From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kansas-Nebraska Act
Kansas-Nebraska Act
Background
Since early in the 1840s the topic of a
transcontinental railroad had been discussed.
While there were debates over the specifics,
especially the route to be taken, there was a
public consensus that such a railroad should
be built by private interests financed by public land grants. In 1845 Stephen Douglas,
serving in his first term in the United States
House of Representatives, submitted an unsuccessful plan to formally organize the Nebraska Territory as the first step in building a
railroad with its eastern terminal in Chicago.
Railroad proposals would be submitted and
debated in all subsequent sessions of Congress with cities such as Chicago, St. Louis,
Quincy, Memphis, and New Orleans competing to be the jumping off point for the construction.[1]
This 1856 map shows slave states (gray), free
states (pink), and US territories (green) with
Kansas in center (white).
In United States history, the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 created the territories of
Kansas and Nebraska, opened new lands, repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820,
and allowed settlers in those territories to determine if they would allow slavery within
their boundaries. The initial purpose of the
Kansas-Nebraska Act was to create opportunities for a Mideastern Transcontinental Railroad. It was not problematic until popular
sovereignty was written into the proposal.
The act was designed by Democratic Senator
Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois.
The act established that settlers could
vote to decide whether to allow slavery, in
the name of popular sovereignty or rule of
the people. Douglas hoped it would ease relations between the North and the South, because the South could expand slavery to new
territories but the North still had the right to
abolish slavery in their states. Instead, opponents denounced the law as a concession
to the slave power of the South. The new Republican Party, which was created in opposition to the act, aimed to stop the expansion of
slavery, and soon emerged as the dominant
force throughout the North.
Events leading to
the US Civil War
Northwest Ordinance
Missouri Compromise
Tariff of 1828
Nullification Crisis
Nat Turner’s slave rebellion
Amistad (1841)
Mexican American War
Wilmot Proviso
Manifest Destiny
Compromise of 1850
Uncle Tom’s Cabin
Kansas-Nebraska Act
Bleeding Kansas
Dred Scott Supreme Court Decision
John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry
Election of 1860
Secession of Southern States
Battle of Fort Sumter
Underground railroad
1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kansas-Nebraska Act
Iowa’s Senator Augustus C. Dodge immediately reintroduced the same legislation to
organize Nebraska that had stalled in the
previous session, and it was referred to
Douglas’ committee on December 14.
Douglas, hoping to achieve the support of the
southerners, publicly announced that the
same principle that had been established in
the Compromise of 1850 should apply in Nebraska. In the Compromise of 1850, Utah and
New Mexico Territory had been organized
without any restrictions on slavery, and many
supporters of Douglas argued that this compromise had already superseded the Missouri
Compromise. [5] These territories, however,
unlike Nebraska, had never been part of the
Louisiana Purchase and had never been subject to the Missouri Compromise.
Several proposals in late 1852 and early
1853 had strong support, but in the end they
failed because of disputes over whether the
railroad would follow a northern or a southern route. In early 1853 the House of Representatives passed a bill by an 107 to 49 vote
that organized the Nebraska Territory in land
west of Iowa and Missouri. In March the bill
moved to the Senate Committee on Territories which was now headed by Senator
Douglas. Missouri Senator David Atchison
announced that he would support the Nebraska proposal only if slaveholders were not
banned from the new territory. While the bill
was silent on this issue, slavery would have
been prohibited under the terms of the Missouri Compromise. Other southern senators
were not as flexible as Atchison. By a vote of
23 to 17 the Senate voted to table the motion
with every senator from states south of Missouri voting for the tabling.[2]
During the senate adjournment the issues
of the railroad and the repeal of the Missouri
Compromise became entangled in Missouri
politics as Atchison campaigned for reelection against the forces of Thomas Hart
Benton. Atchison was maneuvered into
choosing between antagonizing the state railroad interests or the state slaveholders. Finally Atchison took the position that he would
rather see Nebraska “sink in hell” before he
would allow it to be overrun by free-soilers[3].
