The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1872-02-03

party cI,Eefs. Senator Sumner Sumner
VINO Is Grants bitter enemy was Mr. LIN
CONS friend. Mr.. schnrz, whose persuasiy,
eiognenee Is so captivating both to German
ana american audiences, was as deyoted
supporter OF President Lincoln as he Is (:
issontemptuous opponent of President Grant
senator Trumbull was stanch Lincolnrnan
| nc is quite the reverse Ola stanch Grant man
lie Fremont movement proved fasco ii
1864 because there was not much disconten
With Mr. Lincoln in the Republican party
hlt the Cincinnati Convention will represent
strong. and widely-dlfused popular dislike
OF Grant. II Lincoln had been such Presi
dent MS Grant is, the Cleveland Conven.
Ton might have defeated lis reelection
Lincoln was not only free from Grants
grosser faults, but he had positive merits
ana claims to Republican confidence which
arc utterly wanting in Grant. He had
great political tact and shrewdness, whereas
Grant Is an ignoramus and an imbecile. He
was OF genial, jocose disposition, always
leaoy with n pithy, hughable nnecdote,
Mhlcil made him popular even with people
whose ideas be opposed. General Grant has
not a trace of that kindly, joviaI, overlooking
good nature President Lincoln was the
- cAiS ShtthNlfSllOh REORGANIZATION.
but what has Grant ever done to give him p
similar hold on Republican feeling? Grant
was never Republican at all until b1.ibed
ny an offer of the presidency. tits not safe
tor General Grants supporters to conclude
mat because the Cleveland Convention did
not harm Lincoln, The Cincinnati Convention
cannot damage Grant. There is too much
difference in the character and popularity of
the two mell to warrant this inference.
Another false analogy, equally rnH,pnort.
cd Ivy facts, which the Grant organs have
dwelt upon to bclittlc the proposed Cincin-
natl Convention, is the Philadelphia Con
yention in the interest Of President johnson
Here. again, there Is no sort Of parallel, The
Philadelphia Convention was held two wears
in advance of the presidential election It's
object was not to take advantage of nm
already existing state of public sentiment.
but to create and manufacture public senti-
mcnt. This is way it faited. But the Gin
cinnati Convention will float on n tide of
public opinion which is already formed. 1t
will represent civi-service reform, revenue
reform, administrative reform, and other re-
forms, which have been rapidly growing in
public favor for The last two years. The
Philadelphia Convention was ship launched
| in the mud without water to float it. The
Cincinnati Convention will be launched in II
rising tide and float in deep waters. 1t Will
represent ideas which have taken strong
hold OIL the public mind, and are daily
making new converts.
1t NAV be said that the nominees of the
Cincinnati Convention will not receive the
electoral votes of single State. II the cam
didates should be such that tho Democratic
party cannot adopt them, this prediction may
prove true, tut even in that case this
movement may turn the scale and decide the
presidential election. We suspect that Mr.
Grccley's opinion of its possible importance
results from his observation Of similar move
mcnts in our past history since he has takel
IN active part in politics. In 1911 Henry Clay
was defeated by a third party movement
which did not get single electoral vote
We Of course refer to the Birney ticket pu
into the field by the Abolitionists. Jtdid moi
receive, and in the then state Of public cpin
ion could not have received, a single Demo
cratic vote; but it detached from Clay many
votes which would otherwise have been givcl
to him. II turned the scale in two States
and thereby decided the election. Rrnry:
popular vote added to Clay's would lave
given Clay New York and Michigan. Whic!
together had ut that time IL electoral votes
In that election Polk received 10 clcctora
votes and Clay 1Cj. Taking Al from Polk!
40 would have Left him l29; and addin.
those Il to Clay's would lave given Clay lag
clecting him by handsome majority. If th'
anti-Grant Republicans can in like manne
turn the scale in two States they may contro
the presidential election without getting
single electoral vote Tor their own candidate
In like manner Mr.. Fillmorc's canddac,
in 1850 defeated Fremont and elected BIZ
cIamn. Mr.. Fillmore received the elcctori
votes only Of the small State Of Maryland
hut l.c turned Tie scale against Fremont j!
two or three Of the most important States O
The Union. and prevented His election. tn
lesson is that The balance of power may he ii
Tie hands of party which has no ctcctiv
strength except in very few States, am
which cannot get single electoral vote cvc1
in these. Grants friends may therefore fin
to their dismay that the Cincinnati Convcn
ton will prove more fruitful in nnrortan
consequences than their tiippant, sncclin
Journals imagine.