The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1872-03-06
Grant on Grant.

ton upon Great Britain for reimburse
ment of expenses entailed on us by the
acts of the cruisers aud their warlike
operations at sea, in prolosging the re-
bellion after Gettysburg, has two legs,
as it appears in our ''case." One leg is
that after July a, 1868, the offensive op-
erations of the rebellion were on the
ocean only. The second leg is that the
resistance of the Confederates on land
was solely to permit and assist the ma.
val operations at sea. After Gettys-
burg there was, it is alleged, this sort
of double-barrelled performance by the
rebels, which the cruisers empowered
them to carry on, and but for the CRUZ
sers there would have been an imme-
date collapse of the Confederacy after
Meade's great victory.
The administration says, i n it's
cease" that it is impossible" for the
United States to determine, and elm
possible" for any one to "estimate, .
with accuracy "the vast inquiry which
these cruisers caused in prolonging the
war;" yet the tribunal, it is claimed,
"will be able to determine whether
Great Britain ought not In equity to
reimburse the United States the ex-
penses thereby entoiled upon them. -
The claim therefore is not for injury,
but for expenses "entailed" by the
cruisers, and not particle of evidence
is offered to the arbitrators as basis
of calculation of those expenses. One
would say that, on the ground of no
evidence to sustain our claim, Great
Britain was reasonably safe, if on no
other.
But that is not the point we wish now
to make. 1t relates to the commander
who really conquered the armies of the
rebellion. Was it Meade or Grant,
The cease" says that on May 81, 1868,
Grant had commenced the Investment
of Vicksburgj that the military au-
thorities at Richmond selected this
moment for blow in Pennsylvania
"to reliece Vicksbury and decide the
contest !" that Meade was victorious
at Gettysburg that on that day Grant
entered Vicksburg, and that day 'ssaw
the aggressive force on land of the in
surrection crushed )" and from that day
its only hope lay in prolonging de-
fence till we were. through the CRUZ
sers, involved in war with England
This is Grants account, in his proto-
col, of the military operation of the
war, and it was Meade who "crushed'
the aggressive force of the South.
What then did Grant, according to
Grant, do after that date 2 Upon this
point General Beauregard is giving
some very interesting facts which, if
the Geneva arbitration goes on, will
be very material evidence as to what
proportion of our expenses after Get
tysburg was caused by the cruisers and
what by our own incompetency. The
Cease" admits that the offensive force
of Lee was "crushed." What remain
ed 2 How large was the defensive ar
my to be overcome What evidence
is there to justify the cease" in assert
ing that war with Great Britain could
have been an outcome of the existence
atloat of the cruisers, or that Lee would
have surrendered at once but for the
cruisers Which gave the greater
hope, the real hope, to Lee and Beau
cruisers, or the fatuous
follies of Grant after lie
took command of the Army of the Po-
tomac?
There will be fun when the issue
before the Geneva tribunal is narrow
ed down to the inquiry whether or not
Grant is military humbug, on his own
I'm. Y. World.