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