was an equality between the white and black races that should produce a perfect social and political equality, it was an impossibility.  This you have seen in my printed speeches, and with it I have said that in their right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” as proclaimed in that old Declaration, the inferior races are our equals.  And these declarations I have constantly made in reference to the abstract moral question, to contemplate and consider when we are legislating about any new country which is not already cursed with the actual presence of the evil,—­slavery.  I have never manifested any impatience with the necessities that spring from the actual presence of black people amongst us, and the actual existence of slavery amongst us where it does already exist; but I have insisted that, in legislating for new countries where it does not exist there is no just rule other than that of moral and abstract right!  With reference to those new countries, those maxims as to the right of a people to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” were the just rules to be constantly referred to.  There is no misunderstanding this, except by men 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.