CONFEDERATE BIOGRAPHY: THAT HAMPTON ROADS CONFERENCE 

***********************************************************
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm

Submitted by Doris Peirce - ginlu@charter.net
24 February 2002 
*********************************************************** 
TEXANS WHO WORE THE GRAY by Sid S. Johnson 
THAT HAMPTON ROADS CONFERENCE

Hon. John H. Reagan, exPostmaster General, C.S.A., writes from 
Austin, Texas, April 3, 1901:
Some one whose name is not given, in a communication dated March 
18, has inclosed to me from Atlanta, Ga., what purports to be an 
account written by Dr. R. J. Massey of an interview between 
himself and Vice President Stephens, during the month of April, 
1865, in which expressions are attributed to Mr. Stephens of so 
extraordinary a character as to make a statement as to the real 
facts, about which he is made to speak, necessary for two reasons: 
one in vindication of the truth of history, and the other to 
protect the good name and character for truth of Vice President 
Stephens.

The person who sent me Dr. Massey's paper speaks of him as a 
"physician of about forty years standing, and an elegant old 
gentleman."  His high character and standing makes it the more 
important that the errors to which he gives publicity should be 
corrected.  

On the 28th day of January, 1865, President Davis appointed Vice 
President Stephens, R.M.T.Hunter, a Confederate Senator, and Judge 
John A. Campbell, Assistant Secretary of War, as commissioners 
for an informal conference with the Federal authorities.  They met 
President Lincoln and Secretary Seward, acting for the United 
States, in conference at Hampton Roads on the 3d day of February, 
1865.

In Dr. Massey's paper Mr. Stephens states:
"After the usual salutations and a few compliments, we went to 
business. Mr. Lincoln drew from his pocket a sheet of paper about 
two feet long, and held it up to the wall and said:  'Gentlemen, 
let me write the word "Union."  The Union must be preserved, and 
you may fill the balance of this sheet with your own terms.'  
Several points were then discussed.  He proposed that all men in 
arms might return home unmolested, and every Southerner shall have 
a full and unconditional pardon for any and every crime that he may 
have committed against the United States; all rights shall be 
restored to everybody; no trials for treason, or any other crime, 
and that all slaves at that time in bondage shall remain so; but 
a bill will be immediately introduced in Congress for the gradual 
emancipation, and every slaveholder shall have fair and liberal 
compensation for every slave so emancipated."

Did President Lincoln make such a statement at the Hampton Roads 
Conference?  Let us see if it is possible that he could have made 
such a statement.  In his annual message to Congress, December 5, 1864, 
President Lincoln said: 
"At the last session of Congress a proposed amendment of the 
Constitution abolishing slavery throughout the United States passed
 the Senate, but failed for lack of the requisite two thirds vote 
in the House of Representatives.  Although the present is the same 
Congress, and nearly the same members, and without questioning the 
wisdom or patriotism of those who stood in opposition, I venture to 
recommend the reconsideration and passage of the measure at the 
present session.  Of course the abstract question is not changed; 
but an intervening election shows, almost certainly, that the next 
Congress will pass the measure if this does not.  Hence there is 
only a question of time as to when the proposed amendment will go 
to the States for their action.  And as it is to so go, at all events, 
may we not agree that the sooner the better?"

He thus favored abolishing slavery throughout the Union, without 
compensation, less than two months before the Hampton Roads Conference:
In the same message he said:
"In presenting the abandonment of armed resistance to the national 
authority on the part of the insurgents, as the only indispensable 
condition to ending the war on the part of the government, I retract 
nothing heretofore said as to slavery.  I repeat the declaration 
made a year ago, that 'while I remain in my present position I shall 
not attempt to retract or modify the emancipation proclamation, 
nor shall I return to slavery any person who is free by the terms 
of that proclamation, or by any of the acts of Congress.'  If the 
people should, by whatever mode or means, make it an executive 
duty to re enslave such persons, another and not I, must be their 
instrument to perform it."

Nothing is here said about compensation.
In his Emancipation Proclamation of Sept. 22, 1862, President 
Lincoln said:
"That, on the 1st day of January, in the year of our Lord, one 
thousand eight hundred and sixty three, all persons held as slaves 
within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof 
shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, 
thenceforward, and forever free; and the executive government of the 
United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, 
will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will 
do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any 
efforts they may make for their actual freedom."

This of course covered the whole South, and nothing is said here 
about compensation.
In his Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863, he said:
"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 suppressing said rebellion, 
I do, on this the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one 
thousand eight hundred and sixty three, and in accordance with my 
purpose so to do, publicly proclaimed for the full period of one 
hundred days from the day first 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:
"And by virtue of the power and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order 
and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated 
States and parts of States are, henceforward shall be, free; and that 
the executive government of the United States, including the military 
and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom 
of said persons."

This covered the whole South, and nothing is said in this about 
compensation.

On the 31st of January, 1865, two days before the meeting of the 
Hampton Roads Conference, Congress finally passed the joint 
resolution to abolish slavery throughout the United States.  
No compensation.

