Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1864-11-30
Another Letter from Vice Rresi-
dent stephens-He Defines his
Position.
1 From The Richmond Sentinel, Nov. 81 ]

stephens, In order TO correct tne mlsappTe-
tensions of his position, which, he says, are,
to some extent, entertained, and in which
Mr.. Semmes, in his speech at Mobile, show
ed that he shared. Not having room for
the whole letter, we present the following
extract and synopsis: 1851 /
CRAwFoRDsvILLE, GA, Nov. 8, 1861.
Mn Dear Sir: have just read report of
your speech at Mobile. From that report
am persuaded you are greatly mistaken US
to my views upon the subject o. conven-
tion of the States, and i trust you will eX-
cuse and pardon me for this letter upon that
subject. / have by no means invited such
convention by anything have said or
written upon the subject. 1t is not at all a
favorite idea with me as mode OF inaugu-
rating negotiations for peace. see many
difficulties attending it. But as SO respect
able a body as the Chicago Convention, rep
resenting so large portion OF the enemy,
had pledged themselves, if brought into
power, to tender such proposition, ana
think, and do still think, that it was highly
polite and wise on our part to respond
| favorably to that proposition, inasmuch as
/ saw no insuperable objections TO IT, Win
| the limitations and restrictions stated IN
my letter. Indeed, with these limitations,
l saw no objections at all, under pres
|
proposition Gf it should be made) as the
! initiation of negotiations.
1t would be the first step, and in all such
cases the first step is often the most difficult.
| If the Federal Government should propose
| to ours convention of the States, do not
| see why it might not be accepted, simply
| as an advisory body, as l suggested, l see
no constitutional difficulties in the way.
| The treaty-making power on both sides
| might agree to submit the questions at issue
to the consideration of any body of men on
earth, if they chose, and hear the report
without any pledge in advance to be Dound
by that report.
In personal quarrels such submission is
| often made; and to the honor of humanity
| it may be said that in most cases OF this
| kind the result is an amicable and honora-
| BILE settlement. Whether such would be the
result of convention of the States in our
| case is, of course, uncertain. The proba-
bilities, am free to say, III my judgment,
are that it would. At any rate, there is a
| possibility that it might. When we look
at the elements of such body, If it should
be rendered on the other side and accepted
on ours, and the true nature of the contro-
versy, am not without strong hopes that
it would so result.
Mr.. Stephens then proceeds to say that
there is no prospect of the proposition re-
terred to being offered, except in the event
of McClellan's election. He proceeds to
state at considerable length, the advantages
| which he hoped would result from the
electing of that citizen. He thinks that "a
favorable response to the Chicago resolu-
tion looking to a convention of the States"
by President Davis, would have greatly
aided and might have secured McClellan's
election. He continues: -.
All that he need have said in some public
manner was, that if such a proposition
should be rendered by the Federal Govern
ment. lie would accede to it, with some such
limitations and restrictions as stated by me
in the letter before alluded to. The idea
that this could not be constitutionally done
is strange to me. In the most Objectionable
view OF the subject, delegates, one or more
from each State, would be but commission
ers or plenipOtentiaries from each Govern
ment respectively, to initiate negotiations,
&c. Their acts would be subject to the ap-
prova or disapproVl of their Governments
respectively. Why commissioners could
not be appointed in this way, as well as any
other, without any violation of the Consti-
tuition, do not see. The treaty-making
power in both Governments is ample for
this purpose. At least it seems so to me-
Indeed, as / have said before, it seems to
me that it is ample on both sides to submit
the questions in issue to the consideration
merely of any body on earth.
/ know there are many persons among us
whose opinions are entitled to high con-
sideration, who do not agree with me on
the question of McClellan's election. They
prefer Lincoln to Mcclellan. Perhaps the
President belongs to that class. Judging
from his acts, should think that he did.
Those of the class to which i refer, with
whom / have met, think that if what they
term conservative man should be elected,
or any on the Chicago platform even, that
such terms for restoration of the Union
would be offered as our people would ac-
cept. The ghost of the Union haunts
them. The spectre of reconstruction rears
its CHASTITY head at every corner to their
imagination. Their apprehensions, doubt
not, are sincere. But entertaip none such
myself. | am no believer in ghosts of any
kind. The old Union and the old Consti-
tuition are both dead--dead forever except
in SO far as the old Constitution has been
preserved by us. There is for the Union
as it was no resurrection by any power
short of that which brought Lazarus from
the tomb. There may be, and doubtless
are, many at the North and some at the
South who look forward to restoration of
the Union and the Constitution as it was;
but such ideas are as vain and illusory as
the dreamy imaginings of the Indian war
rior who in death clings to his weapons, in
fond expectation that he will have use for
them beyond the grave in other lands and
new hunting grounds. These fears of VOL
untary reconstruction of the Union are but
chimeras of the brain.
Mr.. Stephens then explains how he
thought the election of Mcclellan would
bring about armistice, negotiation and
peace, on the basis of Confederate indepen-
dence and State sovereignty, North and
South, thus laying the foundation of peace
and security in the future. We conclude
with the following extracts, defining Mr..
Stephens position:
From the report of your speech am led
to infer that you entertained the opinion
that / was favoring and inviting conven-
ton of the States in some outside way, and
not through the organized channels Of the
two Governments. Nosuch idea was in my
mind. and never can be, until am prepared
for another revolution, if secession be a
revolution. For the States could not go
into such a convention as you seem, from
the report of your speech, to think favor
ed, without first seeding from their pres
ent alliances.
This, to my mind, is as clear as it is to
yours. Upon the subject of reconstruction
stand now just where did in October,
1861. Then wrote to gentleman in am
swer to letter from him stating that
was charged with such sentiments and de-
string me to make public denial OF 1t.
told him in reply that l looked upon such
charge as that as an imputation upon my
intelligence and upon my integrity. The