The western Democrat. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1852-1870, 1865-01-31
LETTER FROM PRESIDENT DAVIS,


LETTER FROM. PRESIDENT DAVIS.
III Regard to SEPARATE State Action.
The Richmond Wing publishes the following
reply of ahe President to sundry Senator'S of Geor-
gia, on the topic announced in the above caption.
The hig says that is ga clear forcibie and cogent
document :"
| RICHMOND, Va, Nov. IL, 1864.
To the Hon: Senator's ef Georgia--Aessrs, A, r.
| fright, President of the Senate, and Others:
| GENTLEMEN: answered by telegram this morn-
Jog your letter of 18th instant, requested, and
now respectfully comply with your desire that
should express my views on the subject to which
you invite my attention.
/ To forgarding to me the resolutions introduced
| into the House of Representatives of Georgia, by
MIR Stephens, of Hancock, you state that you are
not inclined to favor the passage OF these or any
similar resolutions, believing them to have ten
depcy to create divisions among ourselves, aud to
unite and strength enemies, but that it is as
serted in Milledgeville that favor such action on
the part Of the States, aud would be pleased to
Georgia cast her influence in that way. You are
kind enough to say that if this be true, and il the
passage of these similar resolutions, would in the
| slightest degree aid or assist me in bringing the
war to successful and speedy close, you viii give
them your earnest and hearty support.
[ return you my cordial thanks for this express
sion of confidence, but assure you that there is no
truth in the assertion which You mention; and l
presume that you viii already have seen by the
closing part of my annual message, which must
have reached you since the date of your letter, that
II have not contemplated the use of any other
agency in treating for peace than that established
by the Constitution of the Confederate States.
That agency seems to me to be well adapted to
It's purpose, and free from the injurious copse-
quences that would follow any other means that
have been suggested.
The objection to separate State action which
you present In your letter, appears to be so con-
elusive 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 enemies ths possibility
Of dissolution Of the Confederacy, and to encour-
age them by the spectacle of divisions, to more
determined and united action against US.
They would really 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; aud if such q suspicion,
however unfounded were once engendered among
our people, it would be destructive of that
spirit of mutual confidence aud support which
forms our chief reliance for success in the main
tenance of our cause.
When the proposal Of separate State action
first mooted, it appeared to me so impracicable SO
sOiu VA any PlOuiiSC VI 6oouj tha1 gov 'o HSSo
to the proposal but upon its adoption by citizens
whose position and ability give weight to the ex.
preston of their opinions l 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 declarations
are to meet in convention, it is plain that such
meeting can only take place after an agreement as
to the time, place and terms which they are to
meet. Now, without. discussing the minor, al
a. rfa IN
time and place. it is certain that the States would
never consent to convention without previous
agreement to the terms on which they were to
meet. The proposed convention 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 be so bound But, it is plain that
an agreement on the basis that no State should be
bound, without its consent, by the result of the
deliberations, would be an abandonment on the
part of the North of its pretended right of coercion
would be absolute recognition Of the indepen-
dence of the several States Of the Confederacy;
would be, in word, so complete concession Of
the rightfuness OF our cause that the most vision
airy cannot hope for such an agreement in adcance
Of the meeting Of convention. The only other
possible basis Of meeting is that each State should
agree beforehand to be bound by the decision Of
the convention, and such agreement is but another
form of submission to Northern dominion, as we
well know mat In Sucn a convention we Snoulu DC
outnumbered nearly two to one. On the very
threshold of the scheme proposed, therefore, We
met by obstacle which cannot be removed. Is
not the impracticable character of the project ap
parent?
You will observe that I leave entirely out of
view the suggestion that convention Of all the
States of both federations, should be held by
mon consent without any previous understanding
as to the effect of its decisions; should meet merely
to debate and pass resolutions that to bind no
one 1t is not supposed that this really be the
meaning attached to the proposal by those who are
active in its support, although the resolutions to
which you invite my attention, declare that the
function of such a convention would be simply to
propose plan of peace, with the constRt of the
two belligerents; or, in other words to act as nego
tiators 10 treating for peace. This part of the
scheme is not Ineligible TO me- If the conven-
ton is only to be held with the consent Of the two
belligerents, that consent cannot be obtained with
out negotiation. The plan then would resolve
itself into scheme that the TWO Governments
should negotiate an agreement for the appointment
of negotiators to make proposals for treaty. 1t
seems much more prompt and simple to negotiate
for peace at than to negotiate for the appoint
ment of Degotiators who are to meet without power
to do anything but make proposals.
If the Government Of the United States is will
ing make peace, it will treat for peace directly.
If unwilling, it will refuse to consent to the Con-
ventieu of States The author of these resolutions,
and those who concur in his views, appear to me
to commit the radical error of surprising that the
IL Al Ialr Ill a,s~a