Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1870-05-24
GRANT's INSULT TO GEN. han

OOlAiS llttC siuCS Ocu. lldHCOCh MUG
TO Lieut.. Gen. Sherman, inquiring why
be was not promoted to the position made
vacant by the death of Gen. Thomas,
which belonged to him in the order of
precedence. His letter was shown to
President Grant, who dictated the sub
stance of the reply. Shortly afterward
Gen. Hancock received from the Lieut.
enant General curt answer couched in
the following insulting terms:
81 am requested by the President to in
form you that there is nothing in your
personal relations TO Gen. Grant, or in
your official relations to his administra
ton, that could justify your. promotion
now, or leao you toexpect it hereafter. ."
The New York World asks. Even if
the President had determined to ignore
the just claims of this distinguished Off
Ger, why should he descend TO this exhi-
bitiOn Of insulting insoleneel He might
have closed the door against Gen. Han
cock without slamming ii so rudely in
his face. A cold, stif civility would
have been irritating enough, without
display of spiteful personal feeling, or a
gratuitous threat to obstruct Gen. Han
cocks rise in the army 50 long as Presi-
dent Grant remains in power. No other
President than Grant would have thus
gratified his personal malignity at the ex-
pense of official decorum. Any other
President, even il he could have acted on
so ignoble motive, would have had
the decency TO vel it under the
specious forms of official etiquette.
An answer might easily have been
made to Gen. Hancock, which, while
extinguishing his hopes, would not have
stung his pride or wounded his senslbili-
ties. But the President could not res
train himself from offering an affront;
and the sharp pen of Gen. Sherman gave
terseness and point TO the result. So far
as we can recollect, this is the first time
that Gen. Grant has authorized an eX-
preston n writing of the principles on
which he makes his appointments and of
the extension of those principles to pro-
motions in the army. He does not regard
his power as public trust to be admins
tered for the public advantage, but as a
species. of private property, which he
uses TO reward personal services, discharge
obligations of personal gratitude, and
wreak personal vengeance on those whom
| he hates or dislikes. In his bestowal of
| civil offices, he has VIGOROUSLY acted on
this assumption. His most important
civil appointments have been requitals
for those gifts of houses or money
which a fastidious self-respect would
have prevented his taking at all, and
which men like Washington or Andrew
johnson, would have scOrned to receive,
and have felt it a degradation to reward
by the prostitution OF. a public trust.
Political usage authorizes the bestowal of
civil offices as a reward for party services;
but Gen. Grant has disregarded party
claims, and distributed his patronage on
grounds of mere personal faVoritism.
Neither partisan nor personal considera-
tions ought TO have any influence on pro-
motions in the army. When the country
is engaged in war, all party distinctions
should be sunk in a common sediment of
patriotism; and as officers of the army are
expected TO fight with equal zeal for. any
administration by which a war may
happen to be declared, it is absurd TO ex-
act from them any other allegiance than
an allegiance to the country. Military
merit and the efficiency of the service
should be the sole ground of military
promotion. But President Grant refuses
TO Gen. Hancock the promotion which
is due to him, both in the order of prece-
dence and for distinguished services, be-
cause 'there is nothing in his personal
relations to General Grant" which entities
him to the favor or Partially of that
functionary! He is told that Gen.
Grants personal dislike is fatsl bar,
now and for all future time, to q recogni
ton of his claims
The grounds of Gen. Grants malignant
hostility TO this brilliant and esteemed
officer, are best understood by himself.
All that the public know is that Hancock
was stationed at St. Louis at time when
he and his family were for years wit
nesses of Grants daily degradation in
the streets of that city; that he wrote a
noble letter in defense of civil rights
when he was ont of the commanders in
the South under the Reconstruction acts;
and that he was one of the candidates for
President voted for by the Democratic
National Convention. If the President
had any magnanimity, or even a reasona-
bic self-respect, he would not have let
such facts incIte him to injustice and in
suit. He banished Gen Hancock TO dis
tant Fort Sully; and now he refuses him
the promotion which is due, and lepels
his inquiry into the reason by an insOlent
,,arsnnel oflropt