San Marcos free press. [volume] (San Marcos, Tex.) 1877-1892, 1885-11-05
The Grant.Johusou Controversy.

/ lut hfaut-shHuhuhN ohboINAh1s
II 10 not often that we feel like Civ
ing 10 "solid politics as much space
as wo give this week in tho article on
Grant and johnson on our first page
But it being "new matter" (as the
printers sayl relating TO a period Of
which We have o vivid recollection
the discussion hns interested us great
ly, the more, as II involves " tho truth
Of history"
Tho article on our first page pre-
sents cloar outline OF both sido8 OF
tho question. II will DO seen that
the quarral Of johnson and Grant
about Stanton, and the impeachment
OF johnson, naturally come into the
controversy. And those furnish the
best rofutation OF tho present story.
For Il appears to BIO certain, that up
to the Stanton imbroglio, Grant was
friendly with johnson and opposed
10 his impeachment while tho alleged
difficulty between them stated by De-
pow, took place before that time, and
seems THEREFORE TO be basoless. Do.
sidcs, il it had been true, II can
scarcely have boon possible that it
could have boon ignored by oil con-
temporary annals, or in the impoach-
ment trial in which Grant was q wit
ness. The Washington correspon-
dent OF the Boston Post ct that time
is reported as having interviewed
johnson abouthis suspension Of Stan
ton O. secretary Of war, and to the
effect that johnson declared that he
had made the suspension at the re.
peated solicitation Of Gen. Grant, who
complained bitterly that Stanton
ignored the authority he thought his
due. This would seem to argue any
thing but an unfriendly feeling be-
tween Grant and johnson OF the time
stated.
Nor is there any evidence that
johnson entertained any views or
purposes OF any time inconsistent with
his public declarations. His policy
was consistent, however erroneous.
He no doubt honestly differed with
the radical majority Of that time. He
was simply one Of the men of East Ten
nessee so vol depicted in DR.. Tour
gees book, "The Fools Errand, who,
while devoted to the Union, had no
objection to slavery and no sympathy
with the negro. 1t should DO further
remembered that he was for q time
sustained in his policy by such repub-
lican leaders as Gov. Morton OF Indi-
ana also that President Lincoln, just
before his assassination, clearly fore
Swallowed the same policy.
Tho incorporate habits Of Mr..
johnson are we'll known; and tho
New York Sun states that he was also
a victim of the opium habit. These
facts may account for many Of his ap-
percent political vagaries, while they
furnish their appropriate moral in ia
vor Of temperance, But they do not
invalidate the facts above stated.
Gen. Grant, be it remembered, was
also at that period q hard drinker,
and had no fixed political status, so
that it was doubtful as to which party's
nomination for president he would
accept. He certainly exhibited no
such superior moral or political eleva-
ton as would warrant him in sitting
in Judgment on the sins Of johnson,
ct least to the extent Of ruling that he
never had any principle or patriotism.
Honest Americans will protest against
this effort to rob the country of tho
fame of that sturdy man of the people,
during his better days, Andrew john
son OF Tennessee.
There seems to us o great deal Of
force in the following from the st.
Louis Globe Democrat:
The most absurd thing in Mr.. De-
pew's letter is tho statement Of Gen.
Grants reasons for Andrew Johnson's
alleged revolutionary designs. Gen.
Grant is made to say that Johnson's
ambition was to be received in full
favor by the slave-holding oligarchy, |
who had always despised him, and that |
to achieve this end he was willing to
overturn the Government, in order,
as Maj. Edwards would put it, "to
place the South once more in the sad
de-" We do not believe that Gen.
Grant ever uttered any such senti
ment. At the time referred to the |
slaveholding oligarchy was thing of
the past; slavery was extinguished
beyond either the power or the desire |
Of resuscitation. There was scarcely |
a man in the South who owned ST.
900 except in poor land. There was
a time, though, when Andrew john
son could have found favor in the
eyes of the slaveholding oigarchy had