Western Reserve chronicle. [volume] (Warren, Ohio) 1855-1921, 1865-08-23

andin p~rophesyifg that by such means
alone shall we re able to accomplish those
results which we 50 earnestly desire.
Negro Equality and kindred
Topics.
4 Mr.. J. BalIinger, of Sonora, Han
cock Co, H., propounds the follow
ing questions TO the Editor Of the
New York Tribune.
]. Are you in favor Of elevating The
negroes among us to p social equality
with the Whites
,. Are you in favor 0f their filing
tho offices within the gift Of the peo-
pie, from the lowest to the highest
whether Leg isiative, Executive or
J udici9ig
; And TO cap the climax, aye YOU
in favor OF AmaigamatiOEz
Mr.. Grceley'S ISIS to these
questions are 70 explicit and sensible,
and so well express "a own views,
that we quote them in foil:
!. We DO not know whether ne
grOes would be "elevated" Or not by
social equality with whites; some
discerning men think thew would
rather be degraded by it. But there
is 10 such thing as social equslitv
On earth, AMI never can be while
some are good, and others bad; some
Intelligent, others ignorant; some
coarse and repui-ive, others refined
and agreeable. Sonora is not Il very
large place; yet We will venture to
assert that there are whites in It Who
10 not invite Mr.. Baitingcr to dinner
and Others whom he does not Invite;
We insist that ne and every one else
shall continue TO enjoy perfect free
dom IN the premises, and regard
whomsOever each Of them sevefally
will as superiors equals or interiors.
So with aii others, White or black
We advocate the largest liberty IN all
m alters, OF social intercourse, So that,
if White OF black choose to live or
terms Of social intimacy, they may
0r not. Our correspondent will give
our opinions whatever name snail
please him. Social equality does not
and did not ever exist; social relations
are entirely matters Of choice and
with any other persons intimacies
we DO not intermeddle.
But i Mr.. Ballinger refers to tegaI
equality where he talks of social. we
must telI him that we do favor legdl
equality between the highest and the
lowest in the social Gale. We sc!aim
all legal rights, and what we claim
we willingly eoncede to Others.-In
Great Britain, for example, Dukes
are not apt to invite ehimney-sweeps
to dinner, and are not likely to
change their practice in this respect
out any chimney-sweep may invite
any Duke into Court, and the invita-
lion will have to be accepted. Being
il Court, the sweep may call other
sweeps to testify as to his claim or
grievance, aad the Duke must rebut
their testimony, or meet whatever
verdict it shall show TO be just.-And
we do favor such equality, and hope
TO see it established wherever IL has
not already been.
2 We are in favor of filing Offices
with just such persons as a majority
Of the legal voters shall prefer. We
never voted, nOr wish to Sote-for L.
negro; but II we rel should be re-
luired to vote, and should happen to
<nOw q negro whom We deemed en-
'uently ft for the place to lbe filed.
We should deem it wrong if law or
constitutional restriction constrained
IS to vote for some one else or not
at all.
If by "amalgamation" il meant
The intermiDgling Of the white and
black races, and if the question be,
Do you consider this advisable or de-
slrable? u answer is, No, we do not.
There SCENES to us a natural repui-
sion between Whites and Blacks.
which may, indeed, be ~over5Orne or
tetied but which must have been i'm
planted for some good end, aud which
We therefore respect and desire 10 see
respected. There will generally arise
quite enough provocations to differ
5Dco in the married State with out
s%uperadding this Gt seems to- us)nat-
ural, instructive repugnance OF race
denee as a rule:we do not think the in
termsrriage of Christians with Turks /
advisable, nor that Of Roma. Cath
Jiics with Protestants, o ev6h taar /
If the sternly Orthodox with ratl0na~
izing Quasers, Unitarians and Uni
~versaiists. We do not say that these
differences OF creeds are ~insupeTable
Oars to marriages but that, other
things being equal, it were better to
seek partners for life among those s
with whom you have no essential
difference Or disagreement.
But if your correspondent means, :
Would you by law prohibit and pun
,sh intermariages between White and
Black?"-our answer would be, No,
we would not. Civil law has ne war
to interfere in matters Of taste
should certainly advise no White
20 marry 4 Black; but fsuch a couple z
were resolved to marry, We would IN
.erOose no legal obstacle and desire
lohe. And if the questio,, we're
shall they marry or be i,timete with
,ut marrirge?"-we snouId say, .Let
hem marry Though cur Judgment
) against all sUcn relations, regular
irregular, lawful or unlawful.