Newspaper Page Text
SAVANNAH DAILY HERALD.
vox-*xj>rE 14
no. 17. /
16 PUK^ISHKD
EVERY EVENING, SUNDAYS BXCEPTED,
1 ! ' BY
63. W. 'MABON & CO.
Av 111 Bay SinFOT, Sayaskab, Gjhkiuu..
* TEb m 8:
Per Copy .• - P * e <* n £
per Year..... 00,
ABVRBTJBING :
A Jiittited number of Advertifcemeetß will l>e xm
c ived at the rate of Twenty Cents per Line for
Aral rasertion.ancl Fifteen Cents per Line for each
snbecqnen' m&ertion ; invariably in advance. Ad
rertisexne&ts ebould be handed i» before noon of
each day,
JOB PRINTING
in every style, neatly and promptly done.
(From the Herald Extra of Yesterday.)
Important Aortfieru News.
IV. Y. DA PEH f JC*O .TAIV. t>G.
latest from Wilmington.
Ppitf CasweQ and Campbell Blown Ip
and Evacuated.
Other Workfe Abandoned
by the feiiemy.
Till? DECLINE (iOTA)
tanadiaii Pailiament.
Tfrk’ ike arrival of thq.Fyiltoii atjHjifcon.
Iliad, yesterday, Northern papers to
the- 25th• were received. We are in
debted to Parser Lockwood, of the Cos
mopolitan, ior promptly forwarding us
copies frqm Purser McManus, of the
Fulton. The following are extracts .
War Department, Washington, Jan.
24. Major Gen end Bix—The following
telegram has been received by this De
part meat from Lieut. Gen. Grant:
- E- M. Stanton, Sec. of War.
Crry Point, Ya., Jan. 23. Hon. E. >l.
Stanton, Sec. of War—One of my staff
has just returned from Fort Fisher with
despatches from Gen. Terry, from which
1 extract the following: On the 16th
the fenemy blew up Forts Caswell and
Campbell, and abandoned them and the
works on Smith’s Island, and those at
Smith villa and Reeves’ Point. These
places were occupied by the navy. The
whole number of guns captured amounts
to one hundred and sixty-two. A large
number of small arms also fell into our
hands, besides quantities of ordnance
and commissary stores. Our casualties
move smaller than at first reported.
They foot up thus: Twelve officers and
one hundred and seven men killed; for
ty-five officers and four hundred and
ninety-men wounded.
U. S. Grant, Lieut. Gen’l.
.[From the N. Y. Herald, Jan. 26.]
The stock market was higher yester
day, and speculative feeling for a rise
was developed. Government securi
ties were heavy. Gold was irregular,
but firmer, and closed at 202 3-4.
Qoeb.ec, Jan. 24, 1865.—1n the opea
higpdeb&te in Parliament last night the
government was sustained by a large
majority, and the Southern refugees in
Canada strongly denounced. A deter
mination: was expressed ■ to stop the
abuse of asylum; a commission was ap
pointed to enquire into the cause of the
thilure of justice in reference to the re
lease of Bt. Albans raiders and the mis
appropriation of the money restored
them ; also to inquire into the conduet
of Justice Coureol and the Chief of Po
lio*. Meantime the government bassos
jwadefi the judge. i »
SAVANNAH, GA., MONDAY ‘EVENING, JAN. 30, 1865.
Jeff. Davis on Reconstruction.
An Important letter from the
Rebel President.
HE OPPOSES A CONVENTION OF STATES
AMD SEPARATE STAtE ACTION.
His Answer to the Georgia Reflation?.
Richmond, ’ISoy. 17, 1864.
To the Hon. Senators of Georgia., Messrs.
A. R. Wright , President of the Senate ,
J. L. Guerrv , J. M. Chambers , Thomas
R% Lloyd, Frederick K. West, Robert JJ.
