| Line 11: |
Line 11: |
| | The new [[Republican Party]] was formed 1864 in reaction against the Act. It denounced allowing slavery where it had been forbidden, and soon emerged as the dominant force throughout the North. | | The new [[Republican Party]] was formed 1864 in reaction against the Act. It denounced allowing slavery where it had been forbidden, and soon emerged as the dominant force throughout the North. |
| | | | |
| − | The act as designed by Senator Douglas did not explictly repeal the [[Missouri Compromise]] of 1850, but did deem it "inoperative and void". | + | The act as designed by Senator Douglas did not explicitly repeal the [[Missouri Compromise]] of 1850, but did deem it "inoperative and void". |
| | ==Background== | | ==Background== |
| | The availability of tens of millions of acres of excellent farm land made it necessary to create a territorial infrastructure to allow settlement. Railroad interests were especially eager to start operations since they needed farmers as customers. Four previous attempts to pass legislation had failed. The solution was a bill proposed in January 1854 by Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois. He was the Democratic party leader in the [[United States Senate]], the chairman of the Committee on Territories, an avid promoter of railroads, an aspirant to the presidency, and, above all, a fervent believer in [[popular sovereignty]]: the policy of letting the residents of a territory decide whether or not they would permit slavery to exist. | | The availability of tens of millions of acres of excellent farm land made it necessary to create a territorial infrastructure to allow settlement. Railroad interests were especially eager to start operations since they needed farmers as customers. Four previous attempts to pass legislation had failed. The solution was a bill proposed in January 1854 by Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois. He was the Democratic party leader in the [[United States Senate]], the chairman of the Committee on Territories, an avid promoter of railroads, an aspirant to the presidency, and, above all, a fervent believer in [[popular sovereignty]]: the policy of letting the residents of a territory decide whether or not they would permit slavery to exist. |
| Line 23: |
Line 23: |
| | | | |
| | ===Hostilities=== | | ===Hostilities=== |
| − | Pro-slavery settlers rushed to Kansas mainly from [[Missouri]]. Their influence in territorial elections was often bolstered by resident Missourians who crossed the border into Kansas purely for the purpose of voting in such ballots. They were called ''border ruffians'' by their opponents, a term coined by [[Horace Greeley]]. John Brown and his sons helped in the fight against them and killed five pro-slavery farmers in the [[Pottawatomie Massacre]]. Successive territorial governors, usually sympathetic to slavery, attempted unsuccessfully to maintain the peace. The territorial capital of [[Lecompton, Kansas]], the target of much agitation, consequently became such a hostile environment for free-soilers that they set up their own unofficial legislature at Topeka. | + | Pro-slavery settlers rushed to Kansas mainly from [[Missouri]]. Their influence in territorial elections was often bolstered by resident Missourians who crossed the border into Kansas purely for the purpose of voting in such ballots. They were called ''border ruffians'' by their opponents, a term coined by [[Horace Greeley]]. |
| | + | |
| | + | The free-state movement was a coalition of settlers who favored black rights and others who wanted the territory only for whites, but all were united by the conviction that their political rights were violated by nonresident voting and by Democratic presidents' heavy-handed administration of the territories. Etcheson (2006) argues that participants on both sides of the Kansas conflict believed they fought to preserve the liberties secured by the [[Republicanism, America| values of the American Revolution]] and that violence erupted because each side feared the loss of meaningful self-governance. |
| | + | |
| | + | Abolitionist [[John Brown]] and his sons helped in the fight against them and executed five pro-slavery farmers at Pottawatomie, then fled to Iowa. Successive territorial governors, usually sympathetic to slavery, attempted unsuccessfully to maintain the peace. The territorial capital of Lecompton, the target of much agitation, consequently became such a hostile environment for free-soilers that they set up their own unofficial legislature at Topeka. |
| | | | |
| | The hostilities between the factions reached a state of low-intensity civil war which was extremely embarrassing to Pierce, especially as the nascent Republican Party sought to capitalize on the scandal of [[Bleeding Kansas]]. The routine ballot-rigging and intimidation practiced by pro-slavery settlers failed to deter the immigration of anti-slavery settlers who won a demographic victory by winning the race to populate the state. | | The hostilities between the factions reached a state of low-intensity civil war which was extremely embarrassing to Pierce, especially as the nascent Republican Party sought to capitalize on the scandal of [[Bleeding Kansas]]. The routine ballot-rigging and intimidation practiced by pro-slavery settlers failed to deter the immigration of anti-slavery settlers who won a demographic victory by winning the race to populate the state. |
| Line 35: |
Line 39: |
| | The Kansas-Nebraska Act split the nation and pointed it toward civil war. The act itself virtually nullified the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and the [[Compromise of 1850]]. The turmoil over the act split both the Democratic and [[Know Nothing]] parties and gave rise to the Republican party that soon controlled most of the Northern states. | | The Kansas-Nebraska Act split the nation and pointed it toward civil war. The act itself virtually nullified the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and the [[Compromise of 1850]]. The turmoil over the act split both the Democratic and [[Know Nothing]] parties and gave rise to the Republican party that soon controlled most of the Northern states. |
| | | | |
| − | Eventually a new anti-slavery constitution was drawn up. On January 29, 1861, Kansas was admitted to the Union as a free state. Nebraska was admitted to the Union as a state after the Civil War in 1867.
| + | The pro-slavery forces won, and slavery was legal in 1860, when the census counted three slaves in the territory. With Republican success in 1860, a new anti-slavery constitution was drawn up. On January 29, 1861, Kansas was admitted to the Union as a free state. Nebraska, which was settled a little later and did not have a dispute over slavery, was admitted to the Union as a state after the Civil War in 1867. |
| | | | |
| | ==Bibliography== | | ==Bibliography== |
| | + | * Etcheson, Nicole. ''Bleeding Kansas: Contested Liberty in the Civil War Era'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Bleeding-Kansas-Contested-Liberty-Civil/dp/0700614923/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222265257&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search] |
| | *Morrison, Michael. ''Slavery and the American West: The Eclipse of Manifest Destiny and the Coming of the Civil War'' (1997) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=54440370 online edition] | | *Morrison, Michael. ''Slavery and the American West: The Eclipse of Manifest Destiny and the Coming of the Civil War'' (1997) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=54440370 online edition] |
| | * Johannsen. Robert W. ''Stephen A. Douglas'' (1997), the standard biography [http://www.amazon.com/Stephen-Douglas-Robert-W-Johannsen/dp/0252066359/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222235708&sr=1-3 excerpt and text search] | | * Johannsen. Robert W. ''Stephen A. Douglas'' (1997), the standard biography [http://www.amazon.com/Stephen-Douglas-Robert-W-Johannsen/dp/0252066359/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222235708&sr=1-3 excerpt and text search] |