Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1875-07-07

/ Just held her election and had elected,
what the Republicans called "rebel, .
over Carl SchUTZ, a Conservative, and
4 man who had done as much, if not
more, than any one else for the South,
/ without even giving him a
complimentary vote. Our turn
came next. The contest was be-
tween Andrew johnson and a man Of
acknowledged ability and name known
to the utmost limits of civilization. He
had served US In the Senate before the
war, and there could be but one objec-
ton raised TO him-his warrecOrd. On
the other hand we had Gen. Bate, Gov.
Brown, and others. The most formi-
dable oppOnentssOf johnson were men
who owed their chief claim to the po-
sItion to their war record. mean
that their record during the late war
gave them that prominence that en-
abled them to aspire to the position
with hope of success. Let us admit that
they were Johnson's equals in ability,
wOulditnot have been bad policy to have
elected either over him? Was there
not a political interest at stake far
greater than the claims of any man or
forty men in the State or United
States? l conceived that there was.
l believed that there was an imperative
duty resting upon Us to demonstrate
to the people of the North by our acts,
that we were willing to bridge the
bloody chasm, and that we prescribed
no one because he was a Union man
during the war. Would not the defeat
of Andrew johnson have proved di-
rectly to the reverse. ] believed II
would, and voted for him.
COnceding to Senator Jones the ut
most sincerity Of motive, we cannot
say that he makes out as plausible a
case here as in explaining his vote on
the dog law. Is ne not aware that in
both branches of the new Congress are
to be found many Of the most promi-
nent leaders Of the Confederacy, and
that their presence is regarded by the
great mass Of the Northern people as
the strongest assurance Of future peace
between the sections? This is the era of
not of reconstruction.
We sho1ld not ike TO believe that The
Tennessee Legislature elected a man
United States Senator from a slavish
fear Of any consequences that might |
have attended his defeat. But, now
that the two votes thus explained have |
raised such a rumPus amongst Senator |
Jones constituents, there is something
else to be considered-and he presents |
it with no little force in this style:
But suppose a great many of You
differ with me on these two votes, look
over my entire record, look at thenum-
Der Of good laws we have passed, and
if our good acts exceed our bad ones, IN
the proportion Of a dozen TO one, or I
might say over seventy To one, as we
passed ono hundred and forty-three
bills, and there is no objection as far as
l have heard to anything but the dog
law" and some dissatisfaction because
Of JohnsOn's election, these one hun
dred and forty-One good votes ought to
make amends for two bad ones.
There can be no question about this.
The Legislature dida great deal Of good
work for which it never has received and |
never viii receive due credit until the
,lamor about the dog law and Andrew
has ceased to be heard in the
and. And We doubt whether the de-
sired millennium IS particularly close at
hand.