The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 Homework: Read the excerpted text of the Kansas-Nebraska Act below and answer the questions that follow.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854
Excerpts from the Kansas-Nebraska Act, May 30, 1854:
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=28&page=transcript
An Act to Organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SEC. 1. And be it further enacted, [OUTLINES THE GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES OF THE NEBRASKA TERRITORY]
SEC. 10. And be it further enacted, that the provisions of the act entitled “An act respecting fugitives from justice, and
persons escaping from, the service of their masters,” approved February 12th, 1793 … [are] in full force within the
limits of the said Territory of Nebraska.
SEC. 14. And be it further enacted, That … all Laws of the United States … shall have the same force and effect within
the … Territory of Nebraska as elsewhere within the United States, except the eighth section … the admission of
Missouri into the Union …being inconsistent with … non-intervention by Congress [national government] with slaves in
the States and Territories, as recognized by the legislation of 1850… is … declared … void; … the true intent … of this
act not to legislate [decide about] slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it … but to leave the people [of
Nebraska] perfectly free to [decide]… their own way…
SEC. 19. And be it further enacted, [OUTLINES THE GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES OF THE KANSAS TERRITORY]
SEC. 28. And be it further enacted, that the provisions of the act entitled “An act respecting fugitives from justice, and
persons escaping from, the service of their masters,” approved February 12th, 1793 … [are] in full force within the
limits of the said Territory of Kansas.
SEC. 32. And be it further enacted, That … all Laws of the United States … shall have the same force and effect within
the … Territory of Kansas as elsewhere within the United States, except the eighth section … the admission of Missouri
into the Union …being inconsistent with … non-intervention by Congress [national government] with slaves in the States
and Territories, as recognized by the legislation of 1850… is … declared … void; … the true intent … of this act not to
legislate [decide about] slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it … but to leave the people [of Kansas]
perfectly free to [decide]… their own way…
Question
Sections 1 and 19 of the 1854 Act
organize the territories of Kansas and
Nebraska. Do you remember how were
they originally acquired by the United
States?
How do Sections 14 and 32 repeal
[cancel] the Missouri Compromise
of 1820?
What reason do Sections 14 and 32
give for repealing the Missouri
Compromise of 1820?
We will study a federal law
regarding fugitive [escaped] slaves,
which was first enacted in 1793, but
was strengthened in 1850 [as we
will learn in the notes for this
lesson]. What do you think this law
states about escaped slaves?
Answer
The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 Popular Sovereignty to decide slave issue???
Annotation
“It will triumph & impart peace to the country & stability to the Union." So predicted Illinois Senator Stephen A. Douglas
regarding the policy of local "popular sovereignty." Popular sovereignty allowed the settlers of a federal territory to decide the slavery
question without interference (congressional non-intervention) from Congress. Stephen Douglas included this policy in a bill
organizing the northern section of the Louisiana Purchase once known as the Nebraska Territory but now divided into two separate
territories called Kansas and Nebraska. By removing the question of slavery's expansion from federal lawmakers, and placing it before
the settlers immediately affected by it, Douglas thought he could preserve the American union by avoiding a federal dispute between
northern abolitionists and southern "ultras."
Though Douglas believed the settlers of a territory should decide the slavery question without input from the rest of the
nation, his Illinois rival Abraham Lincoln begged to differ. He thought it only logical that the federal territories be regulated by the
federal government, meaning Congress. A third view, proposed by Southern senators, argued that precisely because federal territory
was owned by the nation as a whole, American citizens possessed the right to take their property—including slaves—into the territory.
Stephen Douglas argued that popular sovereignty was neither a new nor controversial approach to organizing federal
territories, but one rooted in American self-government and recently endorsed by northerners and southerners alike in the Compromise
Measures of 1850. These measures began as a way to organize the vast western territory—more than half a million square miles
comprising present-day Arizona, California, western Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, and Utah—acquired by the United
States at the close of the Mexican War in early 1848.
