" Although the use of the word "aggressions" in this manner certainly suggests that Calhoun is of the opposite opinion of Seward, his treatment of the issue of slavery offers further insight into how the issue was treated in the mid-1800s. Instead of considering slavery a clear issue of right and wrong, Calhoun treats it like any other political issue, arguing that the real cause between the states' inability to coexist peacefully has more to do with the unbalanced equilibrium than slavery. However, Calhoun does address the moral component of slavery, saying that some in the North not only consider slavery to be a "sin" committed on the part of the Southerners, but they also see themselves as "implicated in the sin, and responsible for not suppressing it by the use of all and every means." The South, on the other hand, sees slavery as a necessary institution that would destroy society if abolished. Thus, Calhoun points out that, in addition to the moral problems that Seward addresses, slavery in the mid-1800s was also a powerful political and social issue. Some viewed the issue, not in terms of right and wrong, but in terms of the political and social benefits and losses. In addition, Calhoun brings up the important fact that both sides of the issue -- the North and the South -- saw their position on slavery to be morally right. In Daniel Webster's speech, however, the speakers goes on to further the current...

This is done primarily through Webster's discussion of abolitionist groups. Although he notes that the abolitionist group members are "honest and good men, perfectly well-meaning men," he goes on to suggest that not only are abolitionist societies less than beneficial, they are harmful. He expresses his belief that abolitionists have actually made slavery worse for the slaves, arguing that abolitionist societies "[produce] nothing good or valuable." Further, Webster argues that patriotism, or the desire to avoid succession at any cost, is far superior to the desire to end slavery. Thus, Webster's speech also puts slavery into perspective, suggesting that many saw it is as imply a necessary evil that was silly to pursue, much like many might see animal rights today.
Thus, a comparison and contrast of these three speeches allows the student of history to have a more informed view of the popular perceptions of slavery in society during the mid-1800s. Some viewed slavery as an abomination, but some questioned whether or not slaves were actually humans or would even survive outside of the slavery relationship. Still others found it annoying and silly that some would make an attempt to end slavery. Thus, by today's standards, slavery is an evil and a blemish on history, but these speechwriters suggest that it was viewed much differently during the mid-1800s.