Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1872-02-10
THE CINCINNATI CONVENTION.
The Flutter which the Movement
has Caused Among the Grant
Organs.
Facts which are Not AnalOgles.

From the New York World, Jan. 81.
Men and brethren! a new leaf must be
turned over or there are breakers ahead.
The proposed Cincinnati Convention MAY
prove a .fGscO or 1t MAY name the merit Pre-
Sident. If you desire the latter, you may
well pray that Roscoe Conkling and compa-
ny shall have the running of the Grant ma
chine for few months longer.-Nelg York
Tribune.
This extract evinces a juster appreciation
of political possibilities than has been shown
by the Grant organs which fippantly I'M
dervalue the proposed convention at Gin
cinnati. The Triblme's estimate is ex-
pressed with caution, for Mr.. Greeley is too
experienced politician to set up for pro-
phet at time when the public mind is so
unsettled as it is at present. He has been
an alert observer for forty years, and what
ever may be thought of his powers of logic
and coordination, he has few equals and no
superiors in divining the drift of public
sentiment. At any rate, the halffedged
political neophytes who pooh-poOh and be-
little the Cincinnati Convention have no
claim which the public viii recognize to
weigh their opinion against his. The pro-
pnsod convention ''lldI name the next
President" If it should be wise enough to
u1kllb y Cttl1ulNoJG " A4O4AA b4lC LNALlONAdbAN
party could adopt and indorse, Mr.. Gree
ley's ''Dldy" might be changed into a
tiilllLSt"
The call for a convention at Cincinnati on
the 9Th Of May "a month in advance of the
Republican ConventiOn) is, as our readers
know, of Missouri origin and Republican
paternity. Some forty thousand Liberal
Republicans of that State were represented
In, hold ~ Toffa-cOv,
City, the State capital; and that convention
issued the call for a mass National COnven-
ton at Cincinnati on the 9th of May. 1t is
Republican movement, and an anti-Grant
movement. 1t is a nucleus around which
all the Republican elements Of opposition
TO Grant will cluster. Its possible import
ance lies In the fact that there has grown
up, within the last two years, widespread
dissatisfaction with Gen. Grant in the Re-
publican ranks.
The Grant organs which try to pour con-
tempt on this movement, are misled Cor
rather try TO mislead their readers) by false
8nalogies. They refer to the Fremont con-
vention at Cleveland in 1854, in opposition
to Mr.. Lincoln. There is no resemblance.
President Lincoln was a man Of very diff
ferent order from President Grant. He
W d AlOb a oOlulO Sll-IdhCl9 do vi alt lSs liz
had not appointed a swarm of his relations
by blood and marriage to lucrative offices,
as Grant has. He had not been mixed up
in a corrupt Santo Domingo job, like Grant.
He did not suffer from such damaging ex-
poSures as have been made against Grant
by the CustomhOuse investigation. He had
not been a fomenter of schism and faction
In the Republican party, as Grant has in
Vol lF;gg1.rrs nd oil J.,
Rad not forfeited the confidence and incur
red the enmiLy of the old, original Re
publican party chiefs. Senator Sumner,
who is Grants bitter enemy, was Mr., Lin
coins friend. Mr.. SchurZ, whose persuasive
eloquence is so captivating both to German
and American audiences, was rs devoted
supporter Of President Lincoln as he is a
contemptuous opponent of President Grant.
Senator Trumbul was a staHnch Lin
coin man he is quite the reverse of
q staunch Grant man. The Fremont
movement proved a fasco in 1864, be-
cause there was not much discomfort
with Mr.. Lincoln in the Republican par
~; but the Cincinnati Convention will
represent strong and widely diffused pop
ulAr dislike to Grant. II Lincoln had been
such President as Grant is, the Cleveland
NOAAf nave uClCdAbCA his
ton. Lincoln was not only free from
Grants grosser 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 ignoramus and an imbeciie. He
was Of a genial, jocose disposition, always
really with pithy, laughable anecdote,
which made him popular even with people
vrhoea idnac ba Gan
not trace of that kindly, jovial, overflow
ing good nature. President Lincoln was
the author of the Emancipation PrOclama-
ton; but what has Grant ever done to give
him similar hold on Republican feeling?
Grant was never a Republican at all until
bribed by an offer of the Presidency. 1t is
not safe Tor Gen. Grants supporters to con-
clude that because the Cleveland COnven-
ton did not harm Lincoln, the Cincinnati
Convention cannot damage Grant. There
is too much difference in the character and
popularity of the two men, to warrant this
inference.
Another false analogy, equally unsupported
by facts, which the Grant organs have
dwelt upon to balittle the proposed Cincin-
natl Convention is tie Philadelphia
Convention in the interest of President
johnson. Here, again, there is no sort of
parallel. The Philadelphia Convention was
held two years in advance Of the Presiden-
tial election. Its object was not to take adj
vantage of an already existing state of pub
lie sentiment, but to create and manufac-
ture public sentiment. This is why it failed.
But the Cincinnati Convention viii float on
s tide of public opinion which is already
formed. 1t will represent civil service re-
form, administrative reform, and other re-
forms which have been rapidly growing in
publc favor for the last two years. The
Philadelphia Convention was a ship launch
ed i'm the mud without water TO float it.
The Cincinnati Convention will be launched
in rising tide and float in deep waters. 1t
will represent ideas which have taken