where it does not exist, he would be opposed to the introduction of
slavery as an element, I insist that we have his warrant--his
license--for insisting upon the exclusion of that element which he
declared in such strong and emphatic language was most hurtful to him.

Judge Douglas has again referred to a Springfield speech in which I said
"a house divided against itself cannot stand." The Judge has so often
made the entire quotation from that speech that I can make it from
memory. I used this language:

"We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the
avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to the slavery
agitation. Under the operation of this policy, that agitation has not
only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion it will not
cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. 'A house divided
against itself cannot stand.' I believe this government cannot endure
permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the house to fall,
but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one
thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the
further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in
the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its
advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all
the States, old as well as new, North as well as South."

That extract and the sentiments expressed in it have been extremely
offensive to Judge Douglas. He has warred upon them as Satan wars upon
the Bible. His perversions upon it are endless. Here now are my views
upon it in brief:

I said we were now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated