The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1865-02-03
Separate State Action Condemned.
The Richmond papers contain the fol-
lowing letter from jeff. Davis: aai r

sage of these or any similar resolutions be-
liesing them to have tendency to create di-
Visions among ourselves and TO unite and
strehphen our enemies. but that it is asserted
in Niioigeyille thst I fsvor such action on the
part of the States. and would be pleased to see
Georgia cast her influence in that way. You
are kind enough toisav that If this be true and
If the passage of. these or similar resolutions
would In the slightest degree aid or assist me
inbrinsing the war to . successful and speedy
closel you viii give them your earnest and
hearty support. return Won nav cordial
aesurs you thatthere il no truth in the asser.
ticns which yon mention; and presume that
youNilIAlfosdJ have seen, by the closing part
Of mn, annual message which must have
reachSd you since the date of your letter. thst
have not Contemplated the use of any other
agency in treating for peace than that estab-
lished by the Constitution of the Confederate
States. That agency seemd TO meito be well
adapted to its purpose, and free from the iniu-
rious conseouences that would follow anv other
means that have been suggested.
haIOhiecsion TO separate State action which
YOU present in your letter appears to be 40
conclusive a to admit of no reply. The i'm
mediate,sndc Inevitable atendencv Of such dis.
tinct action BY each State Is to create discor-
dant iYistead al united counsels. to surrest IN
our eneaaisa thu possibility of . dissoIut}on Of
cOple0oxacY. .esnC0nH0OQ them nv
the sr,ectacle 81 our divisions TO more deter-
mined and united aetieo laQsinstl ma. Thev
would readily sdopk the false idea that sorne 81
the SfAfAs of thu, confederacv' ara disno.oJ -
aban6nu sheiF sister States ana mako sersroto
terms, Of peaoe for themsalyes and ,f Sroh
suspicion. however unfounded. we're once an
goadersd among our own pocplel f. vonid he
destruetiye of t6at spirit OF mutual Confidence
and support which forms the chief reliance for
succeas 1.-THE maintenance of onr cans. ~
When the proposal Of Dpasste, Stste action
was first mooted 1t appeared to ma 10 imnrac-
ticable, 20 void of any prosnise of pood that
ga1erno heed to the. propoeal: bnt nron ;ts
adoption by citizens Whoee pOaition and sh,,;tv
gave weight TO the expseesion of their onin;oc:
I WAS led to serious coosideration of the snh
jeck.a Ny first impressions have not hsen
changed by reflection. If all the States of the
two hostile federatious are to mead IN CONVEX.
ton, II is plain that such meeting can onIv
take place after an agreement 81 tn time
place and terms on which they are 20 meet
Now, without discussing the minor. althouoh
not triiing. difficulties Of agreeing "a To time
and place, it Is certain that the states wouid
never consent to q convention vithont a nre.
vious agreement as to terms on which thew
wen to meet. The proposed Convention must
meet on the basis either that NO state ahould.
against its own will, be bound by the decision
bound. But it is plain that an Agreement on
the basis that no state should be bound. with.
OHt its consent, by the result of the delibera
lions, would be an abandonment on the part of
the North of its pretended right of coercion
would be an absolute recognition of the indie
pendence of the several states of the Confeder.
acy-would be, in a word, 60 complete a con.
cession of the righteousness 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 thai
each state should agree beforehand to be bound
by the decision of the convention and such
agreement is but another form of Submission.
of Northern dominion, as we well know that
in such convention we should be outnumber-
ed nearly two to one on the yery threshoId of
the scheme proposed. Therefore we are met
by an obstacle which cannot be removed Il
not the impracticable character of the nro;ect
apparent?
You will observe that I leave entirely ont of
view the suggestion that a Convention of ali
the States Of both federations shoud he held
by common consent, without auy previous nm
derstanding 40 to the effect of its decisions-
should meet merely to debate and psss resolu.
tions that are to bind no one II e not SIM
posed that this can really be the meaning at
tached TO the proposal by those who are active
in its support, although the resolntions tn
which you invite nv attention declare the f;,nc.
ton of such convention would be simply to
propose a plan of peace with the consent Sf
the two belieerents~or IN other wor5fs 's ~ o ~
as negotiators in treating for peace Th,s mart
of the scheme Is not inteilieible tn me n the
convention is only to be held with the consent
of the two belligsrents that consent cannot be
obtained without negotiation. The Man. then
would resolve itself into scheme that the two
governments should NEGOTIATE an Increment
for the appointment of nepotiators TO make
proposals. for a treaty. II seems much more
prompt and ample to NEGOTIATE for peace At
once, than to negotiate for the appointment of
negotiators, who are to meet without power to
do anything but mako proposals.. If the gov
eminent Of the United States is willing to
unwilling, it win refuse to consest to conyen.
ton Of States.
The author of these resolutions. sad those
who concur IN his We've. appear to me to COM