Dr Hardwick
 Ahhh, the much quoted Cornerstone Speech, presented as facts. Although not
the OPENING PARAGRAPH as you state, but in reality the 10th paragraph into it.
As I was not present during the time that Mr Stephens gave this speech, I must
defer to those who were. The Cornerstone Speech was delivered
extemporaneously by Vice President Alexander H. Stephens, and no official printed version
exists.
The reporter who wrote the story said "Your reporter begs to state that the
above is not a perfect report, but only such a sketch of the address of Mr.
Stephens as embraces, in his judgment, the most important points presented by the
orator."

 The above is also confirmed by Mr Stephens himself, when interviewed about
his infamous speech, that recieves virtually no circulation:

" 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 &
amp; Company, 1910
Louisana State University Press, Baton Rouge, 1998, pages

  As a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, we honor only the soldiers
& sailors who made up the Veterans of the Confederacy, not politics or
policies. I honor my GGGrandfathers & GGG Uncles who gave all with nothing for
everthing. To hear people say that Confederate soldiers who didn't have enough
money to buy food or shoes marched thousands of miles with obsolete weapons to die
by the thousands to keep the african in bondage is stupid.
 The flag that Gen PGT Beauregard designed and used mainly by the Army of
Northern Virginia had no politics behind it - it was and is the banner that many
(not all !) Confederate soldiers fought under. That is why it exists, and that
is it's sole meaning. I get rather tired of hearing "It's a Klan flag.
HOGWASH !! They are REQUIRED to use the United States Flag and Klan Flag (Cross with
tear drop) at all their functions. The Battleflag was highjacked by bigots.
As a matter of semantics, the KKK no longer exists. The orginal group - the
Kuklos Klan, founded by Confederate Veterans, and headed up by Nathan Bedford
Forrest was DISBANDED by General Forrest when things got too radical. The 2nd
incarnation was thanks to DW Griffith's "Birth of a nation, which formed the new
group Ku Klux Klan, and they were put out of business by the Federal Govt. The
3rd and current group is called United Klans of America 'UKA' and these are
the race agitators and bigots who stole the Battleflag.

  Why is it that a lot of media/educators refuse to allow us the right to
reclaim the right and proper meaning of the flag? Why are those of us who wear it
or fly it as proud southerners told that we must not do that , we must take
as fact that the Klan's meaning of the flag is the only fact that will be
tolerated - all those who dare try and redeem the true meaning of the flag will be
branded racist and bigot?

  Enquiring minds want to know...
W.E. Bill Bearden
Georgia

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html