The People's vindicator. [volume] (Natchitoches, La.) 1874-1883, 1878-12-28
The Success Of GrantISii.
(St, Louis POSt.]

Flippancy isnot w.t. ~ 'e'Ss, "''"
is not always true WORD: our 'S
tecmcd contemporary, the G!oh', Urm
ocyut. might have Thought Il little be.
fore it undertook to say that the
great characteristic of Grant'S'n was
Success. No President il the wh"'e
history Of orr country la" a l's< snc>
ccssfnl administration. All the pre-
ceding administrations together. from
the days of Washington to those OF
Lincoln, do not show the extrava-
gance, profligacy, wastcfulness, cor
ruption, pcculation, defalcations and
dishonor Of every description for
which Grantism will ever be known.
If our esteemed contemporary meant
power instead of success, we 90 not
contradict. Undoubtedly General
Grant had greater power than any
President who ever preceded him.
But the very magnitude of his po-
litical power throws his failure as a
President into moro striking light.
Blind, indeed, must be our esteemed
contemporary, if it cannot see that
Grantism represents nothing but tail
urc-failure to his country, failure to
his party, failure to his administra-
ton, failure to himself.
He entered the White House with
the repntation of an honest man, and
with tho admiration of even the OPP
position for his manly, military quail
ties. He left it as the most intimate
personal adherent and friend of no.
torious and infamous political con-
victs and corruptionistS, like Ben
Butler, the Camcrons, Robson, etc.
Was that success?
He entered the White House with
scarcely an organized opposition
against him with hardly more than
a dozen Democratic members of the
House, and only half of that in the
Senate. He left it with considcra-
bic Democratic majority in two sue
cccding Houses elected by the people
in express condemnation Of his NAL
administration; with the Senate near
ly in tho hands of the Democracy, and
with a popular majority of over a
quarter of a million of all and over a
million of the white voters against
his Administration. Was that sue
cess?
He entered the White House with
every Southern State at his feet and
in the hands of the Republican par
| ty. He left it with every Southern
State in the hands of the Democracy
Was that success?
lie entered the White House say
ing, "Let us have peace When he
left it he had nearly succeeded it
provoking civil war. The South he
gave up for eight years or as long as
he could to the misrule of public
plundercrs, for which there is nc
parallel in history. Was that sue
cess?
lie entered the White House will
pledges of honesty and economy. HI
allowed one corrupt secretary to waste
the stupendous sum Of SlS2,O00, OO(
for a so.called navy, when Admira
Porter, appointed by Grant, under
oath said, "Our navy is worse thar
no navy at all.' Was that success
lie entered the White House wher
all Europe looked with admiration tt
the marvellous power of the great Re
public. He left it when the names o
Belknap, Babcock and Butler
Schenck, Emma Mine, Credit Mobil
Ter, Pacific Mail and Black Friday
had brought our country to shame
and contempt abroad. Was this sue
cess?
What does the Globe Democra
mean when it speaks of the success o
Grantism Does it mean the success!
with which carpet-baggers robbed ir
the South, corrupt Cabinet Minister!
in Washington and political rings al
over the nation? Does it mean tn,
depression of business which follow
ed the glory of Grantism ? Does j
mean the five million and a hal
which, as another legacy of Grant
ism, we had to pay to England
against all reason or right. Does il
mean the inevitable reputation Of
scaling of some of the Southern debt
also caused by Grantism ? Does il
mean the attempt to make corrupt
lobbyist like Landaulet William!
Chief Justice of the United States
What does our esteemed contempola-
ry really mean when it speaks of the
"success of Grantism 2
To US it seems that it was success
full only in-failure.