me；　so　I　went　to　work　to　show　him　that　he　misunderstood　the　whole
  scope　of　my　speech；　and　that　I　really　never　intended　to　set　the
  people　at　war　with　one　another。　　As　an　illustration；　the　next
  time　I　met　him；　which　was　at　Springfield；　I　used　this　expression；
  that　I　claimed　no　right　under　the　Constitution；　nor　had　I　any
  inclination；　to　enter　into　the　slave　States　and　interfere　with
  the　institutions　of　slavery。　　He　says　upon　that：　Lincoln　will　not
  enter　into　the　slave　States；　but　will　go　to　the　banks　of　the
  Ohio；　on　this　side；　and　shoot　over！　　He　runs　on；　step　by　step；　in
  the　horse…chestnut　style　of　argument；　until　in　the　Springfield
  speech　he　says：　〃Unless　he　shall　be　successful　in　firing　his
  batteries　until　he　shall　have　extinguished　slavery　in　all　the
  States　the　Union　shall　be　dissolved。〃　　Now；　I　don't　think　that
  was　exactly　the　way　to　treat　〃a　kind；　amiable；　intelligent
  gentleman。〃　　I　know　if　I　had　asked　the　Judge　to　show　when　or
  where　it　was　I　had　said　that；　if　I　didn't　succeed　in　firing　into
  the　slave　States　until　slavery　should　be　extinguished；　the　Union
  should　be　dissolved；　he　could　not　have　shown　it。　　I　understand
  what　he　would　do。　　He　would　say：　I　don't　mean　to　quote　from　you；
  but　this　was　the　result　of　what　you　say。　　But　I　have　the　right　to
  ask；　and　I　do　ask　now；　Did　you　not　put　it　in　such　a　form　that　an
  ordinary　reader　or　listener　would　take　it　as　an　expression　from
  me？
  In　a　speech　at　Springfield；　on　the　night　of　the　17th；　I　thought　I
  might　as　well　attend　to　my　own　business　a　little；　and　I　recalled
  his　attention　as　well　as　I　could　to　this　charge　of　conspiracy　to
  nationalize　slavery。　　I　called　his　attention　to　the　fact　that　he
  had　acknowledged　in　my　hearing　twice　that　he　had　carefully　read
  the　speech；　and；　in　the　language　of　the　lawyers；　as　he　had　twice
  read　the　speech；　and　still　had　put　in　no　plea　or　answer；　I　took　a
  default　on　him。　　I　insisted　that　I　had　a　right　then　to　renew　that
  charge　of　conspiracy。　　Ten　days　afterward　I　met　the　Judge　at
  Clinton；that　is　to　say；　I　was　on　the　ground；　but　not　in　the
  discussion；and　heard　him　make　a　speech。　　Then　he　comes　in　with
  his　plea　to　this　charge；　for　the　first　time；　and　his　plea　when
  put　in；　as　well　as　I　can　recollect　it；　amounted　to　this：　that　he
  never　had　any　talk　with　Judge　Taney　or　the　President　of　the
  United　States　with　regard　to　the　Dred　Scott　decision　before　it
  was　made。　　I　（Lincoln）　ought　to　know　that　the　man　who　makes　a
  charge　without　knowing　it　to　be　true　falsifies　as　much　as　he　who
  knowingly　tells　a　falsehood；　and；　lastly；　that　he　would　pronounce
  the　whole　thing　a　falsehood；　but；　he　would　make　no　personal
  application　of　the　charge　of　falsehood；　not　because　of　any　regard
  for　the　〃kind；　amiable；　intelligent　gentleman；〃　but　because　of
  his　own　personal　self…respect！　　I　have　understood　since　then　（but
  ＇turning　to　Judge　Douglas＇　will　not　hold　the　Judge　to　it　if　he　is
  not　willing）　that　he　has　broken　through　the　〃self…respect；〃　and
