Cincinnati daily press. [volume] (Cincinnati [Ohio]) 1860-1862, 1860-05-08

. Inc Olnclnnau Udzette, following tne leau
of the Columbus Gazette, paper which adj
vocates the nomination of Mr.. Chase, rules
Mr.. Seward out of the list of Republican
availables for nomination to the Presidency,
because he has record in favor of negro
suffrage, which would be a heavy load to
carry in the canvass. We doubt if any rec
ord would not be too heavy load for Re-
publican candidate. 1t seems to be thought
necessary that he should peel for that race.
The line which divides negro human rights,
which constitute the foundation of the great
Republican party, from rights of the black
man which no Republican can safely respects
as narrow as the bridge to Mahomet'sparadise
a quarter of hairs breadth to the right or
left win land the Republican believer in the
perdition of unavailability.
In Ohio a colored man in whom white
blood predominates, is entitled to vote; the
law not allowing that minority of inferior,
can overcome majority of superior blood;
this Republican Supreme Conrt-as well as
Democratic.-and the Republican party sus-
tain. Mr. Seward has gone shade deeper
into the business, and, the Gazette says, it is
heavier load than the party should assume.
Truly Republicanism is a thing of a nice COM
plexion. An imperceptible shade will throw
it out of gear.
The inferiority of African birth has been
regarded by both parties in New York as re-
moved by 5000 worth of property--the prop
erty qualification having the virtue to change
the Ethiopian's skin, thing once regarded
as difficult; but now a journal of party
which affects to be the peculiar protector of
human rights, decides that any countenance
of this, disqualifes Republican leader for a
Republican nomination.
They who hold that the negro is inferior
and capable of self-government, and there
fore that reciprocal service and protection are
the natural conditions of the two races, have
consistent and logical, and, with the usual
facilities ofinterpretation, apretty good Scrip
tural ground to stand on, the consequences of
which they are not compelled to dodge: the
only way it can be attacked is by disputing
the premise and affirming the equal rights of
the negro. Yet none exceed the Republicans
in heaping obloquy on the small band of
Abolitionists who take this ground. But if
the negro has the right to liberty, it is be-
cause he is human being with human rights.
They who claim these for him and then hold
that he should be deprived of political rights
which ore Just as inherent and inalienable as
the right to liberty, have no principle at all
to stand on.
1t is commonly supposed at the North that
with the principle of inherent human rights
for starting point, it is all plain sailing, and
the Republicans habitually claim all the
principle and all the logical consistency on
their side, and assume that slavery is founded
on a self-evident wrong, and is necessarily
illogical and inconsistent in all its argu-
ments but Republicanism dare not face the
logical sequences of the right of the negro to
liberty, and is obliged to dodge its conclu-
sions by imposing legal inferiority which
fully recognizes the principle on which
slavery is founded.
We hold that taxation and representation
are inseperable, to white people. But we tax
the negroes, and Republican authority de-
clares that proposition to give them repre-
sentation is fatal to Republican promotion
When the same thing was tried on our an
cestors, they called it making slaves of them,
and appealed to the inherent rights of men,
all of which they claimed to be involved in
the question. What makes the difference
but color2 And if color is reason for de-
priving men of what we call natural rights,
is not the difference between Republicanism
and slavery only one Of degree? Is not the
principle of both identical? What right
have Republicans, who deprive men of nat
ural rights on account of color, to prescribe
the limit to which others may go in the same
practice?
Perhaps it would be well for the Northern
people to wait until they are willing to meet
the logical consequences of the right of the
negro liberty, before they expend great deal
Of zeal in a contest with slavery, either in the
States or Territories, or on the African coast
II is a striking illustration of the delusions
that govern the politics of this country, that
the Republican party should be regarded,
either in principle or practice, as hostile to
slavery, when we see COrwin and Stanton in
the House, representing the comic and the
malignant shades of Republicanism, assuring
the South of the Republican willingness to
impose alegal inferiority on the negro which
fully indorses the principle of slavery; and
when we see the Gazette, the nursing mother
of conservative Republicanism, laying it
down that any recognition of equal rights in
the negro is too great a load for Republican
candidate to carry.