “the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.”  Furthermore, that the new government is “the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”

And  H-O-L-Y  S-H-I-T he’s just getting started.

You know those crybaby liberal fanatcs in the North with their whacked out ideas about equality?  Yeah, they were just that, fanatics…crazy people!   They were suffering, the poor souls, from “an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is (the fanatic) a species of insanity.” And this insanity, or one of the distinctions of this insanity, was forming conclusions deemed correct with “fancied or erroneous premises.”  Erroneous premise numero uno being that “the negro is equal,” and “entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man.”

Science says so, basically. And basic logic says so too, since any conclusion drawn from an incorrect or illogical premise is likewise incorrect.  So there.

And he seemed, at least in this speech, to be pretty confident in “the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.” People will eventually come around to white supremacy, he says, in the same way that folks eventually came around to Galileo, Adam Smith, and some guy named Harvey.

To Stevens, this stuff was gospel, and he preaches –  bringing God, Nature, Providence, the whole crew into it.  Not only does science support the subjugation of the African slave and bolster one of the central tenants of their new constitution, but this shit’s in line with the laws of nature.  Anyone who thinks otherwise, or any system that deems otherwise, is in violation to these laws of nature.  Period.

And you know why, in case you were wondering, in case you’re still not convinced, it’s because God said so.  That’s right, God.  All this he says, is “in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator.”  Ordinances, apparently, that we are not to question or inquire into.  Humanity is thus served by accepting God’s law on the matter and founding all principles and institutions on said law. Period to that too.

By this point I’m just exhausted by the whole thing.  He keeps going on about subjugation this, eternal principles that, and being true to ourselves, triumphing over all those nonbelievers, etc., etc, yadda, yadda.  Oh yeah, and the Curse of Canaan, which apparently translates into some guy saw his father or somebody’s father naked and somebody got cursed and the later generations, Canaanites, are all slaves because they deserve it.

And we all know how the story ends.  There was that business with Plessy, and Jim Crow, but then there was Brown, so the good guys win, and nobody thinks like that anymore.

Nobody with power or influence anyways.

Unless you happen to be the head of the National Policy Institute.

Sheezus, the mind reels, and I can’t even go there right now.  But, it seems that, in some circles, not a lot has changed since 1851.




One thought on “Objects for Comparison – Part 1

  1. Yeah….this cherry picking government sucks, and its not just the President elect’s administration. The misinterpretation, as far as I’m concerned, of separation of church and state, along with the complete disregard for antitrust laws has set us on this path.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s