Daily Davenport Democrat. [volume] (Davenport, Iowa) 1864-1874, 1867-03-21
Impartial Hsflrngc The Hon.
..sv Of the Radical Party.


THURSDAY EVENING. MARCH 81.
Roflrage - The Hon.
c.ty Of the Radical Party.
The New York Times, a radical Repubii- |
ran organ, thus comments upon the incon-
listency Of its party
"N,ssouri aud Minnesota, through their !
Legislatures, have affirmed the principal Of |
imn.r,ial suffrage. In Ohio, Illinois and /
n ichiran the Legislatures have refused to
obli,ers,e caste distinctions, by the adspta>
ion Of their constitutions 20 the altered /
OF tbe country. These sd- |
verse decisions are incxplicable, Ia view Of
he action Of the Republican party in Con:
cress, and tho position Il has assumed % |
shsAuflraee question. After enfranchisiae |
the colorsd citizens Of the District Of Coz
lumtia. aud forcing upon tho South their
universal enfsanchiasmsnt, Il 10 dif8cult 70
imagine any plea which the Nssthesn States
may Justify the present disability on account
Of color. Cestestainly there 10 no consist
eney in the course Of Legislatures CONTROL.
ed By large Republican msjosities, after the
formal PRONUNCIATION 81 the Republican pol.
icy in the balls Of Cougress. II the party
has sny distinctive principle, The principle
OF impartial suffrage must b oon'idersc
peculiarly ito own. 1t has proelaimed IT.
part Of the ground work Of national rsos-
ganizssiou. BY enscting IL wherever Con
greSaional authority extends. Ana uis
States composing Congress can not oeccht'
" refuse 10 ratify in thcir individual caphc
~ the princirls TO which they have given
efec, by their aggregate authority. IL the
blacks Of Georgia ar. entitled to votes, and
are in,rusted with them without any quail
incaiion, On what pretcncc are the blscks
Of Ohio, Illinois and Michigan 10 remain
branded with political inforiorityy'
Just 90. II Impartial Suffrage is God Civ
On right, il il is an inalenabic right, why
should the colcred brethren Of Indiana. IL
linois and Ohio be denied . free ballot p
The Republican party in Congress insist
upon negro suffrage in the District Of Co
lumbia, in oil the Southern States excluded
from representation in Congress. and why
should no. the same rule apply to Indian.
Ohio. and all the Northern States which res
fuse equal sufrsage to the nsgret What 10
sauce for the goose should be sauce for the
gandcr. II negro suf, age must be conced
ed upon principle, why should not the rule
apply 10 the States North and South II
Congress has the right TO enforce negro
suffrage upon L"uisiana, Alabama and
Georgia, has il not tho Same power 10 en-.
force impartial suffrage" upon Indiana. II
linois and Ohio. The radical majority in Con
gross announce that negro Political equality
is a necessary condition in free Strte,or 4
constitute = republican government. II VI
grant this for the sake ofargumsnt. what con
clusion necessarily follows? Indiana has no,
Arepublicsn government; Ohio has not; Iii
nois has not, and no State has not which
does not concede to the negro political equal
,ly with the white man. This conclusion
is 40 apparent that il needle no argument "a
enforce il To be consistent, then. should
not tho radical party in Indiana. Illinois and
Ohio insist that the same rule which they
seek TO impose upon the South should ap.
ply To the North, II the ignorant planta-
ton negro of Alabams or Mississippi is t.
DO invested by congressional dic,ion will
,he.riehs OF suffrage, why should not III
comparatively Intelligent cclorcd man q IN
llama be invested with the same right, {
privilege
We can not see the distinction. but III
radical party ia Congress may. The doc
iriuc o. universal or impartial suflrag
should be general i shon'i apply with cqna
force 10 the North as 10 the South Bu
this il not done. hence the glazing incon
sistency of the advocates of impartial suf
fiage. The intelligent celorcd man OF In.
diana is Just AS much entitled 70 the ballot
as the ignorant negro in South Carolina,
bat the Republican leaders In Indiana Or in
Congress- can not see il in that light. And
We inquire where Is the consistency or I'll,
honesty in denying TO the colored men il
Indiana the political privileges which tn,
radicals insist shall be conferred upon tn.
eon,rabands Of Mississippi or Florida? I
there is any reason Why this distinction
should be made. it is utterly beyond ou'
Philosophy TO define any sensible argumen,
tAe'efor II any argument he needed t.
Illustrate the Inconsistency and setishncs.
ui the Republican party We need only cite
!; .iucn upon the negro suffrage ques-
TIA . Is no, negro equality that the Re-
though irolesseily SO, admiration, but ia,
hope ana intention to secure through that
ascncy party supremacy.