KansasNebraska Act
Kansas–Nebraska Act
The Kansas–Nebraska Act of 1854
(10 Stat. 277 [1]) created the territories
of Kansas and Nebraska, opening new
lands for settlement, and had the effect
of repealing the Missouri Compromise
of 1820 by allowing settlers in those
territories to determine through
Popular Sovereignty whether they
would allow slavery within each
territory. The act was designed by
Democratic Senator Stephen A.
Douglas of Illinois. The initial purpose
of the Kansas–Nebraska Act was to
open up many thousands of new farms
and make feasible a Midwestern
Transcontinental Railroad. It became
problematic when popular sovereignty
was written into the proposal so that
This 1856 map shows slave states (gray), free states (pink), U.S. territories (green), and
the voters of the moment would decide
Kansas in center (white).
whether slavery would be allowed. The
result was that pro- and anti-slavery elements flooded into Kansas with the goal of voting slavery up or down,
leading to a bloody civil war there.[2]
Douglas hoped popular sovereignty would enable democracy to triumph, so he would not have to take a side on the
issue of slavery. A wave of indignation erupted across the North as anti-slavery elements cried betrayal, for Kansas
had been officially closed to slavery since the Missouri Compromise of 1820, and that Compromise was now
repealed because of popular sovereignty. Opponents denounced the law as a triumph of the hated slave power — that
is the political power of the rich slave owners, who would buy up the best lands in Kansas leaving ordinary men with
the leftovers. 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 political party in the North, electing its first president, Abraham Lincoln,
in 1860.
Background
The availability of tens of millions of acres of excellent farmland in the area 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.[3]
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 Douglas, serving in his first term in the United States House
of Representatives, had submitted an unsuccessful plan to formally organize the Nebraska Territory as the first step
1
KansasNebraska Act
in building a railroad with its eastern terminus in Chicago. Railroad proposals were 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.[4] 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 a 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 then headed
by Sen. Douglas. Missouri Sen. 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 kill the motion by laying it on the table with every senator from states
south of Missouri voting for the tabling.[5]
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 re-election against the forces of Thomas Hart Benton.
Atchison was maneuvered into choosing between antagonizing the state railroad interests and antagonizing 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.[6]
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 in an F Street house shared by the leading Southerners
in Congress. Atchison himself was the senate’s president pro tempore. His housemates included Robert T. Hunter
(from Virginia, chairman of the Finance Committee), James Mason (from Virginia, chairman of the Foreign Affairs
Committee) and Andrew P. Butler (from South Carolina, chairman of the Judiciary Committee). 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
power, and knew that he needed to address their concerns.[7]
Iowa Sen. Augustus C. Dodge immediately reintroduced the same legislation to organize Nebraska that had stalled in
the previous session; it was referred to Douglas’s 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.[8] These territories, however, unlike Nebraska, had not been part of the
Louisiana Purchase and had never been subject to the Missouri Compromise.
2
KansasNebraska Act
3
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
49th 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."[10]
In a report accompanying the bill, Douglas's committee wrote that
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 those who were immediately interested
in, and alone responsible for its consequences.[11]
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
[9]
vicious and wrong."
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.[11]
Douglas's attempt to finesse his way around the Missouri Compromise did not work. Kentucky Whig Archibald
Dixon believed that unless the Missouri Compromise 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.[12] From a political
standpoint, the Whig Party had been in decline in the South because of the effectiveness with which the Democrats
had hammered Whigs over slavery issues. The Southern Whigs hoped that by seizing the initiative on this issue that
they would be identified as strong defenders of slavery. Many northern Whigs broke with Southern Whigs on this
legislation, which eventually caused the death of the Party.[13]
KansasNebraska Act
4
A similar amendment was offered in the house by Philip Phillips of
Alabama. With the encouragement of the "F Street Mess," Douglas met
with them and Phillips to ensure that the momentum for passing the
bill remained with the Democratic Party. Toward 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.[15]
Meeting with President Pierce
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
[14]
speak for the North."
