George, there was a "peace conference" held at Hampton Roads, Virginia, on January 31, 1865, between Stephens, Hunter and Campbell, on the Confederate side, and Lincoln and Seward, on the Union side.

Stephens proposed a secret military convention between the two sides, to unite the people of both sides in the defense of the Monroe Doctrine by expelling the French from Mexico. Stephens reasoned that that would result in a cessation of hostilities -- a truce -- between North and South, which would lead to peace.

Lincoln was adamant that the first condition of any peace negotiation between North and South should be that the South should "acknowledge the supremacy of the the Constitution and the laws of the United States." The Confederate commissioners objected that this constituted unconditional surrender, to which Lincoln replied that it was not surrender, but merely submission to law. He went on to say that "the people of the North were as responsible for slavery as the people of the South, and if the war should then cease, with the voluntary abolition of slavery by the States, he should be in favor, individually, of the government paying a fair indemnity for the loss to the owners." The amount of $400,000,000 was mentioned.

Seward said that "the Northern people were weary of the war. They desired peace and a restoration of harmony, and, he believed, would be willing to pay, as an indemnity for the slaves, what would be required to continue the war."

Stephens later reported that Lincoln told him, "You may take a blank sheet of paper and write on it, first, submission to the Constitution and the laws of the United States, and second, emancipation of the slaves, and then write any other laws you please below those two, and I will sign it."

As we know, the conference produced no result. To the South, the purpose of the war was to secure its independence. To agree to Lincoln's terms would have been to capitulate. The battle lines were too fundamental to negotiate. For the North -- restoration of the United States government over a united country. For the South -- independence or military defeat. Not much wiggle-room for negotiations.

Alexander Stephens covered this conference in his "The War Between the States," Volume II. The Southern Historical Society Papers covered the conference in several volumes. There's a good, succinct basic outline of the discussions in Volume XXVII.

I don't know if this what the gentleman you've been debating is referring to. If it is, then he has misunderstood the entire premise of the conference.