Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Thesis statement regarding the kansas nebraska act
Thesis statement regarding the kansas nebraska act
Thesis statement regarding the kansas nebraska act
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Thesis statement regarding the kansas nebraska act
Analysis of The Shattering of The Union by Eric H. Walther In Eric H. Walther’s, “The Shattering of The Union”, the question of the Kansas Nebraska Act came along during 1854. The Kansas-Nebraska Act infuriated many in the North who considered the Missouri Compromise to be a long-standing binding agreement. In the pro-slavery South it was strongly supported. On March 4, 1854, the Senate approved The Kansas-Nebraska Act with only two southerners and four northerners voting against it. On May 22, the House of Representatives approved it and by May 30, 1854, The Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed by the U.S. Congress. It allowed people in the territories of Kansas and Nebraska to decide for themselves whether or not to allow slavery within their borders. The Act served to repeal the Missouri Compromise of 1820 which prohibited slavery north of latitude 36°30´. Results of the Kansas-Nebraska Act were numerous and for the most part fatal to the country. The Act caused the Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850 to be virtually nullified, and caused compromising between the North and the South to be nearly impossible in the future. The Democratic Party was sectionally shattered by the Kansas-Nebraska Act, but it also gave birth to the Republicans. Ultimately, the Kansas-Nebraska Act would lead to a sectional rift in the country that would prove too deep to patch up without war. During the year of 1855, Governor Andrew Reeder called for an election for a legislature for the state o Kansas. He carefully planned out the election to make it fair by appointed two Free Soilers and one proslavery judges and several supervisors. This was a good idea by the Governor but in all reality, it would never be successful at this point in time. The Emigrand Aid Society sent 20,000 men to try and override the election while the South Band sent 5,000 people across the Missouri armed and dangerous. The men were ready, “to kill every God-damned abolitionist in the Territory.” These men did their jobs
To put it simply (as I recall and it's been years since I've had to read about this subject)a new territory was opened to settle in. It was decided that the settlers of these states would decide whether or not slavery would be permitted. This gave birth to the new Republican Party which opposed slavery. The Act was designed by Stephen A Douglas a Democratic senator from Illinois (the same who would later defeat a young Abraham Lincoln for the senate in 1858) and repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820. Thousands of settlers both pro and anti slavery rushed into Kansas particularly and bloody, murderous fights broke out among the groups hence the nickname "Bleeding Kansas". It was actually one territory but this Act divided it into two states.
It also gave the South another slave state in Missouri and the north a free state in Maine. Although each region gained a state in the Senate, the south benefited most from the acquisition because Missouri was in such a pivotal position in the country, right on the border. Later on with the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854, Missouri had a big role in getting Kansas to vote south because many proslavery Missourians crossed the border into Kansas to vote slavery. The Missouri Compromise also helped slavery because the line that was formed to limit slavery had more land below the line than above it. Therefore, slavery was given more land to be slave and therefore more power in the Senate, when the territories became state.
The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was a debatable decision for the north and the south. A decision towards whether or not Missouri should come in as a slave state. In congress, those on the side of the north, found out that Missouri was going to be placed as a slave state and were dramatically upset. They were upset due to the fact that it would cause an unbalance. During the 1800’s there were an equivalent of eleven slave states and eleven free states. Naturally, ...
McConnell, Eleanor H. "Compromise of 1850." In Rohrbough, Malcolm J., and Gary B. Nash, eds. Encyclopedia of American History: Expansion and Reform, 1813 to 1855, Revised Edition (Volume IV). New York: Facts On File, Inc., 2010. American History Online. Facts On File, (December 14, 2013).
The Kansas-Nebraska Act was one of the first events that demonstrated Lincoln’s disapproval yet tolerance for slavery. The Kansas-Nebraska Act, proposed by Stephen A. Douglas and signed by Franklin Pierce, divided the region into two territories. The territory north of the 40th parallel was the Kansas Territory and the south of the 40th parallel was the Nebraska Territory, the controv...
The Missouri Compromise acted as a balancing act among the anti-slave states and the slave states. Since states generally entered the union in pairs, it stat...
During a time of great brutality due to the controversial idea of Kansas being either a free or slave state, otherwise known as “Bleeding Kansas”, Senator Stephen Douglas of Illinois composed the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which would repeal the Missouri Compromise and set the foundation for Kansas to solely decide its stance on slavery, an idea otherwise known as popular sovereignty (United States Senate). Charles Sumner spoke out against the Kansas-Nebraska Act in his “Crime Against Kansas” speech in which he maintained that the intention of the “Slave Power” was to “rape a virgin” and give birth to a slave state and spoke in favor of prompt affirmation of Kansas as a free state (Meade)...
