Diagnosis would perhaps show that the trait thus illustrated was mental rather than moral.  This absence of animosity and reproach as towards individuals found its root not so much in human charity as in fairness of thinking.  Lincoln’s ways of mental working are not difficult to discover.  He thought slowly, cautiously, profoundly, and with a most close accuracy; but above all else he thought fairly.  This capacity far transcended, or, more correctly, differed from, what is ordinarily called the judicial habit of mind.  Many men can weigh arguments without letting prejudice get into either scale; but Lincoln carried on the whole process of thinking, not only with an equal clearness of perception, but also with an entire impartiality of liking or disliking for both sides.  His aim, while he was engaged in thinking, was to discover what was really true; and later when he spoke to others his purpose was to show them the truth which he had discovered, and to state to them on what grounds he believed it to be the truth; it did not involve a judgment against the individuals who failed to recognize that truth.  His singular trait of impersonality was not made more apparent in any other way.  His effort never was to defeat the person who happened to be his adversary, but always was to overcome the arguments of that adversary.  Primarily he was discussing a topic and establishing a truth; it was only incidental that in doing these things he had to oppose a man.  It is noteworthy that his opponents never charged him with misstating their case in order to make an apparently effective answer to it.  On the contrary, his hope of success seemed always to lie in having both sides presented with the highest degree of clearness and honesty.  He had perfect confidence in the ultimate triumph of the truth; he was always willing to tie fast to it, according as he could see it, and then to bide time with it.  This being a genuine faith and not mere lip-service, he used the same arguments to others which he used to himself, and staked his final success upon the probability that what had persuaded his mind would in time persuade also the minds of other intelligent men.  It has been well said of him by an excellent judge:  “He loved the truth for the truth’s sake.  He would not argue from a false premise, or be deceived himself, or deceive others, by a false conclusion....  He did not seek to say merely the thing which was best for that day’s debate, but the thing which would stand the test of time, and square itself with eternal justice....  His logic was severe and faultless.  He did not resort to fallacy."[85]

To return to the points made in the debate:  Douglas laid down the “great principle of non-interference and non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the States and Territories alike;” which he assured his audience would enable us to “continue at peace with one another.”  In the same connection he endeavored to silver-coat for Northern palates the bitter pill of the Dred Scott decision, by declaring that the people of any State or Territory might withhold that protecting legislation, those “friendly police regulations,” without which slavery could not exist.  But this was, indeed, a “lame, illogical, evasive answer,” which enabled Lincoln to “secure an advantage in the national relations of the contest which he held to the end.”