Nesbit:
Gentlemen: I answered by telegraph
this morning your letter of the 11th
instant, as requested, ;md now respect
fully comply with vour desire that I
should express my on the subject
to which you invite my attention.
In forwarding to me the resolutions
introduced into the House of Represen
tatives of Georgia by Mr. Stephens, of
Hancock, yoit state that you are not in
clined to favor the passage of these or
any similar resolutions, believing them
to have a tendency to create diversions
among ourselves, and to unite and
strengthen our enemies, but that it is,as
serted inMiiiedgeviUe that I favor such
action on the paid of the States, and
would oe 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 these or similar'resolu
tions would in the slightest degree aid
or assist me in bringing the war to a
successful and speedy, <;)osc\ you will
give tliem your earnest and hearty sup:
port. I return you my cordial thanks
for this expression of confidence, but
assure yon that there is no truth in the
assertions which v you mention : and I
presume that you will already have seen,
by the closing part of my annual mes
sage, which must have" reached you
since the date of your letter, that I have
not contemplated the use of any other
agency in treating for peace than that
established by the Constitution of the
Confederate States. That agency seems
to me to be well adapted to its purposes
and free from the injurious consequences
that would follow any other means that
have been suggested. The objection to
separate State action which you present
in your letter appears to be so conclu
sive as to admit of no reply. The im
mediate and inevitable tendency of such
distinct acts by each State is to create
discordant instead of united counsels,
to suggest to our enemies the possibili
ty of a dissolution of the Confederacy,
and to encourage them by the spectacle
of our divisions to more determined and
united action against us. They wouffi
readily adopt the false idea that some of
the States of the Confederacy arc dis
posed to abandon their sister States and
make separate terms cf peace for them
selves; and if such a suspicion, how
ever unfounded, were once engendered
among our own people, it would be de
structive of that spirit of mutual confi
dence and support which forms our
chief reliance for success in the main
tenance 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 t© the expression of their opin
ions, I was led to a serious consideration
of the subject. My first impressions
have not been changed by reflection. If
all the States of the two hostile federa
tions are to meet in convention, it is
plain thas such a meeting can only take
place aftfcr an agreement as to the time,
place and terms on which they are to
without discussing thei
mir.or, although not trifling, difficulties
of agreeing as to time and place, it
certain that the States would never con-'
vened without agreement as. to terms
on which they were to meet. The pro
posed 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 consent, by the result of the
deliberations, would be an abandonment
oh the part of the North of is pretended
right of coercion—would be an absolute
recognition of the independence of the
several States of the Confederacy—would
be. in a word, so complete a concession
of the lightfuilness of our cause that the
most visionary cannot hope for such an
.agreement,
.In advance of the meeting of a con
vention, the only other possible basis of
meeting is that each State sh >uld agree
beforehand to be bound by the decision
of the convention ; and such agreement
is but another form of submission, of
Northern dominion, as we well know
that in such a convention we should be
outsun bered nearly two to one on the
very threshold of the scheme proposed.
Theretord we are met by an obstacle
which cannot be removed. Is not the
impracticable character of the project
apparent?
You will observe that I leave entirely
but of view the suggestion that a conven
tion of ail the States of both federations
should be held by common consent,
without any previous understanding as
to the effect of its decisions —should
meet merely to debate and pass resolu
tions that are to bind no one. It is not
supposed that this can really be the
meaning attached to the proposal by
those who are active in its support,
although 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 belligerents—or, in other
words, to act as negotiators in treating
for peace. This part of the scheme is
not intelligible to me. If the conven
tion is only to be held with the consent
of the two" belligerents, that consent can
not be obtained without negotiation.
The plan, then, would resolve itself into
a scheme that the two governments
should negotiate an agreement for the
appointment of negotiators to make pro
posals for a treaty. It seems much 01010?
prompt and simple to negotiate for peace
at once, than to negotiate for the ap
pointment 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 w ill treat for peace directly. If
unwilling, it will refuse to consent to a
convention of States.
