The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1868-10-13

The more shrewd and calculating Of the
Radical politicians dare not commend their
presidential ticket to the country on the
merits Of the principles and measures Of the
Radical party. On the other hand, they dare
not consent that the party be judged by the
merits of the men who have shaped its policy
and exemplified its doctrines. The species
| of tactics which they have adopted in the
present canvass is illustrated in the New York
| Times the New York Post, the Boston Ad-
vertiser and the Cincinnati Commercial The
Advertiser, for example, pays homage to pub
lie opinion by denouncing the denomination
of Butler for Congress as eminently unfit and
scandalous, and by supporting in opposition
to him Mr.. r. H. Dana, an irregular candi-
date of boiling Republicans. The Post is
not less convinced that the EFFICIENCY demands
that Buffers former constituents in Massa-
chusetts shall immediate him as q precious offer
ing on the altar of decency. So, in the grim
rites of olden superstition, some king or some
warlike chieftain would be called to propitiate
the gods by sacrificing the child that was
nearest to his heart and most after his own
image. The Post is moved to say of Butler:
"His temper, his resentments, his loose no.
tons of financial honesty, his extreme opin-
ions on many questions which must come
up, which ought to be treated with calm
nanmant-,,all the prominent qualities of his
mlnd, ana all the prominent opinions 10
which he has committed himself, united
would make his presence in the next Con-
gress injurious to the general welfare" And
it goes so far as to add that, as a mere
party calculation, the defeat of Mr.. Butler
at all hazards, and even by the election of
a Democrat against bin, would be saga
cious."
Nevertheless, Butler is the regular nominee
of his party, and as such will no doubt be
elected. And nevertheless, too, his election,
scandalous as it will be in general sense,
will be eminently fit in the more restricted
sense of party justice and consistency. For
no man in public life has been more jealous
and energetic exponent of Radical ideas and
tendencies than he. In Congress, as leader
of his party, he stood next only to Stevens
and it may even be questioned whether those
cardinal measures of Radical policy within
the past two or three years, the reconstruction
scheme, with military rule, negro suffrage and
white Acknowledgement, the tenure of office
law, and the impeachment of the President,
were not indebted for whatever degree of sue
cess they attained mainly to his ingenuity,
audacity end pertinacity. All this while the
Radical press applauded the public services
of this man, and there was every evidence of
the utmost harmony between his congress
sional action and the opinions and wishes of
his party. Hence, if this action was infamous
and pernicious, as some of the Radical pa
pers now confess, if they mean anything by
their protests against his denomination, it is
simply because Radical policy-apolicy which
they do not protest against-has been, and is,
infamous and pernicious. PROFESSIONALLY, as
those papers declare, the presence of Butler
in the next Congress would be injurious to
the general welfare. But why? Because he
would be the ablest and foremost Radical in
that body. The lesson Of craftsmanship and
patriotism which the Boston Advertiser and
the New York Post pretend to teaeh in this
felation is not even half-learned by them
selves 1t is not Butlerism, but Radicalism,
which must be eliminated from Congress be.
fore the general welfare of the country can
be scared. Whatever they may say to the
country, Butler, as Radical representative,
has been no worse than his party.
The New York Times, though not SO pre-
posterous as to argue that the Radical party
is better than its most representative men,
urges as the most prominent claim of Gen.
Grant to popular support as Radical candidate
for the presidency. that he is by no means as
bad as his party. According to this paper,
his chief merit and his chief strength, in the
existing political conjuncture, consist in the
fact that he is not identified with the principles
of the party which nominated him. The Times
can mean nothing less than this, if it means
anything, when it says:
principles not men, as q general thing, is a
good political motto. But in the pending canvass
this rule II not reversed. Is greatly modified. Gen.
Grant as candidate 10 much stronger than the Re-
publican party. Men who do not believe in the
policy of the party which has put him in nomna-
tion, nevertheless lock upon him as the safest and
best man for the presidency, and thousands of
others. who care nothing for party. who know
perfectly well that any programme OF measures
lete TO morrow and who feel that the success of
an administration depends far more upon the
spirit and temper which presdes over it than on
the specific measures to which it may stand
pledged, look to Grant as the man specially fitted
to carry he nation through its perplexities and re-
store it again to peace and prosperity.
The whole virtue of this argument if it has
any, lies in the assumption that Gen Grant,
If elected, will repudiate whatever pledges he
has given on behalf of Radical policy, and
will in so far evince spirit and temper con-
ducive to the extrication of the country from
its present perplexities and its restoration to
peace and prosperity. In other words, con-
servatives are urged to support him in the
belief that he will not permit the spirit and
temper of Radicalisin to dominate in his ad-
ministration. But the Times does not say in
what belief the Radicals are universally sup
porting him. of course, if We believe this
paper, there is a swindle ahead for somebody,
and the Radicals do not manifest the least
fear Of being cheated.
t. L. A =. II. 4 n.