Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1854-06-10
MONDAY, JUNE 5, 1854.
"DoUBLE-HEADED" SUPPORT.

Our neighbor, the Union, commences an article
in its last Sundays number the contradictory
sons we have lately cited from Northern and South
ern paperaia f1EoTs sof tAss sersslesbll with the
DOUBLE HEADED OPposITIoN-The best representa-
tive Of the two sided and double headed opposition to
the Nebraska bill is the National Integenc The North
side Of the Ieycer declares it to be triumph Of
slavery, and the Southern side of the Isencer makes
it exclusive Northern II is rather difficult
business however this playing Of tUo principal choracers
piece, and results in many awkward situations
1t was impossible not to commiserate the embar-
srassment of the Union when it found itself obliged
to turn SO sharp corner on the Nebraska bill.
The readers of that model organ well remember, no
doubt how forcely it assailed the repeal of the Mis-
souri, compromise when the movement was first in
troduced in the Senate, and with what disciplined
promptitude it faced about when it was discovered
to be an Administration measure" and that in
denouncing the proposition it had spoken without
the card. The first step creditable to the hon
orabe impulses Of the Union; its second we were
disposed to excuse as the result of an mex
orable political necessity and therefore, while
the public, including many irreverent Democrats,
were making merry at the alacrity with which the
Union had changed front on the question, we could
but pity the panfulness of its position and abstaned
from any remark it until compelled in sefdefence
to do SO. 1t is an old saying that one renegade is
worse than ten Turks; and, in verifcation of the
adage, the Union, after its conversion, became,
of all its coadjutors in support of the Nebraska bill,
the most intolerant and proscriptive.
In the outset the hatelliyencer agreed with the
Union that the repeal Of the Missouri Compromise
was required by nothing to justify the agitation
which it would necessarily create throughout the
country, and that upon calm review of the whole
ground it could see no good reason for disturbing
the compromise Of 1920 or 1850 This was in
substance the language of the Union ITSELF but a
new light broke upon it, and for reasons which
it deemed sufficient it wont over to the support Of
the bill It was our misfortune not to share in the
new light which guided the course Of the Union.
Wewere left to the dim light of our first Judgment
and remained where we were; but the Union, in
stead of extending to our benighted consistency
some grains Of charity, has kept up fire Of impu-
tations upon us as fierce and uncharitable as if we
had been the deserters and they the adherents of
their original opinion.
In occasional references to the Nebraska bill, and
to show that even its supporters disagreed as
to any substantial good which it promised, we have
from time to time quoted the views of journals of
various parts of the country which advocate the bill
on different and conflicting grounds; but in doing
this we have confined ourselves to quotations from
Democratic papers erclusiuely. This the Union,
with unfortunate confusion Of phraseology, calls
(" double-headed opposition" But as its double
headedness consists simply in extracts from Demo
cratic supporters Of the BILL we leave the Union to
parry the force of shots Of that description all from
Its own side.
We doubt not that it was in the inadvertence of
romorseful feeling that the Union dropped the re-
mark as to the difficulty Of playing two principal
characters in one piece" In the Nebraska drama
we have attempted but single character, and that
a very humble one. The Union has tried too, and
can best tell what the difficulty is and what the
pain of the experiment Asa worthy Senator, now
no more, once said, " our withers are unstrung"
The Maronis On. DE MoNTHoIoN Consul Gene