A congressman during the Mexican War, Abraham Lincoln joined his Whig Party in calling the war "unnecessarily and
unconstitutionally commenced" by Democratic President James Polk. When Lincoln completed his term in March 1849, he devoted
himself to his neglected Illinois law practice. Not even the controversial Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which compelled northern
citizens to help capture fugitive slaves and stirred Harriet Beecher Stowe to write Uncle Tom's Cabin, pulled him back into the
political limelight. But when the Kansas-Nebraska Act passed four years later, Lincoln commented that its repeal of the Missouri
Compromise "aroused him as he had never been before."
Guiding Questions
•
How did the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 attempt to reduce the growing sectionalism of the American union over the
slavery controversy?
•
How could congressional neutrality towards slavery in the federal territories actually stir up sectional strife?
Activity 1  the Kansas-Nebraska Act: Mapping the Slavery Controversy in 1854
By 1854 the United States had fulfilled its "manifest destiny" of occupying the entire geographical expanse from the Atlantic to the
Pacific Oceans. The rapid settlement of the West raised to a new level of intensity the persistent question of whether or not to permit
slavery to extend into the new territories.
This activity requires you to contrast the maps of 1820 and 1854 so that you can see how much the nation had grown in the thirty-four
year period, and to analyze new developments in the map of 1854 in order for you to appreciate the urgency of the arguments
advanced in the national debate over slavery.
You will work with an interactive map of the United States in 1854, observing how the country had changed from 1820 to 1854. The
map is linked on the class website.
As with the map of the Missouri Compromise of 1820 which you analyzed in a previous lesson, two sets of questions have been
provided for this map: one to be used for a comparative study of states and territories, and the other for an analytical study of changes
brought about (a) since the 1820 Compromise and (b) as a result of the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 A Comparative study of states and Territories in 1854
Question
Answer
Did free states and territories or slaveholding states have the most land area in 1854? (This
can be calculated by adding together the square miles of all of the free states and territories,
and then doing the same for the slave states. Compare the two numbers.)
Which was more densely populated, the free states or the slave states?
Where was the higher population of black people to be found?
In what three southern states did the black population outnumber the white population?
(In 1820 two southern states had a higher population of black people. Compare the 1820 map
to the 1854 map to find out which southern state had experienced this rise in black
population.)
By 1854, how many states were free? How many states were slave states?
An Analytical Study of Changes Brought about since the 1820 Compromise and (b) as a result
of the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854
Question
Answer
Using the bar graph to the right of
the map, explain the uncertainty that
existed in 1854 concerning the
future of the balance of power
between free and slave states.
After the admission of California as a free state in 1850, why would
the South’s insistence on popular sovereignty in the territories grow
stronger? (Hint: What did the entry of California do to the balance
between free and slaveholding states?)
How many slave states or slave territories entered the Union after the admission of California?
Considering that the West Coast was a free region in 1850, why
would the South demand, at minimum, that popular sovereignty
determine the slavery question in the territories of Utah, New Mexico,
Kansas, and Nebraska?
When northern abolitionists and free-soilers looked at the map of
1854, what might have caused them concern?
When southern slaveholders looked at the map, what would have
concerned them?
By comparing population figures between the free and slave states and territories in 1854, which region was
The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 experiencing the most growth?
Activity 2 the Kansas-Nebraska Act: a Debate between two Illinoisans
The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 shattered whatever peace was gained by the Compromise of 1850. In addition to organizing the
U.S. Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, the act attempted to deal with the extension of slavery into this region by allowing the
settlers in each territory to decide the question for themselves. Senator Stephen Douglas, who championed this policy of popular
sovereignty and included it in the Kansas-Nebraska Act, unwittingly set off a firestorm of protest among those committed to stopping
the spread of slavery. One such person was former Congressman Abraham Lincoln, who strongly opposed any policy that could
extend slavery into the territories.
