Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1869-07-28

strongly implicated in the secession move
ment as the other. In this respect the
difference between them does not amount
ID a row of pins They finally sided
with the loyal party Of the State, and
were unalterable in their attachment to
it from that time forth.
The canvass in Tennessee turns upon
very much the same points as that
which has recently closed in Virginia.
The question of removing thu disabilis
ties Of the white citizens who took part
in The rebellion is at the bottom oft.
The questioe of negro suffrage has no vi
tai place 10 it since factions and candi-
dates are agreed on that point, and So
li.5 the cOlored vote with equal fervor
and diligence. 1t may, indeed, be said
that the only issue of the campaign IN
Tennessee "a few unimportant local IS
sues aside is the enfranchisemcnt oil the
disabled whites.
Do we understand Messrs. Boutwell,
and Creswell to be opposed to that
The declared policy of the Republican
party is to remove all disabilities and re"
store to political rights and franchises as
ranidly as may be compatible with the
safety of the country. Such, at least, is
the Interpretation given to the resolution
introduced by Gen. Carl Schurz and
adopted by the Chicago Convention within
ont dissenting voice. 1t is the opinion
of Gov. Sente- that the time has come,
to use his own language, "when the
limitations and disabilities which have
found their way into our statute
books, as the result Of the war,
should be abolished and removed, and
the privilege Of the elective franchise re-
stored and extended, so as to embrace
the mass of the adult population Of the
State" Ex-Governor Brownlow is Of
the same opinion, and no one, as is well
known, was more incorporating in
withholding the suffrage, when it could
not be safely granted, than he. Even
General Stokes has liberalized his views
since the opening Of the canvass, as did
Wells in Virginia, and now processes
to be as ready to receive the offenders
in political fellowship as Seuter himself.
What is there, then, to decide the pre-
terence u Iuo dO1ululaShobAOh ia AohOA V
Stokes? Is it because he favors the rati.
fication of the fifteenth amendment
| Upon this Senter expresses himself In
language as clear and explicit as could
be desired. He puts himself upon the
Chicago platform; he adopts its princi.
pies, and declares its doctrines founded
in Justice and right appealing to the
conscience Of every honest and sincere
Republican, Is not this satisfactory
Is it not enough Do Boutwell, or Cres'
we'll 60 further ?
1t seems to us, in view of these facts
| that there was no occasion for the adj
ministration "to show its hand" and
that it would have been judicious policy
at least, to have maintained the same re-
serve that was practiced in the case o.
Virginia, where both parties were anC
are, or profess to be, the friends of thu
administration. But this comes of Gen
Grants running off to Long Branch, anC
leaving his Secretaries 10 run the ma
chine" Senters friends should taxi
this view of it The Endorsements o
Boutwell, and Creswell are good so ia
as they are personally concerned, Blu
their efforts to commit the administra
ton, in the absence of the chief, SHOULD
be regarded as failuIe.