The St. Charles herald. [volume] (Hahnville, La.) 1873-1993, 1883-07-21
GENERAL BUTLER.

GENERAL BUTLER.
The editor Of the Baton Rouge
Truth, in spirit of commendable
moderation, considering his war
record and present politics, has re-
piled to our remarks on Gen. Butler,
in an article containing considerable
fairness mixed with some gross
errors. He says:
awe have made no "spoon" charges against
the individual named lie stole nothing from
s,we had nothing to steal In The days we speak
OF, and have remained in the same happy
condition ever since. So far as Butle,,s democ-
facy is concerned we have only to say that his
change of politics does not make him a better
man Ill orr estimation We are only sorry he
10 one. Unr democracy Is not such that we be-
neve all the virtue is embraced in the demo-
cratle ranks, while the Republican party has
all the vice. We know better We know
many Republicans who are honorable, high
toned men, and the peers socially and intellect
ually OF any OF our citizens 1t was Butler
whether Republican, GreenbacEer or demo-
GRAFT our article referred to and to no one else,n
There is more common sense and
honesty in this than is usually found
among Democratic editors of the
present day. But he dislikes the
idea, Notwithstanding he repud,ates
the foolish cry of 'spoons;" taking
back the epithets of ''infamous
deed% applied to the great Massa-
chnsetts statesman; and asks us
two questions as follows:
Did the cditorof the St. Charles Herald eyer
near ~ the infamous" o der of Gen. Butler |
directing his hireing soldiery to t, eat the Ia |
dies of New Orleans, "as women of the town
plying their vocation" Does he or did he m |
prove the action of Gen. Butler in encouraginr |
and urging his soldiers to insult our unprotect- |
ed femalesY We did not think there was a man |
IN the State of Louisiana of either party ready |
10 defend Butler, in this respect, at least"
Our answer is ready and simple.
We never believed the Union SOL
diery to be more "hlrelingn than
those in the secession ranks. The
first fought for Union and freedom;
the latter for slavery. But this does
not reach the main question. We
we never heard of the
order "to treat the ladies of New
Orleansas women of the town plying
their vocation" We did hear and
read of an order to treat women of
jhe town plying their vocation ex,
lctly as they desired to be treated.
As to the second question, we answer
hat we do not, and could not have
the "action of Gen. Butler. ,
n encouraging and urging his sol
liers to insult our unprotected
for the best of all reasons- :
70 never gave such an order. Gen, !
'utler, although pIo,slavery Dem
crat, never was a harsh or cruel
IAN. He has shown himself the ,
mend and protector of decent fe.
lales, Il kind and affectionate has.
and and father. This charge about
1sultlng "ladies" and unprotected
is all bosh. and has not the {
lightest evidence to rest on. 1t is
ven more silly and unjust than the
EXPLODED cry of "spoons." There {
re many editors who howl this sort 5
stuff from pure wlckedneSs but y
ruth is a paper too candid and
ccustomed to fair dealing to be {
overned by such feelings, and |
lould by this time have taken a ]
orrect view of the matter. 5