The Weekly National Intelligencer devotes its front page to the explosive congressional controversy over Representative Alexander Long of Ohio, whom Speaker Schuyler Colfax has moved to expel for delivering a speech arguing that further prosecution of the Civil War is "hopeless" and "wrong and inexpedient." The paper publishes Long's defense alongside extensive debate coverage, presenting his position as a principled stand against the war's continuation. Notably, the Intelligencer draws a direct parallel to Republican Congressman Samuel Conway of Kansas, who introduced nearly identical peace resolutions in December 1862—proposing the North go entirely on the defensive and seek armistice—yet faced far less organized outrage. The editorial questions why Democratic Long faces expulsion while Republican Conway escaped such fierce condemnation, suggesting partisan double standards. The paper also covers the mechanics of soldier voting in the upcoming presidential election, debating whether troops should vote by proxy in their home states rather than in camps under military supervision, and reports on suppressed Civil War dispatches from General McClellan that await publication.

In spring 1864, with the war grinding toward its fourth year and the presidential election looming, America was fracturing over whether continued fighting made sense. Peace Democrats like Long represented real political pressure on Lincoln—not from Confederate sympathizers, but from war-weary citizens questioning the strategy and cost. The expulsion attempt reveals the raw partisan tensions of the moment: Republicans controlling Congress wanted to silence dissent, yet their own members had made similar arguments just 18 months earlier without facing such consequences. Meanwhile, the soldier voting debate touched the nerve of military democracy itself—whoever controlled how troops voted could swing the election, making this far more than a technical question. These stories together capture a nation in 1864 simultaneously waging total war while wrestling with whether to continue it.

• The paper charges a subscription rate of $2 per year, payable in advance, with bulk discounts of 20% for ten copies and 25% for twenty copies—suggesting institutional subscribers and organized distribution networks even in wartime.
• Speaker Colfax's expulsion resolution against Long is treated with skepticism even by Republican newspapers: the New York Times explicitly states 'the Speaker's zeal outruns his discretion' and calls the move 'neither right nor expedient,' showing significant fracturing within the GOP itself.
• The National Anti-Slavery Standard explicitly states it cares only for 'the interests of the slave' and views 'the rights and interests of the white race in the United States' as wholly irrelevant to its cause—remarkably candid about the narrowness of abolitionist focus.
• The paper notes that Secretary of War Stanton is sitting on suppressed McClellan dispatches that 'make a pile a foot and a half high,' suggesting systematic information control and a historical record being curated by the executive branch.
• The paper calculates the U.S. population at 'some twenty-five millions' in editorial commentary—an early 1864 census estimate showing the nation's scale during the war years.

• Representative Alexander Long, whom Congress nearly expelled for his peace speech, was actually a War Democrat from Ohio—not a Copperhead sympathizer—yet faced fiercer retaliation than Republican Samuel Conway had faced 18 months earlier, revealing how partisan the 'suppression of dissent' actually was during the war.
• The paper credits Speaker Schuyler Colfax with introducing the expulsion resolution—Colfax would later become Vice President under Grant (1869-1873) and remain a powerful figure, though his career would eventually collapse in scandal; his aggressive wartime positions presaged his later Republican radicalism.
• The debate over soldier voting by proxy versus in-camp voting in 1864 directly shaped how American elections functioned for decades—the tension between military chain-of-command and ballot secrecy became a recurring constitutional question that influenced voting law through the 20th century.
• The paper quotes the New York Tribune and New York World agreeing on soldier voting procedures despite their partisan divide—unusual bipartisan consensus suggesting some issues transcended party lines, even in 1864's poisoned political atmosphere.
• The reference to General McClellan's 'suppressed despatches' touches on the broader historical irony: McClellan would become the 1864 Democratic presidential nominee running *against* Lincoln partly on this war-weariness platform that Long articulated—the very position Congress was trying to criminalize.