Rensselaer Republican, Volume 12, Number 28, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 26 March 1880 — Crucifying Grant. [ARTICLE]

Crucifying Grant.

Every rote cast ag*io»t the State constitutional amendments will be • Dc-mOe voteIf yon want fair electieua and no fraada, vote for th* State constitutional amendment*. . It waa a Democratic legislature tint framed and recommended the amendments to the State eonaUta non, '6«t~ fearing they' have prepared a grave for their own burial the Democratic party is now attempting to defeat them at the April election. The Rdthester Republican and Delphi Journal have each favorably mentioned Mr. J. Keiser, editor of the Winamac Republican, aa a very acceptable candidate for congressional honoys, believing that should he be nominated he could lead the party to victory in this district. Bro. Keiser is by no means the lea«t among the congressional aspirants, and there la no candidate outside of Jasper county we would more willingly support than La. All the pensioners who hate claims pending before the pension bjjreaa and arc enduring suffering and privation because they cannot get the money due them, will take notice that the Democratic party s*-eongress is alone responsible for thbdMay. The leaders of the southern wing of that party have made the objections that have hampered the necessary legislation for the payment of the claims, and seem determined to continue their policy of obstruction.' Give them * the credit, ancTbear it in mind. A favorite procedure with despotic rulers of parties is to “instruct” delegates to national conventions to cast their votes for some particular candidate. It is a method which gives political jugglers great power, especially when the States so instructing send large delegations. Combinationscan bemade Uy the managers which enable them to subserve their own interests, and this in most cases is the real objeet. It binds the whole strength of a State to the scheme of a faction, and thus becomes the worst of imHpossitions upon those classes within .»a party who have a right to be heard in the selection of candidates. It may and often does bring about results •which defeat the} popular choice, and this is the intent of the thimble rigging polititions who employ and enforce It. Gen. Longstreet was a noted supporter of the southern confederacy, who, since the war, has been acting with the Republican party. Grant gave him an office in New Orleans, and this it was alleged was the price of his desertion from the confederate cause as inherited by the Democratic party. In consequence he was tabooed and ostrastzed in the sonth, and denounced by the party organs in the north as a shameless renegade. He seems not, indeed, to have committed any greater offense than that of acknowledging fairly and fully that the confederate cause and the confederate theory of our government were dead, and that the national cause and the national theory .as maintained and upheld by those whocarriedthe country victoriously through tho long war upon both, were hereafter to prevail. But this was an offense sufficiently heinous te-make Longstreet an alien in his own country, and he has been in that condition ever since. Lately he has made his appearance again as an advocate oi the nomination of drant, on the specious plea that Grant alone can carry certain southern States. The plea of course is rediculous, Longstreet may help carry the southern vote* for Grant in the Chicago convention, but he •annot do anything whatever towards securing him effective help in the south in the election. Il is nonsense for him to talk about the ‘•enthusiasm’’ of the negros for Grant All their enthusiasm will avail nothing, since the Democratic managers have the . manipulation of the ballot boxes and the countiog oi the votes. No Republican will get an electorial vote from any, southern State,no matter what the popular vote may be.

The Philadelphia Times, an independent journal of national celebrity, declares that the _ao called victory for Grant in Pennsylvania, instead of being an honorable victory for the ex-president, is s “not merely a fraud and a falsehood, but a crucifixion of Giant before the world.” And the Chicago Times, another, independent journal, calls it M a triumph for Grant at the cost oF sacrifice sash humiliation.” The reasons are theeer Twice has Gen, Grant been, named the candid ate of the Republican party for president by unanymous acclaim, no voice dissenting or objecting. :, These were high honors, never before bestowed by any political party on any citiaen since Washington, Of all the American presideurtsubefore Grant, Washington, was - by the unanymous rUW9 sis. those who f* v owd, tfjo geu •

seat of Washington an honor to Grant itot le| in dfgreeMhan paid to its eminent military leader in the first revolutionary struggle. A nomination made only by overcoming the opposition of a considerable minority would imply that a -coweiderable section of the party formerly placed in him—-would im* ply that hr had fallen in the estimation of his own political friends from his former worthiness to occupy the high place in ‘ history awarded to none other but Washington. It would be an act of self abasement, a voluntary stepping down from the historic niche of, Washington to that lower plate of very comtnojß presidential aspirants who squabble tor a prise against an unwillingness among their, own partisans to award it to them. It would be a sacrifice of the highest honors ever bestowed on an American citizen for an object whose attainment could add no higher honor*, while its methdd would detract greatly from their lustre.’, This is ibe best view of it, founded bn the supposition that he would be elected. Should he fall of election it would hardly be possible to measure the depth of the fall. This view of the case fully sustains the strong language above quoted, that the instructions for Grant by the Pennsylvania convention, carried by only a lean majority, and through political pressure which had to be employed to save the credit of Senator Cameron, are a“crucifixion of Grant before the world.”