The Athens post. [volume] (Athens, Tenn.) 1848-1917, 1872-02-15
Lincoln and Grant.

thus reasons IN regard to the false anal
ogics which The administration organs
present, and the comparisons drawn by
them between President Lincoln and
the present occupant Of the White
/ House:
The Grant organs which try to pour
contempt on this movement, are nislcd
/ Cor rather try to mislcad their readers
by false anaIogics. They refer to the
| Fremont convention at Cleveland III
lSGl in opposition to Mr.. Lincoln
There is no resemblance. President
Lincoln was man Of n very different
order from President Grant. He was
not sordid gilt.takcr. rs Grant is. lie
had not appointed swarm Of his rc'a-
tons by blood and marriage to lucra-
tive offices. as Grant has. lie had not
been mixed up in a corrupt San'o Do
mingo job, like Grant. lie did not sur
fer from such damaging exposures as
have been made against Grant by the
CuStomhouse investigation. lie had not
been u iOmrnter OF schism and faction
in the Republican party, As Grant has in
/ New York. Missouri. and other States.
He had not forfeited the confidence and
incurred the cnmi,y Of the old, original
Republican party chiefs. Senator sum
ncr, who is Grants bitter enemy, was
Mr. Lincoln's friend. Mr.. Schurz, whose
persuasive clOqucncc is so captivating
| both to German and American audi
cnccs. was rs devoted n supporter of
President Lincoln rs he is contempt
uous opponent Of President Grant
senator Trumbull was Il 'taunch Lin
coin man. he is quite tho reverse Of n
staunch Grant man. The Fremont
movement proved iasco in lS6l be-
cause there was not much discomfort
with Mr.. Lincoln in the Republican par
IT,; but the Cincinnati Convention will
represent a strong and widely diluset
popular dislike to Grant. II Lincoln
had been such Prcsidcn. as Grant is.
the Cleveland Convention might have
defeated his reelection. Lincoln was
not only free from Grants grosscr
faults, but he had positive merits and
claims to Republican confidence which
are utterly wanting in Grant He had
great political tact and shrewdnesS,
whereas Grant is an ignoramnS and an
imbecilc. He was of a genial, jOCOse
disposition, always ready with pithy.
laughable anecdote, which made him
popular even with the people whose
ideas he opposed. Gen. Grant has not
Il trace OF that kindly. iOval, overflow
| ing good nature. President Lincoln
was the aLthor of the Emancipation
Proclamation but what has Grant ever
done TO give him similar hold on Re
publican feeling? Grant was never n
Republican at all until bribcd by an Of
fer of the Presidency. 1t is not safe for
Gen. Grants supporters to conclude
that because the Cleveland Convention
| did not harm Lincoln, the Cincinnati
Convention cannot damage Grant
There il too much difference in the char
acler AM, popularity Of the two men, to
warrant this inference.
Arguing the chances to beat Grant
which, from its standpoint, seem good
cnough--the " orM continues:
i, may be said that the nominees of
the Cincinnati Convention will not re-
ceivc the electoral vote OF single
State. II the candidates be such that
the Democratic party cannot adopt
them. This prediction may prove true.
But even in that case. this movement
NAV turn the scale and decide the Pres.
| idcnlial election. We suspect that Mr..
t;rrclcy's opinion OF its importance re-
suits from his observation of similar
movements in our past history since he
has taken an active part in politics. Ia
/ 1871, Henry Clay was defeated by Il
third arty movement which did not
ret Il single electoral vote. We. of
course. refer to the Birney ticket put in
TO the field by the ab0litiOnisls. 1t did
not receive, and in the then state Of pub
single Democratic vote; but it de.ach-
ed from Clay many votes which would
otherwise have been given to him. 1t
turned the scale in two States, and
thereby decided the election. Birney's
popular vote added to Clay's would
have given Clay New York and Michi,
gan. which together had, at that time.
| II electoral votes. In that election Polk
received l10 electoral votes. and Clay
100. Taking fl from Folks 10 would
have left him 100; and adding those fl
to Clay's l0j would have given Clay LAG.
electing him by II handsome majority.
It the anti-Grant Republicans can. in
| like manner. turn the scales in two
States, they may control the Presidcn-
tial election. without getting a single
electoral vote for their own candidate.
In like manner. Mr.. Fillmorcs candi-
dacv, in 1886, defeated Fremont and
elected Buchanan. Mr.. Fillmore re-
ccivc6 the electoral votes only of the
small State of Maryland; but he turned
the scale against Fremont in two or
three of the most important States OF
the Union, and prevented his election.
The lesson is, that the balance of pow
er may be in the hands of q party
which has no effective strength except
in very few States. and which cannot
yet II single electoral vote even in these.
Grants friends may therefore find. to
their dismay, that the Cincinnati Con-
vcntiOn will prove more fruitful in i'm
portant consequences than their flip
pant. sneering journals imagine.
For political speculation all of the
above reads mighty well and looks SOL
id as one could expect at this time.
though we don't believe strictly in the
peculiar teachings of the New York
journal from which we quote, we have
strong hopes that something in the shape
Of blessing to the whole countryside
defeat of Grant-Will vet grow ont of
the visible disluptions in the Republic.
can ranks.
Sharp Practice I'm Nebraska.
| OMAHA. Feb 9.-Gov. James. who
has been acting Governor since the i'm