The evening Argus. [volume] (Rock Island, Ill.) 1861-1871, 1866-12-12

northern states. And, moreover, they
voted the democratic ticket, for il was the
democratic party OF that day which affirmed
their right In that respect npon an Impartial
basis with white men. All democrats can
not,even at this day, have forgotten the state
ment OF Gen. jackson that he was supported
for the presidency by negro votes in the state
of Tennessee.
How did it happen that the qualifications
which admitted negroes 10 the right Of suf
rage come to be changed? What was il
which caused the democratic party to aban.
don the broad platform Of impartial suffrage,
upon which it originally stood, and to adopt,
to public appearance at least, an attitude fay.
oring partial suffrage? As s sF
The answer is furnished by history it was
the agitation of the slavery question by
northern abolitionists. The regulation of the
suffrage was a matter which belonged to the
states. The federal government had no pow
er over ii no right to interfere with ID in
any way. So, likewise, of the Institution of
slavery. But northern abolitionists resolved
to have something to do with it. The only
way open to them was agitation in the press,
the forum, and the pulpit, and persistent
effort to force that agitation into the halls of
congress and into the slave states. With the
ballot in the hands of negroes, the slave
states readily perceived that an auxiliary of
the northern snti-slevery agitation might ex-
list in their own midst. Accordingly they
proceeded, in the exercise of an undoubted
state right, TO inhibit the negro from the bal
lot box.
The anti-slavery agitation made its first ap-
pearance in politics in the famous controYer-
sy in 18l9-20 But one of the states in
which impartial suffrage existed bad, prior
to that time, inserted the word "white" in its
constitution--the state of Kentucky. Con
necticut inserted that word in 1918 ; Mary
land and Virginia in 1929 Delaware in
1881 Tennessee in 1884 North Carolina
in 1885 Pennsylvania in 1888, and New
Jersey in 1874. In Georgia the qualification
was not changed. Astounding as the fact
may be to some of our radical fellow citizens,
it Ia nevertheless fact that in the rebeIlious,
wicked and awful state of Georgia, there is
nothing in the constitution to prevent ne
gro who possesses the qualifications require
of al citizens alike payment of taxes for the
year precedingl from casting his vote in any
election for any Office within the gilt of the
people. II requires no constitutional couven-
ton to establish impartial suffrage in the
state OF Geoagia it needs only a simple rec
ognition of the fact that, the law of slavery
even an act of the Legislature is necessary -
"lovap' state of Illinois.
The doctrine OF ststs rights, not less than
the doctrine of impartial suffrage, was, and
still is, cardinal with the democratic party
When, therefore. that party beheld faction
of northern fanatics making war upon the re.
served rights OF a.portIon OF the states, to at
party IN all the states put itself IN an attitude
to defend ona Of its most cherished doctrines.
It was thus, not by choice, but by the tactics
of the opposition, made gradually to assume
attitude of seeming hostility TO that other
cardinal democratic doctrine, IMPARTIAL SUI
FRAGE. But tbs opposition did not occupy
the ground from which thu democracy were
driven. at no period of time. in no state, in
no party convention ever held, has the politi-
cal party opposed to the democracy, by what
ever nams thas party may have been called,
advocated the principle of impartial suffrage.
The present radical party, party which
aims at the Capitalization rather than the
populaTization of the government. has not
done it: but, on the contrary, has taken
great pains to be understood as standing in
an attitude of opposition 30 impartial Buf-
frage. It ia doing this very thing now
What is called the Congressional plan" does
not embrace this all important principle. 1t
does not base nor attempt to base representa-
ton on taxation, but on the other hand ex-
may be excluded from even the basis Of rep
ressntation, Notwithstanding that they shall
be made to pay taxes.
It is therein anti-democratic. 1t is in direct
antagonism to the traditions of democracy, but
entirely consistent with the GENERALIZATION theo-
ries of ancient federalism, to which theories the
present radical party has succeeded by direct
line of inheritance.
On the other hand, 1t is seen that the demo-
fia ~ IN fDpna has in "a
attitude upon this genuine democratic principle
This attitude Is forcefully illustrated by the his
tory of that party in the state Of New York, and
especially in the constitutional convention of
that state in l62l-in the midst Of the Missouri
agitation, Suffrage in that state, in all
Others, depended originally upon n property
qualification, applicable iupartiaily to men of
all sorts. The form OF government was perhaps
less democratic than in any other Of the original
states. Comparatively few officers were elective,
and immense power and patronage were central
lied in the hands of few men. The demOcra-
cy sought change; the federaliste, naturally,
were opposed to any change. At length, the
democracy gaining sufficient strength in the
Legislature, the question of constitutional CON
V5ntlon was submitted to the people and was af-
hrmed By an immense majority. Having q ma
iority of the convention, the democracy, against
united iederaist opposition, abolished the pro-
perty qualification to white men, but q suff
| CtShb va uuuObibS uOAlaeSs NOLtu Win
the ederasts to prevent its abolition as to BLACK
| men. The principle, however, was not lost
Taxation as basis Of suffrage was still retained
| and to compensate for the property qualification
| of the negroes, which was no longer required Of
| whites, the following clause was inserted in the
constitution of New York, and remains in it tt
| this day
| ss4nd persons Of color shall be subject to di
rect tcxGtOn unless he shall be Seized and possess
ed of such real estate as dforSdid.''
| Thus was the principle of s'no taxation with
out representative reaffirmed by the democracy
in the great state of New York. Impartial suf
frage WAS still contended for by tho great BODY
of the party in that state, and was only PARTLY
! overcome by accessions to the federalist opposi
| ton but III lieu thereof, it was provided tina
| no man who did not have the right to vot'
| should be liable to pay taxes. In the state o
| New York, TO this day, the property of negroes
| under the amount of $250-the amount which
| qualities them to vote-is exempt from taxation
| And this fundamental rule was made by the dem
| ocratio party, even after the anti slavery agita
| tion had become disturbing element in politics
| The history of that party in other states nigh
| also be cited to show that its former advocacy o
| this great principle was an active advocacy, anl
| not mere passive one. In one of the new
states, the qualifications Of suffrage prescribed bt
| a democratic constitutional convention are sucf
| as forcibly Illustrate the absurdty OF different
| rule. In Minnesota, persons of Indian blood
! who have adopted the language customs ant