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.  Therefore Grant’s first administration represented “Negro Domination.”

Again, in 1876, Hayes was declared elected President by a majority of one vote in the electoral college.  This was made possible by the result of the election in the States of Louisiana, South Carolina, and Florida, about which there was much doubt and considerable dispute, and over which there was a bitter controversy.  But for the colored vote in those States there would have been no doubt, no dispute, no controversy.  The defeat of Mr. Hayes and the election of Mr. Tilden would have been an undisputed and an uncontested fact.  Therefore, the Hayes administration represented “Negro Domination.”

Again, in 1880, General Garfield, the Republican candidate for President, carried the State of New York by a plurality of about 20,000, without which he could not have been elected.  It will not be denied by those who are well informed that if the colored men that voted for him in that State at that time had voted against him, he would have lost the State and, with it, the Presidency.  Therefore, the Garfield-Arthur administration represented “Negro Domination.”

Again, in 1884, Mr. Cleveland, the Democratic candidate, carried the doubtful but very important State of New York by the narrow margin of 1,147 plurality, which resulted in his election.  It cannot and will not be denied that even at that early date the number of colored men that voted for Mr. Cleveland was far in excess of the plurality by which he carried the State.  Mr. Cleveland’s first administration, therefore, represented “Negro Domination.”  Mr. Cleveland did not hesitate to admit and appreciate the fact that colored men contributed largely to his success, hence he did not fail to give that element of his party appropriate and satisfactory official recognition.