As the country began to grow and expand we continued to see disagreements between the North and South; the Missouri Territory applied for statehood the South wanted them admitted as a slave state and the North as a free state. Henry Clay eventually came up with the Missouri Compromise, making Missouri a slave state and making Maine it’s own state entering the union as a free state. After this compromise any state admitted to the union south of the 36° 30’ latitude would be a slave state and a state north of it would be free. The country was very much sectionalized during this time. Thomas Jefferson felt this was a threat to the Union. In 1821, he wrote, ”All, I fear, do not see the speck on our horizon which is to burst on us as a tornado, sooner or later. The line of division lately marked out between the different portions of our confederacy is such...
Many Northerners were opposed to the idea. Northerners in Congress refused to pass the bill. Northerners proposed that Missouri be slave and that no more slaves were to be brought in and all slave children would be free at the age of 25, so Missouri would become a Free State.
In the years paving the way to the Civil War, both north and south were disagreeable with one another, creating the three “triggering” reasons for the war: the fanaticism on the slavery issue, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and the separation of the Democratic Party. North being against the bondage of individuals and the South being for it, there was no real way to evade the clash. For the south slavery was a form of obtaining a living, without subjugation the economy might drop majorly if not disappear. In the North there were significant ethical issues with the issue of subjugation. Amazing measures to keep and dispose of subjugation were taken and there was never a genuine adjusted center for bargain. Despite the fact that there were a lot of seemingly insignificant issues, the fundamental thing that divided these two states was bondage and the flexibilities for it or against. With these significant extremes, for example, John Brown and Uncle Tom's Cabin, the south felt disdain towards the danger the Northerners were holding against their alleged flexibilities. The more hatred the South advanced, the more combative they were to anything the Northerners did. Northerners were irritated and it parted Democrats over the issue of bondage and made another Republican gathering, which included: Whigs, Free Soilers, Know Nothings and previous Democrats and brought about a split of segments and abbreviated the street to common war. Southerners loathed the insubordination of the north and started to address how they could stay with the Union.
When the Kansas-Nebraska Act was introduced in the U.S., the North was upset because the new territories would probably be pro-slavery. As soon as they could, both sides of the issue sent in settlers to try and gain control. This “race for Kansas” made the race to make a final decision on the issue of slavery in the U.S. an even more urgent issue. This battle to decide what side the two new territories would be on probably pushed the issue so hard it caused a lot of discomfort and probably hurried people like John Brown into making decisions quickly, because people were afraid. I believe that the rush to make a ruling for or against slavery was one reason why John Brown chose bloodshed over compromise.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act was a great victory for the south. The greatest benefit to the south was the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, which established the sacred 36-30 line. If the Missouri Compromise had stayed in place, there would have been no more possibility for the expansion of slavery, since there was no land left south of the 36-30 line; under the Missouri Compromise southern expansion was hampered by the existence of the Gulf of Mexico. As a result of the line being repealed, it was possible for slavery to exist in the territories of Kansas and Nebraska because of popular sovereignty.
Bleeding Kansas The Compromise of 1850 brought relative calm to the nation. Though most blacks and abolitionists strongly opposed the Compromise, the majority of Americans embraced it, believing that it offered a final, workable solution to the slavery question. Most importantly, it saved the Union from the terrible split that many had feared. People were all too ready to leave the slavery controversy behind and move on.
The Age of Federalism written by two highly skilled historians Stanley Elkins and Eric Mckitrick describes how the country advance from just an idea to a working republic. In different ways, this story is about the evolution of two party system. It is surprising how the political organizations quickly became an integral party of a democratic system, but they did this regardless of warnings against political factions by American leaders who was afraid for the diverse impact it may have on the emerging republic. This book was written in order to give an analytical survey of the nation’s crucial decade under the constitution. This book provides a historical account of political, military, economic, cultural and diplomatic problems that faced the new nation. These issues are examined in the book from different point of views. The authors conducted a well-organized research using hundreds of sources such as, government documents, US documents, statesman’s papers, doctoral dissertations and newspaper articles. This book attempts to explore the great figures that played a major role in shaping this remarkable era. The authors did this in order to know them better and accurately interpret their behaviors. The book reveals Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison and Adams to be more complex, spirited and contradictory more than other
...ers mobilized in 1860 behind moderate Abraham Lincoln because he was most likely to carry the doubtful western states. In 1857, the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision ended the Congressional compromise for Popular Sovereignty in Kansas. According to the court, slavery in the territories was a property right of any settler, regardless of the majority there. Chief Justice Taney's decision said that slaves were, "...so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect." The decision overturned the Missouri Compromise, which banned slavery in territory north of the 36°30' parallel.