The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1864-12-09
ALEXANDER N. STEPHENS.
Letter from Alex. Il. Stephens Ex-
planning His Position.
He Glasses Davis Among Those who
are Fearful Of a Reconstruct
ton of the Union.
HeSDeclares that the States Have No
Right to Return Separately to
the ~nls0.

Right to Return separately 10
tho ~nisu.
LErTRR FROM A. H. sIEPHANs, OF GEORGIA.
TO THos. J. sRMARs, OF LOUISIANA, IN
EXPLANATION OF HIS POSITION.
From the Richmond Sentinel, Nov. 81.
The Augusta ConstitMionalist contains
long letter from Vice President Ste
phens, addressed to Senator Semmes, of
Louisiana. The letter was sent to the
press by Mr.. Stephens, 10 order to correct
the misapprehensions of his position,
which, he says, are, to some extent, en-
tertained, and in which Mr.. Semmes, in
his speech at Mobile, showed that he
shared. Not having room for the #1hbfe
letter, We present the following nsxffacts
and synopsis: =. ~ .
GAINESVILLE, Ga, Nov. S; 1861. y"
MY DEAR SRI have just read'auaftponIf NJ
your speech at Mobile. From that report |
am persuaded you are greatly mistaken rs to
my views upon the subject of a,-co0v0D4oadof
the States, and trust you will excuse and
pardon me for this letter upon tfdt sub
ject. l have by no means inrftedl tsuches
convention by anything that have said or
written upon the subject. 1t is not ht all IA
vOrite idea with me as O mod6Of. itisAIsuezting
negotiations for peace. l sec many difficulties
attending it. But as so respectable q body So
the Chicago Convention, representing 80 large
ao portion Of the enemy had pledged them
proposition, did think, and do .saalss Ii
that it was highly polite ana wise on our part
to respond favorably to thH" proposf9onn@n mas
much as l saw no insuperable 0bSGI9ouogitsa
with the limitations and restrictions. stated jim
my letter. Indeed, with those limitations, 7
saw no objections at all, under present circum-
stances, to acceding to such proposition Ct it
tiatiOns 3 08es. -.
1t would be the first step, and in all such.
cases the first step is often the iA6st difficult:
If the Federal Government should propose'.to
ours convention of the States2adO not sec
why it might not be accepted, stAely as an ada
visOry body, as suggested tse..nO ,nsti-
tutiOnal difficulties in the wa4pk6e treaty
making power on both sides aneQQsaee to
submit the question OF issue to the Aaasiaara-
ton of any body Of men on eaFt1 Aolthev
choose, and hear hereport wihoh t0Asp f55dHee
In advance to be bound by that repQrt;Ei e :
In personal quarrels such SUBMISSION isoften
made: and to the honor of humanity It may be
said that In most cases of this kind the result
is an amicable and honorable settlement.
Whether such would be the result of conven-
ton Of the States in our case is, of course un-
certain. The probabilities, am free to say,
in my judgment, are that it would: When we
look ut the elements of such body, if it should
be rendered on the other side and accepted on
ours, and the true nature of the controversy,
am not without strong hopes that 1t would 80
result.
Mr.. Stephens then proceeds to say that
there is no prospect of the proposition re-
ferred to being offered, except in the event
of McClellan's election. He proceeds to
state, at considerable length, the advanta-
ges which he supposed or hoped would re-
suit from the electing of that citizen. He
thinks that ga favorable response to the
Chicago resolution, looking to q Oonven-
ton of the States" by President Davis,
would have greatly aided and might have
secured Gen. McClellans election. he
continues:
All that he need have said in some public
manner was that If such proposition should
be rendered by the Federal Government, he
would accede to 1t, 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 commissioners or plenipotentiaries
from each government respectively, to initiate
negotiations. &c. Their acts would be subject
to the approval or disapproval Of their govern
ments respectively. Why commissioners
could not be appointed in this way, as well as
any other, without any violation of the con-
stitution, / do not see The treaty making
power in both governments Is ample for this
purpose. At least it seems 80 to me- Indeed,
as have said before, 1t 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 10 high considera,
tiOD, who do not agree with me on the ques-
ton of McClelanis election. Perhaps the
President belongs to that class. Judging
from his acts, / should think that he did.
Those of the class to whom / refer, with
whom have met, think that if what they
term conservative man should be elected, or
any of the Chicago platform even, that such
terms for restoration OF the Union would be
offered as our people would accept. The ghost
OF the Union haunts them. The spectre of re-
construction rears its CHASTITY head at every
corner to their imagination. Their apprehen-
sions doubt not are sincere. But | entertain
none such myself l am no believer in ghosts
of any kind. The old Union and the old con-
stitution are both dead-dead forever except
in so far as the 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 ut the North and
some at the South. who look forward to q
restoration of the Union and the constitution
as it was but such ideas are as vain ard IL
lusory rs the dreamy imaginings of the Indian
warrior, 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 volun-
tary reconstruction are bnt chimeras of the
brain.
Mr.. Stephens then explains how he
Thought the election Of Mcclellan woald
bring about aru,istice, negotiation and
peace, on the basis of Confederate indie
peudence and State sovereignty, North
and South, thus laying the foundations of
peace and security in the future. We
conclude with the following extracts, de-
fiaing Mr.. Stephens position
From the report of your speech l en- let, to
infer that You entertained the opinion that I
was favoring and inmtjng q convention OF the
States in some outside way. and not through
the organized channels Of the two govern
ments. No such 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 convention
as you seem. from the report Of your speech
TO think favored, without first seeding from
their present alliances.