e same thing. He tries to show that variety in the domestic
institutions of the different states is necessary and indispensable. I
do not dispute it. I very readily agree with him that it would be
foolish for us to insist upon having a cranberry law here in Illinois
where we have no cranberries, because they have a cranberry law in
Indiana where they have cranberries. I should insist that it would be
exceedingly wrong in us to deny to Virginia the right to enact oyster
laws, where they have oysters, because we want no such laws here. If we
here raise a barrel of flour more than we want and the Louisianians
raise a barrel of sugar more than they want, it is of mutual advantage
to exchange. That produces commerce, brings us together and makes us
better friends. These mutual accommodations bind together the different
parts of this Union. Instead of being a thing to "divide the house" they
tend to sustain it, they are the props of the house tending always to
hold it up.

But is it true that all the difficulty and agitation we have in regard
to this institution of slavery springs 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 days 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 find that every time, with the single exception of the
Nullification question, they sprung from an endeavor to spread this
institution. There never was a party in the history of this country, and
there probably never will be, of sufficient strength to disturb the
general peace of the country. Parties themselves may be divided and
quarrel on minor questions. Yet it extends not beyond the parties
themselves.

The Judge alludes very often in the course of his remarks to the
exclusive right which the states have to decide for themselves. I agree
with him very readily that the different states have the right. Our
controversy with him is in regard to the new territories. We agree that
when the states come in as states they have the right and the power to
do as they please. We have no power as citizens of the free states or in
our federal capacity as members of the federal Union through the general
government to disturb slavery in the states where it exists. What I
insi