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
Sen. 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.[16]
Douglas's 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 of War 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.[17]
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. Pierce later informed his cabinet, which concurred in
the change of direction.[18] 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."[19]
Debate in the senate
On January 23 a revised bill was introduced in the senate that repealed the Missouri Compromise and divided the
territory into two territories, Kansas and Nebraska. 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 U.S. in the new territory was supplemented by the language agreed on with Pres. 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.[20]
KansasNebraska Act
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 Congress had perhaps
ever known" led a tightly disciplined party.
It was in the nation at large that the
Forcing Slavery Down the Throat of a Freesoiler
An
1854
cartoon
depicts a giant free soiler being held down by James Buchanan
opponents of Nebraska hoped to achieve a
and Lewis Cass standing on the Democratic platform marked "Kansas," "Cuba"
moral victory. The New York Times, which
and "Central America" (referring to accusations that southerners wanted to annex
had earlier supported Pres. Pierce, predicted
areas in Latin America to expand slavery). Franklin Pierce also holds down the
that this would be the final straw for
giant's beard as Stephen A. Douglas shoves a black man down his throat.
Northern supporters of the slavery forces
and would "create a deep-seated, intense, and ineradicable hatred of the institution which will crush its political
power, at all hazards, and at any cost."[21]
The day after the bill was reintroduced two Ohioans, Rep. Joshua Giddings and Sen. 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:
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.[22]
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 other Senators were attending divine
worship, they had been "assembled in a secret conclave," devoting the Sabbath to their own conspiratorial and
deceitful purposes.[23]
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."[24]
5
KansasNebraska Act
6
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.[27]
Debate in the House of Representatives
On March 21, 1854, as a delaying tactic in the House of
Representatives, the legislation was referred by a vote of 110 to 95
to the Committee of the Whole, where it was 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.[28] 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.[29]
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
[25]
peace!"
Thomas Hart Benton was among those speaking forcibly against
the measure. On April 25 in a house speech that biographer
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.[30]
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 foregone conclusion that the bill would pass, the opponents
went all out to fight it.[31] 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
[26]
eleven o'clock P.M. Glory enough for one day."
KansasNebraska Act
7
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 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.[32]
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.[33]
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
[26]
dragged it in by breaking down the sacred laws which settled it!"
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.[34] President Pierce signed the bill into law on May 30.
Lincoln-Douglas Debates
Sen. 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.[35] Lincoln gave his most
comprehensive argument against slavery and the provisions of the act in Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, the Peoria
Speech.[36] 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, and set the
stage for Lincoln’s political future. These speeches set the stage for the Lincoln-Douglas debates four years later,
during which Lincoln was running for Douglas's senate seat.[37]
Bleeding Kansas
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 such as the Blue Lodges and were dubbed border ruffians, a term coined by opponent and
abolitionist Horace Greeley. Abolitionist settlers, known as "Jayhawkers" moved from the East with express purpose
of making Kansas a free state. A clash between the opposing sides was inevitable.[38]
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.[39]
KansasNebraska Act
John Brown and his sons gained notoriety in the fight against slavery by murdering five pro-slavery farmers in the
Pottawatomie Massacre with a broadsword. Brown also helped defend a few dozen Free-State supporters from
several hundred angry pro-slavery supporters at the town of Osawatomie.[40]
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 ballot-rigging 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.[41]
Results
The Kansas–Nebraska Act divided the nation and pointed it toward civil war.[42] 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
Whig parties and gave rise to the Republican Party, which split the United States into two major political camps,
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 admitted to the Union as a (free) state after the Civil War in 1867.
