ally merciless in dealing with the tribe of
"dough-faces." This was illustrated in a speech later in the
session, in which he alluded to his colleague from Bucks County,
Mr. Ross, who had attacked him in a violent pro-slavery harangue:

"There is," said Mr. Stevens, "in the natural world, a little,
spotted, contemptible animal, which is armed by nature with a fetid,
volatile, penetrating _virus_, which so pollutes whoever attacks
it as to make him offensive to himself and all around him for a
long time. Indeed, he is almost incapable of purification. Nothing,
sir, no insult, shall provoke me to crush so filthy a beast." As
these words were being uttered, Mr. Ross was seen precipitately
making his way out of the hall under the return fire of his foe.
But Mr. Stevens then gave no clear promise of the wonderful career
as a parliamentary leader which awaited him in later years, when
perfectly unshackled by the power that at first held him in check.

The Thirty-first Congress was not alone remarkable for the great
questions it confronted and its shameless recreancy to humanity
and justice; it was equally remarkable for its able and eminent
men. In the Senate, the great triumvirate of Webster, Clay, and
Calhoun, appeared in public life for the last time. With them were
associated Benton, Cass, Douglas, Seward, Chase, Bell, Berrien,
Soule, Davis of Mississippi, Dayton, Hale, Ewing, Corwin, Hamlin,
Butler, Houston, and Mason. In the House were Thaddeus Stevens,
Winthrop, Ashmun, Allen, Cobb of Georgia, McDowell, Giddings,
Preston King, Horace Mann, Marshall, Orr, Schenck, Stanley, Toombs,
Alexander H. Stephens, and Vinton. If mere talent could have
supplemented the lack of conscience, the slave power might have
been overborne in 1850, and the current of American history turned
into the channels of liberty and peace. But the better days of
the Republic, when high integrity and unselfish devotion to the
country inspired our statesmen, were past, and we had entered upon
the era of mean ambitions and huckstering politics. "The bulk of
the nation," as Harriet Martineau said, a little later, "was below
its institutions," and our fathers "had laid down a loftier program
than their successors were able to fulfill." It was not strange,
therefore, that the little band of Free Soilers in this Congress
encountered popular obloquy and social outlawry at the Capital.
Their position was offensive, because it rebuked the ruling in