Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1873-12-18
CK.xr,sGRAB- wAsTrABARGAIN?

In the Washington Sunday Chronicle
of Feb. p. 1872. Col. john w. Forney
published a remarkable article. diyulg-
ing the manner and conditions on which
Grant was brought forward as the Rad
zeal candidate for President. Forney
states that on his return from Europe
IN 1867. he found Andrew Johnson
doing his level best to destroy the Re
publican party The leaders were
looking around for an available sue
cessor. and Grants popularity as a sue
cessful soldier naturally attracted at
rantion. The difficulty was to prove
him a GOOD enough Republican, and
this task Fo1ney undertook, writing up
Grants record with that view in five
column article. Before being printed.
a proof-sheet Of this article was sent
Ia Grant through Gen. John A. Raw
Inns. his Chief of Staff, who reported
that the General was quite pleased with
the statement Of his political record.
Fornev states further:
when Rawlins came backfrom Gen.
Grant with the editorial, he told us
with great emphasis Gen. Grant does
not want to be President. He thinks
the Republican party may need nm
and he believes as their candidate he
..au 10. elected and reelected; but, SAID
Rawlins. what's to become of HIM af-
ter his second Presidential term-what
indeed. during his administration: lie
is receiving for seventeen 10 twenty
thousand a year as general OF the ar
mics Of the Republic a life salary. To
20 into the Presidency at twenty-five
thousand dollars a year tor eight
years. is perhaps, TO gam more tame;
lint what is to become of him at the
end Of his presidency: He is not apol-
itician. He does not aspire TO the
place. "
At the time Of Forney's revelations
We commented on the niggardly bag
Cling and greed of money displayed by
Grant in this whole matter, andshowed
how the Republicanparty Of progress
had bartered away two Presidential
acrms for his military popularity. Thus
early. in February, 1872, it was shown
Soy Forney that the party were
pledged to give Grant the second term
and his nomination at Philadelphia last |
year was cut and dried affair from !
1867. A re-perusal Of Rawlins state
snent given above. viii convince any
one that Grant WAS not at ali satisfied |
with even two terms-eight years-at !
S25 600 per annum. Rawlins told For |
ney with great emphasis that
Grant did not want to be Pres
ident' on such terms. 1t IS Duff |
cplt to avoid the conclusion that |
then and there, in 1867 Grant |
monetary objections and anxiety Tor
his own financial future, were overcome |
Nv some offer over and above the two |
terms of the Presidency which he de-
clared insufficient. What was the cX-
IRA ipducement? Was it the offer Of a |
third term. of which we have had some |
hints the past summer? Or was it the |
doubling of his salary, effected last |
March? Or was the latter outrage on
taxpayers, designed by the Radical
managers as substitute for a prom
ised third term: Was this increase Of |
the Presidential salary to $4,000, the |
mere fulfllment Of a bargain entered |
into over six years ago by the Radical
managers: 1t looks very much that
way now. when the same Radical man
ayers propose to place the Presidential
salary back at 1000 for his success
eors.