Year: 1865




the States would never consent to a con.
vention without previous agreement as
to terms in 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 go
bound-but it is plain that an agreement
on the basis that no State should be bound
without its consent by the results of the de-
liberations, would bean abandonment on the
part of the North of its pretended right of
coercion; would be an absolute recognition
of the independence Of the several States
of the Ooufederacy-would be, in a werd,
80 complete concession Of the rightfulness
of our cause that the most visionary can.
not hope for such Engagement in advance
of the meeting of convention. The onIv
other possible basis of meeting is that
each StHte s!iouIoA llISras beforehand In he
bound by the decision OF the C0nVeuts..s
and such agreementfs but another form
OF submission to Northern dominion, as we
Welt know in such Convention we should
be outnumbered 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 impracti-
cable character of the project apparent 2
You will observe that leave entirely out



of all the states of both federatious should
be held by common consent without any
previous understanding as to the effect of
its decisions-should meet merely to debate
aud pass resolutions that are to bind no
one. 1t is not supposed that this can real-
ly be the meaning attached to the proposal
by those who are active in its support al
though the resolutions TO which you invite
my attention declare the function of such a
convention would be simply to propose a
plan of peace with the consent of the two
beIligerents, 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 nego-
tIation-the plan then would resolve itself
into scheme that the two governments
should negotiate an agreement for the ap-
,pointmeDt OF negotistors to make proposals
for treaty. 1t seems much more prompt
and simple to negotiate for peace at once
than to negotiate for the appointment of
negotiators 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 will treat for
peace directly; if unwilling, it will refuse
10 consent to Convention of the States.-
The author of these resolutions and those
who concur in his views, appeared to me
to commit the radical error of supposing
that the obstacle to obtaining the peace
which we all desire consists in the difficulty
of finding proper agencies for negotiating,
SO that the whole scope of the resolution
ends in nothing but suggesting that if the
enemy will treat, the best agency would be
State delegates to Convention; whereas,
the whole and only obstacle is that the en-
emy 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 may appear su-
perhuous tosadd others of lessgraVi,y; but,
as you invite full expression of my views,
1 will add that history is replete with in
stances of the interminable difficulties and
delays which attend the attempt to neguti-
ate on great and conflicting interests where
the parties to the negotiation are numer-
ous; if this has been the case where the
parties possessed full power to conclude
treaty, what can we hope from an Assem-.
blage of negotiators from thirty or forty
States, who, in the midst of an exaspera-
ting warfare, are 10 meet without power to
conclude anything. In the history of our
country we find that in time of profound
peace, where the most cordial brotherhood
of sentiment existed, aud where a long and
bloody war.had been brought to trium-
phant close, it required two years to assem-
BILE convention and bring its deliberations
to an end, and another year to procure the
ratification of their labors. With such a
war as the present in progress the views
of the large assemolage of negotiators
proposed would undergo constant changes,
according to the struggle and the attempt
to secure coucordaut views would soon
be abandoned, and leave the parties more
embittered than ever, less hopeful of the
possibility of successful negotiation. Again,
how is the difficulty resulting from the con-
hicting pretensions of the two beligerents in
regard TO several of the states to be over come
Is it to be supposed that Virginia would
enter into Convention with delegation
from what our enemies choose to term the
State of West Virginia, and thus recognize
an insolent, and violent dismemberment of
her territory2 Or would the United States
consent that West Virginia should be de-
prived of her pretensions to equal rights,
after having formally admitted her as a
State and allowed her to vote at Presi-
Dental election? Who would send a dele
CATION from Louisiana, Tennessee, Ken
lucky, Missouri The enemy claim to hold
the Government of these States, while we
asasserlt them to be members of the Confed-
eracy! Would delegates be received from
both sides2 If 80 there would soon be a
disruption of the convention. If delegates
are received from neither side, then num-
Der of the States most vitality interested in
the result would remain unrepreseuted;
and what value could be attached to mere
recommendations of body of negotiators
under the circumstances2 Various other
considerations suggest themselves, but
enough has been said to justify my con-
ciusion that the proposal OF seps rate State
action is unwise, impracticable, and offers
no prospect of good to couuterbalance its
manifold Injurious consequences to the
cause of our country.


Very respectfully, yours, &C.,


JEPPRRsoN DAvTs