  has　got　to　saying　the　thing　out。　　The　Judge　nods　to　me　that　it　is
  so。　　It　is　fortunate　for　me　that　I　can　keep　as　good…humored　as　I
  do；　when　the　Judge　acknowledges　that　he　has　been　trying　to　make　a
  question　of　veracity　with　me。　　I　know　the　Judge　is　a　great　man；
  while　I　am　only　a　small　man；　but　I　feel　that　I　have　got　him。　　I
  demur　to　that　plea。　　I　waive　all　objections　that　it　was　not　filed
  till　after　default　was　taken；　and　demur　to　it　upon　the　merits。
  What　if　Judge　Douglas　never　did　talk　with　Chief　Justice　Taney　and
  the　President　before　the　Dred　Scott　decision　was　made；　does　it
  follow　that　he　could　not　have　had　as　perfect　an　understanding
  without　talking　as　with　it？　　I　am　not　disposed　to　stand　upon　my
  legal　advantage。　　I　am　disposed　to　take　his　denial　as　being　like
  an　answer　in　chancery；　that　he　neither　had　any　knowledge；
  information；　or　belief　in　the　existence　of　such　a　conspiracy。　　I
  am　disposed　to　take　his　answer　as　being　as　broad　as　though　he　had
  put　it　in　these　words。　　And　now；　I　ask；　even　if　he　had　done　so；
  have　not　I　a　right　to　prove　it　on　him；　and　to　offer　the　evidence
  of　more　than　two　witnesses；　by　whom　to　prove　it；　and　if　the
  evidence　proves　the　existence　of　the　conspiracy；　does　his　broader
  answer　denying　all　knowledge；　information；　or　belief；　disturb　the
  fact？　　It　can　only　show　that　he　was　used　by　conspirators；　and　was
  not　a　leader　of　them。
  Now；　in　regard　to　his　reminding　me　of　the　moral　rule　that　persons
  who　tell　what　they　do　not　know　to　be　true　falsify　as　much　as
  those　who　knowingly　tell　falsehoods。　　I　remember　the　rule；　and　it
  must　be　borne　in　mind　that　in　what　I　have　read　to　you；　I　do　not
  say　that　I　know　such　a　conspiracy　to　exist。　　To　that　I　reply；　I
  believe　it。　　If　the　Judge　says　that　I　do　not　believe　it；　then　he
  says　what　he　does　not　know；　and　falls　within　his　own　rule；　that
  he　who　asserts　a　thing　which　he　does　not　know　to　be　true；
  falsifies　as　much　as　he　who　knowingly　tells　a　falsehood。　　I　want
  to　call　your　attention　to　a　little　discussion　on　that　branch　of
  the　case；　and　the　evidence　which　brought　my　mind　to　the
  conclusion　which　I　expressed　as　my　belief。　　If；　in　arraying　that
  evidence　I　had　stated　anything　which　was　false　or　erroneous；　it
  needed　but　that　Judge　Douglas　should　point　it　out；　and　I　would
  have　taken　it　back；　with　all　the　kindness　in　the　world。　　I　do　not
  deal　in　that　way。　　If　I　have　brought　forward　anything　not　a　fact；
  if　he　will　point　it　out；　it　will　not　even　ruffle　me　to　take　it
  back。　　But　if　he　will　not　point　out　anything　erroneous　in　the
  evidence；　is　it　not　rather　for　him　to　show；　by　a　comparison　of
  the　evidence；　that　I　have　reasoned　falsely；　than　to　call　the
  〃kind；　amiable；　intelligent　gentleman〃　a　liar？　　If　I　have
  reasoned　to　a　false　conclusion；　it　is　the　vocation　of　an　able
  debater　to　show　by　argument　that　I　have　wandered　to　an　erroneous
  conclusion。　　I　want　to　ask　your　attention　to　a　portion　of　the
  Nebraska　Bill；　which　Judge　Douglas　has　quoted：
  〃It　being　the　true　intent　and　meaning　of　this　Act；　not　to
