which I occupy—­ground which I occupy as frankly and boldly as Judge Douglas does his,—­my views, though partly coinciding with yours, are not as perfectly in accordance with your feelings as his are, I do say to you in all candor, go for him, and not for me.  I hope to deal in all things fairly with Judge Douglas, and with the people of the State, in this contest.  And if I should never be elected to any office, I trust I may go down with no stain of falsehood upon my reputation, notwithstanding the hard opinions Judge Douglas chooses to entertain of me.

The Judge has again addressed himself to the Abolition tendencies of a speech of mine made at Springfield in June last.  I have so often tried to answer what he is always saying on that melancholy theme that I almost turn with disgust from the discussion,—­from the repetition of an answer to it.  I trust that nearly all of this intelligent audience have read that speech.  If you have, I may venture to leave it to you to inspect it closely, and see whether it contains any of those “bugaboos” which frighten Judge Douglas.

The Judge complains that I did not fully answer his questions.  If I have the sense to comprehend and answer those questions, I have done so fairly.  If it can be pointed out to me how I can more fully and fairly answer him, I aver I have not the sense to see how it is to be done.  He says I do not declare I would in any event vote for the admission of a slave State into the Union.  If I have been fairly reported, he will see that I did give an explicit answer to his interrogatories; I did not merely say that I would dislike to be put to the test, but I said clearly, if I were put to the test, and a Territory from which slavery had been excluded should present herself with a State constitution sanctioning slavery,—­a most extraordinary thing, and wholly unlikely to happen,—­I did not see how I could avoid voting for her admission.  But he refuses to understand that I said so, and he wants this audience to understand that I did not say so.  Yet it will be so reported in the printed speech that he cannot help seeing it.

He says if I should vote for the admission of a slave State I would be voting for a dissolution of the Union, because I hold that the Union cannot permanently exist half slave and half free.  I repeat that I do not believe this government can endure permanently half slave and half free; yet I do not admit, nor does it at all follow, that the admission of a single slave State will permanently fix the character and establish this as a universal slave nation.  The Judge is very happy indeed at working up these quibbles.  Before leaving the subject of answering questions, I aver as my confident belief, when you come to see our speeches in print, that you will find every question which he has asked me more fairly and boldly and fully answered than he has answered those which I put to him.  Is not that so?  The two speeches may be placed side by side, and I will venture to leave it to impartial judges whether his questions have not been more directly and circumstantially answered than mine.