The author of these resolutions, and
those who concur in his views, appear
to me to commit the radical error. of
supposing that the obstacle to obtaining
the peace which w T e all desire consists. in
the difficulty of finding proper agencies
for negotiating, so that the whole scope
of tlitTresolutions ends in nothing but
suggesting that, if the enemy will treat,
the best agency would be State delegates
to a convention; whereas, the whole and
only obstacle is that the enemy wi .1 not
treat at all, or entertain any othr pro
position than that w T e should submit to
their yoke, acknowledge that we are
criminals, and appeal to their 'or
peace.
.eater this statement of objeca .ua a
may appear superfluous to add others of
less gravity : but as you invite a full ex
pression of my views, I will add that
history is replete with instances of the
interminable difficulties and delays at
tending the attempt to negotiate on great
and conflicting interests where the par
ties to the negotiation are numerous,
iqtfns has been the case where ffcke par-
ties possessed full power to conclude a
treaty, what can we hope from the .as
sembly of negotiators from thirty or
forty btates, who, in the midst of an.
exasparating warfare, are to meet with
out power to conclude anything? In
the history of our country we find that
in a time of profound jteace, when the
post cordial brotherhood sentiment ex
isted, and when a long and bloody war
had been brought to a triumphant close,
it required two years to assemble a con
vention 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 she large assemblage ol
negotiators proposed would undergo
constant changes according to UiA vic&
situdes, according to the struggle, ami
the attempt to secure concordant vifcws
would soon be abandoned and leave the
parties must embittered than ever, Icha
hopeful of the possibility of succesciul
negotiation. Again, how is the difficul
ty resulting from the conflicting preten
sions of the two belligerents in regard t<*.
several of the States to lie overcome ?
Is it supposed that Virginia would enter
into a convention with a delegation from
what our enemies choose to term the
State of \Y r est Virginia, and thus recog
nize an insolent and violent dismember
ment of her territory ? Or would the
United States consent that West Virginia
should be deprived of her pretensions to
equal rights alter having formally ad
mitted her as a State, and allowed her t.< >
vote at a Presidential election? Who
would send a delegation from Louisiana,
Tennessee, Kentucky pr Missouri ? The
enemy claim to hold the governments 01
those States, while we assert them to luv
members <4 the Confederacy. Would
delegates be received from both sides?—
If so, there would soon be a disruption
jot* the convention. If delegates be re
ceived from neither side, then a conven
tion of the States most vitally interested
in the result would remain Unrepresent
ed-, and what value could be attached to
mere recommendations of a body of no
gotiators under such circumstances ?-
Various other considerations suggest,
themselves, but enough has been said to
justify my conclusion that the proposa
of separate State action is unwise, im
practicable, and offers no prospect of
good to counterbalance its manifold in
jurious consequences to the cause of our
country. Very respectfully, yours, &c.
Jkfturbon Davis.
FROM: MEXICO.
Ex-Senator I*win made a
Duke by Maximillimui.
REPORTED CESSION OF HEXICAN TER
RITORY TO FRANCE.
-"
San. Francisco, Jan. 23,
ters from -the Mazatian to the 14th inst.,
announce the arrival there of Captain.
Beauregard, a brother of Major General
Beauregard, of the rebel States, in the
capacity of private secretary to Wm. M
Gwin, formerly United States Senate*
from California.
Captain Beauregard reports that Mr.
Gwin has been created a duke by the
Emperor Maximilian of Mexico, and that
Sonora, Sinaloa, Ciuhubia, Pwrango and
Lower California have been coded to the
Emperor Napoleon, by the French gov
ernment in payment for the troops fur
nished by the French government t©
subjugate Mexico, and that Mr. Gwin
has been appointed Viceroy over those
States* and will soon enter upon the dn
ties of his office.
This story is not believed further than
that Mr. Gwin has obtained certain grants
of Land, and is authorized to encourage
immigration from the rebel State*.
i PRICE
\Five Cents.