On tbe 10th of February, 1865, President Lincoln, in response to 
a resolution adopted by the House of Representatives, calling for 
information about the Hampton Roads Conference, speaking for himself 
and Secretary Seward, said:
"On our part, the whole substance of the instructions to the 
Secretary of State, herein before recited, was stated and insisted 
upon, and nothing was said inconsistent therewith."

In giving those instructions to Secretary Seward to govern him 
in the Hampton Roads Conference, on the 21st day of January, 1865, 
President Lincoln among other things, said:
"2. No receding, by the executive of the United States, on the 
slavery question, from the position assumed thereon in the late 
annual message to Congress, and in preceding documents."

You have seen what he said in that message and in his two Emancipation Proclamations.  In the face of the foregoing facts could President 
Lincoln have used the language attributed to him in Dr. Massey's 
paper?

The Confederate commissioners at the Hampton Roads Conference, 
making their report to President Davis on the 5th of February, 
1865, as to what occurred in that conference, said in part as 
follows:
"We learned from them (President Lincoln and Secretary Seward) 
that the message of President Lincoln to the Congress of the United 
States, in December last, explains clearly and distinctly his 
sentiments as to the terms, conditions, and methods of proceeding 
by which peace can be secured to the people, and we were not 
informed that they would be modified or altered to obtain that end.  
We understand from him that no terms or proposals of any treaty or 
agreement looking to an ultimate settlement would be entertained or
made by him with the Confederate States, because that would be a 
recognition of their existence as a separate power, which, under no 
circumstances, would be done; and for like reasons that no such 
terms would be entertained by him from the States separately; that 
no extended truce or armistice (as at present advised) would be 
granted, without a satisfactory assurance in advance of the complete 
restoration of the authority of the United States over all places 
within the States of the Confederacy.

"That whatever consequence may follow from the reestablishment of 
that authority must be accepted; but that individuals subject to 
pains and penalties under the laws of the United States might rely 
upon a very liberal use of the power confided to him to remit those 
pains and penalties if peace be restored.

"During the conference the proposed amendment to the Constitution 
of the United States, adopted by Congress on the 31st ultimo, was 
brought to our notice.  This amendment declares that neither 
slavery nor involuntary servitude, except for crimes, should exist 
within the United States, or any place within their jurisdiction, 
and that Congress should have the power to enforce this amendment by 
appropriate legislation."

This report was signed by Vice President Stephens, along with the 
Hon. R.M.T. Hunter and Judge Campbell.

On the 6th day of February, 1865, President Davis, in communicating 
that report to the Confederate Congress, said:

"I herewith transmit, for the information of Congress, the report 
of the eminent citizens above named showing that the enemy refused 
to enter into negotiation with the Confederate States, or any one 
of them separately, or to give to our people any other terms or 
guarantees than those which the conqueror may grant, or permit us 
to have peace on any other basis than our unconditional submission 
to their rule."

On the 7th of February, 1865, four days after the Hampton Roads 
meeting, Mr. Seward, Secretary of State of the United States, 
wrote to the Hon. Chas. Francis Adams, the United States Minister 
to Great Britain, giving a detailed account of what took place at 
that Conference.  In that paper he said:
"This suggestion, though deliberately considered, was nevertheless 
regarded by the President as one of armistice or truce, and he 
announced that we can agree to no cessation or suspension of 
hostilities, except on the basis of the disbandment of the insurgent 
forces, and the restoration of the national authority throughout 
all the States in the Union.  Collaterally, and in subordination 
to the proposition which was thus announced, the anti slavery 
policy of the United States was reviewed in all its bearings, and 
the President announced that he must not be expected to depart from 
the positions he had heretofore assumed in his proclamation of 
emancipation and other documents, as these positions were reiterated 
in his last annual message.  It was further declared by the President
that the complete restoration of the national authority everywhere 
was an indispensable condition of any assent on our part to whatever 
form of peace might be proposed.  The President assured the other 
party that, while he must adhere to these positions, he would be 
prepared, so far as power is lodged with the Executive, to exercise 
liberality.  His power, however, is limited by the Constitution, 
and when peace should be made Congress must neccessarily act in 
regard to appropriations of money and to the admission of 
representatives from the insurrectinary States.  The Richmond 
party was then informed that Congress had, on the 31st ultimo, 
adopted by a constitutional majority a joint resolution submitting 
to the several States the proposition to abolish slavery throughout 
the United States, and that there is every reason to expect that 
it will be soon accepted by three fourths of the States, so as to 
become a part of the national organic law."

In the face of the foregoing official facts can any reasonable 
person believe it to be possible that President Lincoln made such 
a statement to Vice President Stephens as that attributed to him 
in Dr. Massey's paper?  The whole story must be an unwarranted 
assumption.  Mr. Lincoln would not, in the face of his own record, 
of the action of Congress, and of the impassioned condition of 
public feeling in the United States, have dared to make such a 
proposition.

