ple imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligations in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, can not be perfectly cured, and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections than before. The foreign

slave-trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived, without restriction, in one section; while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all by the other.

Physically speaking, we can not separate; we can not remove our respective sections from each other, nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced, and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country can not do this. They can not but remain face to face; and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you can not fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical questions as to terms of intercourse are again

upon you.

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I can not be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the national Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendment, I fully recognize the full authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself, and I should, under existing circumstances, favor, rather

than oppose, a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it.

I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish either to accept or refuse. I understand that a proposed amendment to the Constitution (which amendment, however, I have not seen) has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments, so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.

The Chief Magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have conferred none upon him to fix the terms for the separation of the States. The people themselves, also, can do this if they choose, but the Executive, as such, has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer the present government as it came to his hands, and to transmit it unimpaired by him to his successor. Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world? In our present differences is either party without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of nations, with his eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth and that justice will surely prevail by the judgment of this great tribunal, the American people. By the frame of the government under which we live, this same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief, and have with equal wisdom provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals. While the people retain

their virtue and vigilance, no administration, by any extreme wickedness or folly, can very seriously injure the government in the short space of four years.

My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time.

If there be an object to hurry any of you, in hot haste, to a step which you would never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object can be frustrated by it.

Such of you as are now dissatisfied still have the old Constitution unimpaired, and on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new administration will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either.

If it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied hold the right side in the dispute, there is still no single reason for precipitate action. Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust, in the best way, all our present difficulties.

In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you.

You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend” it.

I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection.

The mystic cords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

25. ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS, OF GEORGIA.-ON

THE CONFEDERATE CONSTITUTION

(Delivered at Savannah, Ga., March 21, 1861.)

MEANWHILE delegates from the seceded States, assembled at Montgomery, Ala., had adopted a provisional constitution, and under it had elected Jefferson Davis President of their Confederacy (though his personal preference was for the chief command of the Confederate forces), and Alexander H. Stephens of Georgia Vice-President. On March 11th a permanent constitution was adopted, which was promptly ratified by the different State conventions.

In an address delivered in Savannah, March 21st, Mr. Stephens, whom the historian Rhodes calls "the sincerest and frankest man in the Southern Confederacy," explained at some length the new constitution. From his frank avowal that the corner-stone of the new government rests upon African slavery, the name "the Corner-stone speech" is often given to this address. The speech (which is here given) was impromptu, and is said to have been very imperfectly reported.

In spite of ill health and slight stature (he seldom weighed more than ninety pounds) Stephens was a great

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. Born in Georgia, 1812; graduated from Franklin College (Georgia State University), 1832; admitted to bar, 1834; elected to the legislature, 1836, as an opponent of nullification; in Congress, 1843-59; seriously wounded and health permanently wrecked in a knife duel, 1848; supported Douglas for Presidency, 1860; Vice President of Southern Confederacy, 1861-65; elected to the Senate from Georgia after the war, but not allowed to take his seat; author of "The War Between the States," 1867-70; in Congress, 1874-82: elected Governor of Georgia, 1882; died, 1883.

orator and a fearless statesman. In a memorable speech before the Georgia legislature, following the news of Lincoln's election, he had opposed the secession movement which Toombs, Cobb, and other influential Georgians urged on; and again in the State convention in January, 1861, he repeated his arguments. "I have been and am still," he said, "opposed to secession as a remedy against anticipated aggressions on the part of the Federal Executive or Congress. I have held, and do now hold, that the point of resistance should be the point of aggression. I

feel confident, if Georgia would now stand firm, and unite with the Border States in an effort to obtain a redress of these grievances on the part of some of their Northern confederates, whereof they have such just cause to complain, that complete success would attend their efforts. [Nevertheless] if a majority of the delegates in this convention shall, by their votes, dissolve the compact of Union I shall bow in submission

to that decision." (Stephens, War between the States, p. 305-6.)

[ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS, at Atlanta, Ga., March 21, 1861.]

R. MAYOR AND GENTLEMEN OF THE COMMITTEE,
AND FELLOW CITIZENS:
We are in the

MR

Seven

midst of one of the greatest epochs in our history. The last ninety days will mark one of the most memorable eras in the history of modern civilization. States have, within the last three months, thrown off an old government, and formed a new. This revolution has been signally marked, up to this time, by the fact of its having been accomplished without loss of a single drop of blood. This new constitution, or form of government, constitutes the subject to which your attention will be partly invited.