The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1869-01-30
Sumner and Shurtz.

II seems we had the misfortune to tramp on
sundry peoples toes in our brief notice last
week of the recently elected and reelected
is. Senators. Brother Radcliffe, of the Re
publican, is quite Mortified that we should
alude loosely to so weigkty and solemn a
subject as the sanity Sumner, of Massachu-
sets, and especially to his polishing down"
by Bully Brooks, of South Carolina Brother
Radcliffe charitaby supposes ait cannot be
possible that a covert endorsement and COM
mendation of the high-handed outrage of
Bully Brooks, upon Sumner, is intended in the
above, yet it looks very much like it," Brother
r. is mighty right. We never had any feeling
but that of condemnation for the brutal assault
of Brooks on Sumner But the constant
application of the epithet "polished" to the
Massachusetts Senator certainly justifies ridi-
cule, for there is no man in the senate who
Can approach him in ventilating gross, obscene
and disgusting ideas, though he may have the
skill to cover them with dignifed phrases
And then his inordinate vanity. If Brooks
enjoyed a momentary satisfaction in belabor-
ing his skull cap with a cudgel, the Senator
had half decades unceasing satisfaction in
parading his martyrdom. The story is told
that during the war, and shortly after terri
BILE disaster that thrilled the land, a gentleman
met Mr.. Sumner walking slowly along the
streets of Boston, with his sore head tenderly
and conspicuously done up. The gentleman
rushed hurriedly and in great excitement to
the Senator. "Mr. Sumner" he cried, shave
you any news for our poor country" /" Yes,
sir" responded the national invalid, in his deep
voice, "Yes, sir | am much better" How can
We help poking fun at such MANI
But we have incurred especial indignation
in our remarks in reference to the new Mis-
souri, Senator-Gen. Carl Shurtz. Not only
does Brother Radcliffe pitch into us, but he is
vigorously reinforced by a correspondent who
signs himself " Chancellorville" There were
three outrages in our remarks about Shurtz /:
]. We called him "the hero Of Chancellor
vie;" 2, we called him an infidel and 3,
we said he was malignant hater Of the dem
ocrats and ex-rebels of Missouri Well, as to
No. !, the Republicans correspondent, Mr.. G.
W. Eve mean Chancelorville," was
probably there, and was not Mr.. Shurz tleast
zone of the heroes of that battle? We made
no question of his valor or generaship on that
occasion. What is the reproach in calling him
"a hero of that engagement What's the mat
sGer NIT Chancellorville AS to his infidelity,
Mr. W.,
and boasts of it, Nor did we mention that
as a reproach to Mr.. Shurz It was the incon-
gruity of puritansm, (Which ia but another
name for modern radicalsm,) being represent
ed by an avowed infdel, that attracted our
attention. As to the malignant part, let any
man read the speeches of Drake and Shurz at
Jefferson City before the senatorial election,
and If he can discover any other bone of con-
tentien between them except as to which was
the most intense hater of the conservative
citizens of Missouri, loyal democrats as well as
'ex-rebels, he is sharper than we are
Mr. G. W. Chanccllorville must see that his
'lnslnuation as to our leanings towards know
snothngsm is absurd as well as unfortunate
We fought that foul ism from its start and
when iour-tifths Of the present political asso-
eciates of Mr.. "Chancellervllle" met nightly in
ther dark lantern lodges in this city, schem-
ing to place him and his countrymen on
worse than level with the now disfranchsed
rebels of the south Mr.. FIT hancervile,r
can call Us rebel, copperhead thiefor anything,
but it is identifying us with his own party
80 call us Knownothing, which is more than
we are willing to stand.