Notes
[1] http:/ / memory. loc. gov/ cgi-bin/ ampage?collId=llsl& fileName=010/ llsl010. db& recNum=0298
[2] Nicole Etcheson, Bleeding Kansas: Contested Liberty in the Civil War Era (2006) ch 1
[3] Robert W. Johansson, Stephen A. Douglas (Oxford UP, 1973) pp. 374–400
[4] Potter p. 146–149
[5] Potter p. 150–152
[6] Potter p. 154-155
[7] Freehling pp. 550–551. Johanssen p. 407
[8] Johannsen p. 402-403
[9] Holt p. 145
[10] Johanssen pp. 405
[11] Johanssen p. 406
[12] Nevins p. 95–96
[13] Cooper p. 350
[14] Nevins p. 139
[15] Johanssen p. 412–413. Cooper pp. 350–351
[16] Potter p. 161. Johanssen pp. 413-414
[17] Potter p. 161. Johanssen p. 414
[18] Johanssen p. 414–415
[19] Foner p. 156
[20] Johanssen pp. 415–417
[21] Nevins p. 111
[22] Nevins pp. 111–112. Johanssen p. 418
[23] Johanssen p. 420
[24] Nevins p. 121
[25] Nevins p. 144
[26] Nevins p. 156
[27] 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
[28] Nevins p. 154
[29] Potter p. 166
[30] Chambers p. 401
[31] Nevins p. 154–155
[32] Morrison p. 154
[33] Nevins p. 155
[34] Nevins p. 156–157
8
KansasNebraska Act
[35] The Lincoln Institute (2002–2008). "1854 - Abraham Lincoln and Freedom" (http:/ / www. mrlincolnandfreedom. org/ inside. asp?ID=10&
subjectID=2). . Retrieved 2008-08-25.
[36] Lehrman, Lewis E.. "Abraham Lincoln at Peoria: The Turning Point" (http:/ / www. lincolnatpeoria. com/ ). . Retrieved 2008-08-25.
[37] 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 2008-08-25.
[38] Nicole Etcheson, Bleeding Kansas: Contested Liberty in the Civil War Era (2006)
[39] Thomas Goodrich, War to the Knife: Bleeding Kansas, 1854–1861 (2004)
[40] James C. Malin, John Brown and the legend of fifty-six (1942)
[41] Sara Paretsky, Bleeding Kansas (2008)
[42] Tom Huntington (http:/ / www. americanheritage. com/ articles/ magazine/ ah/ 2009/ 1/ 2009_1_20. shtml) "Civil War Chronicles:
Abolitionist John Doy," American Heritage, Spring 2009.
References
• Chambers, William Nisbet. Old Bullion Benton: Senator From the New West (1956)
• Childers, Christopher. "Interpreting Popular Sovereignty: A Historiographical Essay," Civil War History Volume
57, Number 1, March 2011 pp. 48-70 in Project MUSE (http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/civil_war_history/v057/
57.1.childers.html)
• Etcheson, Nicole. Bleeding Kansas: Contested Liberty in the Civil War Era (2006)
• 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
• Holt, Michael. The Political Crisis of the 1850s (1978)
• Huston, James L. Stephen A. Douglas and the dilemmas of democratic equality (2007)
• 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 (http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=54440370)
• 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 (September 1956): 187-212. Online at JSTOR (http://www.jstor.org/pss/1902683)
• 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. online
(http://www.kshs.org/publicat/history/2001winter_sengupta.pdf)
• Wolff, Gerald W., The Kansas-Nebraska Bill: Party, Section, and the Coming of the Civil War, (Revisionist
Press, 1977), 385 pp.
External links
• An annotated bibliography (http://www.territorialkansasonline.org/cgiwrap/imlskto/index.
php?SCREEN=bibliography/kansas_nebraska_act)
• Kansas-Nebraska Act and related resources at the Library of Congress (http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/
ourdocs/kansas.html)
• President Pierce's Private Correspondence on the Kansas-Nebraska Act (http://www.shapell.org/manuscript.
