he, by a general charge, conveys the idea that I withheld supplies from
the soldiers who were fighting in the Mexican war, or did anything else
to hinder the soldiers, he is, to say the least, grossly and altogether
mistaken, as a consultation of the records will prove to him.

As I have not used up so much of my time as I had supposed, I will dwell
a little longer upon one or two of these minor topics upon which the Judge
has spoken. He has read from my speech in Springfield, in which I say that
"a house divided against itself cannot stand" Does the Judge say it can
stand? I don't know whether he does or not. The Judge does not seem to be
attending to me just now, but I would like to know if it is his opinion
that a house divided against itself can stand. If he does, then there is a
question of veracity, not between him and me, but between the Judge and an
Authority of a somewhat higher character.

Now, my friends, I ask your attention to this matter for the purpose of
saying something seriously. I know that the Judge may readily enough agree
with me that the maxim which was put forth by the Savior is true, but he
may allege that I misapply it; and the Judge has a right to urge that, in
my application, I do misapply it, and then I have a right to show that I
do not misapply it, When he undertakes to say that because I think this
nation, so far as the question of slavery is concerned, will all become
one thing or all the other, I am in favor of bringing about a dead
uniformity in the various States, in all their institutions, he argues
erroneously. The great variety of the local institutions in the States,
springing from differences in the soil, differences in the face of the
country, and in the climate, are bonds of Union. They do not make "a house
divided against itself," but they make a house united. If they produce
in one section of the country what is called for, by the wants of another
section, and this other section can supply the wants of the first, they
are not matters of discord, but bonds of union, true bonds of union. But
can this question of slavery be considered as among these varieties in
the institutions of the country? I leave it to you to say whether, in
the history of our government, this institution of slavery has not always
failed to be a bond of union, and, on the contrary, been an apple of
discord and an element of division in the house. I ask you to consider
whether, so long as the moral constitu