Popular Sovereignty in Kansas and Nebraska
How an Act of Congress Fueled Sectional Fire and Helped Lead to War
Aug 25, 2009
The sectional animosity between North and South had been subdued by the Compromise of 1850. However debate over a transcontinental railroad threatened to reopen old hostilities and resume the conflict all over again.
Members of Congress had debated funding a railroad with taxpayer money for over a decade. The primary issue was where the railroad would be built. Southerners favored a route from San Diego to New Orleans, while many Northerners favored a more central route through Nebraska Territory. However since Nebraska was not yet settled and thus vulnerable to bandits and Indians, a proposal was made to separate the region into two more manageable territories—Kansas and Nebraska.
While dividing the territory was not an issue, southern congressmen still pushed for the railroad to take a southern route. To garner their support for the route through Nebraska, Senator Stephen Douglas of Illinois introduced the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, which included a compromise that caused an explosion of outrage.
Rule of the People
Douglas proposed “popular sovereignty” in the new Kansas and Nebraska Territories, or the "rule of the people," which would allow settlers to decide for themselves whether or not to allow slavery in the new regions. The rationale was that popular sovereignty worked for the territories acquired in the Mexican-American War, so it should work for these territories as well. However these territories were bound by a legal framework called the Missouri Compromise.
Under the Missouri Compromise, slavery was to be prohibited in all territories north of Missouri’s southern border. This meant that slavery should have been banned in both Kansas and Nebraska. Instead popular sovereignty opened the possibility for slavery expansion. This was essentially a bribe of southern congressmen to accept the Nebraska railroad route in exchange for canceling the Missouri Compromise.
Douglas had a vested interest in building the railroad through Nebraska because the eastern terminus would be at Chicago in his home state. Douglas, who had already amassed a fortune in railroads, hoped that securing the transcontinental line through Illinois would clinch his nomination for president in the next election. While Douglas hoped the new compromise would pacify both sides, it only made matters worse by unnecessarily re-igniting the slavery issue.
Reaction and Conflict
Many Northerners were outraged because expanding slavery would encroach on land they hoped would be for white settlement only. Abolitionists felt betrayed because they previously believed that slavery was on the path to extinction. And others believed that Douglas made a terrible concession to slaveholders because the appeal of building a railroad with tax dollars was too alluring to be resisted.
A vicious battle over the Kansas-Nebraska Bill ensued in Congress as irate speeches were made and even weapons were brandished. Democratic President Franklin Pierce publicly supported the bill, thus alienating the northern wing of his party. The New York Times predicted that if the bill became law, Northerners would no longer support slavery.
After months of intense debate, the Senate passed the bill mostly due to the abundance of southern senators. Stalling tactics were employed in the House until Pierce suggested that support of the bill would influence federal patronage jobs. The House narrowly passed the bill, and Pierce signed it into law on May 30, 1854.
Legacy of the Kansas-Nebraska Act
Passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act made the debate over slavery expansion more intense than ever. The Democratic Party split along sectional lines and the Whig Party was destroyed. Disgruntled northern Democrats and Whigs joined Free-Soilers to form the Republican Party. Neither Franklin Pierce nor Stephen Douglas could hope for their party’s nomination for president in 1856 because of their complicity in supporting this act.
While Nebraska remained a non-slave territory because its climate made slave labor unprofitable, Kansas was a different matter. Pro-slavery “border ruffians” from neighboring Missouri flocked to Kansas to influence territorial elections. Northern “jayhawkers” poured in as well, and the ensuing violence turned the territory into “Bleeding Kansas.”
The divisiveness and violence caused by the Kansas-Nebraska Act and, more specifically, repeal of the Missouri Compromise made reconciliation between North and South virtually impossible. This was a prelude to the violence that would erupt throughout the country with the coming of the civil war.
Sources:
Crocker III, H.W.: The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2008)
Davis, Kenneth C.: Don’t Know Much About the Civil War (New York, NY: William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1996)
Ward, Geoffrey C.; Burns, Ric; Burns, Ken: The Civil War (New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1990)
Woods Jr., Thomas E.: The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2004)
 |
