New-York tribune., 1868-05-29
GRANT AND LEE as CANDIDATES.

The most pleasing, because unintentional and
involuntary, tributes to the strength OF the
ticket are those which come from the more
abandoned of the Copperhead press If they
had suddenly, by supernatural power, been
"hurled with hideous ruin and combustion
"dOwnr their execratiOns could not exhibit a
finer phrenzy of statistical and argumentatiye
madness. They prove by the clearest facts and
figures that it was Lee, and not Grant, that
conquered in Virginia, and that the general
shin of Bragg at Chattanooga, and Pemberton
at yicksburg, and Albert Sidney Johnston at
Shiloh. and Buckner at Donelson shines out in
such clear and magnificent contrast with the
imbecity of the leader who accidentally won
those campaigns, as completely TO demolish the
victories which Gen. Grant has already won,
and still more those he is expected
to win. This is familiar ground to the Rebel
press North and South. 1t enables them thrice
to fight their battles DER and thrice to slay
their slain. Only one feature is necessary to
give logic and completeness to their argument.
1t does not help the case of Gen. Hancock, who,
i'm some subordinate capacity, was assisting Gen.
Grant in these campaigns, to prove that Gen.
Lee, or Johnston, or Bragg, or Pemberton, or
Floyd whipped Gems. Grant and Hancock both
out of their boots, the latter much the worse
of the two This does not establish the fact
that Hancock whipped Grant or anybody else.
To have the full benefit of their proofs OF
Grants relative incompetency as general,
compared with Lee, the Democracy must nomi-
nate Lee, in convention. Then these arguments
will apply with telling force. But in Sc
electng any one of Grants subaterns who
shared, according TO his modcum OF rank and
influence, in the defeats of his chief, they COM
pletelv neutralize the effect of the otherwise
brilliant arguments which might be founded
on the superior generalship and success of the
Rebel chiefs, who, though Of their own house
hold of faith and order of worship they de-
cline to nominate. How long will the Democ-
racy continue thus to prescribe their admired
and chosen leaders Can they expect the Re
publican party to do otherwise when they
themselves Ostracize aud condemn those who
have given the whole power OF their genius
and vaor to illustrate the Democratic faith
Is there any Democratic doctrine on which
Robert l.. Lee is not sound to the very spine,
and from the crown of his hat to the sole of
bootsP States Rights, Slavery, blue hos
tility to the coerciye and abolition policy of
the Republican party, approval OF Johnsons
reconstruction policy, an insight into the folly
of impeachment as clear and conscientious as
that of the seven Senators. He prob
ably lacks but one qualification for
| modern Democrat, viz. contempt for the
military qualities or oen. Grant. ms we 90
! not balieva he could ever feel or feign. Sen.
| NJ b. Forrest has spoken good word for having
the Rebels fully represented in the Democratic
Convention This done, if the Democratic
party is not hypocrisy and cOwardice through
and through, it will nominate its foremost
representative General in the war, Robert E.
Lee of Virginia. Whether they may have the
manlness to do this or not, the weapons with
which the Republican party ia to be met in
the coming campaign are foreshadowed in the
opening howl and shrek of SANDER and abuse
with which the name of Grant is received and
his achievements are scOiled at and derided
by the CopDerheads and Rebels. But, unless
his future give the lie to bis past, the career
of Gen. Grant in history, like the outline of
the immovable Alps in nature, presents nights
such as few men have ever assembled and
none can even feign to look down upon.