The Kansas-Nebraska Act & Bleeding Kansas

The Kansas-Nebraska Act

In 1854 Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas introduced a bill into Congress that would have a far reaching and bloody impact on the slavery question, and would move the entire nation closer to war. A new transcontinental railroad was being built to link the east and the west, and Douglas wanted to make sure that Chicago, Illinois was at the eastern end of the rail line – if it was, the city would prosper, and so would Douglas.

But there was a problem: The Great Plains stretched for hundreds of miles between Chicago and the Rocky Mountains – vast unorganized stretches of land. Douglas thought that if Congress organized the Great Plains into a new territory and opened it to settlers, then the railroad could more safely be built through there. Douglas had no intention of starting a new debate over slavery, but that was just what happened.

Douglas’ bill divided the territory into two regions: the Kansas and Nebraska territories. The bill also did away with the Missouri Compromise by allowing the settlers themselves to vote to decide what to do about slavery in the two territories – this meant that, despite the fact that Kansas and Nebraska were above the 36/30 Missouri Compromise Line, slavery might still spread to those regions.

Douglas called this policy “popular sovereignty,” or rule by the people.

Northerners were outraged. The Missouri Compromise had kept the peace for 34 years and had successfully kept slavery out of northern territories. Now, if the Missouri Compromise was abandoned, what next? Northerners believed that slave owners wanted to make the whole nation accept slavery. Northerners spoke out against the Kansas-Nebraska act – one called it an “atrocious crime,” another said it was a “gross violation of a sacred pledge.” Many northerners who hadn’t really liked abolitionists before now became abolitionists themselves. Politicians opposed to the act and to slavery formed a new political party in response: the Republican Party. Illinois politician Abraham Lincoln joined the party and spoke out against the act:

Bleeding Kansas

Popular sovereignty meant that people in Kansas could vote for slavery or against it. Slave owners from the south and abolitionists from the north rushed to Kansas, each determined to win the region. It was only a matter of time before violence broke out between the two groups. Proslavery men from Missouri (right next to Kansas) called “border ruffians” frequently crossed the border to vote illegally; often they crossed the border to raid antislavery towns and settlements. The antislavery settlers, called “Free Soilers,” refused to comply when slavery won the rigged elections; they held their own elections. For a time Kansas had two competing governments.

Proslavery men destroyed the town of Lawrence, Kansas, – they attacked with cannons, burned much of the town, and threw the abolitionist printing press into the river. In response, a fierce-eyed abolitionist named John Brown told his followers: “we must fight fire with fire” and “strike terror into the hearts of the pro-slavery people.” Brown and his followers kidnapped several proslavery settlers and murdered them with broadswords. After that, the violence in Kansas really erupted. “Bleeding Kansas” was a mini civil war that would last for nearly ten years, and claim hundreds of lives.

The Caning in Congress

Violence did not only occur among citizens on the prairie, it also came into the United States Capitol building. In reaction to the violence in Kansas, Massachusetts senator Charles Sumner stood up in Congress and spoke for nearly two days about the “murderous robbers” of Missouri who were assaulting the pure territory of Kansas, calling the antislavery men “hirelings picked from the drunken spew and vomit of an uneasy civilization.” Then, he insulted South Carolina senator Andrew Butler, his wife, and even all of South Carolina for it’s “shameful imbecility.”

Two days later, Butler’s cousin, Preston Brooks walked into the Senate and right up to Sumner, seated at his desk, and began beating him on the head with his gold-tipped cane. Brooks beat Sumner until his cane snapped, nearly killing him. Sumner did not die, but he was absent from the Senate for three years due to his injuries.

Reactions to the attack showed just how divided the nation was. Southerners praised Brooks for defending the honor of his family and the entire south. Supporters even sent Brooks new canes to replace the one he’d broken over Sumner’s head. Northerners saw the beating as another example of southern brutality – in their eyes Brooks was no better than the border ruffians who had attacked Lawrence, Kansas.

The Kansas – Nebraska Act & Bleeding Kansas

reading, please answer the following questions:

1. What three things did the Kansas-Nebraska Act do?
2. Define what “popular sovereignty” was. How would the issue of slavery be decided in Kansas?
3. What was the Northern Reaction to the KS-NB Act? Why?
4. How did the Kansas-Nebraska Act lead to violence in Kansas?
5. How did people’s reactions to the beating of Sumner show how deeply divided the nation had become?