The Kansas-Nebraska Act in the United States
After the Compromise of 1850, the largely Democratic southern Congressional leaders did not enjoy being the minority party. California’s admission to the Union had created an imbalance between free and slave states; how to organize the remaining territories began to cause friction in the south.
The Great American Desert, as defined by the 36o; 30′ provision of the Compromise of 1820, was now the site of many Indian Reservations and a major destination of European immigrants. The area was also proven to be more suitable for (limited) farming than previously thought. Some Democrats were interested in populating the region with pro-slavery citizens while trying to have the Compromise of 1820 declared unconstitutional. They had learned that the territory was going to be a part of the proposed transcontinental railway; slaves could be shipped west from here at some point in the future. One thing stood in their way: the 36 o; 30′ proviso.
Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas was the man to whom the majority of southern politicians looked. Douglas had purchased a lot of stock in the railroad and therefore had a vested interest in seeing the railroad get built and be used for transportation of people and cargo (property) to the western territories. His ties to the railroad were public knowledge; so were his political views.
Douglas eventually came upon a plan which he felt would be a win-win decision for the south and his own agenda. Historian Robert Goldston best described Douglas’ blind ambition when he wrote: “Douglas was a man who refused, on principle, to stand on principle.”
Douglas proposed:
- Splitting his large Nebraska Territory into two parts.
- Kansas, the new region, would try to become a slave state while Nebraska would likely attract free-soilers.
- Allowing the people of the territories, not their legislatures, to decide their status through referendum, or what came to be known as popular sovereignty (vox populi).
- Outright repeal of the 1820 Missouri Compromise.
The Kansas-Nebraska act was debated and eventually did become law in May 1854; it had an immediate impact on the political landscape. Douglas had managed to create a public conscience or sense of morality where none had been. Anti-slavery Whigs, Free-Soil Party members and northern Democrats all joined in response by creating the Republican Party. The Era of Compromise was dead. (1)
The Bleeding of Kansas
When the people of Nebraska voted, they did not surprise anybody by opting to have free status. The southern Democrats did not want to see this repeated when Kansas voted. In March 1855, an announcement was made concerning an upcoming census count and election of the Kansas Territorial legislature; pro-slavery settlers publicly proposed violence if the voting did not produce results they liked.
Arms were openly transported into the region and the settlers in the territory began to defend themselves. The temporary Governor of the territory called for peace and order, but on the day of the census, thousands of organized pro-slavery supporters from Missouri rushed across the territorial border and pretended to be Kansans. The election put pro-slavery candidates into office and for the next year, free-soilers and pro-slavery settlers cautiously eyed one another.
During this time, the new legislators drafted their own strict Fugitive Slave Act and passed a law which made it a capital offense to publicly question or debate slavery within the territory of Kansas. This was a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution I Amendment; free-soilers responded by establishing their own independent territorial legislature. The blueprint for civil war had been written.
In May 1856, the anticipated violence began. The free-status town of Lawrence was raided and leveled; one resident was killed. John Brown, a staunch abolitionist, responded by attacking a pro-slavery settlement at a place called Pottawatomie Creek; he killed five men. Brown later moved east and led the fatal attack at Harpers Ferry, Virginia in 1859. In all, by December of 1856, Kansans had killed 200 of their own and damaged or destroyed $2 million worth of property.
At this point the civil war could have commenced, but two things prevented that from occurring. First, people considered the Bleeding of Kansas to be an isolated series of incidents. They probably could have imagined that kind of behavior taking place elsewhere, but chose to pretend that it could not happen where they lived. Secondly, newly elected President James Buchanan was told of an upcoming decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. He suggested that this decision would offer a final resolution to the issue of slavery. He was wrong. (2)
Introduction to Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854)
In the context of the legal history: Legislation sponsored by Stephen Douglas, to allow the residents of Kansas and Nebraska to decide the issue of slavery in their territories. The act repealed the Missouri Compromise, which had prohibited slavery in the territories. The legislation also violated the Compromise of 1850, which had put limits on the expansion of slavery. The act led to the Bleeding of Kansas.
Kansas-Nebraska Act in the U.S. Legal History
Summary
Controversial 1854 legislation that opened Kansas and Nebraska to white settlement, repealed the Compromise of 1820, and led opponents to form the Republican party.
Resources
In the context of the legal history:
See Also
- International Treaties
- Multilateral Treaties
Kansas-Nebraska Act in the U.S. Legal History
Summary
Controversial 1854 legislation that opened Kansas and Nebraska to white settlement, repealed the Compromise of 1820, and led opponents to form the Republican party.
Resources
Notes
- Source: Stephen R. Demkin
- Id.
Further Reading
- Blum, John M., The National Experience: Part I, New York, Harcourt, Brace & Jovanovich, Seventh Edition, 1989.
- Tindall, George B., America: A Narrative History (Volume I), New York, W.W. Norton and Company, Second Edition, 1988.
Leave a Reply