Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1865-01-17

L. I es, OF course. !
F. Do you want WARE
P. No. !
F. Have we got war;
p Yes
F. Why do you have it, if You don't
want it2
P. Because 1 can't help myself.
F. Then does it not follow, that we are
sometimes obliged to have what we don't
wantl
p. Yes, of course.
T. If sometimes we want what we can't
get, and, at other times, get what we don't
want, does it not follow, that we cant al
ways have our own way, and must yield
to circumstances!
P. 1t would seem So.
F. Have you ever tried to get peace2
P. Yes, l am trying all the time.
F. How7
P. By fighting for it.
F. Kindling fire with ice?
P. No, not exactly that.
F. Have you tried any other wayf
P. What other way is there to try9
F. Then, am to understand, You have
tried no other way2
. Z. l did not say that.
+. Then, my question is unanswered,
and | repeat it; have you tried any other
ways
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. l did not say l proposed any.
F. What commissioners didYgou send2
P. At one time, 1 sent Mr.. Stephens.
F. To treat about peace?
?. You are very inqHisitive.
F. You gave me leave to be so.
P. Well, yes, to treat about peace.
F. Did you inform the enemy that he
was sent for that purpose!
P. No. [ 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 give'
P. He said that was matter for the
military.
F. Did the enemy say anything about
peace?
P. Not word.
F. Did youl
P. Not a 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 peace9
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
upon all9
P. 1t would seem 80.
F. Has not the enemy treated upon any
subject9
P. Not at all.
+. Not upon the exchange, and feeding
and clothing prisoners9
2. Oh! yes, but those are military mat
tiers.
F. Am l 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. ...
F. And You proposed, that the civil au-
thorities should treat about military mat
ters9 .-.
P. Well, yes, 1 suppose did.
civil authorities should treat about civil
matters!
P. No.
F. Well, in this did you not make your
self somewhat ridiculous?
P. Me, ridiculous That must not be
repeated.
F. Well, the enemy has treated with US
about military matters2.
P. Yes.
+. And no treaty has been proposed
about civil matters!
Z. None.
F. If he has treated about the only thing
proposed, how can it be fairly inferred
that he will not treat about what has not
been proposed?
P. 1 have said, repeatedly, in my mes
sages and speeches., that was ready to
treat of peace.
F. Has the enemy said he was not ready
P. No, but his terms are such as can.
not submit to.
F. What are his termsg
P. Submission, restoration, manumis'
sion, &c.
F. What are your tcrmsl
P. Independence, entirety of the South,
&c.
F. Am I to understand, that these terms
have actually been proposed to each other
P. Oh! no. Neither has even proposed
anything to the other. We have only
talked at and about one another.
F. / am afraid to ask again, wht'theI