Weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1858-1865, 1865-01-18

L. 10 you want wars /
P. No.
+. Have we got wara
P. Yes.
+. Why do you have it, if you don't
want it2
P. Because can't help myself.
F. Then does it not follow, that zee are
sometimes obliged to have what we don't
want?
p. Yes, of course.
f. Ifsometimes we want what we can't
get, and, at other times, get what we don't
want, does it not follow, that we can't al
ways have our own way, and must yield
to circumstances
P. 1t would seem 80.
y. Have you ever tried to get peace9
2. Yes, l am trying all the time.
F. How2
?. By fighting for it.
+. Kindling fire with ice?
P. No, not exactly that.
+. Have You tried any other waya
p. What other way is there to try2
F. Then, am to understand, You have
tried no other ways
=. l did not say that.
+. Then, my question is unanswered,
and | repeat it; have you tried any other
way?
P. Yes, have tried to negotiate, three
times.
F. Did the enemy refuse to negotiate!
p. He did.
F. What terms did you propose?
!. p. 1 did not say | proposed any.
F. What commissioners did you send?
P. At one time, sent Mr.. Stephens.
F.. To treat about peacea .
/ P. You are very inquisitive.
T. You gave me leave to be so.
P. Well, yes, to treat about peace.
+. Did you inform the enemy that he
was sent for that purposea
P. No. 1 informed him that he was
sent to treat about saving the lives Of two
Of his own men, whom l had condemned
to be shot in retaliation and about con-
Quoting the war upon civilized rules.
F. Did the enemy refuse to treat with
him2
!. P. He did.
F. What reason did he gives
P. He said that was a matter for the
military.
F. Did the enemy say anything about
peacea ~ats
P. Not word.
F. Did you?
P. Not word.
! F. Then, if not word was said about
peace on either side, how can you show
: that to be an offer and rejection to treat
about peaces ---
P. l took it for granted, that if he re-
fused to treat upon one subject, he would
upon all.
F. If that be true, is not the converse
true-that if he treat upon one, he will
uron all2
P. It would seem so.
! +. Has not the enemy treated upon any
subjects
! p. Not at ALL ..,..'...
| F. Not upon the exchange, and feeding
and clothing prisoners
T. Oh! yes, but those are military mat
tiers.
| F. Am I to understand, then, that there
are military matters about which the mill
tary treat, and civil matters about which
! the civil authorities treat?
P. Yes.
| +. And You proposed, that the civil au-
thorities should treat about military mat.
ters2
! P. Well, yes, I suppose I did. ...
! +. And you did not propose, that the
civil authorities should treat about civil
matterss
/ p. No.
! +. Well, in this did you not make your.
self somewhat ridicnlOus2
| P. Me, ridiculousle That must not be
/ repeated.
F. Well, the enemy has treated with us
! about military matterss
P. Yes.
/ +. And no treaty has been proposed
1 about civil mattersg
Z. None.
! F. Ifhe has treated about the only thing
proposed, how can it be fairly inferred
that he will not treat about what has NO
been proposed?
P. I have said, repeatedly, in my mes
sages and speeches, that was ready t.
treat of peace.
F. Has the enemy said he wasnot ready
P. No, but his terms are such as l can
not submit to.
+. What are his termss
P: Submission, restoration, manumil
sion, &c.
+. What are your terms?
: 7. Independence, entirety of the Soutl
, &c.
F. Am to understand, that these term
have actually been proposed to each other
: P. Chino. Neither has ever propose
i anything to the other. We have on]
q talked at and about one another.
F. am afraid to ask again, wheth,