KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT PUBLIC RELATIONS CAMPAIGN
INTRODUCTION: A delegation of congressmen has hired your public relations
team to design a billboard in Washington DC. The billboard will hopefully be seen
by members of Congress as they travel to and from the Capitol building. Congress
will be in charge of making the decision of how to organize the future territory in an
effort to hasten the development of a transcontinental railroad across the middle
section of the nation. Your team will be one of four representing the major positions
on the debate: (A) maintain the Missouri Compromise; (B) prohibit the further expansion of slavery by
congressional decree; (C) open all territories to slavery as a right of slave owners; and (D) allow territories to
choose what option best fits their needs through popular sovereignty.
DIRECTIONS: Your billboard should contain the following components:
1. A main banner or headline that:
a. Captures your main idea or argument
b. Uses persuasive language to gain attention to your message
2. Text with at least three major points to convince Congress of your delegation’s position
3. Eye-catching graphics to gain attention and support your arguments. Visual images should convey either
something negative about your opponent’s position or something positive about your position
4. On the provided form, you should explain the purpose or meaning of each poster element displayed (1:
banner; 2: three points made; and 3: image) in addition to crafting two questions to ask each of the other
groups presenting
Questions to think about which can be used in the presentation speech to back your position on the
matter:







What is one of the main advantages of the position that I have been hired to represent?
Why might this solution be preferable to Americans when compared to another?
How would my congressmen feel if one of the other positions was adopted?
Should the federal government be able to make the decision as to the status of slavery in territories?
Does the slogan portray my message of support in the right way? Does it correlate well with the message
that I am trying to get across?
How does my image prove that my position is the best? Does it match up with the slogan that the group
chose? Does the image have any relevance to the position that we are trying to take?
Can my group defend the stance that has been taken for the presentation? Are we prepared to answer
questions from the class or teacher? Advantages and disadvantages?
[NOTE: If you are representing a more pro-South perspective, avoid making any images or phrases that can be
construed as racist; just because we are discussing perspectives on slavery does not mean that we have to
replicate racial imagery or phrases]
Roles of the group members
Presenter 1: (1) explains the group’s position on the lesson specific question; (2) formulates summary of poster’s
message on the poster form; (3) assists Strategist 1 in developing questions that support group’s assigned position.
Presenter 2 (for groups of four): (1) defends the group’s position when questioned by audience; (2) formulates
summary of poster’s message on the poster form; (3) assists Strategist 2 in developing questions that challenge
positions of opposing groups.
Strategist A: (1) leads the group through the discussion of the position you have been assigned; (2) leads the
discussion of the position’s advantages and the major points needed to verbally convince others of the group’s
assigned position; (3) develops questions that help presenters support your group’s assigned position; (4) rehearses
presenter(s) to prepare for answers to questions; (5) asks questions after other group presentations.
Strategist B (for groups of five): (1) leads the group through the discussion of the document set that you analyzed;
(2) leads the discussion of the documents’ arguments and the major points needed to verbally convince others of the
group’s assigned position; (3) develops questions that challenge positions of opposing groups; (4) rehearses
presenter(s) to prepare for answers to questions; and (5) asks questions after other group presentations.
Graphic Artist: (1) responsible for developing eye catching graphics to gain attention and support the group’s
arguments; (2) coordinate with the editor to ensure that visual and verbal arguments are consistent.
KANSAS-NEBRASKA PUBLIC RELATIONS BILLBOARD RUBRIC
I. Presentation Content
1. Poster and presentation clearly communicate ideas
4 3 2 1
2. Poster demonstrates adequate understanding of the facts and arguments surrounding
4 3 2 1
the controversy.
3. Textual elements of poster present persuasive evidence and arguments for the client’s point of view 4 3 2 1
4. Visual elements of poster present persuasive evidence and arguments for the client’s point of view. 4 3 2 1
II. Presentation Composition
1. Poster components work together to provide a consistent argument.
4 3 2 1
2. Poster demonstrates a creative and unique synthesis of information to construct a persuasive
4 3 2 1
argument.
