Press enter after choosing selection

Forney On Hancock Then And Now

Forney On Hancock Then And Now image
Parent Issue
Day
23
Month
July
Year
1880
Copyright
Public Domain
OCR Text

In nis recent pancgyne on his sceond "favorite sou of Pennsylvania." Col. Forney said " calumny of' any kind on General Hancock is a bad erutch to help tin1 anibition of wcak men." " Gen. Hancock is the favorite son of Pcnnsylvania, and comes before the people of his native State with an exceptional record. " But our old f riend didn't always have this ezalted opinon of General Hancock's record, espccially the only attenipt he ever made at a civil adminstrative record. The Bulletin has beun looking up what Col. Fornoy said of uitn twelve years ago in the Press. And hcre is what he said in that journal in September, 1867, and if itwaan't "calumny" it wascertainly the severest kind of sarcasm hurled at the man to whom he now says "his own pledge binds him as his own note of hand" and whioh " in moráis is as solerun as if lic had gone before a magistrale and sworn to abide by it." " Hancock, it is now authoiïtativrly known, will not go to New Orleans whilc the cholera is raging as it s at present. Tlie epidemie, by coiisuininp time in thts wa y, may yet prove the politica! s.-.lvntion of the south." But two months later, when " the political salvation of the south " was endangered by " the favorite son's" preseuce at New Orleans, Col. Forney thuBCommentededitorially upon Hanoock's special order, No. 203, revoking Bpecial order 125 of' General Sheridan, which provided for revisión of jury lists so as to exelude all persons declared by the reconatruction act to be incompetent by reason of' rebel disabilities. We quote from an editorial in the Piess of December 6, 1867: " Wc fear very much that Pennsylvaiiia is to have the lionor, or whatever it may be, of furnishing Andrew Johnson at last witli a military governor after his own lieart. Gen. Hancock, it is very evident, is a better soldier than o lawyer. His argument, publislied in a telegraphic correspondence trom New Orleans, to-day, if carned to,its legitniiUe conclusión, would hustle the Qeneral liiniself and all bis staffout of Louishin:i In double-qutck time. If a civil govemment pronounced by Congrcss (and tnot is by the people) to be Ilegal, is notto be embarrused, no matter how greatly it may cmlarrass freedom or reconstruction, or how contuniacious muy be its attitude in regard to the general froyernment, then General Bancock bas no right to be in New Orleans. where liis presencc, ov tbat of any man who wears the blue, is an embarraasment ; and by the same reasoning still less rijrlit had he to cross the Marylaml line at the head of columns of national bayonets, attempting to embarrass tlie confedérale militia sent into the field hy tlie action of state governments, which wcre legitimate when coinlared with tliose inaugnrated by Andrew Johnson when actiníí in his fuvoritc character of dictator." In the Press of Jan. 6, 1868, Col. Forney thus outlined the national outcropiungs of the " favorite son's " statesmaulike political instincts : k. u. öucnanan, the ncw appointec ol Gen. Hancock to conimaiul tlie district ol Louisiana, is a brotherot' the notorious Buchanan of the rebel navy. Duringlhe war, H. C. Huchanan was stationed for a long time in New Jersey, he belng apparently one of those oiücers whora Itwasdeemed judicious tosupprcssduring the war against the rebellioii. líe is a Marylander by Dirtfa. His military history well ilhistrates the coming policy of Hancock.'' In an editorial on the lOth of January, Col. Forney thus confirmed the statement made in The New Era the other day, that Gen. Hancock had removed the stars and stripes i'rom his hoadquarters to relieve Gen. Beauregard and other rebels from their " cuibarraastneot : " " Hancock, a Johnson general, assumes command in the flfth military district - Louisiana - and forthwith down go the colors of the nation. A loyal meeting in Texas is assaulted by amob of defiant traitors and dispersed by violence. The leaders of this mob, when arrested by somc honcst offioer, who forgot the new' policy' wliich now rcigns at New Orleans, are released by Hancock, for that is virtually wliat his order amounted to, set at large by a bi gadier general or uie crintea srateS ürmy. a man uniformed in blue. Alas for the loyal men of Texas, with Sheridi.n a thousand miles away ! And now that Hancock comes in to turn the military against the reoontruction acts, we must look tor dark days in Texas and Louisiana ! " The other day Col. Forney said ia Progress that " the attetupt to arouse Catholic hostility to Gen. Hancock becau.w he carried out the orders of the government [in exeouting Mrs. Surrattjisom sf the worst exhibitions of party defamation and disgraces all who are engaged in it." But if now, why not then ? On Jan. 14, 1868, he said in an editorial in the Press : " Hancock's chances for the democratie presidential noniination are gradually lessening. The Irish democraey have fully resolved to support no man who liad anything to do with the execution of the sainted Mis. Surratt." And on the day following he repeatcd the"calumny" about Hancock's fastidipusness in not offending the tastes or hurting the feelings of the rebels. He had not only hauled down the American flag at the request of Beauregard, but according to Col. Forney's statement at the time when tho facts were notorious, he laid off the national uniform rather than offond its enemies who had stained it with his own blood at Gettysburg ! We quote from the Press of January 15. 1868: " The democratie journals laud Hancock bceaitse in N'ew Orleans, where he is at present stationed as the commanding offieer of the liftli military district, he does not offend the taste or hurt the feelings of the people thcre by wearing the national uniioiin. Would it not tendto sootlie thesciisitive feelings of the patriotie Loulslaulans if he should don the gray ? " On the 16th of January, 1868, Col. Fórney wrote from Washington, in his " Occasional " letter, a long account of an outrage committcd on a unión soldier by a rebel mob at Bellton, Texas, as an Ilustration of how confusión had become worse confounded in the fifth district sincc Gen. Hanoock's advent there as the exponent of " my policy," prefacing it with tho following comment : " Louisiana and Texas seeni to be resrrved as the especial trophies of General Hanc-ock's statcsmanship. öince his advent there has been nothiug but confusión won6 confounded. Evcry mail brings tiiliugs of lome new rebel outrugc. Kvcn oM oonwrvative newspapers like Flake"s Galveston Bulletin do not withhold the facts, proving the calamities of Hancoek's administration in Texas." Perhaps it was these " calamities of Hancock's administraüon in Texas " wliich still hauntod Col. Forney's mind, wben, by an uncon.scious apot-iopesis, he d'-cfared, " noithcr our children, nor our children's children, to the remotest generation, shall ntt forget it, or t'ail to remember it with a thrill ." Certainly thelriyalRepublican voters of this generation will not forget it when they come to choose bctween Garficld and Hancock, and " all that their names iinply," on the econd of November. If, as Col. Forney said, Gen. Hunoock was so alraid of otfending the tutea and hurting the foelings ol' his southeru friends in 1 SOS, would he be likely to " embarniss " them by onposing the paymont of their liundred ïiiillions ol war claims, and nensionii for their .soldicrs 't

Article

Subjects
Ann Arbor Courier
Old News