An INterview with President Jefferson Davis

Federation of StatesAN INTERVIEW WITH PRESIDENT JEFFERSON DAVIS ^

[Aurelius]

Gentlemen: I have transcribed this article from an English paper entitled "The Globe and Traveller" of September 2nd, 1864, of which I have an original in my possession. It is a negotiation interview between Jefferson Davis and Judah Benjamin of the Confederacy, and Colonel Jaques and J. R. Gilmore of the Union. I have emboldened a part that sums up what the South was all about.

Warmest Regards ...Brian Lee Merrill

****************************************

The Globe and Traveller (England) Friday Evening, September 2, 1864

AN INTERVIEW WITH PRESIDENT DAVIS

The Atlantic Monthly in an article in the September number gives a narrative of Colonel Jaque's interview with President Davis, which took place some time ago, exciting a great deal of curiosity at the time. The narrative is from the pen of J. R. Gilmore, a companion of Colonel Jaques. The substance of the communication between the President and the two negotiators was made public at the time, but the following extract will give a better idea of the proposal discussed:-

Colonel Jaques: "Suppose the two Governments agree to something like this:- to go to the people with two propositions - say, peace, with disunion and Southern independence, as your proposition, and peace, with union, emancipation, no confiscation, and universal amnesty, as ours. Let the citizens of all the United States (as they existed before the war) vote "Yes" or "No" on these two propositions, at a special election, within 60 days. If a majority votes disunion, our Government to be bound by it, and to let you go in peace; if a majority votes union, yours to be bound by it, and to stay in peace. The two Governments can contract in this way, and the people, though unconstitutionally unable to decide on peace or war, can elect which of the two propositions shall govern their rulers. Let Lee and Grant meanwhile agree to an armistice. This would sheath the sword; and if once sheathed would never again be drawn by this generation."

President Davis: "The plan is altogether impracticable. If the South were only one state it might work; but, as it is, if one Southern state objected to the emancipation, it would nullify the whole thing, for you are aware that the people of Virginia cannot vote slavery out of South Carolina, nor the people of South Carolina vote it out of Virginia."

Colonel Jaques: "But three-fourths of the States can amend the constitution. Let it be done in that way, in any way, so that it be done by the people. I am not a statesman or a politician, and I do no know just how such a plan could be carried out; but you get the idea - that the people shall decide the question."

President Davis:"That the majority shall decide it you mean. We seceded to rid ourselves of the rule of the majority, and this would subject us to it again."

Colonel Jaques: "But the majority must rule finally, either with bullets or ballots."

President Davis:"I am not so sure of that. Neither current events nor history shows that the majority rules, or ever did rule. The contrary, I think, is true. Why, Sir, the man who should go before the Southern people with such a proposition, with any proposition which implied that the North was to have a voice in determining the domestic relations of the South, could not live here a day. He would be hanged to the first tree, without judge or jury."

Colonel Jaques: "Allow me to doubt that. I think it more likely he would be hanged if he let the Southern people know the majority couldn't rule," I replied smiling.

President Davis:"I have no fear of that," rejoined Mr. Davis, also smiling good humouredly. "I give you leave to proclaim it from every housetop in the South."

Colonel Jaques: "But, seriously, sir, you let the majority rule in a single State: why not let it rule in the whole country?"

President Davis:"Because the states are independent and sovereign. The country is not. It is only a confederation of states; or rather it was; it is now two confederations."

Colonel Jaques: "Then we are not a people - we are only a political partnership?"

President Davis:"That is all."

Judah Benjamin: "Your very name, sir, 'United States,' implies that," said Mr. Benjamin. "But tell me, are the terms you have named - emancipation, no confiscation, and universal amnesty - the terms which Mr. Lincoln authorised you to offer us?"

Colonel Jaques: "No, sir; Mr. Lincoln did not authorise me to offer you any terms. But I think both he and the Northern people, for the sake of peace, would assent to some such conditions."

President Davis:"They are very generous," replied Mr. Davis, for the first time during the interview showing some angry feeling. "But amnesty, Sir, applies to criminals. We have committed no crime. Confiscation is of no account, unless you can enforce it. And emancipation! You have already emancipated nearly two millions of our slaves, and if you will take care of them you may emancipate the rest. I had a few when the war began. I was of some use to them; they never were of any to me. Against their will you 'emancipated' them, and you may 'emancipate' every Negro in the Confederacy, but we will be free. We will govern ourselves. We will do it if we have to see every Southern plantation sacked, and every Southern city in flames."

Colonel Jaques: "I see, Mr. Davis, it is useless to continue this conversation," I replied, "and you will pardon us, if we have seemed to press our views with too much pertinacity. We love the old flag, and that must be our apology for intruding upon you at all."

Colonel Jaques: As we were leaving the room Mr. Davis said,

President Davis:"Say to Mr. Lincoln from me that I [shall be] at any time he pleased to receive proposals for peace on the basis of our independence. It will be useless to approach me with any other."

Colonel Jaques: When we went out Mr. Benjamin called Judge Ould, who had been waiting during the whole interview - two hours - at the other end of the hall, and we passed down the stairway together. As I put my arm within that of the judge, he said to me- "Well, what is the result?" "Nothing but war - war to the knife." "Ephraim is joined to his idols - let him alone," added the Colonel solemnly.

[Aurelius]

"You call him President after all the disenfranchised minorites that werent allowed to vote? pResident is more like it."

