THE LATE CLEVELAND CONVENTION.

MR. EDITOR:—I will resume my remarks on the article headed, "The Late Cleveland Convention," by introducing objection third, in which the convention is charged with using the terms "black and colored as distinctive appellations in the nomenclature of our people;" and further, we are warned that "ours will be the guilt if prejudice and hatred be hereafter rife among us." If this accusation has any weight, it involves the absurd supposition, that distinctive names are the cause, not the effect of distinctions. Does not this very "prejudice and hatred" already exist, dividing our interests, as one people, disturbing our peace as communities, and stirring up envy, jealousy, strife, and bitterness around the very hearth-stones of our humble homes? Let each one consult his own experience and observation and answer the question for himself. The only pertinent inquiry, in regard to this matter, seems to be this, whether an evil, naturally, nay, almost necessarily, growing out of our condition as an oppressed and degraded people can best be met by boldly exposing its folly, meanness, and wickedness, and striving to counteract its influence; or by willfully denying its existence, and blindly refusing to recognize its effects. Meanwhile, be it remembered by those who advocate themum policy, that the facts in the case, exaggerated by colorphobia, and negro hate, have already been given to the public by our enemies. But again, we are told that the Reports of the Convention, tend to foster the idea that there is a natural distinction between the white and colored races—the very thing which our enemies are racking Science and Revelation to discover, in order to use it as a stable basis for the God contemning system of Slavery. Perhaps so; but we, the "amateur conventionists," thought in our ignorance, that an alleged inferiority, not simply a distinction of races was made the stable, or rather unstable basis for slavery.—It may be that the white race is assumed, by Reviewer as the ultimate of human perfection; granting this, a difference necessarily implies inferiority. But as such was not the sentiment of the convention, we plead not guilty to the charge of giving aid and assistance to the enemy.

We are next charged with aiding and abetting the Colonization scheme. It is admitted that "Africa is carefully ignored as a point of emigration," but we are gravely told "it is difficult to see why we should do so, as it offers all the inducements considered by the convention." Very well, each one must walk by the light that is given him. If Reviewer cannot discover that Central, and South America, the West Indies, and the Canadas, possess any advantages over Africa, in point of nearness, ease of access, salubrity of climate, and the superiority of civilization, it is his privilege to say so. The recent filibustering expeditions to Cuba,—the late diplomatic arrangements with St. Domingo, and the now projected colonization of the Mosquito coast, show that our Anglo-Saxon fellow-countrymen, whose "wisdom in the work of universal subjugation,["] pointed out by Reviewer, doubtless for our imitation, think differently. Next the Convention is charged with again taking sides with enemies of the colored man, in surrendering the only vantage ground which he has occupied hitherto in the conflict for his rights. This is a serious charge indeed.—How was the naughty deed done? We are told in the next sentence in these words, "It (the Convention) takes away his right of citizenship, and cooly disfranchises him, even in states where his suffrage is allowed." Now, this means something no doubt, though its meaning but dimly appears. It cannot mean that the Convention took away the colored man's natural right of citizenship; natural rights may be forfeited and thus lost, but cannot be taken away by "amateur conventionists." Neither could the Convention take away the colored man's legal right of citizenship; the organic laws of this country cannot be repealed, altered, or amended y colored Conventions; better for all perhaps if they could; hence the colored man's legal rights, in despute [sic] of the Cleveland Convention, remain in "status quo." Perhaps the expression "took away the right of citizenship," means that the Convention declared, that the colored man's legal right of citizenship is taken away by the wicked and oppresive legislation of their country. A proposition which, if false, admits of refutation, as well as ridicule. The remaining objections of Reviewer shall be considered in a future communication.

Yours truly,

F.