Nashville Union And Dispatch

IS GENERAL GRANT A RADICAL?
From the New York Tribune

The Times, which is now one of the most
Conservative-Radical, Copperhead-Republican,
Democratic papers we have, and
manages to oppose and support all men and
measures with marvelous consistency, says
of Gen. Grant's acceptance of the War
Office:
"Through many channels it will be asserted that Gen. Grant's compliance with
the call indicates his approval of Mr. Stanton's removal, and consequently of the
policy which exacts that proceeding. On
this head, fortunately, there is no room for
misrepresentation. Gen. Grant has not
allowed his habitual reticence to leave the
country in doubt as to his position on the
great occasion of difference between Congress
and the Executive. He supports the
plan of Congress, and is in favor of its
prompt and vigorous enforcement. The
Copperhead counselors of Mr. Johnson will
derive no succor from Gen. Grant."
Here are certain statements of fact, which
we challenge in the kindest spirit:
I. When has Gen. Grant ever departed
from what is called "his habitual reticence"
to sustain Congress, or in any way criticise
the President?
II. When the President began his attack upon the policy of Congress, did he
not send Gen. Grant down South to make a
report which could be used to neutralize
the effect of the exhaustive and able report
of Gen. Schurz? Was not the report of
Gen. Grant effectively used against the
policy of Congress?
III. Did not President Johnson state in
a letter recently printed in these columns,
and written by a trustworthy gentleman
that he had never doubted that General
Grant was a supporter of his policy?
IV. In the very crisis of the Presidential
struggle with Congress, did not Grant
accompany the President on his electioneering trip? Some of the apologists
have said, whisperingly, he did it by
"official command." Has anybody ever seen
the order? If the order compelled him to
make the trip, did it also compel him to
visit the White House and stand at the
side of the President while he cried over
the Philadelphia Convention?
V. And now when Mr. Stanton, rightly
construing a law of Congress to mean that
his office is not in the hands of the President, distinctly states that he will make an
issue with the President and fall back upon
Congress, do we not see Gen. Grant step
in, "accept" the office, and by this "acceptance," so completely disarm Mr. Stanton that he retires? Does not every reasonable person know that had General
Grant declined the appointment—which
being a civil office, he had a right to decline—the President would not have succeeded in removing the War Secretary? Is
it not well understood that Gen. Grant is
keeping warm this place until some Conservative may be found to take it?
We are not complaining of Gen. Grant.
He has a right to his opinions. He may
honestly sustain the President just as other
people honestly oppose him. It is a difference of opinion which does not in the least
detract from his renown as a soldier nor
from his patriotism and fidelity as a citizen.
But we do most decidedly object to the
attempt of the Times to make him a Radical when there is no written or spoken
word that we have ever seen or heard to
justify the assertion, and while all his acts,
and the acts of his loudest friends, lead to
a contrary inference.
As we have said we are not blaming Gen.
Grant. We are really defending him. If
he means to be considered a supporter of
Congress, he is great enough and frank
enough, and he has ink and paper enough
to make that support apparent. We are
bound to consider him not a supporter until
better informed. We shall be happy to
find we are mistaken, but we do not want
to be cheated by the Times, nor to assent to
the proposition that two and two make five
when we know they make four. If Gen.
Grant thinks enough of the votes of the
Radicals to permit his friends to support
him as a Radical candidate, he will certainly pay us the compliment of telling us
what we are to vote for. We honor him
enough to feel that if he comes upon our
platform, he means to stay there and to
abide by it faithfully. His New York friends
are not upon that platform. They are as
far away as they were last Summer when
they arranged the Philadelphia Convention.
It is suspicious that the men who arranged
that convention are now the busiest in
"arranging" Grant. The Times and the
Post are as loud now as they were then, and
they follow the same tactics. They claimed
to be Republican, to act in the interest
of the Republican party, and above all
to represent the majority of that party
as distinct from a fragment of seditious
Radicals. Their Philadelphia Convention
was a success, the party was a
success, the address was a success, the
resolutions were wonderfully successful, the
tears of Johnson were the most successful
demonstration in history, if we except a
kiss once bestowed by a Conservative apostle; but when the election came, the fragment of Radicals swept the country, and
these successful and ambitious partisans
were glad enough to be allowed to return
to line without being shot as deserters.
Shakspeare tells us that treason is but
trusted like the fox; and so we trust these
people. They are inherently treacherous,
bad, anti-Republican. They tried to destroy
us last year by the patronage and strength
of Andrew Johnson's administration. They
are trying the same game now with the
dazzling and illustrious name of Grant.
We bow before that name so far as it represents valor and patriotism, skill in the
field, moderation in council, and genius
triumphant in war. A year or two since
we bowed to the name of Andrew Johnson
as the representative of self-denying loyalty, war against treason, and clamorous
devotion to Radicalism. But far above
these names, as high as the stars, and
to us guiding stars, we see certain principles whose life is eternal, and whose success is more important to this people than
that of mere men. We follow them, and
whoever carries our banner must lead the
way. All considerations of availability
of personal reward, of pleasing this interest or that, are temptations to desert, and
mean mischief. We sustain no man whose
record is not as clear as the sun. We follow
no leader who does not tell us which way
he intends to travel. Above all things, we