In this era, congressmen generally found
lodging in boarding houses when they were
in the nation’s capital performing their legislative duties. Atchison shared lodgings on an
F Street house shared by the leading southerners in Congress. Atchison himself was the
Senate’s president pro tempore, and his
housemates included Robert T. Hunter
(chairman of the Finance Committee from
Virginia), James Mason (chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee from Virginia), and
Andrew P. Butler (chairman of the Judiciary
Committee from South Carolina). When Congress reconvened on December 5, 1853, this
group, termed the “F Street Mess”, along
with Virginian William O. Goode, formed the
nucleus that would insist on slaveholder
equality in Nebraska. Douglas was aware of
their opinions and their power and knew that
he needed to address their concerns.[4]
Congressional action
Introduction of the Nebraska
bill
The bill was reported to the main body of the
Senate on January 4, 1854. The bill had been
significantly modified by Douglas, who had
also authored the New Mexico and Utah territorial acts, to mirror the language from the
Compromise of 1850. In the new bill the territory of Nebraska was extended north all the
way to the forty-ninth parallel, and any decisions on slavery were to be made "when admitted as a state or states, the said territory,
or any portion of the same, shall be received
into the Union, with or without slavery, as
their constitution may prescribe at the time
of their admission."[7] In a report accompanying the bill, Douglas’s committee wrote that
the intent of the Utah and New Mexico acts:
...were intended to have a far more
comprehensive and enduring effect
than the mere adjustment of the difficulties arising out of the recent acquisition of Mexican territory. They
were designed to establish certain
great principles, which would not
only furnish adequate remedies for
existing evils, but, in all time to
come, avoid the perils of a similar
agitation, by withdrawing the question of slavery from the halls of Congress and the political arena, and
committing it to the arbitrament of
2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kansas-Nebraska Act
was explicitly repealed, slaveholders would
be reluctant to move to the new territory until slavery was actually approved by the
settlers -- settlers who would most likely hold
free-soil views. On January 16 Dixon surprised Douglas by introducing an amendment
that would repeal the section of the Missouri
Compromise prohibiting slavery above the
36°30’ parallel. Douglas met privately with
Dixon and in the end, despite his misgivings
on northern reaction, agreed to accept Dixon’s arguments.[9] From a political standpoint, the Whig Party had been in decline in
the South because of the effectiveness with
which the Democrats had hammered southern Whigs over slavery issues. The Whigs
hoped that by seizing the initiative on this issue that they would be identified as the
strongest defender of slavery.[10]
Stephen A. Douglas -- "The great principle
of self government is at stake, and surely the
people of this country are never going to decide that the principle upon which our whole
republican system rests is vicious and
wrong."[6]
those who were immediately interested in, and alone responsible for
its consequences.[8]
The report compared the situation in New
Mexico and Utah with the situation in Nebraska. In the first instance, many had argued
that slavery had previously been prohibited
under Mexican law just as it was prohibited
in Nebraska under the Missouri Compromise.
Just as the creation of New Mexico and Utah
territories had not ruled on the validity of
Mexican law on the acquired territory, the
Nebraska bill was neither "affirming or repealing ... the Missouri act." In other words,
popular sovereignty was being established by
ignoring, rather than addressing, the problem presented by the Missouri Compromise.[8]
Douglas’ attempt to finesse his way
around the Missouri Compromise did not
work. Archibald Dixon, a Kentucky Whig, believed that unless the Missouri Compromise
Charles Sumner on Douglas -- "Alas! too often those principles which give consistency,
individuality, and form to the Northern character, which render it staunch, strong, and
seaworthy, which bind it together as with
iron, are drawn out, one by one, like the bolts
of the ill-fitted vessel, and from the miserable, loosened fragments is formed that human anomaly -- a Northern man with Southern principles. Sir, no such man can speak
for the North."[11]
A similar amendment was offered in the
House by Philip Phillips of Alabama. With the
encouragement of the "F Street Mess",
3
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kansas-Nebraska Act
Debate in the Senate
Douglas met with them and Phillips to ensure
that the momentum for passing the bill remained with the Democratic Party. Towards
this end, they arranged to meet with President Franklin Pierce to ensure that the issue
would be declared a test of party loyalty within the Democratic Party.[12]
On January 23, a revised bill was introduced
in the Senate. In addition to the changes regarding repeal of the Missouri Compromise,
Nebraska was now divided into two territories, Kansas and Nebraska, with the division
coming at the thirty-seventh parallel. The division was the result of concerns expressed
by settlers already in Nebraska as well as the
Senators from Iowa who were concerned
with the location of the territory’s seat of
government if such a large territory was created. Existing language which affirmed the
application of all other laws of the United
States in the new territory was supplemented
by the language agreed on with President
Pierce that read, “except the eighth section
of the act preparatory to the admission of
Missouri into the Union, approved March 6,
1820, which was superseded by the legislation of 1850, commonly called the compromise measures, and is declared inoperative.”
