interested to misunderstand it. I take it that I have to address an
intelligent and reading community, who will peruse what I say, weigh it,
and then judge whether I advanced improper or unsound views, or whether I
advanced hypocritical, and deceptive, and contrary views in different
portions of the country. I believe myself to be guilty of no such thing
as the latter, though, of course, I cannot claim that I am entirely free
from all error in the opinions I advance.

The Judge has also detained us awhile in regard to the distinction
between his party and our party. His he assumes to be a national party,
ours a sectional one. He does this in asking the question whether this
country has any interest in the maintenance of the Republican party. He
assumes that our party is altogether sectional, that the party to which
he adheres is national; and the argument is, that no party can be a
rightful party--and be based upon rightful principles--unless it can
announce its principles everywhere. I presume that Judge Douglas could
not go into Russia and announce the doctrine of our national Democracy;
he could not denounce the doctrine of kings and emperors and monarchies
in Russia; and it may be true of this country that in some places we may
not be able to proclaim a doctrine as clearly true as the truth of
democracy, because there is a section so directly opposed to it that they
will not tolerate us in doing so. Is it the true test of the soundness of
a doctrine that in some places people won't let you proclaim it? Is that
the way to test the truth of any doctrine? Why, I understood that at one
time the people of Chicago would not let Judge Douglas preach a certain
favorite doctrine of his. I commend to his consideration the question
whether he takes that as a test of the unsoundness of what he wanted to
preach.

There is another thing to which I wish to ask attention for a little