He charges, in substance, that I invite a war of sections; that I propose all the local institutions of the different States shall become consolidated and uniform.  What is there in the language of that speech which expresses such purpose or bears such construction?  I have again and again said that I would not enter into any of the States to disturb the institution of slavery.  Judge Douglas said, at Bloomington, that I used language most able and ingenious for concealing what I really meant; and that while I had protested against entering into the slave States, I nevertheless did mean to go on the banks of the Ohio and throw missiles into Kentucky, to disturb them in their domestic institutions.

I said in that speech, and I meant no more, that the institution of slavery ought to be placed in the very attitude where the framers of this government placed it and left it.  I do not understand that the framers of our Constitution left the people of the free States in the attitude of firing bombs or shells into the slave States.  I was not using that passage for the purpose for which he infers I did use it.  I said: 

“We are now far advanced into the fifth year since a policy was created for the avowed object and with the confident promise of putting an end to slavery agitation.  Under the operation of that policy that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented.  In my opinion it will not cease till a crisis shall have been reached and passed.  ’A house divided against itself cannot stand.’  I believe that this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free; 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.”

Now, you all see, from that quotation, I did not express my wish on anything.  In that passage I indicated no wish or purpose of my own; I simply expressed my expectation.  Cannot the Judge perceive a distinction between a purpose and an expectation?  I have often expressed an expectation to die, but I have never expressed a wish to die.  I said at Chicago, and now repeat, that I am quite aware this government has endured, half slave and half free, for eighty-two years.  I understand that little bit of history.  I expressed the opinion I did because I perceived—­or thought I perceived—­a new set of causes introduced.  I did say at Chicago, in my speech there, that I do wish to see the spread of slavery arrested, and to see it placed where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction.  I said that because I supposed, when the public mind shall rest in that belief, we shall have peace on the slavery question.  I have believed—­and now believe—­the public mind did rest on that belief up to the introduction of the Nebraska Bill.