Discussion

Maryland wrote:I remind my northern colleages that several of their states continue to hold on their books laws which restrict the movements and and freedoms of our free, colored friends. For example, Illionois bans miscengenation. Many states such as Illionois continue to have Black Codes on the books.

Those who live in glass houses should be careful before they throw stones.

Lt. Governor Hoffman
And that is something that Illinois intends to end as soon as feasible. If not for the threat of secession, it would already be done - Governor Yates intends to ensure that all men, of any race, are granted their inalienable rights as citizens of Illinois.

Mr. Bullock and Mr. Smith collect their notes and leave, an aide to Smith stays behind.

"I will take what was said to the Governor." Mr. Bullock says before leaving.

Tennessee wrote:1) States would have the power to compensate slave owners on their own, and that no federal law would prevent such compensation.

2) States would be allowed to relocate, willingly or forcibly, negroes to another state or to Africa provided that the costs of such relocation was covered completely by the State Government.

3) States would be given the power to decide when the Second Generation was released from servitude.

4) That nothing would prevent states from enacting servitude as a form of punishment for crimes committed as long as no long term financial benefit was given to the state or individuals without compensation.

New Jersey can agree to the first and second proposals, but not to the third and fourth.

OOC: The fourth is pretty much the standard in the US today, in terms of the law.

Then I have to say it looks like we are coming dangerously close to an impasse here. With PA and CT unwilling to accept any form of compromise to broker peace, and other delegations unwilling to accept obvious overtures at compromise to seek such peace then I am not sure what good it is to continue these proceedings.

Virginia wrote:OOC: The fourth is pretty much the standard in the US today.

OOC: So? It really depends on how you define "servitude"

OOC: I think the PA delegation went home to bring the proposal to the Governor.

A young aide to Mr. Smith speaks up

"That is correct.. they left to take the proposal to the Governor in Philadelphia."

Connecticut wrote:While we appreciate the efforts of many individuals on peace, it is evident to us - if to no one else - that the Southern states, who have promoted secession and murdered federal troops, are not proper partners in this endeavor. We will leave an observer here to see what is decided, but in the end it is obvious that we will have to continue our opposition to secession, nullification, and the moral evil of slavery in the halls of Congress. Best wishes to all involved.

Congressman Styles collects his notes and departs the conference, leaving an aide to transcribe the proceedings.

It is interesting that the Southern States have been amicable in carrying on the discussions of compromise put forth on the issue that predominately disturbs the Northern states, yet they feel, suddenly, there's no point in continuing and depart abruptly.

It is also worthy of note that Connecticut does not approve of Texas militia defending themselves against an invasion of a federal Army but cares little for the innocents civilizians murdered by a federal Army enforcing an unconstitutional action.

The South Carolinan delegation will be glad to continue discussions on the Virginian proposal whether at the present or in reconvening sometime after we have confered with those we represent.

I was not aware that we had actually formulated a formal proposal as of yet so exactly what is being presented to the Governor of Pennsylvania?

Quite honestly, I am not here to care about whether the Connecticut or any delegation finds these negotiations to be worthwhile. I was sent to negotiate peace on behalf of Oregon, and it's what I'm going to do.

Oregon wrote:Quite honestly, I am not here to care about whether the Connecticut or any delegation finds these negotiations to be worthwhile. I was sent to negotiate peace on behalf of Oregon, and it's what I'm going to do.

I am here for the same purpose, but how can we negotiate peace if we have delegations refusing to participate? It is going to take more than Oregon to reach peace here.

Tennessee wrote:

Oregon wrote:Quite honestly, I am not here to care about whether the Connecticut or any delegation finds these negotiations to be worthwhile. I was sent to negotiate peace on behalf of Oregon, and it's what I'm going to do.

I am here for the same purpose, but how can we negotiate peace if we have delegations refusing to participate? It is going to take more than Oregon to reach peace here.

Although the South Carolinian delegation thanks Oregon and the other reasoneable delegations represented here today.

I would note that the lowering of tariffs passed without the consent of Connecticut, and so could this agreement. I would also note that many other states still stand here in this chamber...only two have left, and one not to protest but to deliver findings. One representative leaving is not cause to waver in this proceedings.

Perhaps we should lay down those compromises which have been hammered out thusfar?

