James Parton, The life of Horace Greeley

‘ [198] he prints it avowedly under the patronage of a particular sect. Our friend inquires whether we should advertise infidel books also We answer, that if any one should offer an advertisement of lewd, ribald, indecent, blasphemous or law-prohibited books, we should claim the right to reject it. But a work no otherwise objectionable than as controverting the Christian record and doctrine, would not be objected to by us. True Christianity neither fears refutation nor dreads discussion—or, as Jefferson has forcibly said, “Error of opinion may be tolerated where Reason is left free to combat it.” ’

In politics, the Tribune was strongly, yet not blindly whig. It appealed, in its first number, to the whig party for support. The same number expressed the decided opinion, that Mr. Tyler would prove to be, as president, all that the whigs desired, and that opinion the Tribune was one of the last to yield. In September it justified Daniel Webster in retaining office, after the “treachery” of Tyler was manifest, and when all his colleagues had resigned in disgust. It justified him on the ground that he could best bring to a conclusion the Ashburton negotiations. This defence of Webster was deeply offensive to the more violent whigs, and it remained a pretext of attack on the Tribune for several years. With regard to his course in the Tyler controversy, Mr. Greeley wrote in 1845 a long explanation, of which the material passage was as follows:—‘In December, 1841, I visited Washington upon assurances that John Tyler and his advisers were disposed to return to the Whig party, and that I could be of service in bringing about a complete reconciliation between the Administration and the Whigs in Congress and in the country. I never proposed to “connect myself with the cause of the Administration,” but upon the understanding that it should be heartily and faithfully a Whig Administration. * * Finally, I declined utterly and absolutely, to “ connect myself with the cause of the Administration” the moment I became satisfied, as I did during that visit, that the Chief of the Government did not desire a reconciliation, upon the basis of sustaining Whig principles and Whig measures, with the party he had so deeply wronged, but was treacherously coqueting with Loco-Focoism, and fooled with the idea of a re-election.’

Against Repudiation, then an exciting topic, the Tribune went