3. Poster is neatly done and visually appealing.
4 3 2 1
4. Poster elements are clearly labeled and explained.
4 3 2 1
III. Questions and Defense
1. Questions are clearly stated and clearly demonstrate understanding of your client’s position and of
4 3 2 1
the opposing view.
2. Group is able to answer questions presented to them and maintain perspective
4 3 2 1
Total Points Earned ___/40
4 = Exemplary: Goes beyond expectations to create original, highly insightful work.
3 = Acceptable/Competent: Meets most expectations with only minor omissions or inaccuracies.
2 = Needs Significant Improvement: Work has major omissions, inaccuracies.
1 = Unsatisfactory: Fails to meet minimal standards for quality work.
POSITION 1: Permit Popular Sovereignty in the Territory
. . . When the people of the North shall all be rallied under one banner, and the whole South marshaled under
another banner, and each section excited to frenzy and madness by hostility to the institutions of the other, then the patriot
may well tremble for the perpetuity of the Union. Withdraw the slavery question from the political arena, and remove it to
the states and territories, each to decide for itself, such a catastrophe can never happen. Then you will never be able to tell,
by any Senator’s vote for or against any measure, from what state or section of the Union he comes.
Why, then, can we withdraw this vexed question from politics? Why can we not adopt the [popular sovereignty]
principal of this [Kansas-Nebraska] bill as a rule of action in all new territorial organizations? Why can we not deprive
these agitators of their vocation, and render it impossible for Senators to come here upon bargains on the slavery
question? I believe that the peace, the harmony, and perpetuity of the Union requires us to go back to the doctrines of the
Revolution, to the principles of the Constitution, to the principles of the Compromise of 1850, and leave the people, under
the Constitution, to do as they may see proper in respect to their own internal affairs.
… I have not brought this question forward as a Northern man or as a Southern man. I am unwilling to recognize
such divisions and distinctions. I have brought it forward as an American Senator, representing a state which is true to this
principle, and which has approved of my action in respect to the Nebraska bill. I have brought it forward not as an act of
justice to the South more than to the North. I have presented it especially as an act of justice to the people of those
territories, and of the states to be formed therefrom, now and in all time to come.
I have nothing to say about Northern rights or Southern rights. I know of no such divisions or distractions under
the Constitution. The bill does equal and exact justice to the whole Union, and every part of it; it violates the rights of no
state or territory, but places each on a perfect equality, and leaves the people thereof to the free enjoyment of all their
rights under the Constitution. . . .
I say frankly that, in my opinion, this measure will be as popular at the North as at the South, when its provisions
and principles shall have been fully developed and become well understood.
Stephen Douglas’s Popular-Sovereignty Plea (1854)
Popular sovereignty was considered an attractive solution by many Northern Democrats, both members of the
Barnburners and Young America divisions of the party. For some moderate Southerners, it gave them the belief that
slavery would not be completely excluded; at the same time, Northerners also interpreted their chances for free-soil in a
more opportunistic light. The concept was at the heart of the proposed Kansas-Nebraska bill. The concept was originally
introduced by Lewis Cass in the debate following the introduction of the Wilmot Proviso. Some of the arguments given in
support of the concept included:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Serves as a middle ground between the factions
Removes the debate over whether Congress has power to regulate territories
Would permit slavery to extend to its more natural environment based on support
Popular amongst the people as it gave them the “final word”
Allowed politicians to be cleared of guilt for either aiding or hurting the slavery cause
Ease Southern concerns that the Missouri Compromise was anti-South
POSITION 2: Outlaw Slavery in the Territory
Now, sir, who is responsible for this renewal of strife and controversy? Not we [free-soilers], for we have
introduced no question of territorial slavery into Congress – not we who are denounced as agitators and factionists. No,
sir; the quietists and the finalists have become agitators; they who told us that all agitation was quieted, and that the
resolutions of the political conventions put a final period to the discussion of slavery.
