Alexander Stephen On Peace Analysis

After the American Revolution the states had a bigger battle to win, the battle of making the Union thrive. Slavery became a dividing issue in the states because of differing opinions between states, especially the Northern and Southern states. One end of the spectrum believed slavery to be wrong on a social, political and moral standing while the other end deemed it a natural and normal condition. The north believed the South’s secession as a deplorable act, which gave them the drive to fight for the Union. Meanwhile the South’s agenda was to instill slavery as whites were the superior race and if following this agenda meant breaking away from the Union the South would do as such. In the New York Times article, “Alexander H. Stephens on Peace,” …show more content…
Before becoming the president of the Confederacy Alexander Stephen proclaimed to be against secession during the Georgia Convention. Stephen gained support and respect from the North for being “…of all Sothern men, the most… protested against secession.” The North begins to discredit Stephen when he becomes a delegate in writing the constitution for the confederacy, three weeks after the Georgia convention. The Northerners did not expect Stephen to take the opposing stance over slavery. Stephen quickly became another conspirator for the “infernal work” of slavery in the eyes of the North.
Although, the North was taken by surprise over Stephen’s stance, Stephen set foot on his ideals over slavery. Stephen uses the words “… rock stood and stands,” in relation to slavery in the Confederacy in his Cornerstone Speech. Throughout his speech Stephen makes a clear decision over his stance even if it contradicts his previously held belief. Stephen did not care for the repercussions of his speech because he believed the Confederacy would avail in all forms. Just how the North was willing to fight for the Union the South would fight to follow a “strict