Identical legislation was soon introduced in
the House.[17]
Meeting with President Pierce
Pierce had barely mentioned Nebraska in his
State of the Union message the previous
month and was not enthusiastic about the implications of repealing the Missouri Compromise. Close advisors Senator Lewis Cass,
a proponent of popular sovereignty as far
back as 1848 as an alternative to the Wilmot
Proviso, and Secretary of State William L.
Marcy both told Pierce that repeal would create serious political problems. On Saturday
January 22 the full cabinet met, and only Secretary of War Jefferson Davis and Secretary
of Navy James C. Dobbin supported repeal.
Instead the president and cabinet submitted
to Douglas an alternative plan that would
have sought out a judicial ruling on the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise.
Both Pierce and Attorney General Caleb
Cushing believed that the Supreme Court
would find it unconstitutional.[13]
Douglas’ committee met later that night.
Douglas was agreeable to the proposal, but
the Atchison group was not. Determined to
offer the repeal to Congress that Monday but
reluctant to act without Pierce’s commitment, Douglas arranged through Secretary
Davis to meet with President Pierce on
Sunday even though Pierce generally refrained from conducting any business on a
Sunday. Douglas was accompanied at the
meeting by Atchison, Hunter, Phillips, and
John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky.[14]
Douglas and Atchison first met alone with
Pierce before the whole group convened.
Pierce was persuaded to support repeal, and,
at Douglas’ insistence, Pierce provided a
written draft asserting that the Missouri
Compromise had been made inoperative by
the principles of the Compromise of 1850.
Later, Pierce informed his cabinet which concurred in the change of direction.[15] The
Washington Union, the communications organ for the administration, wrote on January
24 that support for the bill would be "a test of
Democratic orthodoxy."[16]
Forcing Slavery Down the Throat of a
Freesoiler
An 1854 cartoon depicts a giant free soiler
being held down by James Buchanan and
Lewis Cass standing on the Democratic platform marked "Kansas", "Cuba" and "Central
America". Franklin Pierce also holds down
the giant’s beard as Stephen A. Douglas
shoves a black man down his throat.
Historian Allan Nevins wrote that "two interconnected battles began to rage, one in
Congress and one in the country at large:
each fought with a pertinacity, bitterness,
and rancor unknown even in Wilmot Proviso
days." In Congress, the freesoilers were at a
distinct disadvantage. The Democrats held
large majorities in each house, and Stephen
Douglas, "a ferocious fighter, the fiercest,
most ruthless, and most unscrupulous that
4
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kansas-Nebraska Act
Congress had perhaps ever known" led a
tightly disciplined party. It was in the nation
at large that the opponents of Nebraska
hoped to achieve a moral victory. The New
York Times, which had earlier supported
President Pierce, predicted that this would
be the final straw for northern supporters of
the slavery forces and would "create a deepseated, intense, and ineradicable hatred of
the institution which will crush its political
power, at all hazards, and at any cost."[18]
The day after the bill was reintroduced,
two Ohioans, Representative Joshua Giddings
and Senator Salmon P. Chase, published a
free soil response titled, “Appeal of the
Independent Democrats in Congress to the
People of the United States.” The Appeal
stated:
other Senators were attending divine worship, they had been "assembled in a secret conclave," devoting the Sabbath to their own conspiratorial
and
deceitful
purposes.[20]
The debate would continue for four months.
