Daily national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1854, 1854-04-21
THE DISCUSSION How cHAKAcrERIzED


From the year lS47, the discussion Of the
Question Of Slavery has been carried on in
Congress with little intermission. For the last
seven years, there has not been session from
which it has been excluded. There was lnll
after the Legislation Of 1880 but the quiotwas
disturbed by the Presidential canvass Of 1852 ;
and this Congress has witnessed the revival Of
the Discussion in all it's length and breadth.
For three. months, it occupied nearly tho whole
time of the Senate; and in tho House, since
The reference of the Nebraska Bill to the Com.
mittce Of the Whole on the state Of the Union,
although other questions have been oil the
while formally under consideration, tho subject
Of Slavery has been the great theme. Onr
neighbor of the Sentinel, on the 10th, present
cd the following statistical statement Of the
speeches made on the Nebraska Bill in both
Houses, up to that time:
aThere were twenty set speeches made
in the Senate on the subject, seventeen for and
eleven against the bill and so far, in the House,
there have been delivered thirty one speeches.
fifteen on one side and sixteen on the other side
Of tho question. According to our recollection,
the following are the names of the gentlemen
who have participated in this debate. We
have classed the speeches in the House AZ for
| or against tho BILL not wishing to be under
stood, however, M saying that all Of those gen.
tlemen are unqualifedly for or against it. We
will cheerfnlly correct any error that we may
fall into:
SENATE.-For Senate BiH-Messrs Badg-
or, Brodhead, Brown, Butler, Csas, Dawson,
Dixon, Dodge of Iowa, Douglas, Hunter, Jones
Of Tennessee, Norris, Petit, Thomson of New
Jersey, Toombs, Touoey, and Weller-17.
"Against The Bill Messrs. Bell, Chase,
Cooper, Everett Fesscnden, Houston, Seward,
smith, Sumner, Wade, and Clayton, (who,
however, ia in favor Of the repeal Of the Mis-
sonri Compromise)-
"HoUsE-Forfhe Senate BiH-Messrs. j. c.
Allen, OF Illinois; Barksdale, of Mississippi
Breckenridge, Of Kentucky; Bridges, of Penn
uylyania; Brooks, Of South Carolina; Carnth-
ers, Of Missouri; Clingman, Of North Carolina
Ewing of Kentucky; Faulkner, of Virginia
Keitt, Of South Carolina; Macdonald, of Maine
Preston, Of Kentucky; Smith, Of Tennessee
stephens, of Georgia; and Wright, of Pennsyl-
aVAnia-15.
q AGAINST the Senate Bin-Messrs. Chand-
ler of Pennsylvania; Cullom, of Tennessee
Fcnton, of New York Franklin, of Maryland
Hunt Of louisiana; Mace, Of Indiana; Cut
ting, of New York; Matteson, Of New York
Mcacham, of Vermont; Milson, Of Virginia
Nichols of Ohio; Norton Of Illinois Gerrit
Smith, Of New York; Washburnc, OF Illinois !;
Washburn, Of Maine; and Yates, Of Illinois
1917
We do not vouch for the accuracy of this /;
but it serves to give some idea of the business
in which Congress has been principally en-
gagged.
From l847, we have been an attentive OBJ
server of the Congressional debates on Slavery.
They have taken wide range, and have taxed
the highest energies of our public men Of oil
sections. The questions discussed have been
First, Slavery, in its relations to Natural Law,
the Law of Nations the Constitution of the
United States, the State Governments, the
Action Of tho Federal Government, and the in.
tentions Of its founders.
Secondly, Slavery in its relations to Parties
and Party Politics.
Thirdly, Slavery, under its religious, moral,
and politico-econonic aspects, in its relations
to the interest OF the slave, Of the master, Of
the country in which il exists and the com.
munities associated with it.
In tho discussion OF the FIRST two classes Of
questions, the Argument for Freedom has been,
in our opinion, fully, carefully, and triumph
antly presented by Representatives aud Sena.
tors from tho North and West; bnt Truth
obliges MS to admit that, on the third class OF
Questions SlavehoIders in our judgment have
had the strength Of the argument on their
side, wrong and untenable as it is. IL has been
their habit, alter dsposing Of the constitutional
question, to deal with Slavery, on its merits as
a social system, boldly comparing il with free
labor institutions, advocating it on the grounds
Of morality and philanthropy, and for cconom-
cal reasons, putting their arguments in tho
most plausible FORM and attempting to give
them weight by cunningly- arranged statistics.
That they have made the subject their study,
that they have studied il with tho ono idea Of
justifying aud strengthening their position,
and that they have presented the argument
for Slavery, as q social system, with more force
and ingenuity than has ever been done by
Pro Slavery men in any other country or age
Of the world, cannot be questioned, wo think,
by any intelligent man familiar with their Of
forts And on this ground, we repeat, they
hare NOT been met by their opponents This, of
course, is general remark, TO the truth Of
which there are fow exceptions. Occasion
ally, ut long intervals, wo have listened to q
speech, in which tho argument against Sla-
very, apart from all constitutional and legal
questions, has been urged with overwhelming
force; but, a. general rule, tho members Of
Congress from the FREQ SAtes have cvaded this
issue. Either their own opinions in relation
to Il, have not been mstured, or they have
been conscious Of want Of knowledge upon
the subject.
Their opposition to Slavery is the result,
rather of education and circumstances, than
A.. o..I ~nQontsnx, The oubiaok H,