American citizen. [volume] (Canton, Miss.) 1864-1890, 1867-09-07

iA iietoCs anu StHcIdI HllIl8llnt
OF the races. I am aware that i
does not follew because xiv son O,
yours belong to the white race. lt
snail therefore be at liberty to marry
The daughter Of any white man or
the continent. Nevertheless, they
are equals as to race, and when they
90 not marry it is because Of some
other reason than that which pre-
vents whites and blacks from inter
marrying. 1t is utterly impossible
that there should be negro equality
IN inns country consistent with order
ana harmony and peace and quiet in
tWRee tWReel GQpmunity, unless you accept
aud be given in marriage as s'a'ienruu
of that political equality from which
social equality must come. The silly
talk about Democrats being afraid
their daughters will marry negro
husbands, or their sons marry negro
women, should be passed by with
the contempt it deserves. | am
speaking of history and philosophy,
and when l tell you that political
equality means social equality for
the negro, | only say what is pro
Eclaimed by Fred. Douglass. Wendell
Philips, and all the pioneers OF the
Republican party. Don't tell me
you can give the negro the right to
vote, and stop there. The amend
ment which is proposed goes farther
than that. 1t implies the right to
hold any office from Governor down,
and if the system exists throughout
the United State, then from Presi-
dent down. The negro has already
demanded a fair division of the Off
ces. They are asking to have q ne
gro put upon the ticket for Vice
President. and | think it is right
that it should be SO, and that men
who advocated negro suffrage should
follow out this doctrine to its legiti-
mate conclusion, and not be ashamed
of if. You told US a few years ago
you were opposed to negroes having
right to vote or hold office. You
are not opposed to it nov, but are
openly advocating it. In 1869, If l
should come here, | need not be sur
prised to find you in favor of negro
intermarriages and openly advOcat-
ing them. From the progress, as they
call it, made lately, it is not too much
to expect this. That is precisely
what it means. 1t may be matter
to you here, where, | don't suppose,
there are fifty negroes in the county.
But down in the southern counties
they number hundreds and thonS-
ands, and it is a matter of some i'm
portancc to MS. Again, down South
lit is of great importance. The ne
groes are in a majority in some ofthe
Safes down there, and under the
system of disfranchising the whites,
| think they are in majority in each
of the eleven, including Tennessee.
Look at the election in Tennessee.
The Republican candidate is elected
by Il great majority. How fo.
shame, for shame-G0,0 coo negroes
voting, and 5000 white men disflall-
chised. 1t would carry any election.
The next step, | presume, Will be TO
Idsfranchise every Democrat in the
North. We have the entering wedge
of it already. OF course they wont
say Democrats" when they 90 to
disfranchise us, but they will provide
that every disloyal man shall be dis
franchised, and then they will 90 a
step further and say that every man
who voted for Vallandigham in 1868,
while he was waiting and watching
on the border is diSloyal and must
be disiranchised. That would be an
admirable scheme for carrying the
elections, but suppose we should
come into power, as in the upturn-
ings of political revolutions we GER
tainly will, whether under the old
Constitution, or monarchcal form to
which 1t is rapidly changing under
these men--suppoSe we come into
power and they turn round and try
this prescription upon the Republi-
can party, will they begin to tell us
of Esop's fable, that it is our bull
that is goring their OK? Yes, $4,000
white men disfranchised in Tennes-
see because they are disloyal.