as irrevocably
opposed to the return of Douglas to the Senate. He entered the
field, therefore, with a powerful opponent in front, and with
defection and betrayal in the rear. He was everywhere known as a
debater of singular skill. His mind was fertile in resources. He
was master of logic. No man perceived more quickly than he the
strength or the weakness of an argument, and no one excelled him
in the use of sophistry and fallacy. Where he could not elucidate
a point to his own advantage, he would fatally becloud it for his
opponent. In that peculiar style of debate, which, in its intensity,
resembles a physical contest, he had no equal. He spoke with
extraordinary readiness. There was no halting in his phrase. He
used good English, terse, vigorous, pointed. He disregarded the
adornments of rhetoric,--rarely used a simile. He was utterly
destitute of humor, and had slight appreciation of wit. He never
cited historical precedents except from the domain of American
politics. Inside that field his knowledge was comprehensive,
minute, critical. Beyond it his learning was limited. He was not
a reader. His recreations were not in literature. In the whole
range of his voluminous speaking it would be difficult to find
either a line of poetry or a classical allusion. But he was by
nature an orator; and by long practice a debater. He could lead
a crowd almost irresistibly to his own conclusions. He could, if
he wished, incite a mob to desperate deeds. He was, in short, an
able, audacious, almost unconquerable opponent in public discussion.

LINCOLN AND DOUGLAS AS DEBATERS.

It would have been impossible to find any man of the same type able
to meet him before the people of Illinois. Whoever attempted it
would probably have been destroyed in the first encounter. But
the man who was chosen to meet him, who challenged him to the
combat, was radically different in every phase of character.
Scarcely could two men be more unlike, in mental and moral
constitutions, than Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas. Mr.
Lincoln was calm and philosophic. He loved the truth for the
truth's sake. He would not argue from a false premise, or be
deceived himself or deceive others by a false conclusion. He had
pondered deeply on the issues which aroused him to action. He had
given anxious thought to the problems of free government, and to
the destiny of the Republic. He had f