CONFEDERATE STATES. 



201 



do resolve, that the independence of the Southern 

 Confederate States, based upon the constitutional 

 compact between the sovereign States composing the 

 Confederacy, and maintained through nearly four 

 vears of gigantic war, justly claims from the world 

 its recognition as a rightful 'fact. 



2. That all the States which compose the late 

 American Union, as well those embraced within 

 the present United States as those embraced within 

 the Southern Confederacy, are what the original 

 thirteen States were declared to be by our fathers of 

 1776, and acknowledged to be by George III. of Eng- 

 land independent and sovereign, not as one polit- 

 ical community, but as States, each one of them con- 

 stituting such" a "people" as have the inalienable 

 right to terminate any Government of their former 

 cnoice, by withdrawing from it their consent, just as 

 the original thirteen, through their common agent, 

 acting for, and in the name of each one of them, by 

 the withdrawal of their consent, put a rightful ter- 

 mination to the British Government, which had been 

 established over them with their consent and eager 

 desire. 



3. That the sovereignty of the individual States is 

 the only basis of permanent peace on the American 

 continent ; and will, if the voice of passion and war 

 can once be hushed, and reason allowed to resume 

 her sway, lead to an early and lasting solution of all 

 the matters of controversy involved in the present 

 lamentable war, by simply leaving all the States free 

 to form their political associations with one another 

 not by force of arms, which excludes the idea of 

 "consent," but by a rational consideration of their 

 respective interests, growing out of their natural 

 situations. 



4. That as the very point of controversy in the 

 present war is the settlement of the political associa- 

 tion of the States, a treaty of peace cannot be per- 

 fected consistently with the sovereignty of their in- 

 dividual States without State action on the part of at 

 least those States whose preference may justly be re- 

 garded as doubtful, and have not yet been expressed 

 through the appropriate organs, and, therefore, op- 

 position to all State cooperation in perfecting a 

 peace cannot be consistent with a desire for its 

 establishment on a basis of the States. 



5. That we hail with gratification the just and 

 sound sentiment coming from a large and growing 

 party in the Xorth, that all associations of these 

 American States must be voluntary and not forcible, 

 and we give a hearty response to their proposition 

 to suspend the conflict of arms and hold a conven- 

 tion of States to inaugurate a plan for permanent 

 peace. 



6. That the appropriate action of such convention 

 would be not to form any "agreement or consent" 

 between States, but only to frame and propose a plan 

 of peace, and the assembling of such a convention 

 for this purpose would be relieved from all possible 

 constitutional objections by the consent of the two 

 Governments ; and with such consent the proposed 

 convention would but act as commissioners for the 

 negotiation of peace, subject to the ratification of 

 both Governments, and in all points involving the 

 sovereignty or integrity of the States, subject also 

 to the ratification of the particular States whose 

 sovereignty might be so -involved. 



7. That we respectfully but most earnestly urge 

 upon our own Government the propriety and wisdom 

 of not only expressing a desire for peace through 

 Presidential messages and Congressional manifes- 

 tos, but of making, on all suitable occasions, and 

 especially just after signal successes of our arms, 

 official, open, and unequivocal offers to treat for 

 peace through the medium of a convention of States, 

 leaving our adversary to accept our offers, or by re- 

 jecting them to prove to his own people that he is 

 waging this unnatural war not for peace, nor the 

 good of his country, but for purposes of the most 

 unholy and dangerous ambition. 



These resolutions were the occasion of the 

 following letter from Mr. Davis, stating his 

 views on the action of a Convention of the 

 States : 



EICHMOXD, YA., Nov. 17, 1854. 



To the Honorable Senators of Georgia, Jfessrs. A. K. 



Wight, President Senate, J. L. G terry , J. J/. Cham. 



bers, Thomas E. Lloyd, Frederick i". Jiast, II. U. 



Nemt, 



GEXTLEMEX : I answered by telegram this morn- 

 ing your letter of llth inst., as requested, and now 

 respectfully comply with your desire that I should 

 express my views on the subject to which you invite 

 my attenti'on. In forwarding to me the resolutions 

 introduced into the House of Representatives of 

 Georgia by Mr. Stephens, of Hancock, you state 

 that you are not inclined to favor the passage of 

 these or any similar resolutions, believing them to 

 have conduced to create divisions among ourselves, 

 and to unite and strengthen our enemies; but that 

 it is asserted in Milledgeville that I 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 to say that if this be true, and if the 

 passage of this or similar resolutions would in the 

 slightest degree aid or assist me in bringing the war 

 to a successful and speedy close, you will give thetn 

 your earnest and hearty support. I return you my 

 cordial thanks for this expression of confidence, but 

 assure you that there is no truth in the assertions 

 which you mention, and I presume that you will 

 already 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 agencies in treating for peace than 

 that established by the Constitution of the Confede- 

 rate States. That agency seems to me to be well 

 adapted to its purpose, and free from the injurious 

 consequences that would follow any other means 

 that have been suggested. The objection to sepa- 

 rate State action, which you present in your letter, 

 appears to be so conclusive as to admit of no reply. 

 The immediate and inevitable tendency of such dis- 

 tinct action by each State is to create discordant 

 instead of united counsels to suggest to our ene- 

 mies the possibility of a dissolution of the Confede- 

 racy, and to encourage them by the spectacle of our 

 divisions to more determined and united action 

 against us they would readily adopt the false idea 

 that some of the States of the Confederacy are dis- 

 posed to abandon their sister States and make sepa- 

 rate terms of peace for themselves, and if such a 

 suspicion, however unfounded, were once engen- 

 dered among our own people it would be destructive 

 of that spirit of mutual confidence and support 

 which forms our chief reliance for success in the 

 maintenance of our cause. When the proposal of 

 separate State action was first mooted it appeared to 

 me so impracticable so 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, I 

 was led to a serious consideration of the subject. 

 My first impressions have not been changed by re- 

 flection. If all the States of the two hostile fede- 

 rations are to meet in convention, it is plain such a 

 meeting can only take place after an agreement aa 

 to time, place, aud terms on which they are to meet. 

 Now, without discussing the minor, although not 

 trifling difficulties, of agreeing as to time and place, 

 it is certain that the States would never consent to 

 a Convention without a previous agreement as to 

 terms on 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 

 so bound but it is plain that an agreement on the 

 basis that no State should be bound without its con- 

 sent by the results of the deliberations would be 



