Gallipolis journal. [volume] (Gallipolis, Ohio) 1837-1919, 1861-09-05
From the Cincinnati Gazette.
THE OHIO STATE MILITARY AP-
P0INTMENTS.


We print elsewhere in this paper, a
statement of the appointments TO the
command Of Ohio volunteer regiments,
with some remarks, showing the mill
tary and political status of each. We
invite the people to compare this with
the charge of favoritism made against
the Ohio War Department, by a reso-
luton of the Democratic State Conven-
ton, and TO compare it also with what,
according to their experience in Demo-
cratic management, would have been
done if Democratic State AdminiStra-
ton had the control of these military
appointments. Does any one suppose
that any Republican would have had
the remotest chance for a military COM
mand? And does not every one know
that if a Democratic Administration
had the control of war expenditures,
the party guillotine would be applied to
any representative, politician, or press,
that dared lisp of extravaganza or un-
faithfulness, and that the first object of
the war would be to see how much
could be sucked out of it for the benefit
of the party?
Here are forty-one Coionels of Ohio
Regiments, of whom eighteen were
Democrats, eighteen Republican, three
Americans, and two unknown. Gov.
Dennison has appointed twenty-three
Colonels for the three years service, of
these, twelve were Democrats, nine
Republicans, one American, and one
unknown. Out Of these twenty-three
Colonels, eight were educated at West
Point, FIVE served in Mexico and in the
three months service, two in Mexico,
six in Western Virginia in the three
months service, and two were without
experience in active service. So much
fer political favoritism, and so much
for evidence of competency.
Yet in the face of this. the Democrat
ic State Convention adopted resolu-
ton denouncing the War Department
of the State for favoritism in its ap-
pointments. The full details of these
appointments may not have been known
to the Convention, but ignorance would
be no excuse for charge intended to
destroy confidence in the Government
in time of war. But every member Of
that Convention knew by lis own
knowledge OF the officers in the service,
that when he voted fer that resolution
he voted in favor of a false charge
against the Government, which could
have no other effect than to damage the
public service, destroy popular conf
dence in the army, depress the zeal OF
volunteers, and deter them from enter
ing the army, at time when the very
existence of all Government and the
safety of our lives and property de-
mand every energy o! the country to
be thrown into the war. -
We say the members of the Conven-
ton knew they were voting false
charge which could only have this ef-
feet. Could it have had any other mo-
tive? When deliberative body votes
a deliberate falsehood, they are entitled
to no charity to cover their motives.
but may be justly held to have pur-
posed that which the falsehood only
could effect. There is not a member
of that Convention, who has any
character for veracity TO maintain at
home, who will make that charge, per-
sonally, which he voted for in the Con-
vention. There is not one of them that
does not know it to be false. Yet we
have Democratic Convention voting
in body, a charge which every mem.
Der of The Convention knew to be false,
and which not one Of them will .reiter-
ate on his personal veracIty.
The circumstances admit of but one
conclusion. The Convention made
this VIGOROUSLY false charge against the
administration OF the military depart
ment Of Ohio, for the purpose of crea-
ting popular disaffection against the
military organization, depressing the
zeal Of the people for the war and
keeping volunteers out of the army,
when the peril OF the country demands
their services. To the extent of their
ability, regulated by nice regard for
their personal safety, the Convention
furnished aid to the enemy. 1t was an
act of moral treason, and there is no
room for a doubt as to their motive
when there is not a so-called respect
able member of that Convention, who