Mr. Stephens in his book, "The War between the States," page 617 
and following, gives an account of what occurred in the Hampton 
Roads Conference.  He makes no such statement as that attributed 
to him by Dr. Massey, but, on the contrary, shows that the 
Confederates could get no terms but unconditional surrender.  Can 
it be believed that if such an offer had been made he would, in 
his historical acccount of what occurred, have omitted it, and have 
in substance, stated the opposite to it?

Judge Campbell, another member of the Confederate Commission, in 
giving his account of what occurred at that Conference, in a paper 
which was in the possession of ex United States Senator Fitzpatrick, 
of Alabama, and which was afterwards published int The Land We Love 
magazine, makes no mention of such an incident as that described in 
Dr. Massey's paper; but, on the contrary, he shows distinctly that 
nothing was promised by either President Lincoln or Secretary Seward; 
that no guarantees would be given, but that the  South must cease 
hostilities and trust to clemency.

On the night of the return of Mr. Stephens to Richmond to that 
conference, it is stated on good authority that he told the Hon. 
James L. Orr, a Confederate Senator from South Carolina, that the 
Hampton Roads Conference was "fruitless and hopeless, because Mr. 
Lincoln offered the Confederacy nothing but unconditional submission."

An account of a controversy which took place between Judge Wallace, 
of San Augustine, Texas, and myself, a few years after the war, Judge 
Wallace asserting and I denying that an offer of $400,000,000 was made 
by President Lincoln to the Confederate Commissioners if the 
Confederates would abandon the war and come into the Union, attracted 
the attention of Col. Stephen W. Blount, who lived in the same town 
with Judge Wallace, and he, being an old time friend of Mr. Stephens, 
wrote to him asking the truth as to this.  Mr. Stephens wrote him that 
"the statement was untrue;" that "the only element in reference to the 
slave payment was so mixed and infused with falsehood as to make the 
entire assertion false."

I thus offer the authentic record of what occurred at Hampton Roads 
Conference, and Mr. Stephens' own several statements in signing the 
report of the Confederate Commissioners of the result of that 
Conference, in his history of the "War Between the States," his 
statement to Senator Orr, his statement to Col. Sexton, and his 
letter to Col. Blount, the statement of President Lincoln, of 
Secretary Seward, and of Judge Campbell, formerly a justice of the 
Supreme Court of the United States, as evidence of the inaccuracy 
of the statement attributed by Dr. Massey and others to Mr. Stephens.

I add that at the last annual reunion of the confederate Veterans 
Association, at Louisville, Ky., in June, 1900?, the committee on 
History, with General Stephen D. Lee as its chairman, having had 
their attention called to the discussion of the question about the 
offers made by Mr. Lincoln to pay for the slaves if that would end 
the war and restore the Union, made a full investigation of the 
question, and reported that there was no shadow of foundation for 
any such statement.

The foregoing facts dispose of the statement attributed to Vice 
President Stephens, in which he is made to say that President 
Lincoln proposed, in substance, if the Union could be preserved, 
"that all men in arms might return to their homes unmolested, and 
every Southerner shall have an unconditional pardon for any and 
every crime that he may have committed against the United States; 
all rights shall be restored to everybody; no trials for treason, 
or any other crime; that all slaves that at that time are in bondage
shall remain so; but a bill will be immediately introduced in 
Congress for the gradual emancipation, and every slave holder shall 
have fair and liberal compensation for every slave so emancipated."  
Could anything be farther from the real truth, as shown by the 
foregoing facts?

If any man ever needed to be protected from his supposed friends, 
it is Mr. Stephens.  If they could induce the public to believe 
these representations in this respect, the effect would be to 
injure the character of Mr. Stephens for truth and varacity.  The 
public will doubtless accept such facts as are herein stated, 
rather than the recollections of any man, however respectable, 
depending on his memory after the lapse of thirty six years.

I knew Vice President Stephens well, served with him four years 
in the House of Representatives of the United States before the 
war, we were fellow prisoners in Fort Warren after the war, and 
we served several sessions together in the United States House of 
Representatives after the war.  While our views were not always 
in accord about the conduct of the war, I always had the greatest 
respect for his ability.  his patriotism, and his exceptionally 
fine character as a man; and it pains me to have seen the efforts 
which have been made to put him in a false position, and to falsify 
the acts of history in a  manner in which he was an actor, and all, 
as I believe, as a means of trying to bring discredit on the 
Confederate Government and those who administered it.

Most of the principal actors in the war between the States have 
passed to their final account.  So far as relates to the heroes 
and martyrs on the Confederate side, civil and military, in one of 
the greatest wars known to history, I think it can be truthfully 
said, as to both those in civil and military life, that braver, 
more patriotic, more self sacrificing men and women never gave 
their services, their fortunes, and their lives to a great cause 
of human rights and constitutional government, and it is pitiable 
to see persons of later days, some of whom took no part in that 
struggle and made no sacrifices for that cause, busying themselves 
in finding fault with and in criticising the noble men who did so 
much and suffered so much for it.

JOHN H. REAGAN.