This activity has four parts. You will:
1.
read excerpts of two speeches, one by Douglas and the other by Lincoln;
2.
answer questions about the speeches;
3.
participate in a follow-up discussion.
Parts 1 & 2: Read the speeches and answer questions.
Stephen Douglas, “Nebraska Territory,” January 30, 1854:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=033/llcg033.db&recNum=276
[Page 275] … pertaining to the question of slavery in the Territories… We took the principles established by the compromise …of
1850 as our guide… [The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 is based] upon the great principle of self-government--that the people should
be allowed to decide … for themselves…instead of having them determined by an arbitrary or geographical line.
[Page 277] The leading feature of the compromise of 1850 was congressional [meaning the national government] non-intervention as
to slavery in the Territories; that the people of the Territories, and of all the States, were to be allowed to do as they pleased [about]
slavery…
[Page 278] Mr. President, I repeat, that so far as the question of slavery is concerned, there is nothing in the bill [the Kansas-Nebraska
Act of 1854] under consideration which does not [follow] the principle of the compromise … of 1850, by leaving the people to do as
they please…
The legal effect of this bill, if it be passed … is neither to… [Bring] slavery into these Territories nor out of them, but to leave the
people do as they please… Why should any man, North or South, object …?
When these States were colonies of Great Britain, every one of them was a slave-holding [colony]. When the Constitution of the
United States was formed, twelve out of the thirteen were slave-holding States. Since that time six of those States have become free.
How has this [come to be]? Was it [because of] Congress? Was it in obedience to the … [demands] of the Federal Government? Not at
all; … they have become Free States under the … great principle of self-government which teaches every people to do that which …
[benefits] themselves and their … [morals] require.
Under the operation of this principle [of popular sovereignty] New Hampshire became free, while South Carolina continued to hold
slaves; Connecticut abolished slavery, while Georgia held on to it; Rhode Island abandoned [slavery], while Maryland preserved it;
New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania abolished slavery, while Virginia, North Carolina, and Kentucky retained it…Did they do it
in obedience to any of your Wilmot provisos …? Not at all; they did it … as freemen under the Constitution of the United States, to
establish and abolish such institutions as they thought their own good required.
Let me ask you where have you succeeded in excluding slavery by an act of Congress from one inch of the American soil? You may
tell me that you did it in the Northwest Territory, by the [Northwest Ordinance] of 1787. I will show you by the history of the country
that you did not accomplish any such thing. You prohibited slavery there by law, but you did not exclude it in fact. Illinois was a part
of the Northwest Territory. With the exception of a few French and white settlements, it was a vast wilderness…when the ordinance
of 1787 was adopted. Yet, sir, when Illinois was organized into a territorial government it established and protected slavery, and
maintained it in spite of your ordinance, and in defiance of its express prohibition.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 Question
What principle should regulate the
“domestic institutions” of a people and
what policy should not govern these
“domestic institutions?” [p. 275]
What does Douglas call the “leading
feature” of the 1850 Compromise? [p.
277]
Regarding congressional action towards
slavery in federal territories, what does
Douglas say the 1854 Kansas-Nebraska
Act has in common with the 1850
Compromise? [p. 278]
What caused the spread of freedom in
the U.S., and what did not promote the
spread of freedom? [p. 278]
What does Douglas argue about the
status of slavery in his home state of
Illinois, and what does he conclude
about the role of Congress in regulating
slavery in the federal territories? [ p.
278]
Answer
Abraham Lincoln, “Speech at Peoria in Reply to Senator Douglas,” October 16, 1854: http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/cgibin/getobject_?c.1872:1./lib35/artfl1/databases/sources/IMAGE/
[Page 205] This is the repeal of the Missouri Compromise…
I … shall try to show, that it is wrong--wrong in its direct effect, letting slavery into Kansas and Nebraska, and wrong in its …
principle, allowing it to spread …
This declared indifference … I must think… [is] … zeal [enthusiasm], for the spread of slavery… I hate it because of the monstrous
injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it … enables [other nations] to taunt us as hypocrites; [and] … to doubt our sincerity; and
especially because it forces so many good men [into] … criticizing the Declaration of Independence…
[Page 227] My faith in the [idea]… that each man should do … as he pleases … lies at the foundation of the sense of justice there is
in me… it is politically wise, as well as naturally just: politically wise in saving us from [concern] about matters which do not concern
us. Here, or at Washington, I would not [worry about] the oyster laws of Virginia, or the cranberry laws of Indiana.