Douglas remained the main advocate for the
bill while Chase, William Seward of New
York, and Charles Sumner of Massachusetts
led the opposition. The New York Tribune
wrote on March 2 that, "The unanimous sentiment of the North is indignant resistance. ...
The whole population are full of it. The feeling in 1848 was far inferior to this in
strength and universality."[21]
We arraign this bill as a gross violation of a sacred pledge; as a criminal
betrayal of precious rights; as part
and parcel of an atrocious plot to exclude from a vast unoccupied region
immigrants from the Old World and
free laborers from our own States,
and convert it into a dreary region of
despotism,inhabited by masters and
slaves.[19]
Douglas took the Appeal personally and responded in Congress when the debate was
opened on January 30 before a full house and
packed gallery. Douglas biographer Robert
W. Johanssen described part of the speech:
Douglas charged the authors of the
"Appeal", whom he referred to
throughout as the "Abolitionist confederates," with having perpetrated
a "base falsehood" in their protest.
He expressed his own sense of betrayal, recalling that Chase, "with a
smiling face and the appearance of
friendship," had appealed for a postponement of debate on the ground
that he had not yet familiarized himself with the bill. "Little did I suppose at the time that I granted that
act of courtesy," Douglas remarked,
that Chase and his compatriots had
published a document "in which they
arraigned me as having been guilty
of a criminal betrayal of my trust," of
bad faith, and of plotting against the
cause of free government. While
Sam Houston from Texas was one of the few
southern opponents of the Kansas-Nebraska
Act. In the debate he urged, “Maintain the
Missouri Compromise! Stir not up agitation!
Give us peace!”[22]
The debate in the Senate concluded on
March 4, 1854 when Stephen Douglas, beginning near midnight on March 3, made a five
and a half hour speech. The final vote in favor of passage was 37 to 14. Free state senators voted 14 to 12 in favor while slave state
senators overwhelmingly supported the bill,
23 to 2.[24]
5
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kansas-Nebraska Act
William Nisbet Chambers called “long, passionate, historical, [and] polemical,” Benton
attacked the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, which he “had stood upon ... above
thirty years, and intended to stand upon it to
the end -- solitary and alone, if need be; but
preferring company.” The speech was distributed afterwards as a pamphlet when opposition to the act moved outside the walls of
Congress.[27]
It was not until May 8 that the debate
began in the House. The debate was even
more intense than in the Senate. While it
seemed to be a forgone conclusion that the
bill would pass, the opponents went all out to
fight it.[28] Historian Michael Morrison
wrote:
Alexander Stephens from Georgia -- “Nebraska is through the House. I took the reins
in my hand, applied the whip and spur, and
brought the ’wagon’ out at eleven o’clock
P.M. Glory enough for one day.”[23]
Debate in the House of
Representatives
The bill next moved to the House of Representatives. On March 21, 1854, as a delaying
tactic, the legislation was referred by a vote
of 110 to 95 to the committee of the whole
where it would be the last item on the calendar. Realizing from the vote to stall that the
act faced an uphill struggle, the Pierce Administration made it clear to all Democrats
that passage of the bill was essential to the
party and would dictate how federal patronage would be handled. Jefferson Davis and
Attorney General Caleb Cushing from Massachusetts, along with Douglas, spearheaded
the partisan efforts.[25] By the end of April
Douglas believed that there were enough
votes to pass the bill. The House leadership
then began a series of roll call votes in which
legislation ahead of the Kansas-Nebraska Act
was called to the floor and tabled without debate.[26]
Thomas Hart Benton was among those
speaking forcibly against the measure. On
April 25, in a House speech that biographer
Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri -- "What
is the excuse for all this turmoil and mischief? We are told it is to keep the question
of slavery out of Congress! Great God! It was
out of Congress, completely, entirely, and
forever out of Congress, unless Congress
dragged it in by breaking down the sacred
laws which settled it!"[29]
A filibuster led by Lewis D. Campbell, an Ohio free-soiler, nearly provoked the House into a war of more
than words. Campbell, joined by other antislavery northerners, exchanged insults and invectives with
southerners, neither side giving
quarter. Weapons were brandished
6
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kansas-Nebraska Act
on the floor of the House. Finally,
bumptiousness gave way to violence.
