With beautiful scenery, an abundance of arts, culture, activities and great food, Kalamazoo offers countless ideas for the perfect date night! So, grab your ificant other, your closest girl friends, your mom, dad or whoever you want to treat to a fun night on the town, and use one of our itineraries below to inspire your next date night! Drop by Marketplace anytime during store hours and you can craft your very own unique scented candle!
Abraham Lincoln, representative from Illinois, came to Kalamazoo on August 27, on the invitation of Kalamazoo attorney, Hezekiah G. Lincoln was one of many speakers in the park that summer day. His 2, word speech about The speech was discovered in and published in Instead, it focuses on the issue that gave rise to the Republican Party.
That issue was the Kansas-Nebraska Act of This opened the possibility that slavery could expand from the Southern states to the Midwestern plains. Anti-slavery activists felt that this expansion of slavery threatened the free labor, free market capitalist system of the Northern states. They responded by organizing a new political party inthe Republican Party, and ran their first Presidential campaign in He stresses that the Republicans do not propose the abolition of slavery but they oppose its expansion.
He attempts to draw the distinction between Fremont and the Democratic nominee, James C. This was the only time that Lincoln addressed an audience in Michigan. The Kalamazoo Gazette reported the rally, but the text of the speech appeared in the Detroit Daily Advertiser. The Michigan historical marker that stands at the southwest corner of the park marks the spot and the occasion. Under the Constitution of the United States another Presidential contest approaches us.
All over this land — that portion, at least, of which I know much — the people are assembling to consider the proper course to be adopted by them. One of the first considerations is to learn what the people differ about. If we ascertain what we differ about, we shall be better able to decide. The question of slavery, at the present day, should not only be the greatest question, but very nearly the sole question. Our opponents, however, prefer that this should not be the case.
To get at this question, I will occupy your attention but a single moment. The question is simply this: Shall slavery be into new territories, or not? This is the naked question. If we should support Fremont successfully in this, it may be charged that we will not be content with restricting slavery in the new territories.
If we should charge that James Buchanan, by his platform, is bound to extend slavery into the territories, and that he is in favor of its being thus spread, we should be puzzled to prove it. We believe it, nevertheless. By taking the issue as I present it, whether it shall be permitted as an issue, is made up between the parties.
Each takes his own stand. This is the question: Shall the Government of the United States prohibit slavery in the [territories of the] United States? We have been in the habit of deploring the fact that slavery exists among us. We have ever deplored it. Our forefathers did, and they declared, as we have done in later years, the blame rested upon the mother government of Great Britain. We constantly condemn Great Britain for not preventing slavery from coming amongst us. She would not interfere to prevent it, and so individuals were able to introduce the institution without opposition.
I have alluded to this, to ask you if this is not exactly the policy of Buchanan and his friends, to place this government in the attitude then occupied by the government of Great Britain — placing the nation in the position to authorize the territories to reproach it, for refusing to allow them to hold slaves. I would like to ask your attention, any gentlemen to tell me when the people of Kansas are going to decide.
When are they to do it? I asked that question two years ago — when, and how are [they] to do it?
Not many weeks ago, our new Senator from Illinois Mr. Trumbullasked Douglas how it could be done. He would not answer. He said it was a question for the Supreme Court to decide. In the North, his friends argue that the people can decide at any time. The Southerners [Democrats] say there is no power in the people, whatever. We know that from the time white people have been allowed in the territory they have brought slaves with them.
Suppose the people come up to vote as freely, and with as perfect protection as we could do it here. Will they be at liberty to vote their sentiments? If they can, then all that has ever been said about our provincial ancestors is untrue, and they could have done so, also. We know our Southern friends say that the General Government cannot interfere.
Search love online - afroromance has 's of white women to choose from.
But I am afraid I waste too much time on this point. I take it as an illustration of the principle, that slaves are admitted to the territories. And, while I am speaking of Kansas, how will that operate?
Can men vote truly? We will suppose that there are ten men who go into Kansas to settle. Nine of these are opposed to slavery.
One has ten slaves. The slaveholder is a good man in other respects; he is a good neighbor, and being a wealthy man, he is enabled to do the others many neighborly kindnesses. And here, let me say, that in intellectual and physical structure, our Southern brethren do not differ from us.
They are, like us, subject to passions, and it is only their odious institution of slavery, that makes the breach between us. These ten men of whom I was speaking, live together three or four years; they intermarry; their family ties are strengthened. And who wonders that in time, the people learn to look upon slavery with complacency? This is the way in which slavery is planted, and gains so firm a foothold. I think this is a strong card that the Nebraska party have played, and won upon, in this game. I suppose that this crowd are opposed to the admission of slavery into Kansas, yet it is true that in all crowds there are some who differ from the majority.
I want to ask the Buchanan men, who are against the spread of slavery, if there be any present, why not vote for the man who is against it? I understand that Mr. I understand that, by the Nebraska bill, a door has been opened for the spread of slavery in [to] the territories.
Examine, if you please, and see if they have ever done any such thing as try to shut the door. It is true that Fillmore tickles a few of his friends with the notion that he is not the cause of the door being opened.
If he were President, he would have one side or the other — he would either restrict slavery or not. Of course it would be so. There could be no middle way. You who hate slavery and love freedom, why not, as Fillmore and Buchanan are on the same ground, vote for Fremont?
Why not vote for the man who takes your side of the question? There are several reasons why I think it is our business. But let us see how it is. Others have urged these reasons before, but they are still of use. By our Constitution we are represented in Congress in proportion to our s, and in counting the s that give us our representatives, three slaves are counted as 2 people.
Meet local singles online on dating site meetville. chat, date & fall in love!
The State of Maine has six representatives in the lower house of Congress. In strength South Carolina is equal to her. But stop! Maine has twice as many white people, and 32, to boot! And is that fair?