Newspaper Page Text
184
THE COUNTRY
M A
i
N.
TIIKXWOLD, GA., MARCH 28,1865.
Letter from President Davis.
Richmond, Va., Nov. 17, 1864.
Gentlemen :—I answered, by tel
egram, this morning, your letter of
11th instant, as requested, and now
respectfully comply with your desire
that I should express my views on
the subject to which you invite my
attention.
In forwarding to me the resolutions
introduced into the house of repre
sentatives of Georgia, by Mr. Ste
phens. of Hancock, you state that
you are not inclined to favor the pas-
sage of these, or any similar resolu
tions, believing them to have a ten
dency to create divisions among our
selves, and to unite, and strengthen
our enemies ; but that it is asserted,
in Milledgeville, that I favor such ac
tion on the part of the states, and
would be pleased to see Georgia cast
her influence in that way. You are
kind enough to say that, if this be
true, and if the passage of these, or
similar resolutions would, iu the
slightest degree, aid, or assist me in
bringing the war to a successful and
speedy dose, you will give them your
earnest and hearty support.
1 return you my cordial thanks for
this expression of confidence, but as
sure you that there is no truth in the
assertions which you mention, and I
presumo chat you will already have
seen, by the closing part of my annu
al message, which must have reached
you since the date of your letter, that
I have not contemplated the use df
any other agency, in treating for
peace, thau that established by the
constitution of the Confederate States.
That agency seems to me to be
well adapted to its purpose, and free
from the injurious consequences that
would follow any other means that
have been suggested.
The objection to separate state ac
tion, which you present in your let*
ter, appears to be so conclusive as to
admit no reply. The immediate and
inevitable tendency of such distinct
action, by each state, is to create
discordant, instead of united counsels;
to suggest to our enemiet the possi
bility of a dissolution of the confed
eracy, and to encourage them, by the
spectacle of our divisions, to more
determined, and united action against
ua.
They would'readily adopt the false
idea that some of the states of the
confederacy are disposed to abandon
their sister states, and make separate
terms of peace for themselves ; and
if such a suspicion, however unfound
ed, were once engendered among our
own people, it would he destructive
of that spirit of mutual confidence,
and support which forms our chief re
liance for success iu the maintenance
of our cause.
When the proposal of separate
state action was first mooted, it ap
peared to me so impracticable, so
void of any promise of good, that 1
gave no heed to the proposal ; but,
upon its adoption by citizens whose
position, and ability g've vveigbt to
the expression of their opinions, I
was led to a serious consideration of
the subject. My first impressions
have not been changed by reflection.
If all the states of the two hostile
federations are to meet in convention,
it is plain that such a meeting can on
ly take place after an agreement as
to the time, place, and terms on which
they,are to meet. Now, without dis
cussing the minor, although not tri
fling difficulties, of agreeing as to
time, and place, it is certain that the
states would never consent to a con
vention, without a previous agtee
inent as to the terms on which they
were to meet. The proposed conven
tion must meet on the basis, either
that no state should, against its own
will, be bound by the decision of the
convention, or that it should he so
bound. But, it is plain that an agree
ment on the basis that no state should
be bound, without its consent, by the
result of the deliberations, would he
an abandonment, on the part of the
north, of its pretended right of coer
cion ; would he an absolute recogni
tion of the independence of the sev
eral states of the confederacy ; would
he, in a word, so complete a conces
sion of the rightfi’lneSs of our cause,
that the most visionary cannot hope
for such an agreement, in advance of
the meeting of a convention. The
only other possible basis of meeting,
is, that each state should agree, be
forehand, to be hojund .by the decision
of the convention, and such agree*
inent is but another form of submis
sion to northern dominion, as we well
know that, in such a convention, we
should be outnumbered nearly two to
one. On the very threshold of the
scheme proposed, therefore, we are
met by an obstacle which cannot be
moved. Is not the impracticable
character of the project apparent!
You will observe, that 1 leave en
tirely out of the view the suggestiou
that a convention of all the states of
both federations should he held, by
common consent, without any previ
ous understanding as to the effect of
its decisions; should meet merely to
debate, and pass resolutions that are
to bind no one. It is not supposed
that Ibis can really he the meaning
attached to the proposal, by those
who are active in its suppoi't, although
the resolutions to which you invite
my attention declare, that the func
tions of such a convention would be
simply to propose a plan of peace,
with the consent of the belligerents ;
or, in other words, to act as negotia
tors in treating for peace. This part
of the scheme is not intelligible to
me. It the convention is only to be
held with the consent of the two bel
ligerents, that consent cannot be ob«
tained without negotiation. The plan,
then, would resolve itself into a
scheme that the two governments
should negotiate an agreement for the
appointment of negotiators to make
proposals for a treaty.
It seems much more prompt, and
simple to negotiate for peace, at once,
than to negotiate for the appointment
of negotiators, who are to meet with
out power to do anything but to make
proposals.
If the government of the United
States is willing to make peace, it
will treat for peace, directly. If un
willing, it will refuse to consent to
the convention of states. The au
thor of these resolutions, and those
who concur in his views, appear to
me to commit the radical error of
supposing the obstacle of obtaining a
peace which vve all desire, consists in
the difficulty of finding proper agen-
cies for negotiating, so that the whole
scope of the resolutions ends in noth
ing hut suggesting that, if the enemy
will treat, the best agency would be
state, delegates to a convention; where
as the whole, and only obstacle is,
that the enemy will not treat at all,
or entertain other propositions than
that we should submit to their yoke,
acknowledge that we are criminals,
and appeal to their mercy for par
don.
After this statement of objections,
it may appear superfluous to add oth
ers of less gravity, but as you invite
a full expression of my views, I will
add, that history is replete with in
stances of the interminable difficul-
ties, aud delays which attend the at
tempt to negotiate on great and con
flicting interests, when the parties to
the negotiation are numerous. If this
has been the case where the parties
possessed full power to concluSe a
treaty, what can we hope from an as
semblage of negotiators from thirty
or forty states, who, in the midst of
an exasperatiug warfare, are to meet
without power to conclude anything 1