Henry A. Edmundson, a Virginia
Democrat, well oiled and well
armed, had to be restrained from
making a violent attack on Campbell. Only after the sergeant at arms
arrested him, debate was cut off,
and the House adjourned did the
melee subside.[30]
Lodges and were dubbed border ruffians a
term coined by opponent and abolitionist
Horace Greeley. Abolitionist settlers moved
from the East with express purpose of making Kansas a free state. A clash between the
opposing sides was inevitable.
Successive territorial governors, usually
sympathetic to slavery, attempted unsuccessfully to maintain the peace. The territorial
capital of Lecompton, Kansas, the target of
much agitation, became such a hostile environment for Free-Staters that they set up their
own unofficial legislature at Topeka.
John Brown and his sons gained notoriety
in the fight against slavery by brutally murdering five pro-slavery farmers in the Pottawatomie Massacre with a broadsword.
Brown also helped defend a few dozen FreeState supporters from several hundred angry
pro-slavery supporters at the town of
Osawatomie.
Hostilities between the factions reached a
state of low-intensity civil war, which was
damaging to President Pierce. The nascent
Republican Party sought to capitalize on the
scandal of "Bleeding Kansas". Routine ballotrigging and intimidation practiced by both
pro and anti-slavery settlers failed to deter
the immigration of anti-slavery settlers, who
won a demographic victory in the race to
populate the state.
The floor debate was handled by Alexander
Stephens of Georgia. Stephens insisted that
the Missouri Compromise had never been a
true compromise but had been imposed on
the South. He argued that the issue was
whether republican principles -- "that the citizens of every distinct community or State
should have the right to govern themselves in
their domestic matters as they please" -would be honored.[31]
The final vote in favor of the bill was 113
to 100. Northern Democrats split in favor of
the bill by a narrow 44 to 42 vote while all 45
northern Whigs opposed it. In the South,
Democrats voted in favor by 57 to 2 and
Whigs by a closer 12 to 7.[32] President
Pierce signed the measure into law on May
30.
Lincoln-Douglas Debates
Act orchestrator Senator Stephen A. Douglas
and former Illinois congressman Abraham
Lincoln aired their disagreement over the
Kansas-Nebraska
Act
in
three
public
speeches during September and October
1854.[33] Lincoln gave his most comprehensive argument against slavery and the provisions of the Act in Peoria, Illinois, on October
16, the Peoria Speech.[34] He and Douglas
both spoke to the large audience, Douglas
first and Lincoln in response two hours later.
Lincoln’s three-hour speech, presented thorough moral, legal and economic arguments
against slavery, set the stage for Lincoln’s
political future.[35]
Constitution Amendment
rights
The pro-slavery territorial legislature ultimately proposed a state constitution for approval by referendum. The constitution was
offered in two alternative forms, neither of
which made slavery illegal. Free Soil settlers
boycotted the legislature’s referendum and
organized their own, which approved a freestate constitution. The results of the competing referendums were sent to Washington by
the territorial governor.
President James Buchanan sent the Lecompton Constitution (which allowed slavery,
but disallowed import of new slaves) to Congress for approval. The Senate approved the
admission of Kansas as a state under the Lecompton Constitution, despite the opposition
of Senator Douglas, who believed that the
Kansas referendum on the Constitution, by
failing to offer the alternative of prohibiting
slavery, was unfair. The measure was
Hostilities
Pro-slavery settlers came to Kansas mainly
from neighboring Missouri. Their influence in
territorial elections was often bolstered by
resident Missourians who crossed into Kansas solely for the purpose of voting in such
ballots. They formed groups like the Blue
7
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kansas-Nebraska Act
subsequently blocked in the United States
House of Representatives, where northern
congressmen refused to admit Kansas as a
slave state. Senator James Hammond of
South Carolina (famous for his "King Cotton"
speech) characterized this resolution as the
expulsion of the state, asking, "If Kansas is
driven out of the Union for being a slave
state, can any Southern state remain within it
with honor?"
[24] Potter p. 165. The vote occurred at 3:30
a.m. and many senators, including
Houston, had retired for the night.