This will not escape the observation of the country. It is slavery that renews the strife. It is slavery that again
wants room. It is slavery, with its insatiate demands for more slave territory and more slave states.
And what does slavery ask for now? Why, sir, it demands that a time-honored and scared compact [Missouri
Compromise] shall be rescinded – a compact which has endured through a whole generation – a compact which has been
universally regarded as inviolable, North and South – a compact the constitutionality of which few have doubted, and by
which all have consented to abide. . . .
You may pass it here. You may send it to the other House. It may become law. But its effect will be to satisfy all
thinking men that no compromises with slavery will endure, except so long as they serve the interests of slavery; and that
there is no safe and honorable ground for non-slaveholders to stand upon, except that of restricting slavery within state
limits, and excluding it absolutely from the whole sphere of federal jurisdiction.
The old questions between political parties are at rest. No great question so thoroughly possesses the public mind
as this of slavery. This discussion will hasten the inevitable reorganization of parties upon the new issues which our
circumstances suggest. It will light up a fire in the country which may, perhaps, consume those who kindle it.
I cannot believe that the people of this country have so far lost sight of the maxims and principles of the
Revolution, or are so insensible in the obligations which those maxims and principals impose, as to acquiesce in the
violation of this compact. Sir, the Senator from Illinois [Douglas] tells us that he proposes a final settlement of all
territorial questions in respect to slavery, by the application of the principle of popular sovereignty. What kind of popular
sovereignty is that which allows one portion of the people to enslave another portion? Is that the doctrine of equal rights?
Is that exact justice? Is that the teaching of enlightened, liberal, progressive democracy?
No, sir; no! There can be no real democracy which does not fully maintain the rights of man, as man.
Salmon Chase Upholds Free Soil (1854)
The outlawing of slavery in all new territories was largely a Northern position endorsed by anti-slavery politicians. This
position’s supporters were comprised of a mixture of Democrat Barnburners (a radical anti-slavery branch of the
Democrat Party largely from NY), anti-slavery Whigs (party was almost dead by this point in history), and abolitionists,
who had previously formed the Liberty Party. Their major arguments included:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Slavery posed a competitive threat to white farmers and businessmen in new territories
Racial purity of the territories would be infringed with the introduction of slavery
Slavery was a moral blight on the righteousness of America
Slavery was incompatible with the American form of democracy
Slave owners would purchase more land, making it more difficult for small farmers
Cheaper land would allow the government to pursue a homestead policy
POSITION 3: Territories Should Be Opened To Slavery
The North no longer respects the Missouri compromise line, although adopted by their almost unanimous vote. Instead of
compromise, they avow that their determination is to exclude slavery from all the territories of the United States, acquired,
or to be acquired; and, of course, to prevent the citizens of the Southern States from emigrating with their property in
slaves into any of them. Their object, they allege, is to prevent the extension of slavery, and ours to extend it, thus making
the issue between them and us to be the naked question, shall slavery be extended or not? We do not deem it necessary,
looking to the object of this address, to examine the question so fully discussed at the last session, whether Congress has
the right to exclude the citizens of the South from immigrating with their property into territories belonging to the
confederated States of the Union. What we propose in this connection is, to make a few remarks on what the North
alleges, erroneously, to be the issue between us and them.
So far from maintaining the doctrine, which the issue implies, we hold that the Federal Government has no right to extend
or restrict slavery, no more than to establish or abolish it; nor has it any right whatever to distinguish between the
domestic institutions of one State, or section, and another, in order to favor one and discourage the other. As the federal
representative of each and all the States, it is bound to deal out, within the sphere of its powers, equal and exact justice
and favor to all. To act otherwise, to undertake to discriminate between the domestic institutions of one and another,
would be to act in total subversion of the end for which it was established--to be the common protection and guardian of
all. Entertaining these opinions, we ask not, as the North alleges we do, for the extension of slavery. That would make a
discrimination in our favor, as unjust and unconstitutional as the discrimination they ask against us in their favor.
