[214]
Chapter 8:
- The peace conference -- demand for “a little bloodletting” -- plan proposed by the Congress -- its contemptuous reception and treatment in the United States Congress -- failure of last efforts at reconciliation and reunion -- speech of General Lane of Oregon.
While the events which have just been occupying our attention were occurring, the last conspicuous effort was made within the Union to stay the tide of usurpation which was driving the Southern states into secession. This effort was set on foot by Virginia, the General Assembly of which state, on January 19, 1861, adopted a preamble and resolutions, deprecating disunion and inviting all such states as were willing to unite in an earnest endeavor to avert it by an adjustment of the then existing controversies to appoint commissioners to meet in Washington on February 4 “to consider, and, if practicable, agree upon some suitable adjustment.” Ex-President John Tyler, along with William C. Rives, John W. Brockenbrugh, George W. Summers, and James A. Seddon—five of the most distinguished citizens of the state—were appointed to represent Virginia in the proposed conference. If they could agree with the commissioners of other states upon any plan of settlement requiring amendments to the federal Constitution, they were instructed to communicate them to Congress, with a view to their submission to the several states for ratification. The “border states” in general promptly acceded to this proposition of Virginia, and others followed, so that in the “Peace Congress,” or conference, which assembled, according to appointment, on the 4th, and adjourned on the 27th of February, twenty-one states were eventually represented, of which fourteen were Northern, or “non-slaveholding,” and seven slaveholding states. The six states which had already seceded were of course not of the number represented; nor were Texas and Arkansas, the secession of which, although not consummated, was obviously inevitable. Three of the Northwestern states—Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota—and the two Pacific states—Oregon and California —also held afoof from the conference. In the case of these last two, distance and lack of time perhaps hindered action. With regard to the other three, their reasons for declining to participate in the movement were not officially assigned, and are therefore only subjects for conjecture. Some remarkable revelations were afterward made, however, with regard to the action of one of them. It appears from correspondence read in the
