indispensable to have an accurate and thorough knowledge of the nature and the character of the cause by which the Union is endangered [i. e. the Origin of the Question]. Without such knowledge it is impossible to pronounce with any certainty, by what measure it can be saved; just as it would be impossible for a physician to pronounce in the case of some dangerous disease, with any certainty, by what remedy the patient could be saved, without similar knowledge of the nature and character of the cause which produced it. The first question, then, presented for consideration in the investigation I propose to make in order to obtain such knowledge is : What is it that has endangered the Union?

To this question there can be but one answer, that the immediate cause is the almost universal discontent which pervades all the States composing the Southern section of the Union. This widely extended discontent is not of recent origin. It commenced with the agitation of the slavery question and has been increasing ever since. The next question, going one step further back, is: What has caused this widely diffused and almost universal discontent?

It is a great mistake to suppose, as is supposed by some, that it originated with demagogues who excited the discontent with the intention of aiding their personal advancement, or with the disappointed ambition of certain politicians who resorted to it as the means of retrieving their fortunes. On the contrary, all the great political influences of the section were arrayed against excitement, and exerted to the utmost to keep the people quiet. The great mass of the people of the South were divided, as in the other section, into Whigs and Democrats. The leaders and the presses of both parties in the South were very solicitous to prevent excitement and to preserve quiet; because it was seen that the effects of the former would necessarily tend to weaken, if not destroy, the political ties which united them with their respective parties in the other section.

Those who know the strength of party ties will readily appreciate the immense force which this cause exerted against agitation and in favor of preserving quiet. But, great as it

was, it was not sufficient to prevent the widespread discontent which now pervades the section.

No; some cause far deeper and more powerful than the one supposed must exist, to account for discontent so wide and deep. The question then recurs: What is the cause of this discontent? It will be found in the belief of the people of the Southern States, as prevalent as the discontent itself, that they cannot remain, as things now are, consistently with honor and safety, in the Union. The next question to be considered is: What has caused this belief?

One of the causes is, undoubtedly, to be traced to the longcontinued agitation of the slave question on the part of the North, and the many aggressions which they have made on the rights of the South during the time. I will not enumerate them at present, as it will be done hereafter in its proper place. There is another lying back of it—with which this is intimately connected that may be regarded as the great and primary cause. This is to be found in the fact that the equilibrium between the two sections in the government as it stood when the Constitution was ratified and the government put in action has been destroyed. At that time there was nearly a perfect equilibrium between the two, which afforded ample means to each to protect itself against the aggression of the other; but, as it now stands, one section has the exclusive power of controlling the government, which leaves the other without any adequate means of protecting itself against its encroachment and oppression.

The legislation by which it has been effected may be classed under three heads: The first is that series of acts by which the South has been excluded from the common territory belonging to all the States as members of the federal Union which have had the effect of extending vastly the portion allotted to the Northern section, and restricting within narrow limits the portion left the South. The next consists in adopting a system of revenue and disbursements by which an undue proportion of the burden of taxation has been imposed upon the South, and an undue proportion of its proceeds appropriated to the North. And the last is a system of political mea

sures by which the original character of the government has been radically changed..

Having now, senators, explained what it is that endangers the Union, and traced it to its cause, and explained its nature and character, the question again recurs, How can the Union be saved? To this I answer, there is but one way by which it can be, and that is by adopting such measures as will satisfy the States belonging to the Southern section that they can remain in the Union consistently with their honor and their safety. There is, again, only one way by which this can be effected, and that is by removing the causes by which this belief has been produced. Do this, and discontent will cease, harmony and kind feelings between the sections be restored, and every apprehension of danger to the Union removed. The question, then, is, How can this be done? There is but one way by which it can with any certainty; and that is by a full and final settlement, on the principle of justice, of all the questions at issue between the two sections. The South asks for justice, simple justice, and less she ought not to take. She has no compromise to offer but the Constitution, and has no concession or surrender to make. She has already surrendered so much that she had little left to surrender. Such a settlement would go to the root of the evil, and remove all cause of discontent, by satisfying the South that she could remain honorably and safely in the Union, and thereby restore the harmony and fraternal feelings between the sections which existed anterior to the Missouri agitation. Nothing else can, with any certainty, finally and forever settle the question at issue, terminate agitation, and save the Union.

In attempting to set forth the meaning of the terms of a proposition through reference to the Origin and History of the controversy, one must make sure that his information is up-to-date. Otherwise he may give to the terms an interpretation which they no longer have in actual use. An illustration is furnished by the debate of 1907 between the Universities of Michigan and Wis

consin. The proposition was, "Resolved, that a commission should be given the power to fix railroad rates.” The question at once arose, What does it mean "to fix railroad rates"? Wisconsin held that fixing rates meant the substitution of a definite rate for the rate complained of. Michigan held that fixing rates meant the substitution, not of a definite rate, but of a maximum rate. The latter definition of the term prevailed, because Michigan showed that their opponents' interpretation was based on the Esch-Townsend bill of 1904, while their interpretation was based on the Dolliver bill of 1906. Within two years the meaning of the proposition for debate, as actually under discussion in Congress, had changed. For purposes of analysis, one must secure the latest information available.

III. THE DEFINITION OF TERMS

The instance just discussed shows that the definition of the terms of a proposition is of the greatest importance. Unless disputants understand the meaning attached by each other to the terms of a controversy, they may worry along indefinitely without making an inch of progress. The contending parties may think they agree on the proposition, when, as a matter of fact, their apparent agreement is due to ambiguity in the use of the terms. On the other hand, the contending parties may work themselves into a quarrel over imaginary disagreements concerning ideas, when in fact they are merely confused as to the meaning of words. Disputes which seem interminable are sometimes ended abruptly and happily upon the accidental discovery that the parties in dispute agreed all the time as to the real questions at issue, while neither side understood what the other side meant. The introductory work in

argumentation aims to make such happy discoveries scientific rather than accidental. This is one reason why a person who is skilled in debate is seldom known as contentious. He swiftly clears away the confusion due to words and exposes the vital differences as to ideas. If there are no such differences, he exposes the hollowness of the controversy and thus makes an end of it.

Macaulay, in opening his speech "On the Repeal of the Union with Ireland," exposed a confusion due to lack of definition of terms. Two members of Parliament thought they agreed on the question at issue, whereas the apparent agreement was due to the fact that they were using the word "redress" in two diametrically opposed meanings:

Redress is no doubt a very well sounding word. What can be more reasonable than to ask for redress? What more unjust than to refuse redress? But my honorable friend will perceive, on reflection, that, though he and the honorable and learned member for Dublin agree in pronouncing the word redress, they agree in nothing else. They utter the same sound; but they attach to it two diametrically opposed meanings. The honorable and learned member for Dublin means by redress simply the Repeal of the Union. Now, to the Repeal of the Union my honorable friend the member for Lincoln is decidedly adverse. When we get at his real meaning, we find that he is just as unwilling as we are to give the redress which the honorable and learned member for Dublin demands.

REQUISITES OF A DEFINITION

There are six requisites for clearness in defining which are worth remembering, not only for purposes of argumentation, but as well for every field of human knowledge where clear thinking is demanded: