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: aa5 g..

licking them to have tendency to create d.
visions among ourselves and to unite and
In M1lcdgeville thst favor 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 tosay that If this be true, and
If the passage of these or similar resolutions
would In the slightest degree aid or assist me
In bringing the war to successful and speedy
close you will give them your earnest and
thanks for this expression of confidence, but
assure you that there Ia no truth in the asser-
tions which you mention; and presume that
youwilIAltoady have seen, by the closing part
of my annual, message, which must have
reached you since the date of your letter, that
I have not contemplated the use of any other
agency in treating for peace than that estab-
States. That agency seems TO me- to be well
adapted to Its purpose, and free from the inju-
rious consequences 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
conclusive ~ to admit OF no reply. The i'm
mediatesnd Inevitable tendency of such dis.
tinct action BY each State is TO create discor-
dant instead Of united counsels. to suggest to
our eneqlins the possibility of dissolution of
the copfedesacy. and to encourage them by
the spectacle Of our divisions to more deter.
mined and united acti0n against us. They
would readily sdopt the false idea that some of
the States Of the confederacy are disposed to
abandon their sister States aud mako separate
terms Of peace for Themselves; and If such a
suspicion, however unfOunded, were once en-
gendered among our own people, It would be
destIuctive of that spirit OF mutual confidence
and support which forms the chief reliance for
suocessln the maintenance of our cause,
When the proposal Of Gopante State action
was first moOted 1t appeared to me 90 imprac-
ticable, 90 void Of any promise of good that I
gave no heed to the proposal; but upon its
adoption BY citizens whose position and ability
gave weight to the expression Of their Opinions.
WAS led TO serious consideration Of the sub.
jecka Ny first impressions have not been
changed by reflection. If all the States of the
two hostile federatious are to meet In conyen-
ton, 1t is plain that such meeting can only
take place after an agreement as to time.
place and terms on which they are to meet.
Now. without discussing the minor, although
not trifing. difficulties Of agreeing as to time
and place, it Is certain that the states would
never consent to convention without pre-.
vious agreement as to terms on which thew
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 1t should be 80
bound. But 1t Is plain that On agreement on
out its consent, by the result of the delibera-
tiOns, 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 word, 90 complete 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 that
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, az we well know that
in such convention we should be outnumber-
ed nearly two to one on the very threshold of
the scheme proposed. Therefore we are met
by an obstacle which cannot be removed Is
not the impracticable character of the project
apparent?
You will observe that leave entirely out of
view the suggestion that a convention of all
the States of both federatlons should be held
By common consent, without any previous un-
derStanding as to the effect of its decisions
should meet merely to debate and pass resolu-
tioDs that are to bind no one. 1t is not SUD-
posed that this can really be the meaning at
tached to the proposal by those who are active
in its support, although the resolutions to
which you invite my attention declare the func-
ton OF such a convention would be simply to
propose plan of peace with the consent IF
the two belligerents-or, IN other words, to act
as negotiators in treating for peace. This part
of the scheme Is not Ineligible to me. If the
convention is only to be held with the consent
OF the two belligerents, that consent cannot be
obtained without 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
mr. Mt md Unv,ln To f..
once, than to negotiate for the appointment of
negotiators who are to meet without power to
do anything but make proposals. If the gov
eminent Of the United States is willing to
make peace it will treat FIR peace directly. If
unwilling, 1t will refuse to consent to conven-
ton Of States.
The author of these resolutions, sad those
who concur IN his views. appear to me to COM
NIT the radical error of supposing that the
obstacle Of obtaining peace which We all desire
consists in the difficulty of finding proper
agencies for negotiating, 80 that the whole
scope of the resolutions ends in nothing bat
suggesting that II the enemy will treat the
best agency would be State delegates to a
convention; whereas, the Ukole and ouly Oh.
st0cLe Is that t6s enemy soiU not treat at al. or
entertain any other proposition than that we
should submit to their yoke, acknowledge that
We are criminals, add sppeai to their mercy for
pardon. -. 49,. ----.: - -
After this statement Of objections It NAV an.
pear superfuous to add Others Of less gravity
bat - yop invite full expression of nv yieys
will add that history y replete with Instance
attended the attempt 70 negotiate on great and
conflicting interests where the parties tn the
negotiation are numerous. II thb hss been the
case where the parties possessed full pove, IN
conclude treaty, what oan we hone from an
assembly Of negotiaeors from thirty or fDrtv