\section{Passage 1}Mr. Lincoln likens that bond of the Federal Constitution, joining Free and Slave States together, to a house divided against itself, and says that it is  contrary to the law of God, and cannot stand.When did he learn, and by what authority does he proclaim, that this Government is contrary to the law of God and cannot stand? It has stood thus divided into Free and Slave States from its organization up to this day. During that period we have increased fromfour millions to thirty millions of people; we have extended our territory from the Mississippi to the Pacific Ocean; we have acquired the Floridas and Texas, and other territory sufficient to double our geographical extent; we have increased in population,in wealth, and in power beyond any example on earth; we have risen from a weak and feeble power to become the terror and admiration of the civilized world; and all this has been done under aConstitution which Mr. Lincoln, in substance, says isin violation of the law of God; and under a Union divided into Free and Slave States, which Mr. Lincoln thinks, because of such division, cannot stand. Surely, Mr. Lincoln is a wiser man than those who framed the Government....I now come back to the question, why cannot this Union exist forever, divided into Free and Slave States, as our fathers made it? It can thus exist if each State will carry out the principles upon which our institutions were founded; to wit, the right of eachState to do as it pleases, without meddling with its neighbors. Just act upon that great principle, and this Union will not only live forever, but it will extend and expand until it covers the whole continent, and makes this confederacy one grand, ocean-boundRepublic. We must bear in mind that we are yet a young nation, growing with a rapidity unequalled in the history of the world, that our national increase is great, and that the emigration from the old world is increasing, requiring us to expand and acquire newterritory from time to time, in order to give our people land to live upon. If we live upon the principle of State rights and State sovereignty, each State regulating its own affairs and minding its own business, we can go on and extend indefinitely, just 45 as fast and as far as we need the territory... .\section{Passage 2}In complaining of what I said in my speech at Springfield, in which he says I accepted my nomination for the Senatorship ... he again quotes that portion in which I said that "a house divided 50 against itself cannot stand." Let me say a word in regard to that matter. He tries to persuade us that there must be a variety in the different institutions of the States of the Union; that that variety necessarily proceeds from the variety of soil, climate, of the face55 of the country, and the difference in the natural features of the States. I agree to all that. Have these very matters ever produced any difficulty among us? Not at all. Have we ever had any quarrel over the fact that they have laws in Louisiana designed to regulate60 the commerce that springs from the production of sugar? Or because we have a different class relative to the production of flour in this State? Have they produced any differences? Not at all. They are the very cements of this Union. They don't make the65 house a "house divided against itself." They are the props that hold up the house and sustain the Union.But has it been so with this element of slavery? Have we not always had quarrels and difficulties over it? And when will we cease to have quarrels over it?70 Like causes produce like effects. It is worth while to observe that we have generally had comparative peace upon the slavery question, and that there has been no cause for alarm until it was excited by the effort to spread it into new territory. Whenever it has75 been limited to its present bounds, and there has been no effort to spread it, there has been peace. All the trouble and convulsion has proceeded from efforts to spread it over more territory. It was thus at the date of the Missouri Compromise. It was so againQ: Which choice identifies a central tension between the two passages? Answer Choices: (A)Douglas proposes changes to federal policies on slavery, but Lincoln argues that such changes would enjoy no popular support. (B)Douglas expresses concerns about the economic impact of abolition, but Lincoln dismisses those concerns as irrelevant. (C)Douglas criticizes Lincoln for finding fault with the Constitution, and Lincoln argues that this criticism misrepresents his position. (D)Douglas offers an interpretation of federal law that conflicts with Lincoln's, and Lincoln implies that Douglas's interpretation is poorly reasoned. 40
A: Among A through D, the answer is
(A)Douglas proposes changes to federal policies on slavery, but Lincoln argues that such changes would enjoy no popular support.
(B)Douglas expresses concerns about the economic impact of abolition, but Lincoln dismisses those concerns as irrelevant.
(C)Douglas criticizes Lincoln for finding fault with the Constitution, and Lincoln argues that this criticism misrepresents his position.
(D)Douglas offers an interpretation of federal law that conflicts with Lincoln's, and Lincoln implies that Douglas's interpretation is poorly reasoned. 40
Answer: 2