The Wheeling Daily Intelligencer

The Intelligencer.

Office 25 & 27 Fourteenth Street.

Frew & Campbell,
Publishers and Proprietors.

Monday, January 1, 1877.

Redfield's Latest About the Election in Louisiana.

"H. V. R." the reliable letter writer of the Cincinnati Commercial, whom the Democrats occasionally praise, publishes a letter in Saturday's paper in which he makes some very important declarations in regard to the vote in Louisiana. He opens his letter as follows:

I went to Louisiana inclined to the belief that the Democrats had carried that State by so large a majority that whatever intimidation there might have been would not account for it as it is, that the majority was larger than the number of votes they had gained by "bull-dozing." Yet I had not the least partisan bias one way or the other, and was only desirous to get the exact truth to the reader, without reference to which party it hurt, or who squealed. The result of my investigations were that Louisiana is a Republican State by from ten to eighteen thousand when the election is perfectly free full and fair—that is, on National issues. But on State issues, although Republican, the majority is small, and might be overcome by perfectly fair means. For instance, there are a great many colored men of intelligence and property in Louisiana, and it is no uncommon thing for them to vote with the whites on local State issues. But when it comes to the Presidency Hayes and Tilden for instance, I am well satisfied that a free, fair election would give the State to Hayes, as I am that Pennsylvania is for Hayes. Yes, in proportion to the voting population, Louisiana is more of a Republican State than Pennsylvania. I wish there was some way to have the election over again, with such protection and safeguards as would cause every man to vote his honest sentiments. All would then be willing to abide by the result, and would accept the decision as final, so far as this Presidential election in that State is concerned. Individually I care very little whether Hayes or Tilden goes in, but I have the keenest desire that whoever does go in, shall be there fairly, and the framework of our government not impaired. While this is true, yet I am convinced that Hayes is the man who is elected. I believe he would have carried Louisiana as certainly as he carried Vermont, if the election—and the conduct of the voters previous to the election—had been as fair in the former State as in the latter. Mr. Redfield comments on the character of the news that has been sent all over the country from New Orleans, and he calls particular attention to this important fact—viz—that the testimony taken before the Democratic House Committee does not show that a single Democrat lost his life, whether white or black. It was always a Republican that was killed. We quote what he says on this point:

"You will observe that there was not a single murder of a Democrat, whether white or black, while in the parish of Ouachita alone the rifle clubs killed a dozen in the process of carrying the election. In that parish there were five armed rifle clubs, who rode about killing, wounding and whipping Republicans, breaking up their meetings, and instituting a reign of terror for campaign purposes. The evidence is overwhelming. I doubted until I could doubt no longer. But did armed bodies of organized black rifle clubs go about killing black Democrats and breaking up their meetings in Orleans Parish or elsewhere? No. The simple truth is there was not sufficient intimidation of black Democrats to make any difference with the result; mind you, right in Orleans parish, where the House Committee is finding that so many black Democrats were "threatened," and which testimony goes to the country daily by the Associated Press—right in that parish the Democrats made immense gains! But in the five parishes where the Republicans were murdered, whipped and terrorized, the Republican vote fell off tremendously. In East Feliciana, where they usually poll near two thousand votes, there were but three cast. Now if the House Committee can show any such falling off as this in the Democratic vote where the black Democrats were abused and "threatened" by those of their own color, then will they make out a fair case of set-off. Mr. Redfield makes no claim on behalf of the negroes in the way of their being too good, or anything of that sort, to attempt bull-dozing. On the contrary he says that "the negro is a natural 'intimidator.'" "They are more proscriptive and intolerant toward one of their race who acts with the Democrats than are the whites." "If they dared, they would make short work of what few black Democrats there are in the South. But there are so very few of this class that, should the black Radicals kill them all, it would make little difference with the general result." But it is of Louisiana alone that we are speaking. The case there is simply this: The white rifle clubs murdered and intimidated in five parishes sufficient to change the result, whereas all the intimidation of blacks by blacks in Orleans parish and elsewhere did not make the difference of a hundred votes. Because, in the very parish of Orleans, where the blacks are most bold and proscriptive, and where we have the developments of black intimidation before the House Committee, the Democrats make large gains! Now, compare the vote of Orleans parish with the five bull-dozed parishes and you will see where the intimidation was and its effect. The figures tell the story, even was there not a word of other testimony. It is true that the blacks are proscriptive and intolerant towards those of their own color who, from choice, act with the Democratic party. The reason that this does not affect the general result is because where the elections and campaigns are perfectly free and fair, there is not to exceed one in two hundred of the blacks, who will of their own accord act with the Democratic party. Of course their abuse and intimidation by those of their own color is a crime, but it does not affect the general result of elections. In all Louisiana there are not one thousand colored men who would freely and of their own accord vote for Tilden against Hayes, if let alone by both sides, and no means used to convince and convert them other than are used in Ohio. This statement of Mr. Redfield as to the natural disposition of the colored people throughout the United States to vote the Republican ticket accords with the observation of all intelligent and unbiased people. The policy of the Know Nothing party was not half so effectual in driving Irish Catholics almost solidly into the Democratic party as has been the policy of the latter party in the work of solidifying the colored people on the side of Republicanism. As well expect Huguenots to be Catholics as colored people to be Democrats. The latter have made themselves the natural enemies of the colored race in this country. No right that the negro enjoys does he owe to the Democracy. They grudged him both his freedom and his elective franchise. Therefore he owes them nothing, and in the South only votes with the party, as he himself expressively says, for the sake of "shelter." Only this and nothing more.