The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-12-10

may be called the John Brown contingent
entered into conspiracy on June IA, 1864,
TO defeat Mr.. Lincoln's reelection by plac-
ing Fremont in nomination. 1t was with
difficulty that Mr.. Lincoln kept peace
among the jealous leaders, who
should have dropped differences and
given the President cordial support.
Some of these leaders were honest in this
hostility. Sumner and other ultra anti
slavery men were confident of their own
infallibility. and did their utmost to pre-
vent the appointment of such men as Sew
ard. Time has proved that the plans Of the
ultra men would have involved the cause in
disaster. When, with unerring judgment,
Mr.. Lincoln selected Mr. Stanton for sec
rotary of war party friends protested that
he was a Democrat. No man was ever
cursed with as much inconsequential or
bad advice. Mr.. Carl Schurz wrote him
letter in 1862. urging him to appoint none
but trusted party friends to commands.
Some of the more influential of the men of
Mr. Lincoln's party sought to prevent his
denomination. 1t is remarkable that all Of
the men in that conspiracy have left no
worthy impress upon the. events of that
period. Those of this generation who read
of the Pomeroy circular against Mr.. Lin
coins denomination and in favor of Secre-
tary Chase will ask, "Who was Pomeroy?'
IF the question cannot be answered, it will
be better for the man bearing that name.
The half hostility and the selfishness which
characterized the conduct Of such men as
Judge Chase have left them dwarfed and
forbidding characters upon the page of his
tory, while the men who stood shoulder to
shoulder with Mr.. Lincoln-the STATIONS.
Mortons, Shermans, Stewards and Fessen-
dens-will always share the imperishable
fame of their great leader. Without sever
ity, but with judicial fairness, Mr.. Schouler
places the men who helped and the men
who hirdered in their true light.
In his judgment of military commanders
the author is influenced by the facts of his
tory. The picture he has drawn of Gen
eral Mcclellan is not one that will please
those admirers who remember him only in
connection with his grand reviews. and the
enthusiasm which he inspired in the ranks
of the Army of the Potomac. He was a
great organizer, but he was not fighter
of battles. But this would not have count
ed against him in history more than it has
against Burnside, Halleck, Buell. and 9TH
ers. The offense of Mcclellan, and Mr.
Schouler makes il very clear from his own
letters and his book, is noted in his polit-
ical hostility to the President and his pol
icy. Other men. notably Fremont who had
his opportunity and failed, were the foes
Of the President while the war was in prog
ress. 1t was due to the unerring judgment
Of Mr.. Lincoln and his firmness in insisting
upon the men of his choice that, after so
many leaders had failed, he found and
chung to such men as Grant, Sherman,
Thomas, Sheridan and other generals of
the successful period of the war. But for
Lincoln there would have been no Grant
The Presidents military friends would
have disgraced him, and he had but one
champion in Congress. Lincoln sustained
him, and he came after long delay through
detraction and Jealous hostility. to be the
great leader in the field who directed the
Union armies to victory. In all things he
was loyal to the President. No petty jeal-
ousy Of the credit which others might win
affected him; in fact, success won from him
promotion. So, under his lead all Of the
more illustrious NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
Thomas, Sheridan, Meade, Hancock, Lo-
gan-come to the front and share the great
er and imperishable renown of Lincoln,
Grant, and yes, Stanton. This is the re-
ward of their unselfsh loyalty to Lincoln,
as forgetfulness or aspersion is the punish
ment of those whom vanity, sefishness or
pique led to hinder him in his work This
is an always timely lesson, and it appears
in every chapter of Mr.. Schouler's His
tory of the Civil War"