Oregon wrote:I would note that the lowering of tariffs passed without the consent of Connecticut, and so could this agreement. I would also note that many other states still stand here in this chamber...only two have left, and one not to protest but to deliver findings. One representative leaving is not cause to waver in this proceedings.

Perhaps we should lay down those compromises which have been hammered out thusfar?

And I would like to know what proposal the Gentleman from Pennsylvania is delivering to his Governor. We havent even drafted a formal proposal as of yet.

And yes, we should lay down what has been discussed and agreed to so far.

I believe a few points have been largely agreed upon.

1) States collecting tariffs should be allowed to keep a sizable portion for their own improvement, and tariff money going to the federal government should be equitably distributed between the states.

2) The federal government ought to be enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act to prevent legal issues in free states with the matter, and the federal government should not recognize unlawfully granted citizenship by states.

3) A cap should be placed on the size of state militias allowed to be held in a time of peace, and restrictions should be placed on the ability of federal troops to be deployed against a state in addition to restrictions on lawfully arresting sitting state government officials.

4) President Chamberlin should be censured for the arrest of the Texas State Legislature at the very least.

Anything to add on? These are provisions which Oregon would agree to.

Additionally, most slave-holding states seem to be willing to provide for the grandchildren of the current generation of enslaved persons to be born free, with compensation a matter left up to the individual states.

All this provided northern governments do not hinder the Federal enforcement of the fugitive slave act.

Oregon wrote:I believe a few points have been largely agreed upon.

1) States collecting tariffs should be allowed to keep a sizable portion for their own improvement, and tariff money going to the federal government should be equitably distributed between the states.

2) The federal government ought to be enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act to prevent legal issues in free states with the matter, and the federal government should not recognize unlawfully granted citizenship by states.

3) A cap should be placed on the size of state militias allowed to be held in a time of peace, and restrictions should be placed on the ability of federal troops to be deployed against a state in addition to restrictions on lawfully arresting sitting state government officials.

4) President Chamberlin should be censured for the arrest of the Texas State Legislature at the very least.

Anything to add on? These are provisions which Oregon would agree to.

I think there should be a limit on the President's abilities to use Federal or State Troops to enforce Civil Laws.

And where were we on the Freedman proposal submitted by the Virginian delegate?

If I may, I believe that the Virginia proposal is the current one on the table, providing for:

(1) That those currently held in perpetual slavery, those born two generations hence from them shall be born freedmen, and that in cases of repatriation, that they may be repatriated to another state or to Africa.

(2) Measures will then be taken to assure a more equitable distribution of the money collected by tariffs, but all states must agree to respect the tariffs themselves.

(3) State militia will be capped at a small number, a number to allow for internal order without allowing external aggression

(4) Official censure of the President's actions in Texas will be issued by both the House and the Senate of the Federal Congress.

(5) All those arrested in Texas and subsequently court-martialed will be granted a full and unconditional pardon.

(6) A law requiring a super-majority of the Senate to approve of the deployment of federal troops domestically in the future.

(7) In the meantime, the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law, will fall primarily to the US Marshells and the General Government.

New Mexico will not agree to any cap on our militia for as long as the native tribes continue to wage war against our citizens.

Considering a sizeable portion of the standing army is stationed to protect the people of New Mexico, requiring a constant investment on the part of the East, I would suggest New Mexico be willing to compromise here.

Mr. Bullock re- enters

"We were able to find a telegraph to relay to the Governor"

OOC: Didnt know if telegraphs existed in 1860 yet.. they do

Perhaps the militia limits should only apply to states or during peace-time? I believe the New Mexico territory has every reason to have a large militia given the current state of affairs.

I also find Virginia's slavery proposal and Tennessee's limit on the enforcement of Civil laws to be acceptable.

Mr. Bullock rises to speak.

"I have been directed by the Governor to point to the following question. How does the government intend to deal with individuals who left their constitutional offices for offices that do not exist. We also must look into if those offices attempted any foreign policy which contradicts those policies of the President. Pennsylvania is more then willing to compromise.. but not to forgive and forget."

OOC: The telegraph excuse was because I am cooking dinner for the family.. so ill be in and out

If we have a drafted proposal, I believe the delegations from the Sovereign States would be willing to submit such proposals to their respective State Governments and to the Federal Legislature for consideration. I am afraid I have not been given any authority to agree to any terms here, but I am hopeful for at least a majority of the proposals here.