He was handled as he had never been handled in his life. He took the
platform, angrily claimed that he had been abused, and started to
reply. But he did not get far. He had no case. He became confused, lost
his self-control, hesitated, finally said that he would reply in the
evening, and left the stage. That was the end of the incident so far as
Douglas was concerned. When the evening came he had disappeared, and
there was no reply.

Twelve days later, on October 16, Lincoln had promised to speak in
Peoria. To that place Douglas followed, or preceded him. Douglas made
his speech in the afternoon, and Lincoln followed in the evening. It
was the same line of argument as in the other speech. Lincoln later
consented to write it out for publication. We thus have the Springfield
and Peoria speech, _minus_ the glow of extemporaneous address, the
inspiration of the orator. These are important factors which not even
the man himself could reproduce. But we have his own report, which is
therefore authentic. The most salient point in his speech is his reply
to Douglas's plausible representation that the people of any locality
were competent to govern themselves. "I admit," said Lincoln, "that the
emigrant to Kansas and Nebraska is competent to govern himself, but I
deny his right to govern any other person without that other person's
consent." This is the kernel of the entire question of human slavery.

The result of this speech at Peoria was less dramatic than that at
Springfield, but it was no less instructive. Douglas secured from
Lincoln an agreement that neither of them should again speak during
that campaign. It was quite evident that he had learned to fear his
antagonist and did not wish again to risk meeting him on the rostrum.
Lincoln kept the agreement. Douglas did not. Before he got home in
Chicago, he stopped off to make another speech.