The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1865-01-19

who are active in its support, although
the resolutions to which you invite my
attention declare that the function OF such
. convention would be simply to propose
plan of peace, with the consent OF the
two belligerents; or, in other words, 10
act as nesot:ators in treating tor peace.
This part Of the scheme is not inten'gl-
BILE to me. If the convention IS sfonly 70
be held with the consent Of the two Del.
ligerents, that ronsent cannot be obtained
without negotiation. The plan then
would resolve itself into q scheme that
the two governments should negotAte
an agreement for the appointment OF
negotiators to make proposals for treaty.
1t seems much more prompt and SIMPLE
to negotiate for peace at once than 70
negotiate for the appointment OF negoua-
tors, who are to meet without power TO
do anything but make proposals.
If the Government of the United
States is willing to make peace, it VIII
treat for peace directly. If unwilling, 1t
will refuse to consent to the convention
of States. The author of these resolu-
tons, and those who concur in his views,
appear to me to commit the radical error
of supposing that the obstacle to obtain
| ing the peace which We all desire con-
sists in the difficulty of finding proper
agencies for negotiating, so that the
whole scope of the resolutions ends in
nothing but suggesting that i the enemy
will treat, the best agency would be State
delegates to convention; whereas the
whole and only obstacle is, that the
enemy will not treat at all, or entertain
any other proposition than that we
should submit to their yoke, acknowledge
that we are criminals, and appeal to their
mercy for pardon.
After this statement Of objections, it
NAV appear superfuous to add others Of
less gravity but as you invite full ex'
preston of my views, will add that his
tory is replete with instances Of the in
, terminable difficulties and delays which
attend the attempt to negotiate on grea
and conflicting interests when the partle:
, to the negotiation are numerous. 1t thi'
: has been the case where the parties pos
sessed full powers to conclude treaty
what can we hope from an assemblage o
, negotiators from thirty or forty States
who. in the midst Of an exasperatins
, warfare, arc to meet without power t
e conclude anything? In the history o
] our own country we find that in tim'
f of profound peace, when the most cordia
J. brotherhood of sentiment existed, ant
+ when a long and bloody war had bee'
!. brought to triumphant close, it re
o ouired two years to assemble conven
n ton and bring its deliberations to an enc
and another year to procure the ratitica
a ton of their labors. With such q war a
J. the present in progress, the views of tn
r large assemblage of negOtiators propose
o would undergo constant change accordin
to the vicissitudes of the struggle, an
:. the attempt to secure concordant view
d would soon be abandoned, and leave tn
Il parties more embittered than ever; les
r. hopeful of the possibility of successft
J. negotiation. -.
Again, how is the difficulty resultin
% from the conflicting pretentionst of th
- two belligerents in regard to several
-, the States to be overcome? Is it sur
:, = posed that Virginia would enter into
W. w convention with delegation from VIII
~ ~ our enemies choose to term the State
'. of "West Virginia" and thus recogni
of of an insolent and violent dismemberme
W. W. of her territory? Or would the Unit
W States consent that "West Virgins
>, should be deprived of her pretensions
he equal rights, after having formally q
IL mitted her as State, and allowed her
re vote at Presidential electiOn? w
'e' vo;ii send a delegation from Louisiar
70 Tennessee. Kentucky, Missouri? T
ne enemy claim to mold the governments
IS, those States, while we assert them. to
IS members of the Confederacy. Wou
n delegates be received from both side
US If SO. there would soon be disrupt
ey of the convention. If delegates are !
OH ceived from neither side, then numt
no of the States most vitality interested
oe the result would remain unrepresente
@n1, and what value could be attached to
''s mere recommendations of body of I
iat potiators under such circumstances
us Various other considerations sugg
= - themselves, but enough has been said
me M Justify my conclusion that the propo
sn' of separate State action is unwise,
re- practicable, and offers no prospect
Inc GOOD to counterbalance its manifold in
~ 1ious consequences to the cause OF
~ .I country. s.-. ,,,.,. -,
'ne ns Very respectfully, yours, ETC.,
an JEFFERSON DAVIS
.