gs us together, and
makes us better friends. We like one another the more for it. And I
understand as well as Judge Douglas, or anybody else, that these mutual
accommodations are the cements which bind together the different parts
of this Union; that instead of being a thing to "divide the
house,"--figuratively expressing the Union,--they tend to sustain it; they
are the props of the house, tending always to hold it up.

But when I have admitted all this, I ask if there is any parallel between
these things and this institution of slavery? I do not see that there
is any parallel at all between them. Consider it. When have we had any
difficulty or quarrel amongst ourselves about the cranberry laws of
Indiana, or the oyster laws of Virginia, or the pine-lumber laws of Maine,
or the fact that Louisiana produces sugar, and Illinois flour? When have
we had any quarrels over these things? When have we had perfect peace in
regard to this thing which I say is an element of discord in this Union?
We have sometimes had peace, but when was it? It was when the institution
of slavery remained quiet where it was. We have had difficulty and turmoil
whenever it has made a struggle to spread itself where it was not. I ask,
then, if experience does not speak in thunder-tones telling us that the
policy which has given peace to the country heretofore, being returned to,
gives the greatest promise of peace again. You may say, and Judge Douglas
has intimated the same thing, that all this difficulty in regard to
the institution of slavery is the mere agitation of office-seekers and
ambitious Northern politicians. He thinks we want to get "his place," I
suppose. I agree that there are office-seekers amongst us. The Bible
says somewhere that we are desperately selfish. I think we would have
discovered that fact without the Bible. I do not claim that I am any less
so than the average of men, but I do claim that I am not more selfish than
Judge Douglas.

But is it true that all the difficulty and agitation we have in regard
to this institution of slavery spring from office-seeking, from the mere
ambition of politicians? Is that the truth? How many times have we had
danger from this question? Go back to the day of the Missouri Compromise.
Go back to the nullification question, at the bottom of which lay this
same slavery question. Go back to the time of the annexation of Texas.
Go back to the troubles that led to the Compromise of 1850. You will fi