The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1865-11-04
Quarrelling over the NEGRO.


The Cincinnati Commercial, the leading
Abolition organ of that city, thus takes
issue with the New York Anti Slavery
Standard upon the question of negro
suffrage.
The Anti Slavery Standard takes high
grounds on the question of universal suf-
fFage. 1t regards suffrage not only as an
inaiienable right, but holds it to be trea-
son against Gods Government to with
hold it from any human being his hands
have formed. Ifitis an inalienable right.
inherent in man, viii the Standard please
say whether Government can for A mo-
ment withhold it from any human being.
male or female, who arrives in the United
States, and declares his, or her, intention
to become a citizen thereof. In other
words, are not naturalization laws in the
nature of high treason against God Gov
ernment Certainly, it would be injus-
tice of the rankest kind to the foreigner
were he deprived of life, liberty, or the.
pursuit of happiness, when he landed at
New York, unless for crime. and vet, if
suffrage Is as much an inalienabIe right
as any or all Of these, is not the same alb
straet injustice done him. and the same
rank treason committed by depriving him
of it for an hour, as would be done were
he incareerated without cause? Let us
be consistent In this matter. Inalienable
rights belong to all men, of all nations
We cannot set up laws discriminating
against their enjoyment and exercise, be-
cause the individual happens to have been
born In ireland or Germany, and not in
the United States But if he IS entitled
to.the one and enjoyment of one, because
it is inalienablc, he is entitled to the use
and enjoyment of ell that are inalienable.
Down with naturalization laws then. Give
the Irishman, the iernnan, the Swede,
the Italian, the Frenehman, theuse of the
ballot the moment he lands on our soil
and declares himself hereafter citizen of
the United States Ifsthe right is ina
lienable, it is rank injustice to withhold
it from young man till he is twenty-one.
He is capable of exercising it at much
earlier date. No law denies him the en-
joyment of all other inalienable rights,
and he is free to exercise them the mo-
lnent he has the capacity and desire to do
So Why, then, make an arbitrary def
milton Of time at which he is privileged
, TO use this right, and before which it is
convenient for him to exercise it. Let
the laws be so reformed that the youth Of
the land may vote the moment he knows
enough to deposit the ballot. Then there
are the women, who, if permitted to vote,
would arrive at the legal privilege three
years earlier than the males. Why are
they cruelty, wickedly, and monstrously
deprived Of the exercise of our inestina-
bic, inahenable right They do this in
Australia-once the Botany Bay Of Eng
lish criminals Isn't it high treason
against Gods Government to withhold
the right of suffrage from them !? What
has the Standard been doing these thirty
years, that It has not agitated the subject!
It might have done something for the dis
franchised white women Of the North,
even though it could not accomplish much
for the oppressed blacks Of the South.
Inalienahle rights are universal rights.
belonging to all men and all women. Il
suffrage be of their Humber they cannot
Fightfullg be deprived Of itsexcept for
crime It IS oaf opinion that the argu-
meatof the Standard proves too much,
and involves it in absurdities from which
40 legie OF soph;stry can release 1t.