In your short reply, you have given a
definition of prejudice which I regard as far
more truthful, when you say "that the reason
of prejudice is not to be found in the
color of those against whom it is directed,
but in the pride and malice of the dominant
race." We are so near together on this
point, that I will reply be defining my own
views on the subject.

I maintain that prejudice has its origin in
the human instinct, and is enforced by the
pride, malice and hatred of its possessors;
that we suffer from its exercise, by the
despotic influence of the dominant class, because
we differ from them in features, race and
complexion; and that, as prejudice is the
offspring of human hatred, it can only be
dethroned by human reason; that those
who exercise it, to the injury of others, have
no claim to the tittle [sic] of reasonable beings;
that the color, condition, blood or faith,
against which it may be directed, are not in
themselves the cause of its existence, but
are only the pivots on which it rests.

Now, sir, if you attach any importance
to the term, "reason of prejudice," I shall
not be able to argue with you, because I
regard it as a fatal admission to allow that
there is any reason for prejudice, or that
it can in any way or manner rest on such
a foundation. Its whole creature image,
and structure is instructive, and its
demonical agents could prefer their work as well
if they were idiots, without brains, or those
characteristics of reason which distinguish
other animals who are denied the use of
the reasoning faculties, by the limitations
of nature.

My object is not controversy; but I maintain
that we ought to fully understand the
issue that is being made agains us by the
National and State Governments. With
the exception of New York, no other State
has erected a standard of condition within
our reach. the other State Governments,
where they have made a distinction at all,
have based it upon complexion or blood.—