The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1867-12-20


Since the publication Of General Grants
private letter to the President on the 70
moval Of General Sheridan from the COM
mand Of the Fifth Military District . great
deal has been said for and against Grant,
relative to this communication. The Gen.
sral has been too reticent with regard to
bis political views to please the politicians.
With all their devices and probings they could
get little from him, The republican, want to
take him next fall Is their candidate for the
Presidency, seeing the necessity Of having his
popular name to help them out Of their grow
Ing unpopularity and to perpetuate their
power but the radical leaders feared he was
too conservative, and might Tylerize the party.
Under this state OF things they we're anxious to
get hold Of the letter to the President on Sheri-
dams removal. The democrats, on the other
hand, while they had no serious thought Of
making Grant their candidate, believed he was
conservative. They looked to his early record
before the war, when he was an avowed demo-
cratic his general expressions Of patriotism,
to his character, to his liberal conduct toward
the rebels, and to the fact that he accepted the
position Of acting Secretary OF War on the re-
moval Of Stanton, the big gun OF the radicals.
They, consequently, were DESTROYS Of knowing
what the General had said about the removal
Of the favorite Southern military commander
Of the radicals. Everywhere there was great
deal Of curiosity, though 1t was generally
known Grant demonstrated against the re-
moval Of his heroic friend.
Upon the pressure from parties In Congress
and to satisfy this curiosity the President gave
up the private letter Of General Grant We
think he should not have done so. He could
have refused to make it public, it having been
intended for his eye alone and marked private.
But 1t has been published, and everybody
knows its contents. Well, what comfort can
the Politicians get from it, What Is there in
it to make SO much fuss about? II Is the letter
Of an honest man, expressing his honest con-
victions at the time it was written. He may
think differently now. He demonstrated against
the removal of Stanton In the same letter; yet
he afterward accepted Stanton's position, and
we have no doubt that now he believes the
President did . good thing in making the
change. General Grants conduct ell through,
toward the rebels and with regard to the Re-
construction acts Of Congress, has been any
thing but radical, and therefore it Is not to be
supposed he favored the radical policy of
Sheridan or anybody else. The truth is, he
loved Sheridan as his friend and companion In
arms, and valued highly his great services In
the war. He knew Sheridan to be patriotic,
and was not willing to believe that distin-
guished soldier would act imprudently. Be-
sides, be has always been anxious to see the
Southern States restored as soon a. possible,
and thinking Congress, as now constituted, had
absolute power over the subject, 1t would be
impoliic or dangerous for the President to
oppose the policy Of that body. He looked
upon Congress as representing public opinion
in the matter, and thought that was the high
tribunal to which all should bow. The recent
elections may have changed his opinion In this
respect, and though we have no direct evidence
Of that, we think it likely they have. In short,
there is nothing in the Sheridan letter to show
that Grant is not conservative, or that hc had
any other object in view than 70 serve his dis
tinguished friend and the country, under the
peculiar circumstances Of the case and the
timas