“1 desire him to answer whether he stands pledged to the prohibition of the slave-trade between the different States?”Ī.

I do not stand to-day pledged to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. “I want to know whether he stands to-day pledged to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia?”Ī. I do not stand pledged against the admission of a new State into the Union, with such a Constitution as the people of that State may see fit to make. “I want to know whether he stands pledged against the admission of a new State into the Union with such a Constitution as the people of that State may see fit to make?”Ī. I do not now, or ever did, stand pledged against the admission of any more slave States into the Union. “I desire him to answer whether he stands pledged to-day, as he did in 1854, against the admission of any more slave States into the Union, even if the people want them?”Ī. I do not now, nor ever did, stand in favor of the unconditional repeal of the Fugitive Slave law. “I desire to know whether Lincoln to-day stands, as he did in 1854, in favor of the unconditional repeal of the Fugitive Slave law?”Īnswer. The first one of these interrogatories is in these words: In order that there may be no mistake about it, I have copied the interrogatories in writing, and also my answers to them. Having said thus much, I will take up the Judge’s interrogatories as I find them printed in the Chicago Times, and answer them seriatim. If in any interrogatories which I shall answer I go beyond the scope of what is within these platforms, it will be perceived that no one is responsible but myself. I have supposed myself, since the organization of the Republican party at Bloomington, in May, 1856, bound as a party man by the platforms of the party, then and since. I now say that I will answer his interrogatories, whether he answers mine or not and that after I have done so, I shall propound mine to him. I now propose that I will answer any of the interrogatories, upon condition that he will answer quest ions from me not exceeding the same number. I do him no injustice in saying that he occupied at least half of his reply in dealing with me as though I had refused to answer his interrogatories.

He made no intimation at the time of the proposition, nor did he in his reply allude at all to that suggestion of mine. I then distinctly intimated to him that I would answer the rest of his interrogatories on condition only that he should agree to answer as many for me. In my speech of an hour and a half, I attended to some other parts of his speech, and incidentally, as I thought, answered one of the interrogatories then. In the course of that opening argument Judge Douglas proposed to me seven distinct interrogatories. Of course there was brought within the scope in that half-hour’s speech something of his own opening speech. I propose to devote myself during the first hour to the scope of what was brought within the range of his half-hour speech at Ottawa. I am to speak an hour, he an hour and a half, and then I am to reply for half an hour. He spoke one hour, I an hour and a half, and he replied for half an hour. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: On Saturday last, Judge Douglas and myself first met in public discussion.

2do debate mexico