It is not for them, nor for the Federal Government to determine, whether our domestic institution is good or bad; or
whether it should be repressed or preserved. It belongs to us, and us only, to decide such questions. What then we do insist
on, is, not to extend slavery, but that we shall not be prohibited from immigrating with our property, into the Territories of
the United States, because we are slaveholders; or, in other words, that we shall not on that account be disfranchised of a
privilege possessed by all others, citizens and foreigners, without discrimination as to character, profession, or color. All,
whether savage, barbarian, or civilized, may freely enter and remain, we only being excluded. Ours is a Federal
Government--a Government in which not individuals, but States as distinct sovereign communities, are the constituents.
To them, as members of the Federal Union, the territories belong; and they are hence declared to be territories belonging
to the United States. The States, then, are the joint owners.
John C. Calhoun Urges Southern Rights (1850)
As the Deep (Lower) South became more defensive of slavery in light of the rising abolitionist mood and addition of new
free states, they began to move away from a compromise position of slavery in the territories. Rather, they sought to
endorse the concept that the territories were collectively a possession of the states and each citizen could carry their rights
as offered to them by their respective state into the territories (slave state resident = right to bring “property” into
territory). This philosophy was most vocally supported by those calling for southern unification (ex. John C. Calhoun) and
Fire-Eaters (those supporting the concept of secession if North does not cooperate in slave interests). Some of the
arguments given in defense of this position include:
The Missouri Compromise was a “sell-out” to Southern interests
Territories would eventually have ability to write own state constitution having final say
It would not discriminate against any state by allowing each state’s citizens to maintain their own rights
It would uphold John Locke’s saying of “life, liberty, and property”
Help the South ease the slave population concentration/overcrowding into other areas reducing uprising
possibility
6. Provide possibility for the expansion of the cotton industry, thus helping South and North’s textile industry
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
POSITION 4: Maintain the Missouri Compromise
The Nebraska Bill is advocated and denounced upon grounds the most opposite and for reasons the most diverse.
There is the greatest contrariety of opinion as to what effect its passage will have upon the question of slavery. Southern
men, of course, support it upon it upon the ground that it will give slavery a chance to get into the territory for which it has
hitherto been excluded; whilst others, with quite as much show of reason, take the ground occupied by the President, that
the effect will be to prevent the admission of slave states into the Union forever.
A measure whose effects, in matters of so much consequence, are so uncertain; which proposes to violate and
disannul a compact [Missouri Compromise] regarded by one section of our common country as sacred, and acquiesced in
for a third of a century by the other – a compact the advantages of which the South has fully received on her part – should
at least promise some decided practical good as the result of its passage, and should be chargeable with the production of
as few evils as possible.
We believe that the adoption of the measure will be productive of evil, and only evil, continually. Even supposing
that the Missouri Compromise is not a bargain that we of the slave states are bound to respect and stand to, and that we
may declare it void without a breach of faith, what do we gain by it repeal? What but a revival, in a wilder and intenser
and more dangerous form, of that agitation of the slavery question which was but yesterday allayed by the all but
superhuman efforts of our noblest statesmen [in the Compromise of 1850]? The North regards the Missouri Compromise
as a sacred compact, to the preservation of which the honor and faith of the South was pledged. If we now violate that
pledge, what right have we to expect the North to respect and compromise that has been or may be made for our
advantage?...
And what should we gain? A mere right to carry slaves into Nebraska, which we can never exercise; the mere
gratification of having an old law [Missouri Compromise] repealed which the South now chooses to consider unjust to
her, but which her wisest statesmen at the time of its passage regarded as highly advantageous to her – a law carried by
Southern votes, and heretofore looked upon as one of the noblest achievements of Southern statesmanship.