aspx?171290) Shapell Manuscript Foundation
• Printer-friendly transcript of the act (http://www.ourdocuments.gov/print_friendly.php?flash=true&
page=transcript&doc=28&title=Transcript+of+Kansas-Nebraska+Act+(1854))
9
Article Sources and Contributors
Article Sources and Contributors
Kansas–Nebraska Act Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=520694397 Contributors: 123Hedgehog456, 2601:1:2880:33:E897:82AD:EE44:1C18, 62.253.64.xxx, 87mint,
AKGhetto, AWeenieMan, Aar, AbsolutDan, Acather96, Ace of Spades, Adambro, Ajsch1061, Akradecki, Alan Peakall, Alanscottwalker, Alansohn, AlexiusHoratius, Alphachimp, Amazins490,
Americasroof, Amoon56, Andonic, Andrea Parri, Andrei Stroe, Andrewpmk, AnonMoos, Anonymouse321, Antandrus, Arakunem, Ayla, Ayudante, B4hand, BBrad31, Banaticus, Bdesham,
Bdonlan, Ben MacDui, Betsy More, Bettymnz4, Bigturtle, Billy Hathorn, Bissinger, Bkell, Bkonrad, Blacksun1942, Blake112, Blanchardb, BlckKnght, Blin00, Bob Burkhardt, Bobo192,
Bogey97, Bombero.100, Bombycil, Brianga, BrokenSegue, Brokenfixer, CHIEFLONGBALLS, Caltas, Can't sleep, clown will eat me, CanadianLinuxUser, Capricorn42, Captain-tucker,
Caster23, Charles Matthews, Chasingsol, Ched, ChrisChantrill, Cielomobile, Civil Engineer III, Closeapple, Cobi, Cometstyles, CommonsDelinker, Conversion script, Coolkid4040, Corti,
Courcelles, Crazycomputers, Crecy99, Cryptic C62, Crystallina, D99figge, Damonatorv31, Dan6hell66, DancingPenguin, DandyDan2007, Darwinek, Davewho2, Davidcannon, Davron,
Decumanus, Delldot, Denimadept, Dgw, Diaa abdelmoneim, Difu Wu, Dillard421, Discospinster, Docstin5, Doofbag83, DousedinMud, Drunkekenduck16, Durova, ESkog, EarthPerson, Egracia,
Ejosse1, Ejthreet, Ekki01, El C, Elijahchristo, Elipongo, Elkman, Elliskev, Elockid, Emrysk, Endil920, Enviroboy, Epbr123, Ev, Excirial, FF2010, Fahmikhalid1, Faradayplank, Favonian,
Felagund, FisherQueen, Fluffernutter, Foofighter20x, Freechild, Frehley, Frosted14, GeoffGold25, Gfoley4, Gilliam, Glacialfox, GoldRingChip, Golfcam, Golgofrinchian, Good Olfactory,
Grazon, Greenboy4311, Gscshoyru, HalfShadow, Heimstern, Helixblue, Hersfold, Hithere09, Hmains, Hojimachong, Hon-3s-T, Hugo999, Husond, Hyuga524, IHR mlm1134, Immunize,
ImperatorExercitus, Infrogmation, Interlingua, Iridescent, Irsmart, Ixfd64, J.delanoy, JEB90, JNW, JSimin, JW1805, Japanese Searobin, Jaranda, Jaxl, Jdforrester, Jeffrey Mall, Jefu, Jengod,
Jiang, JimWae, Jj137, Jni, Joedeshon, Johnleemk, Joku123, Jordan Elder, Josh Cherry, Jprg1966, Jusdafax, K1234554321, Ka Faraq Gatri, Kaisershatner, Katalaveno, Kbrose, Kcurtin, Keegan,
Keilana, Kellyfan22692, Kennyiscool, Kevinkor2, Kgrad, Kgwo1972, King Pickle, King of Hearts, Kingpin13, Kludge95, Krfriedkin, Kukini, KuroiShiroi, LFevas, Laguna72, Lapisphil,
LedgendGamer, Legoktm, Leslie Mateus, Leucojum vernum, Lfowler4, Lightmouse, Liontooth, Liquidsparanoia, LittleSmall, Lord Emsworth, Lradrama, Lschneiderman, Luketremaine,
Maelbrigda, Mais oui!, Majora4, Mandarax, Marcusm28, Marek69, Martin451, Master of Puppets, Mastrchf91, Materialscientist, Media lib, MegLee, Michael C Price, Mike Rosoft, Mild Bill
Hiccup, Mitchflorida, Modernist, Monegasque, Monkee13, Moverton, MrSomeone, Mudwater, Mufka, Mulad, Mwanner, My76Strat, Mysterius, Nader85021, Ndenison, NekoDaemon,
Nepenthes, Nick Drake, Nickipediaguy, Nightkey, Nishkid64, NoSeptember, North Shoreman, Nsevs, Ohms law, Ohthisisjustme, Ojay123, Omicronpersei8, Ommnomnomgulp, Orphic,
