New national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1870-1874, 1874-08-20


When the Progressive american charges
as it does in an article elsewhere published
the NEW NATIONAL ERA with being swayed
on questions affecting the highest interests
of our race by patronage or non-patronage,
it states what Is simply untrue. In order
to make such a statement or charge against
us, an honorable editor would have found it
necessary to be ready with at least one fact
corroborative of the statement. The charge
has all the appearance of malignity. 1t is
baseless, and as base as the allegation in the
article elsewhere quoted, that we cannot
hold public discussion with an opponent
without resorting to those vulgar cpithets of
coward and liar. The epithets COWARD and
liar do not appear in the article to which the
American refers, and only exist in the mind
of its editor because of his familiarity with
the use of such words. We find in an edito.
rial in the issue of the american from which
we take the article containing the charge
against US of using vulgar eplthets, the fol-
lowing language, directed against a much
respected and highly influential minister in
the city of New York: "Now if Mr.. Butler
said this he told direct and deliberate
talsehood, and he knew he aoas lying ,chcn he
said So" The article from which we make
the above quotation has for its title the
query, "Why Don't He Tell the Truth? ?"
This is fine specimen Of the decency and
refinement of the american, and coming as it
does in addition to the charge-for which
there is no foundation in fact-of our unfaith-
fulness to our race, and that that unfaith-
fulness is because of patronage bestowed
upon us, it shows the despicable nlalignity
of the american, and certainly does itself
more harm than it can, by such a course, pos
siblY do to others. After the display of
meanness in attributing to us language
that did not emanate from as we are not
surprised at the Americans garbling of its
own language when publishing it as part
of our article. Thus the American in its issue
of July 25th, used the following language
upon which we comm ented: "Now we make
no profession of derotion TO the party when
it abandons its principles as we claim in this
instance it has DONE" In its issue of Au-
gust IL, 1874, the words Of derotion are care
fully stricken out. AS printed last, the
intention seems to be to rob the sentence of
any special significance. u.o.. ... DID,. TO-.
The article of the american is intended as
a reply to an editorial which appeared in the
NEW NATIONAL ERA July 80, 1874. So it
has taken Just two weeks from July 80 to
August IL for the writer in the american to
compose the following elaborate sentence
and conundrum: -. s. .., ii
"If failing to do what they promse;, to do,
what they acknowledged to be their duty to
do, what they had at any time an opportu-
nifty to do, and yet on account of opposition,
Tin order to satisfy u.s. they claim their in
ability to do; in short, if protesting desire
TO do what they will not if they can help it
do, is treachcry, then the Republican party
is treacherous; is it not?'
This is certainly sumner.
- Our readers know well the attitude Of the
New NATIONAL ERA towards the civil
rights bill and the Republican party. We
feel certain that no one will accuse us of
treachery to the cause Of our people in our
treatment of questions affecting their inter-
ests, excepting through malignity. The very
failure of the Progressive american to produce
one fact in substantiation of its insinuations,
and charges against us is suffi-
Gent to, and will, condemn that paper as a
grossly unfair journal. ....,
The american, in circuitous manner,
alleges that the Republican party is treach-
erous, and that it has abandoned its princi-
Piles. We do not believe that it is treacher-
Gus If we did we would not call upon colored
voters to support it. The american claims
to have answered our questions conclusively.
But it has not told us why colored men
should support treachery. This question
put in former article-the american lodges.
We claim that there are treacherous men in
the Republican party, and advocate their
but hold that the party, its
principles, and measures are the protection
Of the negro from the spirit that would take
from him liberty and the ballot. TO this
view Of the party the American insinuates
that we come by patronage. The inference
is that were it not for patronage we would
not only not support the Republican party,
but we would be found antagonizing it. The
article, "Reply to the ERA" has all the APP
pearance ola desperate game" being played
by the american. In it is discernible de.
sire to seem to- be in sympathy with the
party while denouncing 1t in curl
ously constructed sentences as treacherous.
We are led to wonder whether the for and
against attitude Of the american towards the
Republican party is an indication that it is
ready to yield support to the highest bidder,
whether it be the Republican party or
party of the remnant of the old element"
Our readers will no doubt be amused by the
twistings Of the american. We therefore
publish its islanders against US uttered
through chagrin arising from the awkward
ness of the position assumed by it in attempt |
ing to fasten upon US the charge Of treachery |
TO civil rights.