Slavery is certainly to be condemned. But the fact that slaves, and women, didn't vote had no bearing on the legitimacy of Davis holding office. And by the way, they were not disenfranchised, they had never been enfranchised. I am sorry, but I find your comment totally absurd.

[x]

Any government has to be able to enforce its laws if they are in keeping with the Constitution. To look at Washington's conduct in his Presidency it certainly does look like the Founders did endow the federal government with real powers. That explains his actions during the Whiskey Rebellion. The Constitution was intended to restrict federal power but not to destroy it.

The idea of an absolutely morally autonomous state would mean a state that is beyond moral judgement. It's natural that the founders who feared absolute power at the national level would eventually take exception to state claims to be beyond obligations and limits. It would have been a mistake to prevent absolutist rule at the federal level and allow it to the states.

A lot of confederate types attack Northerners for self-righteous moralism and charge unionists with hypocrisy. If you look back at the writings of the period, you'll find a lot of self-righteous moralism and hypocrisy among secessionists as well. This gets lost in retrospect as many take the Confederates as purely passive victims, rather than as actors who were capable of their own emotionalism, self-aggrandizement, and oppressiveness.

[lowbridge]

Scott. You just don't get it, do you? You don't. /Dr. Evil

[Ditto]

As you know very well the emancipation that Jefferson referred to had nothing to do with Lincoln's phony Emancipation Proclamation.

Then what emancipation was it?

[Ditto]

Federal occupation of much of Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi and coastal South Carolina emancipated the slaves to which President Davis refers.

Correct. They were freed under the terms of the EP. Tens of thousands of them joined the Union Army.

[Ditto]

The concept of a Federal institution with coercive powers to enforce law went beyond the powers that the founding fathers were willing to delegate to the government.

Like the Fugitive Slave Act?

[Non-Sequitur]

I had a few when the war began. I was of some use to them; they never were of any to me.

Davis had more than a few of them, he owned over 115 at one time. And since their labor was responsible for an annual income that varied between $25,000 and $40,000 per year I would think that his slaves were of use to Davis.

[Non-Sequitur]

The Confederacy was diverse before diversity was cool.

Sure it was diverse. The closer you examine the confederacy diverse it looks.

[Non-Sequitur]

Great line, and two things jump out immediately.

One thing jumps out at me, billbears. Davis was saying that if the Lincoln administration would accept them then he had no problem with expelling every slave in the south and shipping them North, thus obtaining an all-white confederacy.

[Non-Sequitur]

So what you are saying is that this entire interview is bullsh*t?

[Aurelius]

"Then what emancipation was it?"

The same "emancipation" of the property of the vanquished that occurs in all wars.

[Aurelius]

Do you "get it"; I don't think so.

[Ditto]

"The same "emancipation" of the property of the vanquished that occurs in all wars."

Which is exactly whay Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation called for. Why do you people continue to insist that Lincoln's EP freed no slaves when even in mid 1864, the President of the CSA admitted that half of the slaves in the south had already been freed by it?

[Aurelius]

What was done would have been done with or without the proclamation. The proclamation was devised solely for political purposes. So far as I know, no serious historian disputes that or maintains that any slaves were actually freed as a result of the proclamation.

[carton253]

bump for bookmark

[Ditto]

"What was done would have been done with or without the proclamation."

Not true at all. Before the EP, slaves were taken as "contraband" or accepted as refugees if they could get to Union lines, but if the owners could get into court the courts would order the "property" returned if owner could demonstrate that the slaves were not providing direct support for the revolution. Without the EP, at the end of the war, owners would be able under the law to reclaim their property. The EP changed that and designated any slave residing in rebelious territory as being automatically a material aid to the enemy and declared them free for all time.

Yes, the EP was a political statement, and a powerful one, but it also had significant real results in permantly freeing millions of slaves.

[billbears]

Unlike the union President's ideal which was? Never mind the fact that other races were accepted down here, most evident Native Americans and Jewish peoples. How did Grant and Sherman feel about Jews again? Not to mention their 'fondness' of anyone that wasn't white. If the union had its way, the whole of their nation would have been lily white within a generation.

[Aurelius]

...but it also had significant real results in permantly freeing millions of slaves.

As I said before, even historians sympathetic to the Northern cause, Bruce Catton for example, do not make that claim. And what about the fact that with the early announcement of the proclamation, several months before the actual issuance, Lincoln implicitely promised that in any states that would return to the Union prior to the January issuance, slaveowners could keep their slaves.

[Ditto]

And what about the fact that with the early announcement of the proclamation, several months before the actual issuance, Lincoln implicitely promised that in any states that would return to the Union prior to the January issuance, slaveowners could keep their slaves.

What about it. I doubt that Lincon expected any takers, but he made an offer to help bring the war to a quicker end. The EP was a war measure and a political statement, but it did have the end result of freeing millions of slaves. Look up Juneteenth and tell me it didn't free any slaves.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

The Emancipation Proclamation

Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-In-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for supressing said rebellion, do, on this 1st day of January, A.D. 1863, and in accordance with my purpose so to do, publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days from the first day above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof, respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States the following, to wit:

Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana (except the parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James, Ascension, Assumption, Terrebone, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the city of New Orleans), Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkeley, Accomac, Morthhampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Anne, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth), and which excepted parts are for the present left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.

The excepted parts are the areas under Union control at the time. The only slaves really emancipated were those who emancipated themselves. President Lincoln exercised no authority in the unoccupied portions of the Confederate States of America.