yet they never were recognized or respected at home or abroad until they grasped the sword and taught their oppressors and the world a lesson of African chivalry, versus so much mock morality, peaceful submission, etc., in this stirring age of human progress. By this means the blacks of Hayti are felt in a way that world’s fairs, &c., &c., would not have made them felt for centuries yet to come. My friend inquires how we could influence the administration more than Gen. Fremont; and whether the States could thrust upon the war department persons whom interest or necessity might dictate they should reject; or whether they could accept the services of those who are legally disqualified? He then says, if this may not be constitutionally done, would not my policy environ the administration and force that cavil I would obviate? I think I fairly met these questions in my previous article. I will again, for the esteem I have for my friend, answer him as best I can. First, no one can tell how much Gen. Fremont has or can influence the war department; the fact that Mr. Cameron visited Fremont in person, and that Fremont has made no public protest against the ruling of the cabinet, looks very suspicious that they understood each other, and were only acting up to the necessity of keeping their own counsel. Fremont evidently wields an influence that would require but a very few men of his stamp to emancipate the entire South. He may yet be commander-in-chief under our present administration. Secondly, the States have and are doing every day all that we would require them to do; _i. e._, they are raising troops, preparing them by all available means for the time the government will need them; and may they not as readily prepare colored as white men? Would this not be a step in the direction of enfranchisement? And after all, is it not through this medium, the recognition of our rights by the people, that we may ever hope to reach the government? As to legal disqualification, and constitutional necessity being in our way, I would refer my friend to Mr. Lincoln’s speech at Independence Hall, in this city, when he said that “after all, decisions of the Supreme Court, and our constitutional and compromise obligations are not eternal principles, but must vary with the necessities of the times, etc.” A solution of these strange words are given in the Rev. H. H. Garnet’s passports by Mr. Seward; and Mr. Lincoln’s answer to the writ of habeas corpus issued by the highest judicial authority in the country. Garnet’s passport and the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus are the best of arguments against constitutional and legal restrictions, preventing the recognition of a hundred thousand men of the best muscle and determined bravery in the Federal ranks.