the churches and rend them asunder?  What divided the great Methodist Church into two parts, North and South?  What has raised this constant disturbance in every Presbyterian General Assembly that meets?  What disturbed the Unitarian Church in this very city two years ago?  What has jarred and shaken the great American Tract Society recently,—­not yet splitting it, but sure to divide it in the end?  Is it not this same mighty, deep-seated power, that somehow operates on the minds of men, exciting and stirring them up in every avenue of society, in politics, in religion, in literature, in morals, in all the manifold relations of life?  Is this the work of politicians?  Is that irresistible power which for fifty years has shaken the government and agitated the people, to be stilled and subdued by pretending that it is an exceedingly simple thing, and we ought not to talk about it?  If you will get everybody else to stop talking about it, I assure you that I will quit before they have half done so.  But where is the philosophy or statesmanship which assumes that you can quiet that disturbing element in our society, which has disturbed us for more than half a century, which has been the only serious danger that has threatened our institutions?  I say where is the philosophy or the statesmanship, based on the assumption that we are to quit talking about it, and that the public mind is all at once to cease being agitated by it?  Yet this is the policy here in the North that Douglas is advocating,—­that we are to care nothing about it!  I ask you if it is not a false philosophy?  Is it not a false statesmanship that undertakes to build up a system of policy upon the basis of caring nothing about the very thing that everybody does care the most about,—­a thing which all experience has shown we care a very great deal about?

...  The Judge alludes very often in the course of his remarks to the exclusive right which the States have to decide the whole thing for themselves.  I agree with him very readily....  Our controversy with him is in regard to the new Territories.  We agree that when States come in as States they have the right and power to do as they please....  We profess constantly that we have no more inclination than belief in the power of the government to disturb it; yet we are driven constantly to defend ourselves from the assumption that we are warring upon the rights of the States.  What I insist upon is, that the new Territories shall be kept free from it while in the territorial condition ...

...  These are false issues, upon which Judge Douglas has tried to force the controversy....