The Western Citizen-A Kentucky Newspaper (1854)
The Missouri Compromise, while not completely agreeable to slave owners, was still seen as an uncontroversial and
rather fair standard of solving the territorial question by most politicians. Upper South Democrats as well as some
Southern Whigs generally wished to avoid upsetting the established status quo of the Compromise, despite having worked
around it in the Compromise of 1850. The supporters of this position generally argued in favor of this position because:
1. Had long been effective in solving the question of territory (1820-1850)
2. Provided a clear rule/answer to the question of slavery in the territory, thus avoiding debate
3. Served as a rational division to where slavery could reasonably expand and prevented it from expanding where
geography/climate made it unreasonable
4. Prevented the citizens from choosing for themselves, which could result in violence and unsavory tactics
5. Provided a means of certainty to potential settlers in future territories to know whether or not slavery was
permitted
6. Would most likely gain the most diverse support of any of the proposals
FOUR MAJOR POSITIONS IN DEBATE ON KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT
Popular sovereignty was considered an attractive solution by many Northern Democrats, both members of the Barnburners and Young
America divisions of the party. For some moderate Southerners, it gave them the belief that slavery would not be completely
excluded; at the same time, Northerners also interpreted their chances for free-soil in a more opportunistic light. The concept was at
the heart of the proposed Kansas-Nebraska bill. The concept was originally introduced by Lewis Cass in the debate following the
introduction of the Wilmot Proviso. Some of the arguments given in support of the concept included:
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Serves as a middle ground between the factions
Removes the debate over whether Congress has power to regulate territories
Would permit slavery to extend to its more natural environment based on support
Popular amongst the people as it gave them the “final word”
Allowed politicians to be cleared of guilt for either aiding or hurting the slavery cause
Ease Southern concerns that the Missouri Compromise was anti-South
The outlawing of slavery in all new territories was largely a Northern position endorsed by anti-slavery politicians. This position’s
supporters were comprised of a mixture of Democrat Barnburners (a radical anti-slavery branch of the Democrat Party largely from
NY), anti-slavery Whigs (party was almost dead by this point in history), and abolitionists, who had previously formed the Liberty
Party. Their major arguments included:
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Slavery posed a competitive threat to white farmers and businessmen in new territories
Racial purity of the territories would be infringed with the introduction of slavery
Slavery was a moral blight on the righteousness of America
Slavery was incompatible with the American form of democracy
Slave owners would purchase more land, making it more difficult for small farmers
Cheaper land would allow the government to pursue a homestead policy
As the Deep (Lower) South became more defensive of slavery in light of the rising abolitionist mood and addition of new free states,
they began to move away from a compromise position of slavery in the territories. Rather, they sought to endorse the concept that the
territories were collectively a possession of the states and each citizen could carry their rights as offered to them by their respective
state into the territories (slave state resident = right to bring “property” into territory). This philosophy was most vocally supported by
those calling for southern unification (ex. John C. Calhoun) and Fire-Eaters (those supporting the concept of secession if North does
not cooperate in slave interests). Some of the arguments given in defense of this position include:
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
The Missouri Compromise was a “sell-out” to Southern interests
Territories would eventually have ability to write own state constitution having final say
It would not discriminate against any state by allowing each state’s citizens to maintain their own rights
It would uphold John Locke’s saying of “life, liberty, and property”
Help the South ease the slave population concentration/overcrowding into other areas reducing uprising possibility
Provide possibility for the expansion of the cotton industry, thus helping South and North’s textile industry
The Missouri Compromise, while not completely agreeable to slave owners, was still seen as an uncontroversial and rather fair
standard of solving the territorial question by most politicians. Upper South Democrats as well as some Southern Whigs generally
wished to avoid upsetting the established status quo of the Compromise, despite having worked around it in the Compromise of 1850.
The supporters of this position generally argued in favor of this position because:
7.
8.
9.
Had long been effective in solving the question of territory (1820-1850)
Provided a clear rule/answer to the question of slavery in the territory, thus avoiding debate
Served as a rational division to where slavery could reasonably expand and prevented it from expanding where
geography/climate made it unreasonable
10. Prevented the citizens from choosing for themselves, which could result in violence and unsavory tactics
11. Provided a means of certainty to potential settlers in future territories to know whether or not slavery was permitted
12. Would most likely gain the most diverse support of any of the proposals