Moreover, if compulsion had been necessary at that time, or at any time, to fill our armies, the war ought to have been immediately abandoned upon the disclosure of the fact; for no people are worthy of liberty, or capable of preserving it, who have to be compelled to fight, either for its establishment, or its defence. Conscripts or men who are used by Rulers barely as machines in war, may overthrow liberty, and prove efficient instruments in erecting Dynasties and Empires; but never have been, and never will be, the means of establishing free Institutions or maintaining them! This was my judgment then, and will be ever! Fortunately for the Confederates, more than half of their arms-bearing people were virtually in for the war, before this very demoralizing act was passed. The glory of their arms from the beginning to the end was achieved by this class of our soldiers. Very few of those who were brought in subsequently through the instrumentality of the Conscription acts, effected anything creditable to themselves or the country. The desertions so much complained of were almost entirely from the latter class. I doubt if there were ten thousand conscripts, properly speaking, in all the armies together, at the time of final surrender. The Army of Virginia, which fought until it was literally "annihilated," was composed almost exclusively of the surviving remnants of the original voluntary enlistments. The same is true of the Army of Tennessee. But, as I have stated, it is not my purpose now to discuss or to enlarge, beyond a general statement of my own position on any of these questions of difference, touching the internal policy of the country between myself and the Administration of Mr. Davis. He, of course, thought these measures, to which I have alluded, were not only constitutional, but timely and expedient. His views upon them in detail, are to be seen in his messages and speeches. Mine, in like manner, as expressed at the time, are to be found in Cleveland's collection of letters and speeches, written and made by me during the war. To them I must refer you for the points of difference on these measures in detail. These differences, however, wide as they were, in no degree caused me to withold my cordial support and cooperation, wherever I saw the possibility of effecting any good on that line of policy, which the Administration thought proper to adopt, even though it was against my own judgment. I neither headed nor countenanced anything like factious opposition to the execution of those measures which I thought would be attended with the worst consequences. This would have produced dissensions and divisions, which in my judgment could lead to nothing but the most disastrous results. My views upon them were given to Mr. Davis, the Members of the Cabinet and Members of Congress, in the most earnest and friendly manner. When they were so given, without avail, I remained silent before the country, except in a few instances in which self-vindication became a public duty. Upon the Constitutionality of the Conscript Acts, my views, Major Heister, were very similar to those expressed by the Supreme Court of your own State, upon a similar act, subsequently passed by the Federal Congress, in a case which produced considerable excitement throughout the North at the time, and with which you may be familiar. The opinion of Mr. Justice George W. Woodward, in that case, deserves a place in the future history of this Country, side by side with that of Chief Justice Taney, of the Supreme Court of the United States, on the suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus.* But enough on these subjects. *For the author's views, more in detail, upon these matters, here generally referred to, see Appendix Q, 1, 2, 3. You have now, Professor Norton, I think, a very full, if not satisfactory response to your inquiry for information upon the points stated by you. On all these points, however, I wish you distinctly to understand, that the differences between Mr. Davis and myself were in no respect, as I understood them, unlike those differences which often occur between the several Members of the same Cabinet, where all are equally earnest and sincere in their efforts to promote a common object; and not unlike differences which probably existed on many other questions, even between Mr. Davis and Members of his own Cabinet. We will now, if you please, after this long talk, take a little rest, before proceeding with the consideration of other subjects. JUDGE BYNUM. Before suspending, I wish barely to say that there are two other subjects, Mr. Stephens, upon which I desire specially to hear from you. These are: first, the celebrated Hampton Roads Conference, to which you have referred; and, secondly, the general results of the war, which you intimated an intention of saying something about. I am anxious to know the secret history of the origin, as well as the nature and objects of that conference; and as Secession, which you thought so justifiable as a mode of redress for a breach of Compact between States, has been abandoned, and is now among the dead issues of the past you speak of, I wish, for the gratification of a like personal curiosity, to know what you think of the future, especially of the Reconstruction Measures of Congress. MR. STEPHENS. Very well, gentlemen, I am at your service. In the morning, then, we will take up the Hampton Roads Conference, which will bring us to the close of the war; and in the evening, conclude with a brief review of its general results, as they now stand. COLLOQUY XXIII. HAMPTON ROADS CONFERENCE-BRIEF REVIEW OF PRECEDING MILITARY AND POLITICAL EVENTS—BATTLE OF CHICKAMAUGA-MEADE'S ATTACKS ON LEE-GRANT THE COMING MAN-BATTLE OF MISSIONARY RIDGE JOSEPH E. JOHNSTON SUPERSEDES BRAGG-GRANT MADE LIEUTENANT-GENERAL- BATTLES OF ATLANTA; ITS FALL-HOOD'S TENNESSEE CAMPAIGN: BATTLES MR. STEPHENS. In the Congressional language, Judge Bynum, with which we were so familiar when we were members of the House together, the "special order" for this morning is the Hampton Roads Conference in February 1865, about which you desired information. On JUDGE BYNUM. Yes, that is a matter I feel more interest in than the consideration of Battles, Proclamations, Conscript Laws, or anything else pertaining either to the causes, character, or general conduct of the war. these topics I think I very clearly perceive your general views. I am now more interested in getting some light upon the efforts which were made for stopping it. How did this celebrated Conference, having these objects, 576 originate? Who projected it, and how did it happen to fail? You must have known, at that time, that a further prosecution of the war was utterly hopeless. I have seen various reports about it. Amongst other things, I have seen it stated that Mr. Davis again yielded to your wishes to attempt negotiations for Peace, but so tied your hands. with instructions that nothing could be accomplished by it, and that his object in the whole matter was to use the failure as a means more effectually to arouse the people of the Confederate States to renewed efforts and energy, by showing them that there were no hopes left for them of attaining Peace, except by the sword. How is this? If you have no objections to responding to my inquiries, I should like to know what your instructions were, and what did really occur at the interview between the Confederate Commissioners, and Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Seward, in that Conference. MR. STEPHENS. The reports to which you refer are utterly unworthy of notice. These, as those in reference to the proposed Conference in 1863, have tended only to mislead the public mind, and to divert it from the truth in the case. The real objects of the Hampton Roads Conference have never been made fully known to the country, so far as I am aware. It was not intended in its origin or objects to bring about direct negotiations for Peace. On this point very erroneous ideas existed at the time, and do yet, I believe. We had no written instructions upon that subject, or any other, except what were contained in the letter of our appointment, which has been published;* nor any verbal instructions on that subject inconsistent with the terms of that letter. The Conference, moreover, did not originate in any way with me, as you seem to suppose. * See Correspondence, Appendix R, No. 2 |