Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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