  legislate　slavery　into　any　Territory　or　State；　nor　to　exclude　it
  therefrom；　but　to　leave　the　people　thereof　perfectly　free　to　form
  and　regulate　their　domestic　institutions　in　their　own　way；
  subject　only　to　the　Constitution　of　the　United　States。〃
  Thereupon　Judge　Douglas　and　others　began　to　argue　in　favor　of
  〃popular　sovereignty；〃　the　right　of　the　people　to　have　slaves　if
  they　wanted　them；　and　to　exclude　slavery　if　they　did　not　want
  them。　　〃But；〃　said；　in　substance；　a　Senator　from　Ohio　（Mr。　Chase；
  I　believe）；
  〃we　more　than　suspect　that　you　do　not　mean　to　allow　the　people　to
  exclude　slavery　if　they　wish　to；　and　if　you　do　mean　it；　accept　an
  amendment　which　I　propose；　expressly　authorizing　the　people　to
  exclude　slavery。〃
  I　believe　I　have　the　amendment　here　before　me；　which　was　offered；
  and　under　which　the　people　of　the　Territory；　through　their
  representatives；　might；　if　they　saw　fit；　prohibit　the　existence
  of　slavery　therein。　　And　now　I　state　it　as　a　fact；　to　be　taken
  back　if　there　is　any　mistake　about　it；　that　Judge　Douglas　and
  those　acting　with　him　voted　that　amendment　down。　　I　now　think
  that　those　men　who　voted　it　down　had　a　real　reason　for　doing　so。
  They　know　what　that　reason　was。　　It　looks　to　us；　since　we　have
  seen　the　Dred　Scott　decision　pronounced；　holding　that　〃under　the
  Constitution〃　the　people　cannot　exclude　slavery；　I　say　it　looks
  to　outsiders；　poor；　simple；　〃amiable；　intelligent　gentlemen；〃　as
  though　the　niche　was　left　as　a　place　to　put　that　Dred　Scott
  decision　in；a　niche　which　would　have　been　spoiled　by　adopting
  the　amendment。　　And　now；　I　say　again；　if　this　was　not　the　reason；
  it　will　avail　the　Judge　much　more　to　calmly　and　good…humoredly
  point　out　to　these　people　what　that　other　reason　was　for　voting
  the　amendment　down；　than；　swelling　himself　up；　to　vociferate　that
  he　may　be　provoked　to　call　somebody　a　liar。
  Again：　There　is　in　that　same　quotation　from　the　Nebraska　Bill
  this　clause：　〃It　being　the　true　intent　and　meaning　of　this　bill
  not　to　legislate　slavery　into　any　Territory　or　State。〃　　　I　have
  always　been　puzzled　to　know　what　business　the　word　〃State〃　had　in
  that　connection。　　Judge　Douglas　knows。　　He　put　it　there。　　He
  knows　what　he　put　it　there　for。　　We　outsiders　cannot　say　what　he
  put　it　there　for。　　The　law　they　were　passing　was　not　about
  States；　and　was　not　making　provisions　for　States。　　What　was　it
  placed　there　for？　　After　seeing　the　Dred　Scott　decision；　which
  holds　that　the　people　cannot　exclude　slavery　from　a　Territory；　if
  another　Dred　Scott　decision　shall　come；　holding　that　they　cannot
  exclude　it　from　a　State；　we　shall　discover　that　when　the　word　was
  originally　put　there；　it　was　in　view　of　something　which　was　to
  come　in　due　time；　we　shall　see　that　it　was　the　other　half　of
  something。　　I　now　say　again；　if　there　is　any　different　reason　for
  putting　it　there；　Judge　Douglas；　in　a　good…humored　way；　without
  calling　anybody　a　liar；　can　tell　what　the　reason　was。
  When