New national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1870-1874, 1874-07-30
The Progressive American.

The PROGRESSIVE american in its last issue
again arraigns us for not having told the Re-
publican party of its apathy and open treach-
cry in the matter Of civil rights. Had the
| editor of the american been reader CT the
New NATIONAL ERA, he would not have
asked us the question: 'Has the ERA ever
been quite ready to tell the Republican par
ty of its apathy and open treachery ?"
We have persistently, in season and out
of season, urged upon the Republican party
its duty to pass the civl-rights bill. We have
told it of its apathy, and its treacherous
members of their treachery. When we be-
come convinced that the party is, as party,
treacherous and unworthy of the support and
confidence of colored voters, we will not hes
| itate to speak out our convection in no ambs-
uous terms. Does the Progressive american
regard the Republican party as treacherous :
If it does, will it tell us why colored men
should continue to support it? If it does
not so regard it, will it be good enough to i'll :
dictate the reason that should impel us to de-
nounce that party? Will the Progressive
american make the claim in its columns that
we have not told the Republican party of
"the non-performance of its duty" and then
print such extracts from our columns as we
claim do tell the Republican party of the
non-perfomance of its duty? If it will do
this, the public can judge of the truthfulness
| of the insinuations OF the american.
The american insinuated that the editors OF
moi fraa 10
of civil rights, and only spoke out against
the action of Congress because they feared
their silence might reveal their treachery.
This cowardly insinuation does not have the
support of the slightest resemblance to truth.
We are personally acquainted with the larger
portion of colored editors in this country, and
we do not know Of one who would be treach-
erous to civil rights. Does the Ame,icaa
know of any: If it Dies, it should name
them. If it does not, why make such insin-
uatOns?
The editorial of the Ame,icGn will be found
elsewhere. We quote from it: "Therc is
IA vast difference between telling Republicans
of the non-performance of their duty and
urging the passage Of the ciyil-rights BILL"
Just so. There is a vast difference between
an attorney telling a man lie is indebted to
his client, and the urging by the attorney Of
payment. 1t strikes us, however, that the
client would much prefer his attorney to urge
payment of the indebtedness rather than to
content himself with telling the debtor that
his duty has not been performed. We feel
that We have done our duty by urging the
passage of the civl-rights bill. We have
never been convinced that anything is to be
gained by bullying and threatening the Re-
publican party, and We can but hold to be
'blind leaders" those papers and men who
feel that such a course is the proper one to
pursue. The American can very we'll de-
nOunce the Republican party, as il is not
devoted to it and either is connected wah no
party or with the Democratic party, as there
are but two parties in the country. The
american says: Now, we make no profess
sion of devotion to the party miea II ob0n-
dons its principles, as we c!dim IN tbs instance
ii has done.' 1t strikes us that the 4mey;can
does not exactly understand itself. For we
find in the next sentence that it iciW do all
in its power to keep the Republican party
true to its principles, after claiming that that
party has abandoned them. The american
for civil rights than its contemporaries and
makes no account of consistency in its effort.
Thus, in one breath it is not devoted to the
Republican party, and in the next it will do
all it can to hold that party to its principles.
Can the American really see any practical re-
suit favorable to the passage of the civil-rights
bill, to accrue from colored voters telling the
Republican party that they wish they could
leave it for time, and at the same time
making the firm impression that they cannot
safely do it? Yet this is what Hon. Gerrit
Smith does in the letter from which the
american quotes. And he has said all that
the american asks colored men to say in zone
spontaneous voice." Does the american
contend that remarking in "one spontaneous
voice" that they wish they could leave the
Republican party, will bring the civil-rights
bill: If we could believe that it would, we
would urge our people all over the country to
meet in their respective localities on the first
of August and at twelve O'Clock of that day
after fixing the difference in longitude
from Washington so as to secure accuracy of
time, and spOntaneity of voice-bawl out at
the top of their voices: We wish we could
leave the Republican party for time, and
thus punish andimprove 1t - 1t is only be-
cause we doubt the efficiency Of the sponta-
neous voice movement that we decline to
it.
We have no personal controversy with the |
American and shall take no notice of its fling |
in regard to our characterization Of the letter |
Of Geo. T. Downing.
IT, Don't DELAY in sending lis |