Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1872-08-20


johnson inpeached for standing by the
South since the war. Without regard to
the action of Conventions, disregarding the
claims, the aspirations. the merits Of indiyi-
duals. let us have, for the deeds and mis-
deeds Of the war, UNIVERSAL AMNESTY
AND UNIVERSAL REcoNoILIATIoN ION.
+ as1a
CRAMPS DOUBLE DEALING ANO
WANT OF vERACIrY.
Mr.. David Clark, of Hartford, Conn,
accuses Grant of double-dealing In the case
of Smith, the colored cadet at West Point.
While Grant was pretending to Mr.. Clark,
who was the guardian Of Smith, that be was
the friend of the colored boy and that he
desired his retention at West Point, Mr..
Clark accuses Ehim Of expressing the hope
that the Secretary of War had SO constitu-
ted the court-martial that was to try Smith
Gas to cause his removal"
When Senator Schurz stated In his speech
in St. Louis on the ED of July that Grant
had tried to bribe him with an offer Of pa
tronaee to vote for the San Domingo swim,
die, the latter very promptly authorised a
| fiat denial of the statement. A few days
afterwards Senator Schurz published acsrd
| in the New York Tribune fully proving his
charge by Gen. Alfred Pleasonton, the gen.
tleman through whom Grant conducted the
negotiations. Gen. Pleasonton's cote to
Senator Schurz, detailing the particulars Of
the offer he was authorised By Grant to
make, concludes as follows:
sImay console myself with the reflection
that il is the first time that any stat
of mine has been questioned, while the
President has had occasion before to MS
trust the accuracy Of his reeon ectlon."
! Here was question of veracity fully and
distinctly made on the 18th of July, and to
this day Grant has made no effort to clear
his skirts of the grave charge made by Gen.
PIeasonton. The allusion of Gen. Pleason-
ton to the fact that Grant 'ihas had occa-
sion before to mistrust the accuracy Of bis
recollection,' . is to an occasion when Presi-
dent johnson convicted Grant Of falsehood
It viii be Of interest to recall the facts, in
this connection, not that they are in issue
now, but that value may be placed upon
Grants assertions. We adopt contempt
rary's resume of this historical episode.
In 1857 President johnson removed Ed,
win NJ. Stanton as Secretary of War, and
appointed Gen. q. s. Grant in his place a:
Secretary of War, I'D interim. The ques
ton Of the power of the President to re-
move the Secretary of War having beer
raised by the Senate, President johnson de
sired to have Il settled by the Supreme
Court, and 30 informed Gen. Grant. The
Presidents plan was, in case the Senate
should not accept bis reasons for removing
Stanton, that Grant should still continue tx
hold the Office, and thus force Stanton o.
his friends to apply to the court for writ
of ejectment, or for such legal action as
would bring the question of the Presidenti
authority in the case before it. Gran
agreed to this. But, as it subsequently, ap
1 peared, he was playing false to the Presi
dent, and was all the time in confer
ence with Stanton's friends to frus
trate the Presidents plan of securin.
a legal decision. As Grant afterwardl
acknowledged in letter to the President,
he took the office to prevent the appoint
ment OF another, and not to get rid of Sec
rotary Stanton; this was in violation o
Grants promises, which promises Gran
fatty denied, but which the Presiden
proved by five of his Cabinet officers
Grant, as soon as the Senate acted, sudden
Iy surrendered the Office to Stanton, with
out notifying the President, thus frustrating
the Presidents plan to get the question be
fore the courts and also proving the falls
part of Grant in accepting the Office from
President johnson and promising him tina
be would hold it or notify him. A CORES
pondence followed between johnson ant
Grant. On the 18th of January, 1858, Gen
Grant wrote to President johnson in re
gard to obeying orders from Edwin NJ
Stanton. In this letter Gen. Grant SAT-
the President had asked him, sometim
after he had assumed the duties of Secre
tary of War ad interim, (Which he surren
dered back to Stanton Jan 19th) a:
: to the course Mr.. Stanton would have t.
pursue to obtain possession of the office il
case of certain action on the part of th
Senate? Gen. Grant says he (Grant) re
! piled that "Mr. Stanton would have to ap
peal to the courts TO rei1StGte him, illustrat
ing my position by citing the ground ha
taken in the case of the Baltimore Polio
Commissioners Gen. Grant also state
/ that "fnding that the President was desil
Gus of keeping Mr.. Stanton out of sftct
, whether sustained in the suspension or mo-
f 1 stated that 1 had fnot looked PARTICULAR
? into the tenure of office BILL but that whs
;; l had stated was a general principle, an
that if should change my mind in thi
particular case, would inform him Of III
fact" Learning on the 18th of that mont
that the Senate had taken up the subject c
. Mr.. Ssanton's suspension, be says he wen
to the President and informed him of b
determination. BE also declared that {
the Cabinet meeting on the 18th Of tina
month, 81 said the President may hav
4 understood me the way he said, namely
that had promised to resign if did nc
resist the reinstatement. made no sue
promise"
On the 31st of January, 1868, PresideI
!, johnson replied to the letter of Gen. Graz
of the 18th. he called Gen. Grants attel
!, ton to conversations in which he had give
a the pledge that in case he should concluc
to retire from the Office he would inforl
\ the President, so that he could appoint
n successor. The President said, ''it mu
. have been apparent to you that had N
= this understanding been reached, it was n
% purpose to relieve you from the further di
g charge of the duties of Secretary Of w
81 s,foy;,,, a,,d 70 onnoipt enuno 0t hAr no