Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1867-08-18
is GENERAL GRANT A RADICAL /?


Is GENERAL GRANT A RADICAL
From the New York Tribune.
The Times, which is now one of the most
Conseryative-Radical, Copperhead-R epub-
liean, Democratic papers We have, and
manages to oppose and support all men and
measures with marvellous consistency, says
of Gen. Grants acceptance of the War
Office:
Through many channels it will be as
serted that Gen. Grants compliance with
the call indicates his approval of Mr.. Stan
tons 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 leaue the
country IN doubt as TO his position on the
great occasion of difference between Con-
gress 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:
l. When has Gen. Grant ever departed
from what is called CHS habitual reticence"
to sustain Congress, or in any way criticise
the President?
II. When the President began his at
tack upon the policy of Congress, did he
not send Gen. Grant down South to make
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 trustworthy gentleman,
that he had never doubted that General
Grant was a supporter of his policy?
~. In the very crisis of the Presiden.
tial struggle with Congress, did not Grant
accompany the President on his cleo
pioneering trip? Some of the apologists
have said, whisperingly, be 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
constituting law of Congress to mean that
his Office is not in the hands of the Presi-
dent, 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 "ac-
ton that he retires? Does not every rea.
sonable person know that had General
Grant declined the appointment-whi,h
being q civil Office, he had right to de-
cline-the President would not have sue
ceeded in removing the War Secretary Is
it not well understood that Gen. Grant is
keeping warm this place until some Con
servative 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. 1t is differ
ence 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 q Radi-
cal 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
acontrary inference.
As we have said we are not blaming Gen.
Grant. We are really defending him. If
he means TO be considered 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 GER
tainly 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
abideby 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
1t 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
ia be Republican, to act in the interest
Of the Republican party, and above all
to represent the majority of that party
as distinct from fragment OF seditious
Radicals Their Philadelphia Conven-
ton was a success, the party was
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
kiss once bestowed by Conservative apOs-
tie; but when the election came the frag-
ment Of Radicals swept the country, and
these successful and ambitious partisans
we're glad enough to be allowed TO return
to line without being shot as deserters.
Shakespeare 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 10 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 illastrious name Of Grant.
We bow before that name so far as il repre-
sents 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 SAlrew Johnson
as the representative of selfdenying Icy
atty, war against treason, and clsm0rous
devotion to Radicalism. But far above
these names, as high as the stars, and
to Us guiding stars, We see certain prin-
oiples whose life is eternal, and whose sue
cess 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 inter-
est or that, are temptations TO desert, and
mean mischief. We sustain no man whose
record is not as clear as the sua. Wefollow
no leader who does not tell Us which way
he intends to Gravel. Above all things, We