Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1869-08-01
THE ISSUE.

many Oh US, OLD line wings ana Otners,
acted with the old Democrats in the
late canvass for the Presidency, and
consented to the designation of the
then organization a Democratic. But
this was for the purpose, avowed at
the time, of uniting, under any COM
mon and convenient name, all
the friends of the election of
HoRATIO SEYMOUR. 1t was done
under an emphatic protest by
old line Wings that they yielded moth
ing Of their lifelong principles, and
that these, not being in issue, are pre-
Permitted in a canvass in which were
involved higher and more important
issues than any mere measures of par
ty policy, and such as went 10 the pa
triotism of the people and the saliva
ton of the country on the principles Of
the Republican Constitution of the
United States.
The Avalanche is right in insisting
that there is now no democratic
Ticket" in the field, and that it is
wrong to call "Our ticket the Demo-
cratic ticket" With the AUaldnche
" our ticket" seems to be the SENTER
ticket; but, so far as the APPEAL is
concerned, we repudiate the whole
thing. "Our ticket is not the SEN
TER ticket, nor do we know that to be
the ticket of all the old line Demo-
Gratis or old line Wings. If we under
stand the matter, the people of Ten
nessee are now doing, so far as think
ing and voting are concerned, pretty
much as they please-every man on
his Own hook. If the ArdldRche
means to represent the SENTER ticket
as " our ticket " in the sense that it is
the ticket of the Conservative press
and people of the State, we demur to
the representation, and desire not to
be counted in.
The idea of our neighbOr seems to
be that the issue of the spending canvass
is " universal suffrage" of which it
has chosen of late to constitute
itself the especial champion. We
have no right to complain of the pol
lev of the ArdIdHche. 1t is our BUSH
ness to take care of our own, and an en-
phatic expression on our part becomes
necessary, that we may not be mis-
interpreted. Wedesire to have it dis
| tinctly understood that we do not con-
sent to universal suffrage, except as a
necessity forced on us, and as accept
inc the situation" We do not believe
the Conservative press of Tennessee is
in the majority for universal suffrage.
We believe that universal suffrage, as
it has been forced upon US, is an evil
and a curse to the State, and will con-
tinue to be so as long as it
endures, to unborn generations.
To- advocate, as a matter of policy,
the acknowledgment of the negro
race in this State is abhOrrent to every
idea we have of the dictates of sound
wisdom, craftsmanship and patriot
/ ism. What we cannot help we must
endure. And we shall submit to uni
versal suffrage with a law abiding
spirit, so long as it may be the law.
But to pronounce it right, to confess
it is for the interest of the State to adj
vocate it as beneficial to the blacks or
whites, to say that we would not
gladly substitute the government Of
the intelligent and white race alone
for that diluted, demOralized and alb
surd franchise system which we have,
or shall have when a few more whites
are added to our roll of voters, is to
depart from our view Of interest, duty
and common sense.
1t may be wise to consent to uni
versal suffrage, in order, rs by a COM
promise Of concession, TO attain some
greater good. But that is only, to
make the most of our circumstances,
yielding what we must in order to
gain what we can. If that is our
neighbours position, we can see how
to concur with him. But if he means
by saying " the contest now going on
in Tennessee is simply one for univer-
sal suffrage; a contests in which Wings,
Democrats and Republicans have
yielded up old issues and prejudices
for the purpose Of securing enfran-
chisement ITO say that the end to be
attained is universal suffrage" this
we deny. We declare that that is no
part of our object. Re-enfranchise-
ment is our object, but uni
yersal suffrage is only the forced,
Odisps, detested and presently una
Voidable means to IT,
The time is not far remote when oar
able cotemporary was for white
mans government" as the APPEAL
has been steadfastly ever since the
question CT suffrage was raised. The
difference between the APPEAL and
the AraLdRche on this subject is this,
that while both have consented to the
Acknowledgement of the blacks as a
necessity, the APPEAL has always sp.
posed it as wrong in principle, while
the AraloRche has yielded the princi-
pie itself. We declare as our judg-
ment that the white people of Ten
nessee are overwhelmingly against
uniyersal suffrage, that they have never
consented and do net consent that
it does or win prove beneficial sither
TO the blacks or whites that the blacks
should be made soveF6izRs and voters
and rulers in the State. They nave
never consented that it was either
right, or expedient, either for the in
teEests Of the State or the United
States, 10 hold lRe South subject by
the power of the bay6Het, gptil, like
JOE BROWN, of Georgia, it shall con-
fess thai the freedmen are more fit to
govern than they themselves as well
as JOE arc. Sworn as they wers, G
whole people, with amnesty oaths to
support thsC Constitution of the United
States. they have never e~Qpsented to
break their Oaths by supporting
principles and soRiayag Gonstitu-
tions RbhOFEeRt to the great
American magma charts, in order that
they might be permitted to sit again