Estimates on what the vote might have
been with all still in attendance vary
from 40-20 to 42-18. Nevins p. 145
[25] Nevins p. 154
[26] Potter p. 166
[27] Chalmers p. 401
[28] Nevins p. 154-155
[29] Nevins p. 156
[30] Morrison p. 154
[31] Nevins p. 155
[32] Nevins p. 156-157
[33] The Lincoln Institute (2002-2008). "1854
- Abraham Lincoln and Freedom".
http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/
inside.asp?ID=10&subjectID=2.
Retrieved on 2008-08-25.
[34] Lehrman, Lewis E.. "Abraham Lincoln at
Peoria: The Turning Point".
http://www.lincolnatpeoria.com/.
Retrieved on 2008-08-25.
[35] The Lincoln Institute; Lewis E. Lehrman
(2002-2008). "Preface by Lewis
Lehrman, Abraham Lincoln and
Freedom".
http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/
inside.asp?ID=1&subjectID=1. Retrieved
on 2008-08-25.
Results
The Kansas-Nebraska Act divided 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, which split the United
States into two major political parties- North
(Republican) and South (Democratic).
Eventually a new anti-slavery state constitution was drawn up. On January 29, 1861,
Kansas was admitted to the Union as a free
state. Nebraska was not admitted to the
Union as a state until after the Civil War in
1867.
Notes
[1] Potter p. 146-149
[2] Potter p. 150-152
[3] Potter p. 154-155
[4] Freehling pp. 550-551. Johanssen p. 407
[5] Johannsen p. 402-403
[6] Holt p. 145
[7] Johanssen pp. 405
[8] ^ Johanssen p. 406
[9] Nevins p. 95-96
[10] Cooper p. 350
[11] Nevins p. 139
[12] Johanssen p. 412-413. Cooper pp.
350-351
[13] Potter p. 161. Johanssen pp. 413-414
[14] Potter p. 161. Johanssen p. 414
[15] Johanssen p. 414-415
[16] Foner p. 156
[17] Johanssen pp. 415-417
[18] Nevins p. 111
[19] Nevins pp. 111-112. Johanssen p. 418
[20] Johanssen p. 420
[21] Nevins p. 121
[22] Nevins p. 144
[23] Nevins p. 156
References
• Chalmer, William Nisbet. Old Bullion
Benton: Senator From the New West.
(1956)
• Foner, Eric. Free Soil, Free Labor, Free
Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party
Before the Civil War. (1970) ISBN
0-19-509497-2
• Freehling, William W. The Road to
Disunion: Secessionists at Bay 1776-1854.
(1990) ISBN 0-19-505814-3
• Johannsen. Robert W. Stephen A. Douglas
(1973) ISBN 0-19-501620-3
• Morrison, Michael. Slavery and the
American West: The Eclipse of Manifest
Destiny and the Coming of the Civil War
(1997) online edition
• Nevins, Allan. Ordeal of the Union: A
House Dividing 1852-1857. (1947) SBN
684-10424-5
• Nichols, Roy F. “The Kansas-Nebraska
Act: A Century of Historiography.”
Mississippi Valley Historical Review 43
8
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kansas-Nebraska Act
(September 1956): 187-212. Online at
JSTOR at most academic libraries.
• Potter, David M. The Impending Crisis,
1848-1861 (1976), Pulitzer prize winning
scholarly history.
• SenGupta, Gunja. “Bleeding Kansas: A
Review Essay.” Kansas History 24 (Winter
2001/2002): 318-341.
• Holt, Michael. "The Political Crisis of the
1850s." (1978)
External links
• An annotated bibliography
• Kansas-Nebraska Act and related
resources at the Library of Congress
• Printer-friendly transcript of the act
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas-Nebraska_Act"
Categories: 1854 in law, History of Kansas, History of Nebraska, History of United States expansionism, United States federal territory and statehood legislation, Bleeding Kansas, 1854
in the United States
This page was last modified on 22 May 2009, at 03:41 (UTC). All text is available under the
terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.) Wikipedia® is a
registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) taxdeductible nonprofit charity. Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers
9