The Eaton Democrat. (Eaton, Ohio) 1875-1903, 1876-05-18
GRANTS GREAT FAULT.

GRANTS GREAT FAULT.
The New York World says: The
attempt to shield General Grant
from responsibility for the eril done
during his administration, by repre-
senting him as an Eastern monarch
cut off from all direct Communication
with his subjects and depending for
his knowledge of public affairs upon
his official favorites, is not worthy of
serious consideration. The Presi-
dent is to blame for his bad admin
istration because he entered upon
the duties of his high Office in a are
less, s~lovenly spirit, confident that
the management of civil affairs re-
quired neither vigilance nor ability,
and regarding the chief magistracy
as a sort of haven of rest rather than
as a place environed with duties and
responsibilities. He took the office
as the last reward bestowed by a
grateful people upon a successful
soldier, accepting it as a means Of
enjoyment and not as a public trust.
At the beginning of the war he had
risen from obscurity, degradation and
despair to the height ola great oc-
casion. The transformation was as
sudden and glorious as that of the
beast in the fairy story into an en-
chanted prince. During the rebel
lion his whole nature was Weakened
TO activity, and he became yigilant
Industrious, inventive, familiar will
great schemes and accustomed tc
grapple with great tasks. It seemed
after the war was over, and his fame
was won, as if he relapsed into some,
thing of his old recklessness. HI
acted like a man who thinks that hi
has earned the right to take things
easily, and laughs at the censure O.
the world. 1t was wrong to assume
the Presidency in this spirit, but ths
ruin that was since wrought might
not have followed if General Grant
had retained in civil life the same So
gacity in the selection of his subor
dinates which distinguished him il
his military career. Failure here
was the source of all subsequent
trouble. 1t will always remain a mys
terry how that fine appreciation o.
manhood which enabled him tc
choose Generals like Sherman, Meade
and Mcpherson and put faith il
them, seemed to forsake himlutterly
in the selection of Cabinet officers
How was it that the keen discrimi
nation with which he invariably pick
ed out a braggart like Hooker or Nc
Clernard failed to aid him in the de
lection of a rogue? How could hi
who never allowed a corps command
er to deceive him, become the dup,
of the shallow knaye at the head o
the War department? 1t will not d.
to explain his errors by saying tina
he was blinded by personal friend
ship, swayed by family ties, or gov
erned by party feeling. Makingd u'
allowance for all such influences, ant
still we cannot account for the ute
imbecility displayed in the choice o
such men as Delano, Belknap, Bcrie
Robson, Boutwell,, Williams, Rich
ardson, and hosts of others like them
The President might well have flung
all cares of government behind him
if during one month after his inaug
uration he had selected the materi
ais for an administration with tn,
same intuitive perception of abilit.
that characterized him when at thu
head of the army. As his success il
war was due to his unerring judg
ment of men, so his failure in ciyi
government is due to the lack of ii
As the exercise of that judgment
almost akin to genius, was his pecu
liar glory in the one case, so tn
want of it, almost akin to stupidity
must be his peculiar shame in tn
other. We hold his administrator
to be especially disgraceful, mas
much as he was capable of bette
things.