OverlordQ, Oxymoron83, P. S. Burton, PCHS-NJROTC, PGWG, PRhyu, Pajz, Parent5446, Park8910, Parkwells, Paul August, PaulHanson, Pdcook, Pernambuco, PhilKnight, Philip Trueman,
Piledhigheranddeeper, Poeloq, PoeticVerse, Pol098, Polapopsd, Postdlf, Pparazorback, Prashanthns, PrestonH, Probinette, Pwhitwor, Pyrospirit, QuackGuru, Quaeler, Quandaryus, Radon210,
Recognizance, RedRollerskate, Redeagle688, Requestion, Rettetast, Richard0612, Rickbrossgraphics, Ricree101, River6969us, Rividian, Rjensen, Rjwilmsi, Roadrunner, Robert Will, Robth,
Romeodog321, RoyBoy, Rrburke, S h i v a (Visnu), Savant1984, Scheblo, Scheblo25, Scott Cranfill, Semperf, Shir-El too, Shunpiker, Sirhanx2, Skullblast, Slakr, Slyguy, Smalljim, Soap, Some
jerk on the Internet, SoonerTD, SouthernNights, Spangineer, Spellbinder, Spencer, Spyder Monkey, Storm Rider, Strinka, Stupid Corn, Susurrus, Swerdnaneb, Syrthiss, Szymanne, Taeshadow,
Taroaldo, Tassedethe, Tcncv, Tempodivalse, Tesseran, Tgeairn, Thatguyflint, The Mystery Man, The Thing That Should Not Be, The stuart, TheTito, Thomas81, Thomasmallen, Tide rolls, Tim
Q. Wells, Tim!, Timrollpickering, Toconnell, Tommy2010, Torourkeus, TransUtopian, Trusilver, Trying2help, Tumb, Twisted86, Ulric1313, Uncle Dick, Ute in DC, Utmostevil, Versus22,
Victimofleisure, ViperBite, Vipinhari, Vrenator, Wafulz, Watch37264, Wavelength, Wayne Slam, Westwind273, Whitehouse141, Wiki alf, WikiLaurent, Wikibofh, Willking1979, Wknight94,
WolfmanSF, Woobie1979, Writtenright, X!, Xymmax, Yamamoto Ichiro, YellowMonkey, Youngster68, YourEyesOnly, ZX81, ZantTrang, Zzyzx11, 1233 anonymous edits
Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors
Image:Reynolds's Political Map of the United States 1856.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Reynolds's_Political_Map_of_the_United_States_1856.jpg License:
Public Domain Contributors: Reynolds
Image:Stephen Arnold Douglas.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Stephen_Arnold_Douglas.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: Image is part of Brady-Handy
Photograph Collection
Image:CSumner.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:CSumner.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: Brady-Handy Photograph Collection (Library of Congress)..
Original uploader was The Mystery Man at en.wikipedia
Image:Forcing Slavery Freesoilers Throats.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Forcing_Slavery_Freesoilers_Throats.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: John
L. Magee
Image:samuel houston.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Samuel_houston.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: AndreasPraefcke, Dbenbenn, Frank C. Müller,
Mu, Mutter Erde, PKM, Str4nd, 1 anonymous edits
Image:AlexStephens.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:AlexStephens.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: Original uploader was The Mystery Man at
en.wikipedia (Original text : Civil War glass negative collection (Library of Congress))
Image:Thomas Hart Benton (senator) 2.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Thomas_Hart_Benton_(senator)_2.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors:
Angusmclellan, Fullofstars, Scooter
License
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported
//creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
10