Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1862-1865, 1865-01-18
XNHILE Es aaye tassR Be psTtlu thS dIsOpaiiiapa |

not escaped our observation that these discussions
have aroused the attention Of the public aud Tat
they have excited very natural degree of inter
est. We might say that debate on the questions
which no open issue has been made, and which rest
is irrelevant and superAuous Yet it must be adj
United that in the present temper of the public
mind the very tendency to admit such questions is
a significant symptom and the tendency is no doubt
strengthened by the mystery with which the custom
Of sitting in secret must invest the most important
proceedings of Congress. While 1t would be in
the highest degree unjust to censure that body ior
supposed delinquences, or merely imputed errors
il is only natural that the people should feel some
anxiety conserving the course Of their representa-
tiyes al this extremely critical moment.
Hence. although sharing to the fullest extent in
the deep interest with which the acts of the legsla-
ike body are watched by the public, We think it
only right TO abstain from criticism on their con-
duct which may prove TO be unwarranted by facts,
and from condemnation of acts which, after ALL may
be purely imaginary. Nevertheless Us this subject
IF negotiation, whether through the medium ap-
pointed by the Constitution in the various irreg
ular methods which have been suggested, IS one Of
rave importance, we lay before our readers let
Ter on a cognate question, addressed some time
since by the President to several prominent mem
pers of the Georgia State Senate, among Them the
President of that body As this letter may form
,oppicuous feature in our contemporaneous his
orF. we think NE cannot Dc batter than tOlay n be-
ore the public An we think, will agree that it Is
4 clear, forcible and cogent document
RICHMOND, VA, Nov. II, 1854
Il, the Hons. Sspa.rs Of Gsorgia-MesSrS a. r.
Uvigbt Pres't Senate l. l.. GHerTy, j. VI Cham
hers, TIos. z. LLOYD, Fredk L. West, 10. B. Nes-
BET;
answered by telegram this morning your letter
If llth instant as requested and respectfully
.omply with your desire that | should express my
Jews Oh the subject to which YOU invite my atten-
In forwarding 10 me the Resolutions introduced
alto the House OF Representatives OF Georgia by
Mr. stephens Of Hancock, YOU state that you are
lot inclined 70 favor the passage of these or any
.imar resolutions, believing them 10 have ten
lcucy TO create divisions among ourselves and to
mite and strengthen our cnemes but that it is
crted in Millcdgeville that favor such action on
ue part of the States and would be pleased to see
Georgia east her Influence in that wayn You are
ind enough to say that if this be true and if the
sssage OF these or similar resolutions would in the
highest degree and assist me in bringing the war
successful and speedy close, you will give them
our earnest aud hearty support.
return you my cordial thanks for this expression
Il cont Icnce but assure You that there is no truth
u the assertions Fhigh YOU mention; and presume
hat YOU will already have seen By the closing part
,riny annual message, which must have lsachsd you
ncc the date of your letter, that | have not con
,mpllted the use OF any other agency IN treating
ur peace thau that established BY the Constitution
4 the Confederate States.
That agency seems to me to be well-adapvO 10 Its
grI frfF m. lulurlOuS consequences
hat would follow any other means that have been
uggested.
The objection 10 separate. State action which You
present IN your ettcr appears TO be 50 conclusive as
. o. admit no reply. The immediate and inevitable
epIcncy Of such distinct action by each State IS to
ryate dscOrdant instead OF united counses TO sug-
est to our enemies the possibility OF dissolution OF
he ConfederaCy, and 10 encourage them BY The
pectacle of our divisions, 10 more determined and
nited action against Us.
They would readily. adopt the false idea that some
If the States OF the Couiederacy disposed 10
baudou their sister States aud make separate terms
4 peace Tor themselves, and II such d suspicion,
however untOunded, were once engendered among
pur own people ii would be destructive OF that spirit
4 mutual confidence and support which forms our
hiei reliance for success IN the maintenance OF our
cause.
When the proposal of separate State action was
r,t mOoict, IL appeared 30 nc 50 lmpractc0be, so
.oid OF any prIHise Of good thai gave 40 heed to
he proposal uul upon ~ ou"lAi'h ~ Ni'iH'iA'
whose position and aOhty give weight to the express
sion OF their opinions, / was led 70 a serious con-
liberation 81 the subject. Nv first impressions have
iut been changed by reflection.
II all the States Of the two hostile declarations
% meet in convention, 1t !, plain that such meet
ne can only take place dftr an agreement as 10 the
iuie place and term, OH which they are 10 meet
,ow without discussing tie minor, although not
rihiuE difficulties, OF agreeing as to time and place,
Is certain that the States would never consent TO
conve ntion without previous agreement as 10 the.
arms on which they were 10 meet. The proposed
convention must meet the basis either that no
state should, against its own VIII, be bound by the
lecsiOn of the convention, that II should be so
lound. But IL is plain that an agreement on the
asis that no State should be bound, without its
ent by the result OF the deliberations would be an
abandonment on the part of the North Of its pre-
ended right OF coercion; would be az absolute re-
ogntiOnof the independence OF Ths several States
d the COutcdeTaCy; would bc, In q word, so COM
plete concession OF the righttulness Of our cause
hat the most visionary cannot hope for such an
tgreemet az GiCgpCt Of the meeting Of "a conyen-
ION. The only other possible ba4s u meeting Is
nat each State should agree, beforehand, 10 be
,ound by the decision of the convention and such
greement is bur asother form OF submission TO
Northern dominion is we wei know THAI IN such Il
convention We should be Outnhmbered nearly TWO TO
ne ON the very tire hold OF the scheme proposed
therefore We are met 10y an obstacle which cannot
De renewed, is not the impcacticabe character of
The project apparenti
You will observe that | leave entirely out Of view
he suggestion that convention of all the States Of
both federaiiopS should he held by common consent
sthout any previous understanding as TO the effect
# its decisions; should meet megsly to debate and
ASS resolutions that are TO bind one. II Il not
opposed that Ibis really be the meaning attached
the proposal by those who are active in its sup
.oIt although the resolutions to which you invite
ans attention declare that the function ofSuch con-
gcuton would be simply to propose plan OF peace,
With the consent OF the two belligerentS or i'll other
yords to act negoiators in treating for peace -
This part Of the scheme is not Ineligible to me-
II the Convention is only 10 be held with tine con
cent of the two belgerentS, that consent cannot be
iManed without negotiation. The plan then would
esolye itself into scheme that the two governments
bould negotiate an agreement for the appointment