If this is the correct definition of that term,--and it is, no doubt, the generally accepted one,--then the friends and advocates of manhood suffrage will not deny that we have had in the past "Negro Domination," nationally as well as locally, and that we may have it in the future.
If that is the correct definition then we are liable to have "Negro Domination" not only in States, districts, and counties where the blacks are in the majority, but in States, districts and counties where they are few in numbers.

If that is the correct definition of "Negro Domination,"-- to prevent which the negro vote should be suppressed,--then the suppression of that vote is not only necessary in States, districts, and counties in which the blacks are in the majority, but in every State, district, and county in the Union; for it will not be denied that the primary purpose of the ballot,--whether the voters be white or colored, male or female,--is to make each vote decisive and potential.

If the vote of a colored man, or the vote of a white man, determines the result of an election in which he participates, then the very purpose for which he was given the right and privilege will have been accomplished, whether the result, as we understand it, be wise or unwise.
In this connection it cannot and will not be denied that the colored vote has been decisive and potential in very many important National as well as local and State elections.

For instance, in the Presidential election of 1868, General Grant, the Republican candidate, lost the important and pivotal State of New York, a loss which would have resulted in his defeat if the Southern States that took part in that election had all voted against him.

That they did not do so was due to the votes of the colored men in those States.