[Page 228] The doctrine of self-government is right, --absolutely and eternally right,-- but [not here]… Or perhaps I should rather say
that whether it [is right in the case of slavery] … depends upon whether a negro is not or is a man. If he is not a man, … he who is a
man may … do just what he pleases with him. But if the negro is a man, is it [ridiculous] … to say that he too shall not govern
himself? When the white man governs himself, that is self-government; but when he governs himself and also governs another man,
that is more than self-government--that is despotism. If the negro is a man, why then my ancient faith teaches me that “all men are
created equal,” and that there can be no moral right in … one man’s making a slave of another.
What I do say is that no man is good enough to govern another man without that other’s consent. I say this is the leading principle…
of American republicanism [democracy]. Our Declaration of Independence says:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are
instituted among men, DERIVING THEIR JUST POWERS FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.”
I have quoted so much at this time merely to show that, according to our ancient faith, the just powers of governments are derived
from the consent of the governed. Now the relation of master and slave is … a total violation of this principle.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 [Page 244] I particularly object to … this Nebraska law … because it assumes that there can be MORAL RIGHT in the enslaving of
one man by another. I object to it as .. sad evidence that, feeling prosperity, we forget … liberty … I object to it because the fathers of
the republic … rejected it. The argument of [economic] “necessity” was the only argument they ever admitted in favor of
slavery…they [wouldn’t even] mention the word “slave” or “slavery” in the [Constitution]...
[Page 248] …Let us turn slavery from its claims of “moral right” back [to] … arguments of [economic] “necessity.” … Let North and
South--let all Americans-- let all lovers of liberty everywhere join … If we do this, we shall not only have saved the Union, but we
shall have so saved it as to make and to keep it forever worthy of the saving…
Question
What reasons does Lincoln
give for hating the principle of
popular sovereignty, which
permits slavery wherever
“men can be found inclined to
take it”? [Page 205]
Lincoln claims that “declared
indifference” equal “zeal” for
the spread of slavery. What
does he mean?
[Page 205]
Lincoln states that he does
adhere to the doctrine of
popular sovereignty (selfgovernment). When?
[Page 227]
How does Lincoln’s belief in
the Declaration of
Independence lead him to
reject “self-interest” as best
way to decide of a new state
becomes free or slave? [Page
228]
How does Lincoln define
“despotism”? [Page 228]
What does Lincoln argue is the
“leading …principle of
American republicanism?
[Page 228]
What does Lincoln write to
argue that our Founding
Fathers rejected slavery?
AND why was it allowed to
continue to exist after the
Constitution was written?
[Page 244]
What is the difference between
slavery tolerated because of
[economic] “necessity” and
slavery thought to be a “moral
right”? [Page 244]
According to Lincoln, what
should the slavery debate in
the new states be concerned
about? [Page 248]
Answer
The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 Part 3: Class List
Main Points of the Douglas and Lincoln Speeches
Douglas’s Speech
Lincoln’s Speech
Part 4: Follow-up Discussion.
1. How did the entry of territories to be decided by popular sovereignty complicate the prior attempt to balance free and
slaveholding states?
2. Craft a thesis sentence for Douglas and Lincoln which summarized Douglas's historical and political argument for popular
sovereignty and Lincoln's moral and political argument against it.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 3.
Suppose the Kansas-Nebraska Act did reduce national agitation over slavery. Would that be reason enough for Congress to
be neutral towards slavery in the territories?